Explore the vast range of titles available.

One-third of adults are now obese, and children's obesity rates have climbed from 5 to 17 percent in the past 30 years. The causes of the nation's obesity epidemic are multi-factorial, having much more to do with the absence of sidewalks and the limited availability of healthy and affordable foods than a lack of personal responsibility. The broad societal changes that are needed to prevent obesity will inevitably affect activity and eating environments and settings for all ages. Many aspects of the obesity problem have been identified and discussed; however, there has not been complete agreement on what needs to be done to accelerate progress. Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention reviews previous studies and their recommendations and presents five key recommendations to accelerate meaningful change on a societal level during the next decade. The report suggests recommendations and strategies that, independently, can accelerate progress, but urges a systems approach of many strategies working in concert to maximize progress in accelerating obesity prevention. The recommendations in Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention include major reforms in access to and opportunities for physical activity; widespread reductions in the availability of unhealthy foods and beverages and increases in access to healthier options at affordable, competitive prices; an overhaul of the messages that surround Americans through marketing and education with respect to physical activity and food consumption; expansion of the obesity prevention support structure provided by health care providers, insurers, and employers; and schools as a major national focal point for obesity prevention. The report calls on all individuals, organizations, agencies, and sectors that do or can influence physical activity and nutrition environments to assess and begin to act on their potential roles as leaders in obesity prevention.

Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) are serious, debilitating conditions that affect millions of people in the United States and around the world. ME/CFS can cause significant impairment and disability. Despite substantial efforts by researchers to better understand ME/CFS, there is no known cause or effective treatment. Diagnosing the disease remains a challenge, and patients often struggle with their illness for years before an identification is made. Some health care providers have been skeptical about the serious physiological - rather than psychological - nature of the illness. Once diagnosed, patients often complain of receiving hostility from their health care provider as well as being subjected to treatment strategies that exacerbate their symptoms. Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome proposes new diagnostic clinical criteria for ME/CFS and a new term for the illness - systemic exertion intolerance disease(SEID). According to this report, the term myalgic encephalomyelitis does not accurately describe this illness, and the term chronic fatigue syndrome can result in trivialization and stigmatization for patients afflicted with this illness. Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome stresses that SEID is a medical - not a psychiatric or psychological - illness. This report lists the major symptoms of SEID and recommends a diagnostic process.One of the report's most important conclusions is that a thorough history, physical examination, and targeted work-up are necessary and often sufficient for diagnosis. The new criteria will allow a large percentage of undiagnosed patients to receive an accurate diagnosis and appropriate care. Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome will be a valuable resource to promote the prompt diagnosis of patients with this complex, multisystem, and often devastating disorder; enhance public understanding; and provide a firm foundation for future improvements in diagnosis and treatment.

Background Medical residents often struggle with complex clinical scenarios that require sophisticated decision-making skills. While case-based discussion (CBD) is widely used in medical education, its effectiveness can be limited by insufficient guidance and structured support. Scaffolding teaching, which provides graduated assistance aligned with learners’ development, may address these limitations. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials evaluating the integration of scaffolding with CBD in residency training remains limited. This study aims to compare an integrated scaffolded case-based learning approach with traditional lecture-based teaching that utilizes the same clinical case materials in enhancing residents’ clinical reasoning, self-directed learning, and knowledge acquisition in anesthesiology training. Methods This prospective randomized controlled trial encompassed 12 anesthesiology residents, systematically randomized into an experimental cohort (receiving scaffolding teaching integrated with case-based discussion) and a control cohort (receiving traditional lecture-based instruction utilizing the same clinical case). The intervention consisted of a structured 4-week curriculum focusing on HOCM anesthesia management, delivered through weekly instructional sessions. The investigation utilized validated assessment instruments to measure primary outcomes, including clinical reasoning proficiency and self-directed learning capacity, at three time points: baseline, post-intervention (Week 4), and follow-up (Week 8). Secondary outcome measures encompassed teaching satisfaction indices and knowledge retention metrics. Statistical analysis employed t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests for comparative assessment. Results Post-intervention evaluation at Week 4 revealed statistically significant superiority in the experimental cohort across multiple parameters: clinical reasoning proficiency (83.58 ± 3.28 versus 74.17 ± 4.55, p  = 0.002), self-directed learning capacity (79.92 ± 2.56 versus 63.33 ± 3.52, p  < 0.001), and teaching satisfaction indices (100.00 ± 0.00 versus 73.00 ± 5.02, p  < 0.001). Follow-up assessment at Week 8 demonstrated sustained enhancement in the experimental group, maintaining significant advantages in clinical reasoning proficiency (89.08 ± 5.93 versus 68.17 ± 2.70, p  < 0.001), self-directed learning capacity (87.83 ± 2.56 versus 71.58 ± 3.50, p  < 0.001), and knowledge retention (98.33 ± 2.58 versus 95.00 ± 0.00, p  = 0.010). Conclusion This investigation demonstrates that an integrated scaffolding-supported case-based learning approach offers significant advantages over traditional lecture-based teaching that incorporates the same clinical case. The integrated approach significantly enhances clinical reasoning capabilities, self-directed learning competencies, and knowledge acquisition in complex clinical scenarios compared to the lecture-based approach. These findings establish a robust empirical foundation for the optimization of residency training methodologies, particularly within high-complexity clinical domains such as HOCM anesthesia management. The sustained improvements observed at follow-up further validate the long-term effectiveness of this integrated pedagogical approach. Clinical trial registration Not applicable. This study is an educational research project evaluating teaching methodologies through simulated training and does not involve health-related interventions or patient outcomes.

Background Reliable assessment and meaningful feedback are essential to effective learning in medical education. However, conventional unstructured evaluation of essay-type responses is highly vulnerable to rater bias, inter-rater variability, and nonspecific feedback. To address these limitations, we developed an Assessment-cum-Feedback Checklist to provide a structured, criterion-based approach to scoring and feedback. In this study, we evaluated the checklist’s effectiveness in enhancing the reliability, consistency, and clarity of assessment while exploring student and faculty perceptions of its educational value. Methods We used a mixed-methods design. Sixty-two first-year MBBS students and four faculty members (two junior < 5 years’ experience; two senior > 10 years’ experience) participated. Two essay-type questions were assessed independently by all four teachers using both the conventional unstructured method and the checklist-based method. Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Levene’s test for equality of variance, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland–Altman analysis to compare variability and agreement across methods. Data were analysed using JASP (version 0.18.3.0) at a 5% significance level. Student perceptions were gathered using a structured questionnaire, and faculty perceptions were explored through in-depth interviews. Qualitative data were analysed using QCAmap (2020). Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained. Results Checklist-based scoring demonstrated lower standard errors, standard deviations, and coefficients of variation, indicating improved precision and reduced subjective variability compared with the conventional method. Mean scores were lower with the checklist, and Bland–Altman analysis showed a negative bias, reflecting greater scoring stringency due to explicit criteria. ICC values increased notably with the checklist—particularly among senior teachers—demonstrating improved inter-rater reliability and tighter limits of agreement. Teachers reported that the checklist enhanced objectivity, reduced bias, clarified performance expectations, and standardized assessment practices. Students expressed strong support, citing improved clarity, transparency, and usefulness of feedback. Conclusions The Assessment-cum-Feedback Checklist was associated with measurable improvements in the reliability and consistency of essay-type assessment. Both faculty and students perceived the checklist-based approach to enhance clarity, transparency, and the usefulness of feedback by making assessment criteria explicit. With appropriate faculty orientation and iterative refinement, the checklist represents a promising and potentially adaptable tool for strengthening assessment and feedback practices in constructed-response formats in medical education. Graphical Abstract

\"Educational environments interact with children's unique genetic profiles, leading to wide individual differences in learning ability, motivation, and achievement in different academic subjects - even when children study with the same teacher, attend the same school and follow the same curriculum. This book considers how education can benefit from the recent progress in genetically informative research. The book provides new insights into the origins of individual differences in education traits such as cognitive abilities and disabilities; motivation and personality; behavioural and emotional problems; social functioning; well-being, and academic achievement. Written and edited by international interdisciplinary experts, this book will be of interest to teachers, parents, educational and developmental psychologists, policy makers and researchers in different fields working on educationally-relevant issues. \"-- Provided by publisher.

In this article, I provide an update to a previous list of Educational Assessment Knowledge and Skills for Teachers. I argue that recent work in classroom assessment suggests expanding the list in several ways, adding additional statements about formative assessment’s connection to student learning and statements about assessment practices in their various contexts. This view of educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers as contextual and situated was absent from the original 2011 list.