ABSTRACT
STEM training of college-bound and college students has reliably employed hands-on experiential learning by placing students in on-campus research settings. Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center's Young Empowered Scientists for ContinUed Research Engagement (DF/HCC's YES for CURE) program introduces Massachusetts high school and college students from underrepresented populations to cancer research by immersing them in scientific and nursing research environments. Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 summer program was re-designed and delivered virtually for 45 students. Because the program spans three years, we could evaluate the experiences of 18 students (cohort 2) who completed the 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2020 (pandemic) summer programs. Analysis of cohort 2 data revealed three areas where students felt their competence improved with virtual programming (i.e., effective communication of ideas, access to high caliber speakers, engagement with program leaders) and two areas where it declined significantly (i.e., engaging other students, learning lab material). Additionally, student-reported competence to perform 21 scientific research and seven critical thinking processes were not negatively impacted by the virtual transition. Herein, we describe the adaptation of DF/HCC's YES for CURE program to a virtual format and the impact on students as a resource for institutions interested in enhancing their STEM training programs with virtual programming.
ABSTRACT
Background: The coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic has produced a large number of clinical trial reports with unprecedented rapidity, raising concerns about methodological quality and potential for research waste. Objectives: To describe the characteristics of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating prophylaxis or treatment of Covid-19 infection and examine the effect of trial characteristics on whether the study reported a statistically significant effect on the primary outcome(s). Study Design: Meta-epidemiological study of Covid-19 treatment and prophylaxis RCTs. Eligibility criteria: English-language RCTs (peer-reviewed or preprint) that evaluated pharmacologic agents or blood products compared to standard care, placebo, or an active comparator among participants with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 or at risk for Covid-19. We excluded trials of vaccines or traditional herbal medicines. Information sources: We searched 25 databases in the US Centre for Disease Control Downloadable Database from January 1 to October 21, 2020. Trial appraisal and synthesis methods: We extracted trial characteristics including number of centres, funding sources (industry versus non-industry), and sample size. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 Tool. We used descriptive statistics to summarize trial characteristics and logistic regression to evaluate the association between RoB due to the randomization process, centre status (single vs. multicentre), funding source, and sample size, and statistically significant effect in the primary outcome. Results: We included 91 RCTs (46,802 participants) evaluating Covid-19 therapeutic drugs (n = 76), blood products (n = 9) or prophylactic drugs (n = 6). Of these, 40 (44%) were single-centre, 23 (25.3%) enrolled < 50 patients, and 28 (30.8%) received industry funding. RoB varied across trials, with high or probably high overall RoB in 75 (82.4%) trials, most frequently due to deviations from the intended protocol (including blinding) and randomization processes. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) found a statistically significant effect in the primary outcome. RoB due randomization (odds ratio [OR] 3.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47 to 9.72) and single centre trials (OR 3.15, 95% CI, 1.25 to 7.97) were associated with higher likelihood of finding a statistically significant effect. Conclusions: There was high variability in RoB amongst Covid-19 trials. RoB attributed to the randomization process and single centre status were associated with a three-fold increase in the odds of finding a statistically significant effect. Researchers, funders, and knowledge users should remain cognizant of the impact of study characteristics, including RoB, on trial results when designing, conducting, and appraising Covid-19 trials. Registration number: CRD42020192095