ABSTRACT
The integration between virtual learning environments of recognized individual success, such as the PhET project and the Moodle Platform, presents itself as a path to be explored in the context of Instrumental Orchestration (IO), due to the broad benefits that this type of junction can bring to STEM teaching and learning. In this perspective, we conducted a purely interpretive study to investigate the role of IO, in different resources, on the academic success of students in a Bioengineering course, by comparing two activities, corresponding to the extremes of their scores, in electromagnetism laboratory practices, converted to Hybrid Teaching, by means of the COVID19 pandemic. For this, an evaluative framework was built based on the bibliographic reference, which underwent refinements adapting it to the available data, to finally analyze the IO dimensions referring to PhET, Moodle, proposed activities and interactions among participants. The main contribution of the research refers to the need for a better orchestration between simulated activities and laboratory practices, naturally accompanied by more productive interactions. This kind of research also contributes to the elaboration of new pedagogical practices, anchored in facts concerning the different approaches of IO and the way students learn. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
ABSTRACT
Background: Patients (pts) with cancer are at a higher risk of COVID-19 (C19) severe disease. However, our group and others have demonstrated a low prevalence of C19 infection among asymptomatic pts with cancer on active systemic treatment. We hypothesized this phenomenon was due to increased adherence of pts with cancer to anti-C19 protective measures. This study compares adherence and the perceived importance of such measures in oncologic and non-oncologic populations. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study conducted between June and September 2021. A questionnaire was developed to assess how participants perceived and adhered to masking, handwashing, and other anti-C19 protective measures. Demographic information, educational level, and monthly income were also collected. Three groups were included: A) pts with cancer treated at Hospital de Base (HB);B) pts without cancer treated at HB for other medical conditions;C) a healthy outpatient population. Data were summarized in means, medians, and proportions. Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categories;ANOVA was employed to compare means. A multivariable analysis assessing factors associated with adherence to anti-C19 protective measures was performed. Results: A total of 607 people were interrogated (200 in groups A and B, and 207 in C). The mean age of groups A, B, C was significantly different: 60 vs. 52 vs. 35 years old (p < 0.001). Group C had a higher educational level and a higher monthly income than groups A and B (p < 0.001). In cohort A, gastrointestinal, breast, and genitourinary were the most frequent tumors (33%, 31%, 15%);75% of pts had active disease. Pts with cancer were more adherent to anti-C19 protective measures: of 33 points, the mean score of groups A, B, C was respectively 27.8 vs. 25.5 vs. 21.9 (p < 0.001). Regarding the importance of anti-C19 protective measures, pts with cancer also perceived those as more relevant: of 21 points, the mean score of groups A, B, C was respectively 17.8 vs. 17 vs. 16.9 (p < 0.001). For instance, in group A, 95% report consistently wearing a mask when leaving home compared to 90% and 58.2% of groups B and C. In line with our findings, 20.5% vs. 32.5% vs. 35.3% (p < 0.003) of groups A, B, and C reported having C19 before the questionnaire. In multivariable analysis, groups B and C were less likely to adhere to anti-C19 protective measures than group A. Conclusions: Pts with cancer are more adherent to anti- C19 protective measures and perceive them as more important than non-oncologic populations. Our results shed light on the accumulating literature of a low incidence of C19 amongst asymptomatic pts with cancer on systemic treatment even during the surges. Such findings are possibly related to the fact that cancer pts are more vulnerable to hospitalizations and unfavorable outcomes than the general population, prompting a more risk-averse behavior.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: People with chronic respiratory diseases, asthma included, may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19. However, published studies so far have reported inconsistent results regarding the prevalence of asthma. Objective: The aim of this study was to characterize hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: Retrospective observational study with analysis of hospitalized patients between March 1st and June 30rd. Results: This study included 237 patients, with asthma being reported in 16 patients (6,8%). Asthmatic patients tended to be younger (70 years vs 80 years, p=0.027) and to have less comorbidities (1 vs 2 p=0.014) compared with non-asthmatic patients. Regarding the therapeutic approach, asthmatic patients required more inhaled corticosteroid therapy as well hydroxychloroquine, but the ceiling of treatment was less stablished (50% vs 21.7%, p=0.027;75% vs 48.9%, p=0.044;6.3% vs 38%, p=0.011, respectively). The mortality rate was lower compared with that of non-asthmatic patients (12.5% vs 37.1%, p=0.047). The severity of asthma did not seem to influence analysed outcomes. Conclusion: In this study, asthma did not appear to contribute to the more severe COVID-19.