In recent decades, the talk of lifelong and continuous learning has become an internationally prevailing trend. Lifelong learning has many meanings depending on the interests and the determinants. On the other hand, lifelong learning is understood in the context of adult education as the OECD's contribution to market-liberal social and economic governance. In this case, the main actor is the individual with responsibilities and duties to ensure social competitiveness. On the other hand, lifelong learning is defined by adult education, cultural democracy, narrowing educational disparities and cultural equality. In the ethos of lifelong learning and in the spirit of continuous education, many adults are optimistic and goal-oriented towards Open University studies. Adult agency would seem to appear in accordance with the ideal concept. The Open University also seeks to take into account the everyday boundaries of a heterogeneous group of adult learners through flexible arrangements, thereby creating equal opportunities for learning. But sometimes, and in fact, very often, Open University adult student studies do not progress and do not graduate. For these undergraduate students, there is little visibility from the spotlight of top performers. Who are these students who enrol and pay, but who do not progress at all and why? According to the results, the zero-advanced students had preparedness, ability and enthusiasm for studies, but at the same time different challenges. Three perspectives were built on the analysis to explain the lack of progress: (1) holistic challenges of balancing life, (2) poor academic learning skills, and (3) individual student-related issues.

IntroductionTo evaluate the degree to which socioeconomic differences in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are accounted for by differences in maternal risk factors, to assess whether age-related risks of GDM differ across socioeconomic groups, and to identify priority populations for future interventions.Research design and methodsWe performed a register-based study using data from the Finnish Medical Birth Register and Statistics Finland on the 474 166 women who gave birth in Finland from 2008 to 2015. We collected information on GDM based on the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision codes O24.4 and O24.9. We used multivariable models to examine the association between socioeconomic status, maternal risk factors, and GDM. We further tested interaction on multiplicative and additive scales.ResultsThe incidence of GDM was 8.7% in 2008–2011 and 12.5% in 2012–2015. Lower socioeconomic levels than upper level employees were associated with an increased risk of GDM. Up to 64.0% of socioeconomic differences in GDM were attributed to body mass index and 5.5% to smoking. There was evidence for effect modification. Relative to women in the upper level category who were aged less than 19 years, GDM adjusted ORs (95% CIs) for women 35 years or older in upper level versus long-term unemployed groups were 3.28 (2.08–5.18) and 5.29 (3.35–8.35), respectively.ConclusionsThere is a paradox that socioeconomic advantage increases the incidence of GDM at the population level while reducing the incidence of GDM within the population. Nevertheless, socioeconomic differences in GDM persist and widen with increasing maternal age, even after accounting for maternal risk factors.

Current education policy responds to changes and needs in working life by guiding individuals at different stages of working careers to develop their skills in the spirit of lifelong learning. More and more are applying with hope and enthusiasm to the Open University to strengthen their competence but are unable to get their studies completed. The article explores factors related to the non-progression of studies by students at the Open University in Finland. We call non-progressing students zero-achievers who enroll in studies but do not complete a single credit during the period of course. This research is a descriptive mixed methods study. The research data was collected by an online survey sent to 414 of one Open University zero-achiever students and 185 responses were received. The qualitative data was analysed through the means of content analysis and the quantitative data was examined through percentages and averages. The data was analysed comprehensively combining the quantitative and qualitative data by themes according to the three main factors for the non-progression of studies. The Open University student explained their non-progression in studies by three preventive factors: difficulties in reconciling areas of life, lack of generic skills, and passivity in seeking guidance. The purpose of this research is to raise zero-achievement as a phenomenon at a time marked by the ideal of high performance, the ideology of lifelong learning and the digitalization and massification of higher education. Alongside the ideal of efficiency, a wide range of students must be remembered in educational systems. The research contributes important new knowledge to education policy, to academic community and for university students to identify and avoid preventive factors for the progression of studies. Based on the research, the construction of shared understanding about above aspects is recommended to reach common goals.