Search

Honors education is often marketed as a means to offer enhanced value to a collegiate education. This value has the capacity to bolster a student's academic experience, to add to his or her comprehensive skill set, to enhance a resumé, and to improve professional development. Ernest Pascarella argued that theoretical value without data is often used to justify collegiate programs such as honors and criticized those practices for lacking research and data to validate the claim of enhanced value. The current research was designed to obtain validation by eliciting the perspectives of alumni from South Dakota State University's (SDSU's) Honors College on the value of their honors education. The data presented here sought to fill a gap in honors research by identifying what skills honors graduates value from their honors education and determining whether post-graduation value aligns with the SDSU Honors College's student learning outcomes. Assessing the effectiveness and value of honors education is a challenge, heightened by the fact that no two honors programs are exactly alike. However, there have been attempts dating back at least as early as 1995 to assess the value of honors education. Among these attempts are studies on grade point average (GPA), student involvement, exposure to collegiate "good practices," student awards, and measures of emotional intelligence among honors students. These studies have largely been conducted with undergraduate students in an attempt to justify the value of an honors education, but these previous studies can help scholars assess where future research is needed.

Aim: To understand awareness, knowledge and preferences regarding genetic testing among the USA general public. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey using a Qualtrics Panel. Results: Among 1600 respondents, 545 (34%) were White, 411 (26%) Black, 412 (26%) Hispanic or Latin(x) and 232 (15%) Asian. Most had heard of ancestry testing (87%) and genetic health risk testing (69%), but a third thought inherited genes were only a little or not at all responsible for obesity (36%) and mental health (33%). The majority preferred pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing (n = 74%) compared with reactive testing. Statistically significant differences between racial/ethnic groups and rural-urban respondents were observed. Conclusion: Most preferred pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing; however, about one-quarter preferred reactive testing. Preferences should be discussed during patient–clinician interactions. Plain language summaryWhat is this study about? This study presents a large online survey among the USA general public to understand their awareness, knowledge and preferences about genetic testing and how this may vary by racial/ethnic group and rural/urban status. What were the results? Most survey respondents had heard of ancestry testing (87%) and genetic health risk testing (69%). However, over a third of respondents thought that inherited genes may be only a little or not at all responsible for obesity (36%) and mental health (33%). When asked about preferences for pre-emptive compared with reactive pharmacogenetic testing, the majority preferred pre-emptive testing (n = 74%). Statistically significant differences between racial/ethnic groups as well as rural-urban respondents were seen. What do the results mean? The US general public may have a different understanding of genetic testing for different diseases, and have different preferences when it comes to the timing of testing. Appropriate educational content targeting the link between genetics and specific diseases should be prepared, and preferences for pre-emptive or reactive testing should be discussed during visits with healthcare providers. Summary points Genetic information is rapidly evolving and previous studies rarely focused on the extent of familiarity with newer genomic terms and procedures among the USA general public. One of the striking findings from this survey is that half of the total respondents were not aware of genetic testing in the context of choice of treatments, identifying adverse events from medications, and medication dosage optimization. A relatively smaller proportion of Black respondents and rural residents thought that genetic tests could identify medication side effects or optimize dosages compared with their counterparts. Most respondents were willing to choose pre-emptive over reactive testing to select the best medications for them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the preference-based value of the fear of COVID-19 contagion.Patients and Methods: We conducted a web-based, cross-sectional discrete choice experiment among 544 US adults. We used a Bayesian efficient design to generate choice sets. Each choice set comprised two hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine options characterized by seven attributes: chance of COVID-19 infection, chance of having severe symptoms from COVID-19 infection, vaccine protection duration, chance of mild to moderate adverse events from vaccination, chance of serious adverse events from vaccination, chance of future exposure to COVID-19 after vaccination, and out-of-pocket cost. We used mixed logit (ML) and latent class (LC) models to analyze data. Furthermore, we calculated the willingness-to-pay for eliminating the chance of future exposure to COVID-19, shedding light on the value attributed to the fear of contagion.Results: The ML model demonstrated all attributes, including the chance of future exposure to COVID-19, were statistically significant. The participants were willing to pay approximately $13,046 to eliminate the chance of future exposure to COVID-19 or their fear of contagion when COVID-19 was still pandemic. The LC model unveiled two participant classes with distinct preference weights for the chance of future exposure to COVID-19 and out-of-pocket cost attributes. Nevertheless, the chance of future exposure to COVID-19 exposure held a significant degree of importance in both classes.Conclusion: The chance of future exposure to COVID-19 exposure or fear of contagion was a significant element in the value assessment of COVID-19 vaccines. Further studies should be conducted to verify the value of fear of contagion and include it in the value assessment of healthcare technologies for infectious diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]