Search

Since Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) became a global phenomenon in 2012, there has been constant evolution in the way Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) make sense of them. HEIs embracing MOOCs have dedicated a variety of human resource to this venture. Only in a minority of cases, staff have been appointed exclusively to this role. In all other cases, MOOC related tasks have been allocated to professionals who were already performing other educational tasks. This article contains a study that captures the experiences of these professionals in a Spanish university and a British university, as relates to their involvement in MOOCs. Interviews and group sessions were conducted to ascertain the influence of MOOCs in their practice, and in their opinions about the role of MOOCs in their institutions. The results seem to suggest that participants have positive attitudes towards incorporating MOOCs at the university, although they demand a serious bet for this educational approach from the strategic decision makers in the institutions.

Key Points: Question: Among patients with chronic pain, does a multicomponent intervention consisting of group meetings, education, individual support, and skill-based learning reduce opioid use and improve pain interference with daily activities compared with usual care? Findings: In this multicentered, randomized clinical trial that included 608 participants with chronic pain due to nonmalignant causes from primary care settings in the UK, at 12-month follow-up, 29% of people in the intervention group, compared with 7% in the usual care group, discontinued opioids, but there were no statistically significant differences in pain interference with daily life activities between the 2 groups at 12 months. Meaning: Among patients with chronic pain due to nonmalignant causes, a group-based educational intervention significantly reduced opioid use had no effect on perceived pain compared with usual care. Importance: Opioid use for chronic nonmalignant pain can be harmful. Objective: To test whether a multicomponent, group-based, self-management intervention reduced opioid use and improved pain-related disability compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicentered, randomized clinical trial of 608 adults taking strong opioids (buprenorphine, dipipanone, morphine, diamorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, papaveretum, pentazocine, pethidine, tapentadol, and tramadol) to treat chronic nonmalignant pain. The study was conducted in 191 primary care centers in England between May 17, 2017, and January 30, 2019. Final follow-up occurred March 18, 2020. Intervention: Participants were randomized 1:1 to either usual care or 3-day–long group sessions that emphasized skill-based learning and education, supplemented by 1-on-1 support delivered by a nurse and lay person for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 2 primary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Short Form 8a (PROMIS-PI-SF-8a) score (T-score range, 40.7-77; 77 indicates worst pain interference; minimal clinically important difference, 3.5) and the proportion of participants who discontinued opioids at 12 months, measured by self-report. Results: Of 608 participants randomized (mean age, 61 years; 362 female [60%]; median daily morphine equivalent dose, 46 mg [IQR, 25 to 79]), 440 (72%) completed 12-month follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in PROMIS-PI-SF-8a scores between the 2 groups at 12-month follow-up (−4.1 in the intervention and −3.17 in the usual care groups; between-group difference: mean difference, −0.52 [95% CI, −1.94 to 0.89]; P =.15). At 12 months, opioid discontinuation occurred in 65 of 225 participants (29%) in the intervention group and 15 of 208 participants (7%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 5.55 [95% CI, 2.80 to 10.99]; absolute difference, 21.7% [95% CI, 14.8% to 28.6%]; P <.001). Serious adverse events occurred in 8% (25/305) of the participants in the intervention group and 5% (16/303) of the participants in the usual care group. The most common serious adverse events were gastrointestinal (2% in the intervention group and 0% in the usual care group) and locomotor/musculoskeletal (2% in the intervention group and 1% in the usual care group). Four people (1%) in the intervention group received additional medical care for possible or probable symptoms of opioid withdrawal (shortness of breath, hot flushes, fever and pain, small intestinal bleed, and an overdose suicide attempt). Conclusions and Relevance: In people with chronic pain due to nonmalignant causes, compared with usual care, a group-based educational intervention that included group and individual support and skill-based learning significantly reduced patient-reported use of opioids, but had no effect on perceived pain interference with daily life activities. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN49470934 This randomized clinical trial compares the efficacy of a multicomponent, group-based, self-management intervention vs usual care in reducing opioid use and improving pain-related disability in patients taking strong opioids to treat chronic pain from nonmalignant causes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify and assess the preferences of people with long‐term health conditions toward generalizable characteristics of self‐management support interventions, with the objective to inform the design of more person‐centered support services. Data Sources: Primary qualitative and quantitative data collected on a representative sample of individuals with at least one of the fifteen most prevalent long‐term conditions in the UK. Study Design: Targeted literature review followed by a series of one‐to‐one qualitative semistructured interviews and a large‐scale discrete choice experiment. Data Collection: Digital recording of one‐to‐one qualitative interviews, one‐to‐one cognitive interviews, and a series of online quantitative surveys, including two best‐worst scaling and one discrete choice experiment, with individuals with long‐term conditions. Principal Findings: On average, patients preferred a self‐management support intervention that (a) discusses the options available to the patient and make her choose, (b) is individual‐based, (c) face to face (d) with doctor or nurse, (e) at the GP practice, (f) sessions shorter than 1 hour, and (g) occurring annually for two‐third of the sample and monthly for the rest. We found heterogeneity in preferences via three latent classes, with class sizes of 41% (C1), 30% (C2), and 29% (C3). The individuals' gender [P < 0.05(C1), P < 0.01(C3)], age [P < 0.05(C1), P < 0.05(C2)], type of long‐term condition [P < 0.05(C1), P < 0.01(C3)], and presence of comorbidity [P < 0.01(C1), P < 0.01(C3), P < 0.01(C3)] were able to characterize differences between these latent classes and help understand the heterogeneity of preferences toward the above mentioned features of self‐management support interventions. These findings were then used to profile individuals into different preference groups, for each of whom the most desirable form of self‐management support, one that was more likely to be adopted by the recipient, could be designed. Conclusions: We identified several factors that could be used to inform a more nuanced self‐management support service design and provision that take into account the recipient's characteristics and preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]