Search

Introduction: To increase the likelihood of research responding to societal needs, intermediary structures such as Science Shops are being created. Science Shops respond to research needs identified and prioritized through participatory processes involving civil society. However, these are not mainstream structures, and most research needs addressed by the scientific community are not defined by a diversity of stakeholders (including citizens) but are mostly prioritized by researchers and funders. Literature shows this often leads to bias between the research topics investigated and the research needs of other relevant stakeholders. This study analyses how 14 Science Shops contribute to decreasing bias in health research agenda setting. Methodology: We compare the research priorities identified through participatory processes by the Science Shops, which participated in the European Union‐funded project InSPIRES (2017–2021), to the available research addressed in the literature (identified in Web of Science), which we use as a proxy for current research priorities. Results: Science Shop projects contributed to decreasing the existing bias in health research agenda setting: (1) between drug and nondrug treatments and (2) between clinical trials of treatments for illnesses affecting high‐income versus middle‐ and low‐income countries, which leads to a lack of local strategies for high disease burdens in nonhigh‐income regions. Conclusion: This study provides the first evidence of Science Shops' effectiveness in addressing current biases in health research agenda setting. We conclude they could play a key role in shaping local, national and international research policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore how undergraduate nursing students are assessed on nursing numeracy and medication calculations from the perspective of Australian nurse education leaders. Design: A qualitative study. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 17 nurse education leaders between November 2022 and January 2023. Braun and Clarke's six phases of thematic analysis were used to analyse the data. Results: Five key themes were identified: (i) high expectations to keep the public safe, (ii) diverse assessment formats, (iii) different ways of managing assessment integrity, (iv) assessment conditions incongruent to the clinical setting and (v) supporting struggling students. Conclusion: Nurse education leaders set high standards requiring students to achieve 100% in numeracy and medication calculation assessments, thus maintaining the reputation of nursing and patient safety. However, students struggled to meet this expectation. Diverse assessment formats were implemented, with some examination conditions contrary to clinical practice. Currently, there is no benchmark or independent point of registration examination in Australia, hence the problem is each university had a different standard to judge students' competence. Gaining insight into how these assessments are conducted provides an opportunity to work towards an evidence‐based model or benchmark for the assessment of numeracy. Implications for the Profession: Dosage errors in clinical practice threaten patient safety and the reputation of the nursing profession. The accuracy rate of calculations by undergraduate and registered nurses is deficient worldwide. This research highlights a major educational issue, that being the wide variation in how numeracy assessments are conducted with no clear pedagogical rationale for a standardised method. Such assessments would establish a national standard, contributing to quality assurance, the development of the nursing profession and improve patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials sought to identify the overall impact of mobile devices to support literacy and numeracy outcomes in mainstream primary classrooms. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to understand how mobile devices are used in primary/elementary education around the world, and in particular, determine how activities undertaken using mobile devices in the primary classroom might impact literacy and numeracy attainment for the pupils involved. Within this context, mobile devices are defined as tablets (including iPads and other branded devices), smartphones (usually those with a touchscreen interface and internet connectivity) and handheld games consoles (again usually with touchscreen and internet‐enabled). The interventions of interest were those aimed at improving literacy and/or numeracy for children aged 4–12 within the primary/elementary school (or equivalent) classroom. Specifically, the review aimed to answer the following research questions: ‐What is the effect of mobile device integration in the primary school classroom on children's literacy and numeracy outcomes?‐Are there specific devices which are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Tablets, smartphones, or handheld games consoles)‐Are there specific classroom integration activities which moderate effectiveness in supporting literacy and numeracy?‐Are there specific groups of children for whom mobile devices are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Across age group and gender).‐Do the benefits of mobile devices for learning last for any time beyond the study?‐What is the quality of available evidence on the use of mobile devices in primary/elementary education, and where is further research needed in this regard? An Expert Advisory Group supported the review process at key stages to ensure relevance to current practice. Search Methods: The search strategy was designed to retrieve both published and unpublished literature, and incorporated relevant journal and other databases with a focus on education and social sciences. Robust electronic database searches were undertaken (12 databases, including APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, ERIC, British Education Index and others, and relevant government and other websites), as well as a hand‐search of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Contact was also made with prominent authors in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished research. All searches and author contact took place between October and November 2020. The review team acknowledges that new studies will likely have emerged since and are not captured at this time. A further update to the review in the future is important and would build on the evidence reflected here. Selection Criteria: The review included children within mainstream primary/elementary/kindergarten education settings in any country (aged 4–12), and interventions or activities initiated within the primary school classroom (or global equivalent) that used mobile devices (including tablets, smartphones, or hand‐held gaming devices) to intentionally support literacy or numeracy learning. In terms of study design, only Randomised Controlled Trials were included in the review. Data Collection and Analysis: A total of 668 references were identified through a robust search strategy including published and unpublished literature. Following duplicate screening, 18 relevant studies, including 11,126 participants, 14 unique interventions, and 46 relevant outcome measures were synthesised using Robust Variance Estimation and a random effects meta‐analysis model. Risk of Bias assessment was undertaken by three reviewers using the ROB2 tool to assess the quality of studies, with 13 studies rated as having some concerns, and 5 as having high risk of bias. Qualitative data was also extracted and analysed in relation to the types of interventions included to allow a comparison of the key elements of each. Main Results: A positive, statistically significant combined effect was found (Cohen's d = 0.24, CI 0.0707 to 0.409, p < 0.01), demonstrating that in the studies and interventions included, children undertaking maths or literacy interventions using mobile devices achieved higher numeracy or literacy outcomes than those using an alternative device (e.g. a laptop or desktop computer) or no device (class activities as usual). However these results should be interpreted with caution given the risk of bias assessment noted above (5 studies rated high risk of bias and 13 rated as having some concerns). As the interventions and classroom circumstances differed quite widely, further research is needed to understand any potential impact more fully. Sensitivity analysis aimed to identify moderating factors including age or gender, screen size, frequency/dosage of intervention exposure, and programme implementation features/activities (based on Puentedura's [2009] SAMR model of technology integration). There were too few studies identified to support quantitative analysis of sufficient power to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors, and insufficient data to determine impact beyond immediate post‐test period. Sensitivty analysis was also undertaken to exclude the five studies identified as having a high risk of bias, to identify any impact they may have on overall findings. Authors' Conclusions: Overall, this review demonstrates that for the specific interventions and studies included, mobile device use in the classroom led to a significant, positive effect on literacy and numeracy outcomes for the children involved, bringing positive implications for their continued use in primary education. However given the concerns on risk of bias assessment reported above, the differing circumstances, interventions and treatment conditions and intensities, the findings must be interpreted with caution. The review also supports the need for further robust research to better understand what works, under what circumstances, and for whom, in the use of mobile devices to support learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Functional selectivity describes the ability of ligands to differentially regulate multiple signalling pathways when coupled to a single receptor, and the operational model is commonly used to analyse these data. Here, we assess the mathematical properties of the operational model and evaluate the outcomes of fixing parameters on model performance.Experimental Approach: The operational model was evaluated using both a mathematical identifiability analysis and simulation.Key Results: Mathematical analysis revealed that the parameters R0 and KE were not independently identifiable which can be solved by considering their ratio, τ. The ratio parameter, τ, was often imprecisely estimated when only functional assay data were available and generally only the transduction coefficient R ( τKA) could be estimated precisely. The general operational model (that includes baseline and the Hill coefficient) required either the parameters Em or KA to be fixed. The normalization process largely cancelled out the mean error of the calculated Δlog (R) caused by fixing these parameters. From this analysis, it was determined that we can avoid the need for a full agonist ligand to be included in an experiment to determine Δlog (R).Conclusion and Implications: This analysis has provided a ready-to-use understanding of current methods for quantifying functional selectivity. It showed that current methods are generally tolerant to fixing parameters. A new method was proposed that removes the need for including a high efficacy ligand in any given experiment, which allows application to large-scale screening to identify compounds with desirable features of functional selectivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze sources of racial and gender disparities in adolescent obesity prevalence in the United States using Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition.Methods: Data were obtained from the National Youth Physical Activity and Nutrition Study, a 2010 nationally representative study of 9th-12th grade students. Obesity status was determined from objective height and weight data; weight-related behaviors and school, home, and environmental data were collected via questionnaire. Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition was used to independently analyze racial and gender obesity prevalence differences (PD), i.e., comparing Black girls to White girls, and Black girls to Black boys.Results: Overall, measured characteristics accounted for 46.8% of the racial PD but only 11.9% of the gender PD. Racial PD was associated with Black girls having less fruit/vegetable access at home, obtaining lunch at school more often, and playing fewer sports than White girls. Gender PD was associated with differential associations between physical activity (PA) measures-including total activities in the past year and days of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in the past week-and obesity.Conclusions: School lunch and home food environmental variables accounted for racial disparities, but not gender disparities, in obesity prevalence. Gender differences in mechanisms between PA and obesity should be explored further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]