The VLT-FLAMES Tarantula Survey XI. A census of the hot luminous stars and their feedback in 30 Doradus

Context. The VLT-FLAMES Tarantula Survey has an extensive view of the copious number of massive stars in the 30 Doradus (30 Dor) star forming region of the Large Magellanic Cloud. These stars play a crucial role in our understanding of the stellar feedback in more distant, unresolved star forming regions. Aims. The first comprehensive census of hot luminous stars in 30 Dor is compiled within a 10 arcmin (150 pc) radius of its central cluster, R136. We investigate the stellar content and spectroscopic completeness of the early type stars. Estimates were made for both the integrated ionising luminosity and stellar wind luminosity. These values were used to re-assess the star formation rate (SFR) of the region and determine the ionising photon escape fraction. Methods. Stars were selected photometrically and combined with the latest spectral classifications. Spectral types were estimated for stars lacking spectroscopy and corrections were made for binary systems, where possible. Stellar calibrations were applied to obtain their physical parameters and wind properties. Their integrated properties were then compared to global observations from ultraviolet (UV) to far-infrared (FIR) imaging as well as the population synthesis code, Starburst99. Results. Our census identified 1145 candidate hot luminous stars within 150 pc of R136 of which >700 were considered to be genuine early type stars and contribute to feedback. We assess the survey to be spectroscopically complete to 85% in the outer regions (>5 pc) but only 35% complete in the region of the R136 cluster, giving a total of 500 hot luminous stars in the census which had spectroscopy. Only 31 were found to be Wolf-Rayet (W-R) or Of/WN stars, but their contribution to the integrated ionising luminosity and wind luminosity was ~ 40% and ~ 50%, respectively. Similarly, stars with M > 100 M (mostly H-rich WN stars) also showed high contributions to the global feedback, ~ 25% in both cases. Such massive stars are not accounted for by the current Starburst99 code, which was found to underestimate the integrated ionising luminosity of R136 by a factor ~ 2 and the wind luminosity by a factor ~ 9. The census inferred a SFR for 30 Dor of 0.073 ± 0.04 M yr . This was generally higher than that obtained from some popular SFR calibrations but still showed good consistency with the far-UV luminosity tracer as well as the combined Hα and mid-infrared tracer, but only after correcting for Hα extinction. The global ionising output was also found to exceed that measured from the associated gas and dust, suggesting that ~6 % of the ionising photons escape the region. Conclusions. When studying the most luminous star forming regions, it is essential to include their most massive stars if one is to determine a reliable energy budget. Photon leakage becomes more likely after including their large contributions to the ionising output. If 30 Dor is typical of other massive star forming regions, estimates of the SFR will be underpredicted if this escape fraction is not accounted for.

Defining the content and delivery of an intervention to Change AdhereNce to treatment in BonchiEctasis (CAN-BE): a qualitative approach incorporating the Theoretical Domains Framework, behavioural change techniques and stakeholder expert panels

Background
Low patient adherence to treatment is associated with poorer health outcomes in bronchiectasis. We sought to use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) (a framework derived from 33 psychological theories) and behavioural change techniques (BCTs) to define the content of an intervention to change patients’ adherence in bronchiectasis (Stage 1 and 2) and stakeholder expert panels to define its delivery (Stage 3).

Methods
We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients with bronchiectasis about barriers and motivators to adherence to treatment and focus groups or interviews with bronchiectasis healthcare professionals (HCPs) about their ability to change patients’ adherence to treatment. We coded these data to the 12 domain TDF to identify relevant domains for patients and HCPs (Stage 1). Three researchers independently mapped relevant domains for patients and HCPs to a list of 35 BCTs to identify two lists (patient and HCP) of potential BCTs for inclusion (Stage 2). We presented these lists to three expert panels (two with patients and one with HCPs/academics from across the UK). We asked panels who the intervention should target, who should deliver it, at what intensity, in what format and setting, and using which outcome measures (Stage 3).

Results
Eight TDF domains were perceived to influence patients’ and HCPs’ behaviours: Knowledge, Skills, Beliefs about capability, Beliefs about consequences, Motivation, Social influences, Behavioural regulation and Nature of behaviours (Stage 1). Twelve BCTs common to patients and HCPs were included in the intervention: Monitoring, Self-monitoring, Feedback, Action planning, Problem solving, Persuasive communication, Goal/target specified:behaviour/outcome, Information regarding behaviour/outcome, Role play, Social support and Cognitive restructuring (Stage 2). Participants thought that an individualised combination of these BCTs should be delivered to all patients, by a member of staff, over several one-to-one and/or group visits in secondary care. Efficacy should be measured using pulmonary exacerbations, hospital admissions and quality of life (Stage 3).

Conclusions
Twelve BCTs form the intervention content. An individualised selection from these 12 BCTs will be delivered to all patients over several face-to-face visits in secondary care. Future research should focus on developing physical materials to aid delivery of the intervention prior to feasibility and pilot testing. If effective, this intervention may improve adherence and health outcomes for those with bronchiectasis in the future.

Is Our Students Learning - QuestionMark: Extending E-Assessment Systems for Adapative Marking and Feedback

Our key contribution is a flexible, automated marking system that adds desirable functionality to existing E-Assessment systems. In our approach, any given E-Assessment system is relegated to a data-collection mechanism, whereas marking and the generation and distribution of personalised per-student feedback is handled separately by our own system. This allows content-rich Microsoft Word feedback documents to be generated and distributed to every student simultaneously according to a per-assessment schedule.

The feedback is adaptive in that it corresponds to the answers given by the student and provides guidance on where they may have gone wrong. It is not limited to simple multiple choice which are the most prescriptive question type offered by most E-Assessment Systems and as such most straightforward to mark consistently and provide individual per-alternative feedback strings. It is also better equipped to handle the use of mathematical symbols and images within the feedback documents which is more flexible than existing E-Assessment systems, which can only handle simple text strings.

As well as MCQs the system reliably and robustly handles Multiple Response, Text Matching and Numeric style questions in a more flexible manner than Questionmark: Perception and other E-Assessment Systems. It can also reliably handle multi-part questions where the response to an earlier question influences the answer to a later one and can adjust both scoring and feedback appropriately.

New question formats can be added at any time provided a corresponding marking method conforming to certain templates can also be programmed. Indeed, any question type for which a programmatic method of marking can be devised may be supported by our system. Furthermore, since the student’s response to each is question is marked programmatically, our system can be set to allow for minor deviations from the correct answer, and if appropriate award partial marks.