ABSTRACT
Amid skyrocketing costs and student debt, much has been written about the increasing skepticism of whether a traditional four-year degree is “worth it.” The general consensus among outlets such as Forbes, The WSJ, and CNBC (each citing recent polls) is that families’ attitudes toward higher education is changing, due to sharply rising costs. This change does not favor traditional college degree programs. In the midst of this transformation, branded digital marketing certificates have presented themselves as a more economical alternative. Perhaps the most worrisome of which are the recently announced “Google Career Certificates,” which are six-month programs geared to prepare workers for the digital economy. Google leadership states these new certificates are meant to be the equivalent of a four-year degree given that “college degrees are out of reach for many Americans, and you shouldn’t need a college diploma to have economic security.” The purpose of this panel session is to discuss what the traditional marketing degree program response should be to the changing perceptions of value and increased competition. The potential consequences of Google entering higher education have been further exacerbated by impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disruption that many thought leaders have been talking about for years was accelerated in the span of a few months. The result was a wave of student questions and criticism of the value of online education directed against even the most renowned institutions. While pandemic-related impacts to teaching modality may not be long-term, it will likely take much longer for student sentiment to recover. Evidenced by over seventy lawsuits currently pending against colleges and universities, this confluence of factors should not be ignored. Rather, we need to view this as an opportunity for existential reflection on the most basic of marketing principles as they apply to higher education as a marketable service. As such, in this panel session, the following questions will be addressed by a diverse group of stakeholders: Will industry and prospective students/families accept these certificates as a substitute to a traditional degree? How should traditional marketing degree programs adapt or change program offerings to be more competitive/appealing? What is academia’s value proposition? How do we communicate this effectively with prospective students and their families? How do we train students on technologies many professors have never themselves used? Are there opportunities for public/private collaboration that provide technical skills, produce job-ready graduates, and lower costs? What could these look like? Student, industry, and academic representatives will discuss these questions and engage the audience in a lively conversation about the future of marketing education and the changing role of marketing academics. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
ABSTRACT
Background: In the presence of comorbid conditions, COVID-19 infections are known to require more advanced treatment, poorer outcomes and have longer-term sequelae. New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) during COVID-19 infection has been associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes but not mortality. However, it remains unclear whether a prior history (hx) of atrial fibrillation is a cardiovascular risk factor predicting a worse outcome in COVID-19 patients. As such, we examined, using propensity matching accounting for possible confounders, the need for advanced treatment and subsequent major cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with a prior hx of AF with COVID19 infection. Methods: From March 2020 to May 2021, patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a prior AF diagnosis (n=3119) were propensity matched for age, gender, race/ethnicity, prior coronary artery disease (CAD), prior heart failure (HF), prior stroke and hypertension to non-AF SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Cox hazard regression analysis with multivariable adjustment was used to determine risk of subsequent MACE (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, HF and stroke). Results: Baseline characteristics, treatments, and outcomes stratified by AF status are shown in the Table. While the groups had similar baseline characteristics, AF COVID-19 patients were more likely to require hospitalization, ICU care, and ventilator support. Consistent with our hypothesis, composite MACE event rates were higher in the AF patients (HR=1.60, p<0.0001) secondary to increases in heart failure and all-cause mortality rates. Conclusions: These data support AF as a cardiovascular risk factor predicting worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Specifically, AF increases the need for advanced treatments such as hospitalization, ICU care and ventilator support resulting in an increase in subsequent heart failure and all-cause mortality.
ABSTRACT
Background: Mitigation measures to control the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) depends on the public adherence to preventive measures which is influenced by their knowledge and attitude. Aim: To find the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of the rural population toward COVID-19 and to establish its socio-demographic influencing factors. Material and methods: KAP study regarding Covid-19 was done among the rural population during August 2020 using a semi-structured questionnaire. Results: Among 500 participants, the mean knowledge, attitude and practice score was 21.55 +/- 2.9 ( Range 0- 30), 30.0 +/- 2.88 ( Range 12- 36) 9.4 +/- 1.25 ( Range 0-13) respectively. Higher knowledge was associated with higher education and employed individuals. Favourable attitude was among those aged <35 years and having higher education. Optimistic practices were exhibited by employed individuals and when children <12 years are present in their home. Conclusions: Study participants preceded good knowledge, positive attitude towards COVID-19 but practice is not sufficient enough to win the battle against the dreadful disease due to considerable knowledge- practice gap.