Development of a virtual microscope with integrated feedback for blended geology labs

A virtual microscope resource was created when face-to-face labs were halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 to replicate the learning goals of an introductory petrology course on microscopy. This virtual microscope resource utilized images and videos of thin sections, as well as 3D rock models to allow students to complete labs online. It also incorporated directed questioning and feedback as would be provided by demonstrators (teaching assistants) in a face-to-face lab. Insights obtained from student reflective questionnaires (n = 75) were used to adapt the online resource so that it could be used in conjunction with the face-to-face lab, thus becoming a blended lab resource in the subsequent year. These reflective questionnaires were utilized again to provide feedback on the revised version of the resource for blended learning. Findings showed that students in the blended learning cohort rated the quality of the available online material higher than the previous students. The blended learning cohort appreciated the immediate feedback from the resource, as well as its ability to provide remote access to lab materials. They also gained confidence by being able to review the material multiple times online. We conclude that blended resources are a useful tool in introductory petrology which we hope to see become more commonplace in the future. © 2023 National Association of Geoscience Teachers.

IS REMOTE LEARNING AS EFFECTIVE AS IN-PERSON LEARNING FOR CONTOURING EDUCATION? A COMPARISON OF FACETO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE DELIVERY OF THE ANATOMY AND RADIOLOGY CONTOURING BOOTCAMP

Purpose: The Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp was a three-day in-person intervention providing integrated radiology, anatomy, and contouring education for radiation oncology (RO) residents and medical physicists. The course consisted of didactic radiology and contouring lectures, small group anatomy sessions using cadaveric prosections, and realtime contouring using commercial software. Acknowledging the importance of increasing access to the Bootcamp, we launched an online version of the ARC Bootcamp in November 2019. We evaluated the online (ONL) course's impact on participants' knowledge acquisition, contouring skills, and self-confidence by comparing it to the face-to-face (F2F) course. Materials and Methods: The F2F Bootcamp was adapted into an ONL version using the Teachable platform (teachable.com). The ONL course was structured in a linear progression of locked modules to offer similar content to the F2F comparator. Participants from the 2019 F2F and the 2019-2020 ONL Bootcamp provided consent for the study and completed pre-and post-intervention evaluations, which assessed anatomy/radiology knowledge, contouring skills, anatomy/radiology knowledge and contouring self-confidence, and course satisfaction. Results: Fifty-seven (F2F: n=30;ONL: n=27) participants completed both evaluations. The ONL course had a substantially wider geographic participation, with participants from 19 countries (versus four countries in the F2F course) completing the preevaluation. F2F had primarily RO resident participation (80%) compared to ONL (41%). In the ONL course, most were from a different field (52%), including medical physics residents or medical students. Compared to baseline self-assessments, both cohorts demonstrated similar self-confidence improvements with their anatomy/radiology knowledge, contouring skills, and in interpreting radiology p<0.001). In the anatomy/radiology knowledge testing, the ONL group showed improvement (mean improvement ± SD: 4.6 ± 6.3 on a 40-point scale;p<0.001) but the F2F group did not (1.6 ± 5.6;p=0.159). The F2F group demonstrated improvement with the contouring assessment (mean ± SD: 0.10 ± 0.17 on a 1-point Dice scale;p=0.004), whereas only a trend was found for the ONL group (0.07 ± 0.16;p=0.076). Both cohorts perceived the course as a positive learning experience (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4 on a 5-point scale;ONL: 4.5 ± 0.6) and stated it will improve their professional practice (F2F: 4.6 ± 0.5 on a 5-point scale;ONL: 4.2 ± 0.8). Both groups would recommend the course to others (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4 on a 5-point scale;ONL: 4.4 ± 0.6). Conclusions: The ONL ARC Bootcamp achieved similar results as the F2F version, with improved self-confidence, knowledge scores, and high satisfaction levels among participants. The ONL course is more accessible to diverse geographic regions and disciplines, allows for ongoing education during the COVID-19 pandemic, and can be used as a framework to develop other online educational interventions in radiation oncology.

Is Remote Learning as Effective as In-Person Learning for Contouring Education? A Comparison of Face-to-Face vs. Online Delivery of the Anatomy and Radiology Contouring Bootcamp

Purpose/Objective(s): The Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp was a three-day in-person course providing integrated radiology, anatomy, and contouring education for radiation oncology (RO) residents and medical physicists. The course consisted of didactic radiology and contouring lectures, small group anatomy sessions using cadaveric prosections, and real-time contouring using commercial software. Acknowledging the importance of increasing access to the Bootcamp, we launched an online (ONL) version of the ARC Bootcamp in November 2019. We evaluated the ONL course's impact on participants' knowledge acquisition, contouring skills, and self-confidence by comparing it to the face-to-face (F2F) course. Materials/Methods: The F2F Bootcamp was adapted into an ONL version using the Teachable platform (teachable.com). The ONL course was structured in a linear progression of locked modules to offer similar content to the F2F comparator. Participants from the 2019 F2F and the 2019–2020 ONL Bootcamp provided consent for the study and completed pre-and post-intervention evaluations, which assessed anatomy/radiology knowledge, contouring skills, anatomy/radiology knowledge and contouring self-confidence, and course satisfaction. Results: Fifty-seven (F2F: n = 30;ONL: n = 27) participants completed both evaluations. The ONL course had a substantially wider geographic participation, with participants from 19 countries (vs. 4 countries in the F2F course) completing the pre-evaluation. F2F had primarily RO resident participation (80%) compared to ONL (41%). In the ONL course, most were from a different field (52%), including medical physics residents or medical students. Compared to baseline self-assessments, both cohorts demonstrated similar self-confidence improvements with their anatomy knowledge, contouring skills, and in interpreting radiology images (all P < 0.001). In the anatomy/radiology knowledge testing, the ONL group showed improvement (mean improvement ± SD: 4.6 ± 6.3 on a 40-point scale;P < 0.001) but the F2F group did not (1.6 ± 5.6;P = 0.159). The F2F group demonstrated improvement with the contouring assessment (mean ± SD: 0.10 ± 0.17 on a 1-point Dice scale;P = 0.004), whereas only a trend was found for the ONL group (0.07 ± 0.16;P = 0.076). Both cohorts perceived the course as a positive learning experience (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4 on a 5-point scale;ONL: 4.5 ± 0.6) and stated it will improve their professional practice (F2F: 4.6 ± 0.5 on a 5-point scale;ONL: 4.2 ± 0.8). Both groups would recommend the course to others (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4 on a 5-point scale;ONL: 4.4 ± 0.6). Conclusion: The ONL ARC Bootcamp achieved similar results as the F2F version, with improved self-confidence, knowledge scores, and high satisfaction levels among participants. The ONL course is more accessible to diverse geographic regions and disciplines, allows for ongoing education during the COVID-19 pandemic, and can be used as a framework to develop other online educational interventions in radiation oncology.

Preliminary Evaluation of Filtration Efficiency and Differential Pressure ASTM F3502 Testing Methods of Non-Medical Masks Using a Face Filtration Mount

Research surrounding the mandated use of non-medical fabric masks is inconsistent and often confusing when compared to the standard N95. A recently published standard from ASTM International and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention attempts to normalize evaluation procedures. The purpose of this study is to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the new methods for testing filtration efficiency of masks outlined by ASTM International F3502, where results can be directly compared to standards outlined for non-medical fabric masks. Eleven consumer non-medical fabric masks were tested for filtration efficiency and airflow resistance using a face filtration mount in accordance with the newly released ASTM International standard for facial barriers. The mean FE% (SD) ranged from 0.46% (0.44) to 11.80% (2.76) with the 3-layer athletic mesh having the highest performance and the highest deviations. All the masks tested following the procedure failed to meet to minimum FE of 20%;however all masks performed below the minimum upper limits for airflow resistance. Using a non-medical fabric masks as the sole mitigation strategy may not be as effective, as previously reported. With efforts to standardize and regulate the non-medical fabric mask market, this study demonstrates a variety of currently available consumer mask products do not meet the minimum standards nor are these remotely close to the standards of surgical or N95 masks.

Meaning, Purpose, and Job Satisfaction: The Importance of Making Meaning Salient during the COVID-19 Pandemic and beyond

Finding meaning and purpose in one s life facilitates several important work outcomes. A global pandemic that changes both the lives of employees and the way they work likely affects the relationships between workers meaning in life and work. Making meaning salient to employees, despite the circumstances, may strengthen and preserve these relationships. To examine this, 71 employed adults completed a photo-taking task that either focused on objects of meaning (n = 36) or objects that were blue (i.e., the control;n = 35). The results suggested that meaning salience increased job satisfaction. In addition, it moderated the relationship between purpose (but not meaning) and job satisfaction. In all, this highlights the challenges of new working circumstances and the importance of continuously making meaning salient to employees. © 2021 Hogrefe Publishing GmbH. All rights reserved.

Accessibility by proximity: Addressing the lack of interactive accessibility instruments for active mobility

The rise of concepts such as the 15-minute-city represents the growing importance of accessibility by active mobility. In order to promote accessibility, accessibility instruments are developed that have substantial potential to assist practitioners in decision making processes. Therefore, this research starts with an up-to-date overview on the suitability of accessibility instruments when planning for active mobility. It was found that accessibility instruments were significantly further developed in the last few years and there is a rising number of tools that contain novel features. However, it was identified that there is a clear lack of tools specifically designed for modeling active mobility that are open source, include interactive scenario building, and can easily be transferred to new study areas. Therefore, an interactive accessibility instrument named GOAT (Geo Open Accessibility Tool) was developed, which is open source, transferable, and has an easy-to-use web interface. This instrument has been developed following an iterative software development process in close cooperation with practitioners from three municipalities in the region of Munich, Germany. The practitioners tested the tool independently in numerous workshops in order to provide feedback, which was integrated into the development. Furthermore, the tool was tested and transferred to more than 20 German municipalities, the City of Bogot & acute;a (Colombia) and Matosinhos (Portugal). First results show that the collaborative and open development process produced a user-centric solution, which bears the high potential to make planning for active mobility more effective and efficient.

Ciclesonide activates glucocorticoid signaling in neonatal rat lung but does not trigger adverse effects in the cortex and cerebellum.

Synthetic glucocorticoids (sGCs) such as dexamethasone (DEX), while used to mitigate inflammation and disease progression in premature infants with severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), are also associated with significant adverse neurologic effects such as reductions in myelination and abnormalities in neuroanatomical development. Ciclesonide (CIC) is a sGC prodrug approved for asthma treatment that exhibits limited systemic side effects. Carboxylesterases enriched in the lower airways convert CIC to the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) agonist des-CIC. We therefore examined whether CIC would likewise activate GR in neonatal lung but have limited adverse extra-pulmonary effects, particularly in the developing brain. Neonatal rats were administered subcutaneous injections of CIC, DEX or vehicle from postnatal days 1-5 (PND1-PND5). Systemic effects linked to DEX exposure, including reduced body and brain weight, were not observed in CIC treated neonates. Furthermore, CIC did not trigger the long-lasting reduction in myelin basic protein expression in the cerebral cortex nor cerebellar size caused by neonatal DEX exposure. Conversely, DEX and CIC were both effective at inducing the expression of select GR target genes in neonatal lung, including those implicated in lung-protective and anti-inflammatory effects. Thus, CIC is a promising, novel candidate drug to treat or prevent BPD in neonates given its activation of GR in neonatal lung and limited adverse neurodevelopmental effects. Furthermore, since sGCs such as DEX administered to pregnant women in pre-term labor can adversely affect fetal brain development, the neurological-sparing properties of CIC, make it an attractive alternative for DEX to treat pregnant women severely ill with respiratory illness, such as with asthma exacerbations or COVID-19 infections.

A pilot study of risk stratification and outreach to hematology/oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: Cancer patients have many medical and psychosocial needs, which may increase during the coronavirus pandemic and may be difficult to identify or address in the absence of in-person patient visits. We sought to (1) risk stratify hematology/oncology patients using general medicine and cancer-specific methods to identify those at high risk for acute care utilization, (2) measure the correlation between risk-stratification methods, and (3) perform a phone-based needs assessment with intervention for these patients. Methods: Patients were risk-stratified using a general medical health composite score (HCS) embedded in the electronic medical record, and a cancer-specific risk (CSR) stratification based on disease and treatment characteristics. The correlation between HCS and CSR was measured using Spearman's correlation. A multi-disciplinary team developed a focused needs assessment script with recommended interventions for patients categorized as high-risk by either method. The number of patient needs identified and referrals for services made in the first month of outreach are reported. Results: 1,421 patients were risk stratified, with 15% high-risk using HCS and 21.2% high-risk using CSR. Overall correlation between HCS and CSR was modest (r = 0.39). During the first month of the pilot, 287 patients were called for outreach with 245 contacted (85%). Commonly identified needs were financial difficulties (17%), uncontrolled symptoms (15%), and interest in advance care planning (13%), resulting in referral for supportive services for 33% of patients. Conclusions: There is a high burden of unmet medical and psychosocial needs in hematology/oncology patients during the coronavirus pandemic. A phone-based outreach program results in identification of and intervention for these needs, however additional cancer-specific risk models are needed to improve targeting to highrisk patients. This process can serve as a framework for other institutions wishing to implement similar outreach programs during this pandemic.

Late Breaking Abstract - Telerehabilitation compared to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised controlled equivalence trial

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective treatment for people with chronic respiratory disease, but is delivered to <5% of eligible individuals. Due to COVID-19 remote rehabilitation models may be critical for future delivery of services. Aims: To compare the efficacy of home-based telerehabilitation (TR) and centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in people with chronic respiratory disease. Methods: Assessor blinded, multi-centre RCT, powered for equivalence. Participants were randomised to centre-based PR or home-based TR. Both programs were 2 sessions/week for 8 weeks. Telerehabilitation used a stationary cycle and group videoconferencing to enable social interaction and real time monitoring. The primary outcome was change in chronic respiratory disease questionnaire dyspnea domain (CRQ-D) at end rehabilitation, with a pre-specified equivalence margin of 2.5 points. Results: We randomised 142 participants to PR (n=72) orTR (n=72). Both groups had clinically important improvements in CRQ-D following rehabilitation (TR mean (95%CI) 4 (2 to 5) vs PR 5 (3 to 7)), however equivalence of TR was not confirmed (mean difference between groups (MD) -1 point (-3 to 1)), with similar findings at 12 month followup (MD -1 point (-4 to 1)). The 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) was equivalent at end rehabilitation (MD -6 metres (-26 to 15) and at 12 months superiority of TR could not be excluded (MD 14 metres (-10 to 38). The proportion of participants who completed >70% of prescribed sessions was high (84% TR vs 79% PR). Conclusions: Home-based TR achieved clinically important gains in health-related quality of life, but equivalence to centre-based PR was not confirmed.