Influence of CUREs on STEM retention depends on demographic identities.

Research has shown that undergraduate research experiences can have substantive effects on retaining students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). However, it is impossible to provide individual research experiences for every undergraduate student, especially at large universities. Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have become a common approach to introduce large numbers of students to research. We investigated whether a one-semester CURE that replaced a traditional introductory biology laboratory course could increase retention in STEM as well as intention to remain in STEM, if the results differed according to demography, and investigated the possible motivational factors that might mediate such an effect. Under the umbrella of the Authentic Research Connection (ARC) program, we used institutional and survey data from nine semesters and compared ARC participants to non-participants, who applied to ARC but either were not randomly selected or were selected but chose not to enroll in an ARC section. We found that ARC had significant effects on demographic groups historically less likely to be retained in STEM: ARC participation resulted in narrowing the gaps in graduation rates in STEM (first vs continuing-generation college students) and in intention to major in STEM [females vs males, Persons Excluded because of Ethnicity or Race (PEERs) vs non-PEERs]. These disproportionate boosts in intending STEM majors among ARC students coincide with their reporting a greater sense of student cohesiveness, retaining more interest in biology, and commenting more frequently that the course provided a useful/valuable learning experience. Our results indicate that CUREs can be a valuable tool for eliminating inequities in STEM participation, and we make several recommendations for further research.

Evaluating the Impact and Benefits of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol in Individuals with Asthma or COPD: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Patient Experiences.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated patients' experiences with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) combination therapy in UK patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Participants aged ≥ 18 years, with self-reported, physician-diagnosed asthma or COPD (≥ 1 year) who had been receiving FF/VI (≥ 3 months) were recruited from UK primary care. This two-phase, mixed-methods study consisted of a semi-structured, telephone-interview phase (qualitative) and a self-completed online/paper-survey phase (quantitative). RESULTS: The telephone-interview phase included 50 individuals [asthma, n = 25; COPD, n = 25; mean age (SD) 56.7 years (13.3); 50% female]. Of these, 21 with asthma reported that their condition was stable/well controlled and 13 with COPD felt their condition was manageable. Most participants found FF/VI easy to use (asthma, 25; COPD, 23), easy to integrate into their daily routine (asthma, 25; COPD, 24), and able to control symptoms for ≥ 24 h (asthma, 14; COPD, 16). During the survey phase, 199 individuals were recruited [asthma, n = 100; COPD, n = 99; mean age (SD) 63.6 years (15.1); 59.3% female]. Most participants were satisfied/very satisfied with the efficacy of FF/VI in terms of all-day symptom relief (asthma, 84%; COPD, 75%) and found FF/VI easy/very easy to fit into their daily routine (asthma, 99%; COPD, 96%), easy/very easy to use (asthma, 97%; COPD, 92%), and convenient/very convenient to take as instructed (asthma, 95%; COPD, 93%). Significantly more individuals with asthma (87% versus 46%, P < 0.001) and numerically more individuals with COPD (84% versus 76%, P = 0.055) were satisfied/very satisfied with FF/VI compared with their most recent previous maintenance medication. CONCLUSION: The majority of individuals in this study had confidence in FF/VI and were satisfied or very satisfied with various key attributes of the treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK study HO-15-15503/204888. FUNDING: GSK.

Work aggravated asthma in Great Britain: a cross-sectional postal survey.

OBJECTIVE: Work aggravated asthma (WAA), asthma made worse by but not caused by workplace exposures, can have a negative impact on personal, social, financial and societal costs. There is limited data on prevalence levels of WAA in Great Britain (GB). The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of WAA in GB, and to assess its potential causes.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional postal questionnaire study was carried out. A total of 1620 questionnaires were sent to three populations of adults with asthma. The questionnaire recorded; demographic details, current job, self-reported health status, presence of asthma and respiratory symptoms, duration and severity of symptoms and medication requirements. Questions relating to work environment and employers' actions were included, and each participant completed an assessment of health-related quality of life using the EuroQol Research Foundation EQ-5D. RESULTS: There were 207 completed questionnaires; response rates were 6% primary care, 45% secondary care and 71% Asthma UK. This represented a 13% overall response rate. Self-reported prevalence of WAA was 33% (95% CI 24.4-41.6%). In all, 19% of workers had changed their job because of breathing problems. Workers with WAA reported higher levels of work-related stress. Quality of life using the EQ-5D utility index was lower in those with WAA. CONCLUSION: WAA is a common problem in asthmatics in GB. This result is in keeping with international prevalence rates. Further research could assist the understanding of the most significant aggravants to asthma at work and help define appropriate interventions by workplaces.

Evaluation and quantification of treatment preferences for patients with asthma or COPD using discrete choice experiment surveys.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate treatment preferences of patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), previously identified influential treatment factors were used to develop a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey. METHODS: An internet-based survey was conducted with UK-resident adults (recruited using a commercial panel) who were currently receiving asthma/COPD treatment and had not taken part in the previous phase of this study (qualitative interviews to understand patient burden, life impact and treatment preferences). Participants ranked treatment attributes from 0 (extremely important) to 8 (not at all important) and chose between hypothetical treatments for asthma/COPD with differing attributes. Preferences for each condition were assessed separately using a mixed logit regression model. RESULTS: Most of the 302 participants had not well-controlled asthma (Asthma Control Test™ scores ≤19/25) or experienced a high impact of COPD (COPD Assessment Test™ scores >20/40). Participant views were generally similar for both conditions; having well-controlled symptoms all day was considered most important. All treatment attributes significantly influenced preferences; the most preferred were no sleep disturbance (versus waking up often) and low cost. Subsequent preferences (with some variation between asthma/COPD) were for treatments with easy/convenient use, no flare ups/exacerbations, that enabled desired physical activities, well-controlled symptoms all day, that enabled desired social activities, and low medication frequency. CONCLUSIONS: These eight treatment attributes, valued by patients with asthma or COPD, are important for healthcare professionals to consider regarding treatment options and for future therapy development. Our DCE results broadly reinforce the findings from qualitative interviews in the first study phase.

Life Impact and Treatment Preferences of Individuals with Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Results from Qualitative Interviews and Focus Groups.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on individuals' lives may be substantial, yet clinical practice often focuses only on symptoms. We aimed to better understand the perspective of asthma or COPD patients and to identify condition-related burden, life impact, priorities, unmet needs, and treatment goals. METHODS: Individuals aged at least 18 years with asthma or COPD were identified by a recruitment panel via clinical referrals, support groups, consumer networks, and a patient database. Interviews were carried out individually (by telephone) or in focus groups (with no more than five participants per group). A semi-structured interview guide was used with prespecified topics, informed by a literature review, that were considered impactful in asthma or COPD (symptoms and daily-life impact, satisfaction with current treatment, important aspects of treatment, adherence, and ideal treatment). RESULTS: Overall, 72 people participated in focus groups/individual interviews (asthma n = 18/n = 21; COPD n = 15/n = 18). "Shortness of breath" was the most frequently reported symptom; however, participants discussed the life impact of their condition more than symptoms alone. Reported physical impacts included the inability to sleep and socialize, while emotional impacts included "embarrassment, stigma, and/or self-consciousness", "fear and/or panic", and "sadness, anxiety, and/or depression". Coping mechanisms for normal activities included continuing at reduced pace and avoidance. Treatment preferences centered on resolving impacts; improved sleep, "speed of action", and "length of relief" were the most frequently reported ideal treatment factors. CONCLUSION: Patients with asthma or COPD experience substantial quality of life limitations and tend to focus on these in their expressions of concern, rather than symptoms per se. Life impacts of these conditions may have implications beyond those commonly appreciated in routine practice; these considerations will be applied to a future discrete choice experiment survey. FUNDING: GSK funded study (H0-15-15502/204821).

Standards of care for occupational asthma: an update.

BACKGROUND: The British Thoracic Society (BTS) Standards of Care (SoC) Committee produced a standard of care for occupational asthma (OA) in 2008, based on a systematic evidence review performed in 2004 by the British Occupational Health Research Foundation (BOHRF). METHODS: BOHRF updated the evidence base from 2004-2009 in 2010. RESULTS: This article summarises the changes in evidence and is aimed at physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care, occupational health and public health and at employers, workers and their health, safety and other representatives. CONCLUSIONS: Various recommendations and evidence ratings have changed in the management of asthma that may have an occupational cause.

Knowledge and utilisation of occupational asthma guidelines in primary care.

AIMS: To develop an occupational asthma learning module, which could be used both as an educational tool and to evaluate awareness and usage of clinical guidelines in primary care. METHODS: Healthcare professionals were invited to undertake an interactive BMJ Learning module, developed from existing national occupational asthma guidelines. Participants were invited to record immediate post-module feedback, and were also sent an e-mail questionnaire six weeks later to assess the impact of the module. RESULTS: In total 1041 healthcare professionals completed the learning module within the first six months, which was associated with significant improvements in knowledge, and predominantly positive feedback. The e-mail follow-up questionnaire demonstrated improved usage and awareness of national occupational asthma guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Significant barriers remain in ensuring that evidence-based occupational medicine guidelines are adopted in primary care. This project has demonstrated that e-learning offers one method of improving postgraduate medical education in this area, particularly where evidence-based guidelines have already been developed.

Agreement in diagnosing occupational asthma by occupational and respiratory physicians who report to surveillance schemes for work-related ill-health.

OBJECTIVES: To assess diagnostic agreement for occupational asthma, and to identify case and rater characteristics associated with this diagnosis. METHODS: Summaries of possible occupational asthma cases were sent to 104 occupational and respiratory physicians. Raters assigned likelihood scores (0-100%) of occupational asthma based on case histories (phase 1), and on histories plus investigative procedures (phase 2). Interclass correlation coefficients were calculated as statistical measures of reliability for occupational asthma scores. Comparisons between mean scores were assessed for statistical significance using tests based on multilevel models. RRs were calculated to summarise effects of raters' demographics, and of supplying investigative procedures information. RESULTS: Occupational asthma scores showed limited agreement within each group of (occupational or respiratory) physicians, but scores were not systematically different. The difference between mean overall scores was 2.1% (52.1% occupational physicians; 50.0% respiratory physicians) in phase 1 (95% CI -2.6 to 6.8, p=0.37). In phase 2, mean overall scores were 46.1% (occupational physicians) and 41.5% (respiratory physicians); the difference in mean overall scores was 4.6% (95% CI -3.5 to 12.5, p=0.27). Raters with General Medical Council registration > or =1986 were more likely to give a positive occupational asthma diagnosis. In phase 2, male raters were more likely to label cases as occupational asthma than female raters (RR 4.5, 95% CI 3.3 to 6.0). CONCLUSIONS: The RR of a positive occupational asthma diagnosis was unaffected by clinical specialty. Further work on why physicians consider cases to be occupational asthma will assist better diagnosis and prevention of this disease.

Facilities for investigating occupational asthma in UK non-specialist respiratory departments.

BACKGROUND: The facilities which should be available to physicians offering specialist occupational asthma services have recently been agreed upon by a UK panel of experts. AIMS: This study aimed to investigate whether these facilities are available in UK non-specialist secondary care respiratory departments and to document tertiary care referral patterns. METHODS: A random sample of 100 UK respiratory units was selected, and the lead consultant invited to participate. Face-to-face interviews were conducted to document information on departmental facilities available for investigating cases of occupational asthma and utilization of tertiary referral centres. RESULTS: In total, 66% of consultants interviewed had seen a case of occupational asthma in the previous month, and 76% reported having ever referred a patient with suspected occupational asthma to a specialist centre for further investigation (referral distance range 1-111 miles). All the departments were able to perform the investigations previously deemed an absolute necessity in all patients. The availability of in-house facilities that were deemed as must be available varied between 3-100%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that while the majority of basic facilities are widely available, many respiratory departments do not have direct access to investigations routinely required to investigate occupational asthma. Access to specialist occupational respiratory centres varies within the UK, and in some parts of the country involves long travelling distances for patients.

Are we failing workers with symptoms suggestive of occupational asthma?

AIMS: To assess the route to secondary care for patients with possible occupational asthma, and to document the duration of workrelated symptoms and referral times. METHODS: Consecutive patients with suspected occupational asthma were recruited to a case series from six secondary care clinics with an interest in occupational asthma. Semi-structured interviews were performed and hospital case notes were reviewed to summarise relevant investigations and diagnosis. RESULTS: 97 patients were recruited, with a mean age of 44.2 years (range 24-64), 51 of whom (53%) had occupational asthma confirmed as a diagnosis. Most (96%) had consulted their general practitioner (GP) at least once with work-related respiratory symptoms, although these had been present for a mean of 44.6 months (range 0-320 months) on presentation to secondary care. Patients experienced a mean delay for assessment in secondary care of 4 years (range 1-27 years) following presentation in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Significant diagnostic delay currently occurs for patients with occupational asthma in the UK.

Work-related asthma symptoms and attitudes to the workplace.

BACKGROUND: The Health & Safety Executive estimate that between 1500-3000 UK workers develop asthma through potentially avoidable workplace exposures each year. AIMS: To assess the perception of health, safety and the work environment by workers with symptoms suggestive of occupational asthma. METHODS: A total of 97 workers referred to hospital specialists with symptoms suggestive of occupational asthma were studied in order to investigate their attitudes to the workplace, safety and health. A qualitative study design using semi-structured telephone interviews at 2 months and 12 months following enrolment was used at 6 national UK centres with a special interest in occupational asthma. RESULTS: Many workers in the study felt let down by the workplace and management and perceived that a lack of health and safety measures had contributed to the development of their asthma symptoms. Many workers felt that their employers were 'uncaring' and were pursuing or considering medico-legal cases against them. CONCLUSIONS: Workers' perception of risk influences their behaviour in the workplace, and their own health beliefs potentially create barriers to changing this. It is essential to consider workers' perceptions when developing strategies to effect change within the workplace.

Occupational asthma: an assessment of diagnostic agreement between physicians.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the levels of agreement between expert respiratory physicians when making a diagnosis of occupational asthma. METHODS: 19 cases of possible occupational asthma were identified as part of a larger national observational cohort. A case summary for each case was then circulated to 12 physicians, asking for a percentage likelihood, from the supplied information, that this case represented occupational asthma. The resulting probabilities were then compared between physicians using Spearman's rank correlation and Cohen's kappa coefficients. RESULTS: Agreement between the 12 physicians for all 19 cases was generally good as assessed by Spearman's rank correlation. For all 66 physician-physician interactions, 45 were found to correlate significantly at the 5% level. The agreement assessed by kappa analysis was more variable, with a median kappa value of 0.26, (range -0.2 to +0.76), although 7 of the physicians agreed significantly (p<0.05) with >or=5 of their colleagues. Only in one case did the responses for probability of occupational asthma all exceed the "on balance" 50% threshold, although 12 of the 19 cases had an interquartile range of probabilities not including 50%, implying "on balance" agreement. The median probability values for each physician (all assessing the identical 19 cases) varied from 20% to 70%. Factors associated with a high probability rating were the presence of a positive serial peak expiratory flow Occupation Asthma SYStem (OASYS)-2 chart, and both the presence of bronchial hyper-reactivity and significant change in reactivity between periods of work and rest. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of the diagnosis of occupational asthma and reasonable physician agreement, certain variations in diagnostic assessment were seen between UK expert centres when assessing paper cases of possible occupational asthma. Although this may in part reflect the absence of a normal clinical consultation, a more unified national approach to these patients is required.

The perceptions of occupational health in primary care.

AIM: A random sample of general practitioners (GPs), practice nurses (PNs) and practice managers (PMs) in Sheffield and Manchester was recruited into a study to evaluate the perceptions of occupational health (OH) in primary care. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected using focus groups with three groups of primary care sector professionals. Quantitative data were collected nationally from 295 GPs using a postal questionnaire. RESULTS: GPs and PNs had minimal OH training, and 60% of GPs reported constraints in addressing OH matters with patients. The lack of referral routes (63 and 67%, respectively) was also seen as a barrier. OH was regarded as a speciality, and primary care professionals preferred to refer patients with OH problems to specialist centres because they perceived barriers to their dealing with the issues. A total of 74% of GPs surveyed thought that speedier access to secondary care would help them to address OH problems. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified some of the problems associated with delivering OH through primary care. It also demonstrated a need for greater emphasis on OH education in medical and nurse training, and a need for better advice for GPs, PNs and PMs regarding support services for OH.

Reproducibility and validity of a Yan-style portable citric acid cough challenge.

Although many different methods of measuring cough reflex sensitivity have been published, few are simple enough to use outside of a hospital or laboratory environment. The aim of this study was to develop a simple, quick, and portable cough challenge, assess its reproducibility, and compare its results with those measured by an existing established hospital protocol. Twenty-five volunteers performed cough challenges based on an established hospital dosimeter protocol, and, on a separate occasion, by a protocol inhaling citric acid from DeVilbiss 40 hand-held nebulisers (citric acid concentrations of 10-3000 mM). Reproducibility of the hand-held cough challenge was assessed in 11 volunteers. Cough thresholds were consistently higher by the hand-held method than by the hospital dosimeter method. The geometric mean citric acid concentrations causing two coughs (threshold D2) were 3.14 and 2.77 log mM, respectively (p<0.001). The geometric mean (95% CI) difference between the tests was 0.51 log mM (0.18-0.83) of the average of the two values. Cough D2 thresholds attained by the two techniques did, however, show significant correlation (r=0.95, p<0.0001). The coefficient of repeatability for the hand-held method was 0.40 log mM. Administering citric acid from DeVilbiss 40 hand-held nebulisers offers a rapid, portable, and reproducible cough challenge in healthy volunteers. The results correlate well with an existing Mefar dosimeter challenge, but give two to three times greater cough thresholds.

An evaluation of occupational health services within the NHS in London.

AIMS: To establish the nature, extent and organization of occupational health service provision for employees within the National Health Service (NHS) in London and to review the systems for monitoring performance. METHODS: Human resources directors and occupational health managers were contacted from a random selection of NHS trusts in the London area and invited to complete an interviewer-led questionnaire. RESULTS: All seventeen trusts interviewed claimed to provide an occupational health service to their employees, with 88% providing this service in-house. The organization of the services varied, although most resided within the human resources function. Only 29% of the trusts could provide a written occupational health policy. Teaching hospital trusts had the most qualified and the highest numbers of medical staff. District/General hospital trusts had the least qualified clinical staff. Although most trusts were able to provide a comprehensive range of services, 87% of occupational health managers felt they could only provide a reactive service. Income was generated from non-NHS sources by 88% of the trusts and all were aware of NHS Plus. There was an indication that some trusts assigned NHS Plus status did not meet the standard of NHS Plus, although the survey took place only 3 months after the launch of NHS Plus. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant variation in the nature and extent of occupational health services in the NHS trusts. As a consequence, there may be differences in the level of occupational health service available to staff across the NHS in London.

Respiratory symptoms and lung function change in welders: are they associated with workplace exposures?

AIMS: This study investigates whether work-related respiratory symptoms and acute falls in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), previously observed in current welders, are related to measured workplace exposures to total fume and metals. METHODS: At four work sites in New Zealand, changes in pulmonary function (and reported respiratory symptoms) were recorded in 49 welding workers (and 26 non-welders) exposed to welding fume. We also determined the personal breathing zone levels of total fume and various metals. RESULTS: Work-related respiratory symptoms were reported by 26.5% of welders and 11.5% of non-welders. These symptoms were related significantly to their personal breathing zone nickel exposure--with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval [CI] of the high exposure group (compared to a low exposure group of 7.0 [1.3-36.6]). There were non-significant associations with total fume exposure (OR = 2.6, 95% CI 0.6-12.2), and exposure index of greater than 10 years (OR=2.8, 95% CI 0.5-15.0). A fall in FEV1 of at least 5% after 15 minutes of work was significantly associated with aluminium exposure (OR=5.8, 95% CI 1.7-20.6). CONCLUSIONS: Nickel exposure from metal inert gas (MIG) and tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding is associated with work-related respiratory symptoms and aluminium exposure from welding is associated with a fall in FEV1 of at least 5 % after 15 minutes of work.

Immunologic response to inhaled endotoxin: changes in peripheral cell surface markers in normal individuals.

Monocyte cell surface CD14 increases following both in vitro challenge with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and exposure to organic dusts. We investigated 9 volunteers, mean age 39 years (range, 29-53 years). Each inhaled increasing concentrations of lipopolysaccharide (0.5 microg, 5.0 microg, and 20 microg). Monocyte cell surface CD14 (expressed as mean linear fluorescence) was measured before and after using flow cytometry. Upregulation of CD14 (up to 6 hours after LPS exposure) did not differ significantly between LPS (mean, 35.8; standard deviation [SD]; 54.3), n = 7 after 20 l g LPS) in comparison to placebo (39.3 [49.0]; n = 7). Maximum mean (SD) percentage CD14 upregulation up to 6 hours after challenge differed, but not significantly between those experiencing a clinically significant event (58.4 [49.2]) in comparison to those who did not (13.8, [43.2]; P = 0.27). Two individuals with a marked clinical response developed marked CD14 upregulation after exposure to LPS.