The link between the learning organisation and curriculum innovation:A comparative study of public and private primary schools in Greece

This article examines the relationship between the learning organisation and the implementation of curriculum innovation within schools. It also compares the extent of innovative activity undertaken by schools in the public and the private sectors. A learning organisation is characterised by long-term goals, participatory decision-making processes, collaboration with external stakeholders, effective mechanisms for the internal communication of knowledge and information, and the use of rewards for its members. These characteristics are expected to promote curriculum innovation, once a number of control factors have been taken into account. The article reports on a study carried out in 197 Greek public and private primary schools in the 1999-2000 school year. Structured interviews with school principals were used as a method of data collection. According to the statistical results, the most important determinants of the innovative activity of a school are the extent of its collaboration with other organisations (i.e. openness to society), and the implementation of development programmes for teachers and parents (i.e. communication of knowledge and information). Contrary to expectations, the existence of long-term goals, the extent of shared decision-making, and the use of teacher rewards had no impact on curriculum innovation. The study also suggests that the private sector, as such, has an additional positive effect on the implementation of curriculum innovation, once a number of human, financial, material, and management resources have been controlled for. The study concludes by making recommendations for future research that would shed more light on unexpected outcomes and would help explore the causal link between variables in the research model.

Physical activity assessment in practice: a mixed methods study of GPPAQ use in primary care

Background: Insufficient physical activity (PA) levels which increase the risk of chronic disease are reported by almost two-thirds of the population. More evidence is needed about how PA promotion can be effectively implemented in general practice (GP), particularly in socio-economically disadvantaged communities. One tool recommended for the assessment of PA in GP and supported by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) is The General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) but details of how it may be used and of its acceptability to practitioners and patients are limited. This study aims to examine aspects of GPPAQ administration in non-urgent patient contacts using different primary care electronic recording systems and to explore the views of health professionals regarding its use.

Methods: Four general practices, selected because of their location within socio-economically disadvantaged areas, were invited to administer GPPAQs to patients, aged 35-75 years, attending non-urgent consultations, over two-week periods. They used different methods of administration and different electronic medical record systems (EMIS, Premiere, Vision). Participants’ (general practitioners (GPs), nurses and receptionists) views regarding GPPAQ use were explored via questionnaires and focus groups.

Results: Of 2,154 eligible consultations, 192 (8.9%) completed GPPAQs; of these 83 (43%) were categorised as inactive. All practices were located within areas ranked as being in the tertile of greatest socio-economic deprivation in Northern Ireland. GPs/nurses in two practices invited completion of the GPPAQ, receptionists did so in two. One practice used an electronic template; three used paper copies of the questionnaires. End-of-study questionnaires, completed by 11 GPs, 3 nurses and 2 receptionists and two focus groups, with GPs (n = 8) and nurses (n = 4) indicated that practitioners considered the GPPAQ easy to use but not in every consultation. Its use extended consultation time, particularly for patients with complex problems who could potentially benefit from PA promotion.

Conclusions: GPs and nurses reported that the GPPAQ itself was an easy tool with which to assess PA levels in general practice and feasible to use in a range of electronic record systems but integration within routine practice is constrained by time and complex consultations. Further exploration of ways to facilitate PA promotion into practice is needed.