Investigating sharing & reuse of open resources. Evidence of OER experience and expectations: Investigating a ‘project effect’

This presentation includes preliminar results of the ORIOLE Survey 2013. The ORIOLE project is based at the Institute of Educational Technology, UK OU, and centres on understanding and informing about the use and reuse of educational and open resources

A multimedia mobile phone-based youth smoking cessation intervention: findings from content development and piloting studies

BACKGROUND: While most young people who smoke want to quit, few access cessation support services. Mobile phone-based cessation programs are ideal for young people: mobile phones are the most common means of peer communication, and messages can be delivered in an anonymous manner, anywhere, anytime. Following the success of our text messaging smoking cessation program, we developed an innovative multimedia mobile phone smoking cessation intervention. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop and pilot test a youth-oriented multimedia smoking cessation intervention delivered solely by mobile phone. METHODS: Development included creating content and building the technology platform. Content development was overseen by an expert group who advised on youth development principles, observational learning (from social cognitive theory), effective smoking cessation interventions, and social marketing. Young people participated in three content development phases (consultation via focus groups and an online survey, content pre-testing, and selection of role models). Video and text messages were then developed, incorporating the findings from this research. Information technology systems were established to support the delivery of the multimedia messages by mobile phone. A pilot study using an abbreviated 4-week program of video and text content tested the reliability of the systems and the acceptability of the intervention. RESULTS: Approximately 180 young people participated in the consultation phase. There was a high priority placed on music for relaxation (75%) and an interest in interacting with others in the program (40% would read messages, 36% would read a blog). Findings from the pre-testing phase (n = 41) included the importance of selecting "real" and "honest" role models with believable stories, and an interest in animations (37%). Of the 15 participants who took part in the pilot study, 13 (87%) were available for follow-up interviews at 4 weeks: 12 participants liked the program or liked it most of the time and found the role model to be believable; 7 liked the role model video messages (5 were unsure); 8 used the extra assistance for cravings; and 9 were happy with two messages per day. Nine participants (60%) stopped smoking during the program. Some technical challenges were encountered during the pilot study. CONCLUSIONS: A multimedia mobile phone smoking cessation program is technically feasible, and the content developed is appropriate for this medium and is acceptable to our target population. These results have informed the design of a 6-month intervention currently being evaluated for its effectiveness in increasing smoking cessation rates in young people

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

CSI: Milton Keynes – In search of the OER user

Who is using OER? Who did it? Where? Why? With what tools? This paper draws on interview and survey work with suspected users of OER conducted by the ORIOLE (Open Resources: Impact on Learners and Educators) project. It is grounded in forensic examination of research into the role of motivation, quality and technology in fostering reuse of resources within formal and informal, large and small scale systems or communities (building from Pegler, 2010). How are users of OER different from other resource users and why? What is the chance of repeat 'offences' to create sustainable patterns of behaviour from which we can learn? The investigation presented here, draws on evidence collected by the Milton Keynes-based team from ORIOLE, but is not restricted to work at the UK Open University (home of OpenLearn and SCORE initiatives). It takes its questions from OER10 (Reuse: the other side of sharing OER) and OpenEd10 presentations in particular. For example the enthusiasm for little and big OER (Weller, 2010), the difference that openness makes to users Wiley (2010) and the impact, and representativeness of UK OER project case evidence. There are many different reasons for engaging with creation of OER use, from showcasing content to attract students (Beggan, 2010), to sharing practice to develop staff (Conole, 2010). OER-use opportunities now address many different communities, but the impact is not limited to sharing. For sustainable impact it needs to address users and their needs. Understanding what leads to and inhibits use of OER, and what might fuel growth in use relies upon understanding who the users of OER currently are, and why they are using OER. Who did it and why? This session will share evidence gathered from the search for users of OER and examine their testimony about the impact that OER is having

Herzberg, hygiene and the motivation to reuse: Towards a three-factor theory to explain motivation to share and use OER

The list of barriers and enablers that influence the use of open educational resources (OER) is extensive. Factors and influences relating to reuse may have been noted within projects, operating within a short time span, or within specific conditions which limit generalizability. Evidence of reuse in practice has often emerged as isolated examples or anecdotes. Which factors are the most significant and which have impact or influence on reuse, and other factors, is largely unexplored. While technical barriers and enablers to reuse have been well addressed in literature on reuse, from reusable learning objects (RLO) to OER, less attention has been given to the purpose of reuse and the motivation of those who choose to share or use reusable learning resources. This paper draws on 222 factors and issues recorded within a longitudinal cross case comparison of five cases within UK HE which collectively address different types of reuse (i.e. sharing and use) facilitation (Pegler, 2011a). Coding and comparison identified three broad and distinctive categories representing the reuse factors noted. These were: Technical (the technical or technological systems supporting reuse, including licensing and rights issues); Quality (the way in which sharers or users may establish or interpret the quality of one resource relative to another); and Motivation (the purpose or motive of the user or sharer of resources). The independent effect of these factors recalls the classic two factor theory of motivation by Herzberg (1968)

Card Tricks and Cartoons: Exploring questions about open sharing and use with a non-OER aware audience

How to bridge the gap between the promise and the practice of OER? How can we identify and address the concerns of practitioners who might use OER, and help them to better understand the implications and benefits within their own context? The resources demonstrated were developed by Chris Pegler and are themselves open-licensed OER available for reuse by others. The cards have already seen extensive reuse by other OER advocates as part of staff workshops and development. This is a hands on and tactile session which, like the cards, can be adapted for use across many contexts (teaching and research)