Population Health Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, GSK, Novartis, King Pharma, and national and local organisations in participating countries that are listed at the end of the Article.

No abstract

No abstract

This study examined the extent to which instructional conditions influence the prediction of academic success in nine undergraduate courses offered in a blended learning model (n = 4134). The study illustrates the differences in predictive power and significant predictors between course-specific models and generalized predictive models. The results suggest it is imperative for learning analytics research to account for the diverse ways technology is adopted and applied in course-specific contexts. The differences in technology use, especially those related to whether and how learners use the learning management system, require consideration before the logdata can be merged to create a generalized model for predicting academic success. A lack of attention to instructional conditions can lead to an over or under estimation of the effects of LMS features on students' academic success. These findings have broader implications for institutions seeking generalized and portable models for identifying students at risk of academic failure.

Full funding sources listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments).

ObjectiveTo review the evidence on the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis, Joanna Briggs, Global Health, and World Health Organization COVID-19 database (preprints).Eligibility criteria for study selectionObservational and interventional studies that assessed the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measure was incidence of covid-19. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 transmission and covid-19 mortality.Data synthesisDerSimonian Laird random effects meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of mask wearing, handwashing, and physical distancing measures on incidence of covid-19. Pooled effect estimates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were computed, and heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and the I2 metrics, with two tailed P values.Results72 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 35 evaluated individual public health measures and 37 assessed multiple public health measures as a “package of interventions.” Eight of 35 studies were included in the meta-analysis, which indicated a reduction in incidence of covid-19 associated with handwashing (relative risk 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 1.12, I2=12%), mask wearing (0.47, 0.29 to 0.75, I2=84%), and physical distancing (0.75, 0.59 to 0.95, I2=87%). Owing to heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of quarantine and isolation, universal lockdowns, and closures of borders, schools, and workplaces. The effects of these interventions were synthesised descriptively.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that several personal protective and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are associated with reductions in the incidence covid-19. Public health efforts to implement public health measures should consider community health and sociocultural needs, and future research is needed to better understand the effectiveness of public health measures in the context of covid-19 vaccination.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020178692.

IMPORTANCE Frailty is a common geriatric syndrome of significant public health importance, yet there is limited understanding of the risk of frailty development at a population level. OBJECTIVE To estimate the global incidence of frailty and prefrailty among community-dwelling adults 60 years or older.DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) were searched from inception to January 2019 without language restrictions using combinations of the keywords frailty, older adults, and incidence. The reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched. STUDY SELECTIONIn the systematic review, 2 authors undertook the search, article screening, and study selection. Cohort studies that reported or had sufficient data to compute incidence of frailty or prefrailty among community-dwelling adults 60 years or older at baseline were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISThe methodological quality of included studies was assessed using The Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence and Incidence Studies.Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects (DerSimonian and Laird) model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESIncidence of frailty (defined as new cases of frailty among robust or prefrail individuals) and incidence of prefrailty (defined as new cases of prefrailty among robust individuals), both over a specified duration. RESULTSOf 15 176 retrieved references, 46 observational studies involving 120 805 nonfrail (robust or prefrail) participants from 28 countries were included in this systematic review. Among the nonfrail individuals who survived a median follow-up of 3.0 (range, 1.0-11.7) years, 13.6% (13 678 of 100 313) became frail, with the pooled incidence rate being 43.4 (95% CI, 37.3-50.4; I 2 = 98.5%) cases per 1000 person-years. The incidence of frailty was significantly higher in prefrail individuals than robust individuals (pooled incidence rates, 62.7 [95% CI, 49.2-79.8; I 2 = 97.8%] vs 12.0 [95% CI, 8.2-17.5; I 2 = 94.9%] cases per 1000 person-years, respectively; P for difference < .001). Among robust individuals in 21 studies who survived a median follow-up of 2.5 (range, 1.0-10.0) years, 30.9% (9974 of 32 268) became prefrail, with the pooled incidence rate being 150.6 (95% CI, 123.3-184.1; I 2 = 98.9%) cases per 1000 person-years. The frailty and prefrailty incidence rates were significantly higher in women than men (frailty: 44.8 [95% CI, 36.7-61.3; I 2 = 97.9%] vs 24.3 [95% CI, 19.6-30.1; I 2 = 8.94%] cases per 1000 person-years; prefrailty: 173.2 [95% CI, 87.9-341.2; I 2 = 99.1%] vs 129.0 (continued) Key PointsQuestion What is the incidence of frailty and prefrailty among communitydwelling adults 60 years or older?Findings In this systematic review and meta-analysis involving data from more than 120 000 older adults from 28 countries, the incidence of frailty and prefrailty was estimated as 43.4 and 150.6 new cases per 1000 person-years, respectively. The frailty and prefrailty incidence rates varied by ...

Population Health Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, pharmaceutical companies (with major contributions from AstraZeneca [Canada], Sanofi Aventis [France and Canada], Boehringer Ingelheim [Germany amd Canada], Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline), Novartis and King Pharma, and national or local organisations in participating countries.