Creating New Design-Build-Test Experiences as Outputs of Undergraduate Design-Build-Test Projects

This paper describes a methodology of using individual engineering undergraduate student projects as a means of effectively and efficiently developing new Design-Build-Test (DBT) learning experiences and challenges.
A key aspect of the rationale for this approach is that it benefits all parties. The student undertaking the individual project gets an authentic experience of producing a functional artefact, which has been the result of a design process that addresses conception, design, implementation and operation. The supervising faculty member benefits from live prototyping of new curriculum content and resources with a student who is at a similar level of knowledge and experience as the intended end users of the DBT outputs. The multiple students who ultimately undertake the DBT experiences / challenges benefit from the enhanced nature of a learning experience which has been “road tested” and optimised.
To demonstrate the methodology the paper will describe a case study example of an individual project completed in 2015. This resulted in a DBT design challenge with a theme of designing a catapult for throwing table tennis balls, the device being made from components laser cut from medium density fibreboard (MDF). Further three different modes of operation will be described which use the same resource materials but operate over different timescales and with different learning outcomes, from an icebreaker exercise focused on developing team dynamics through to full DBT where students get an opportunity to experience the full impact of their design decisions by competing against other students with a catapult they have designed and built themselves.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS: EFFECTS OF WALKING EXERCISE IN CHRONIC MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS: EFFECTS OF WALKING EXERCISE IN CHRONIC MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN O'Connor S.R.1, Tully M.A.2, Ryan B.3, Baxter D.G.3, Bradley J.M.1, McDonough S.M.11University of Ulster, Health & Rehabilitation Sciences Research Institute, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom, 2Queen's University, UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health (NI), Belfast, United Kingdom, 3University of Otago, Centre for Physiotherapy Research, Dunedin, New ZealandPurpose: To examine the effects of walking exercise on pain and self-reported function in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.Relevance: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major cause of morbidity, exerting a substantial influence on long-term health status and overall quality of life. Current treatment recommendations advocate various aerobic exercise interventions for such conditions. Walking may represent an ideal form of exercise due to its relatively low impact. However, there is currently limited evidence for its effectiveness.Participants: Not applicable.Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was undertaken by two independent reviewers according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the recommendations of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group. Six electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, PEDro, Sport DISCUS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for relevant papers published up to January 2010 using MeSH terms. All randomised or non-randomised studies published in full were considered for inclusion. Studies were required to include adults aged 18 years or over with a diagnosis of chronic low back pain, osteoarthritis or fibromyalgia. Studies were excluded if they involved peri-operative or post-operative interventions or did not include a comparative, non exercise or non-walking exercise control group. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force system was used to assess methodological quality. Data for pain and self-reported function were extracted and converted to a score out of 100.Analysis: Data were pooled and analyzed using RevMan (v.5.0.24). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the X2 and I2 test statistics. A random effects model was used to calculate the mean differences and 95% CIs. Data were analyzed by length of final follow-up which was categorized as short (≤8 weeks post randomisation), mid (2-12 months) or long-term (>12 months).Results: A total of 4324 articles were identified and twenty studies (1852 participants) meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Overall, studies were judged to be of at least fair methodological quality. The most common sources of likely bias were identified as lack of concealed allocation and failure to adequately address incomplete data. Data from 12 studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Walking led to reductions in pain at short (<8 weeks post randomisation) (-8.44 [-14.54, -2.33]) and mid-term (>8 weeks - 12 month) follow-up (-9.28 [-16.34, -2.22]). No effect was observed for long-term (>12 month) data (-2.49 [-7.62, 2.65]). For function, between group differences were observed for short (-11.57 [-16.06, -7.08]) and mid-term data (-13.26 [-16.91, -9.62]). A smaller effect was also observed at long-term follow-up (-5.60 [-7.70, -3.50]).Conclusions: Walking interventions were associated with statistically significant improvements in pain and function at short and mid-term follow-up. Long-term data were limited but indicated that these effects do not appear to be maintained beyond twelve months.Implications: Walking may be an effective form of exercise for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain. However, further research is required which examines longer term follow-up and dose-response issues in this population.Key-words: 1. Walking exercise 2. Musculoskeletal pain 3. Systematic reviewFunding acknowledgements: Department of Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland.Ethics approval: Not applicable.

Sepsis: the LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE®, SepsiTest™ and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay for rapidly identifying bloodstream bacteria and fungi – a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Sepsis can lead to multiple organ failure and death. Timely and appropriate treatment can reduce in-hospital mortality and morbidity. Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three tests [LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE® (Roche Diagnostics, Risch-Rotkreuz, Switzerland); SepsiTest™ (Molzym Molecular Diagnostics, Bremen, Germany); and the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Lake Forest, IL, USA)] for the rapid identification of bloodstream bacteria and fungi in patients with suspected sepsis compared with standard practice (blood culture with or without matrix-absorbed laser desorption/ionisation time-offlight mass spectrometry). Data sources: Thirteen electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2006 to May 2015 and supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles. Review methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. A decision tree was used to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each test; all other parameters were estimated from published sources. The model was populated with evidence from the systematic review or individual studies, if this was considered more appropriate (base case 1). In a secondary analysis, estimates (based on experience and opinion) from seven clinicians regarding the benefits of earlier test results were sought (base case 2). A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results: For the review of diagnostic test accuracy, 62 studies of varying methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis of 54 studies comparing SeptiFast with blood culture found that SeptiFast had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.84 to 0.89] and sensitivity of 0.65 (95% CrI 0.60 to 0.71). Four studies comparing SepsiTest with blood culture found that SepsiTest had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74), and four studies comparing IRIDICA with blood culture found that IRIDICA had an estimated summary specificity of 0.84 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90). Owing to the deficiencies in study quality for all interventions, diagnostic accuracy data should be treated with caution. No randomised clinical trial evidence was identified that indicated that any of the tests significantly improved key patient outcomes, such as mortality or duration in an intensive care unit or hospital. Base case 1 estimated that none of the three tests provided a benefit to patients compared with standard practice and thus all tests were dominated. In contrast, in base case 2 it was estimated that all cost per QALY-gained values were below £20,000; the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay had the highest estimated incremental net benefit, but results from base case 2 should be treated with caution as these are not evidence based. Limitations: Robust data to accurately assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions are currently unavailable. Conclusions: The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions cannot be reliably determined with the current evidence base. Appropriate studies, which allow information from the tests to be implemented in clinical practice, are required.