Search

PurposeNumerous publications during the COVID-19 pandemic recommended the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy. This project assessed aggregate changes in the quality of the evidence supporting these schedules to establish a comprehensive evidence base for future reference and highlight aspects for future study.Methods and materialsBased on a systematic review of published recommendations related to dose fractionation during the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 expert panelists assigned to 14 disease groups named and graded the highest quality of evidence schedule(s) used routinely for each condition and also graded all COVID-era recommended schedules. The American Society for Radiation Oncology quality of evidence criteria were used to rank the schedules. Process-related statistics and changes in distributions of quality ratings of the highest-rated versus recommended COVID-19 era schedules were described by disease groups and for specific clinical scenarios.ResultsFrom January to May 2020 there were 54 relevant publications, including 233 recommended COVID-19-adapted dose fractionations. For site-specific curative and site-specific palliative schedules, there was a significant shift from established higher-quality evidence to lower-quality evidence and expert opinions for the recommended schedules (P = .022 and P < .001, respectively). For curative-intent schedules, the distribution of quality scores was essentially reversed (highest levels of evidence "pre-COVID" vs "in-COVID": high quality, 51.4% vs 4.8%; expert opinion, 5.6% vs 49.3%), although there was variation in the magnitude of shifts between disease sites and among specific indications.ConclusionsA large number of publications recommended hypofractionated radiation therapy schedules across numerous major disease sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, which were supported by a lower quality of evidence than the highest-quality routinely used dose fractionation schedules. This work provides an evidence-based assessment of these potentially practice-changing recommendations and informs individualized decision-making and counseling of patients. These data could also be used to support radiation therapy practices in the event of second waves or surges of the pandemic in new regions of the world.

A subcategory of computer-assisted instruction (CAI), games have additional attributes such as motivation, reward, interactivity, score, and challenge. This study used a quasi-experimental design to determine if previous findings generalize to non simulation-based game designs. Researchers observed significant improvement in the overall population for math skills in the non-game CAI control condition, but not in the game-based experimental condition. The study found no meaningful, significant differences in language arts skills in any of the conditions. This finding has implications for the design of future learning games, suggesting that a simulation-based approach should be integrated into the gaming technology. (Contains 4 tables.)

Substantial disagreement exists in the literature regarding which educational technology results in the highest cognitive gain for learners. In an attempt to resolve this dispute, we conducted a meta-analysis to decipher which teaching method, games and interactive simulations or traditional, truly dominates and under what circumstances. It was found that across people and situations, games and interactive simulations are more dominant for cognitive gain outcomes. However, consideration of specific moderator variables yielded a more complex picture. For example, males showed no preference while females showed a preference for the game and interactive simulation programs. Also, when students navigated through the programs themselves, there was a significant preference for games and interactive simulations. However, when teachers controlled the programs, no significant advantage was found. Further, when the computer dictated the sequence of the program, results favored those in the traditional teaching method over the games and interactive simulations. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for exiting theoretical positions as well as future empirical research. (Contains 1 table.)

A program evaluation was completed for a Virtual Reality (VR) pilot project intended to aid deaf children in learning various life skills which they may be at risk of not adequately learning. Such skills include crossing the street safely, exiting a building during a fire drill, and avoiding situations in which strangers may harm them. The VR was intended to allow the children extra exposure to these various scenarios to encourage proper decision-making while in a safe environment. Fifty deaf children ages 5 to 10 years from a local elementary school were included in this study. During a six-week session, students were periodically involved with the VR classroom. A different life skill was targeted each week. This evaluation looked at multiple aspects of the project to gain an overall impression of whether or not the program is beneficial to deaf children or other at-risk populations. Such areas included usability, likeability, and transfer of knowledge. The system overall was well liked and user-friendly as evidenced by the students' ability to complete the tasks accurately and enthusiasm to participate in the project. However, some shortcomings were identified and are discussed further in the paper. Finally, recommendations to improve the usability and effectiveness of the program are provided. (Contains 4 tables and 1 footnote.)

Performance degradations in multitasking situations have been reported frequently as a predictable effect of competition that arises from different processing demands whose hemispheric locations are too proximal. This model might be useful in explaining performance deficits in complex workplaces. To test this assertion, a laboratory study was designed to create an analogue of the processing demands required by a tactical decision-making task performed by 24 right-handed men. Vocalization, dichotic listening and decision-making performance were assessed under single- and dual-task conditions. The results were consistent with the predictions from hemispheric competition in the case of dichotic listening but not with vocalization. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for both research and systems design.