Recruitment bias and clinical characterstics of participants with severe cerebral palsy in a cross-sectional survey

Aim.  This article is a report of recruitment bias in a sample of 5–25-year-old patients with severe cerebral palsy.

Background.  The way in which study participants are recruited into research can be a source of bias.

Method.  A cross-sectional survey of 5–25-year-old patients with severe cerebral palsy using standardized questionnaires with parents/carers was undertaken in 2007/2008. A case register was used as the sampling frame, and 260 families were approached: 178/260 (68%) responded and 82/260 families never replied (non-respondents). Among responders: 127/178 (71%) opted in to the study, but only 123/127 were assessed, and 82/178 were opted out (or refused). Multivariable logistic regression giving odds ratios was used to study the association between participant characteristics and study outcomes (responders vs. non-responders; opting in vs. opting out; assessed vs. eligible, but not assessed).

Results.  Responders (compared with non-responders) were significantly more likely to have a family member with cerebral palsy who was male and resident in more affluent areas. Families who opted in (compared with those opting out and refusing) were more likely to have a family member with cerebral palsy and intellectual impairment and to reside in certain geographical areas. Families who were actually assessed (compared with all eligible, but not assessed) were more likely to have a family member with cerebral palsy and intellectual impairment.

Conclusion.  Several sources of bias were identified during recruitment for this study. This has implications for the interpretation and conclusions of surveys of people with disabilities and complex needs.

Service User and Carer Involvement in Role-Plays to Assess Readiness for Practice

Service user and carer involvement in social work education is now well established since its inception as a compulsory requirement in the social work curriculum in the United Kingdom in 2003. Since then, there have been many examples of how such involvement has been approached by education providers. Nevertheless, one of the key obstacles and challenges in this field continues to centre on the need to achieve non-tokenistic user involvement which cements the engagement of service users and carers at the heart of social work education. This paper describes one such initiative where service user and carer colleagues in a university in Northern Ireland have been actively involved in the assessment of first year social work students’ preparation for their first period of practice learning. The paper presents the background to this initiative explaining how the project unfolded; the detailed preparations that were involved and the evidence gathered from evaluations undertaken with the students, service users and carers, and academic colleagues who were all involved. We believe that the findings from this project can contribute to the advancement of existing knowledge in the field in exploring and recommending creative methodologies for user involvement in social work education.

User behaviour, best practice and the risks of non-target exposure associated with anticoagulant rodenticide use

Usage of anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) is an integral component of modern agriculture and is essential for the control of commensal rodent populations. However, the extensive deployment of ARs has led to widespread exposure of a range of non-target predatory birds and mammals to some compounds, in particular the second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SCARS). As a result, there has been considerable effort placed into devising voluntary best practice guidelines that increase the efficacy of rodent control and reduce the risk of non-target exposure. Currently, there is limited published information on actual practice amongst users or implementation of best practice. We assessed the behaviour of a typical group of users using an on-farm questionnaire survey. Most baited for rodents every year using SGARs. Most respondents were apparently aware of the risks of non-target exposure and adhered to some of the best practice recommendations but total compliance was rare. Our questionnaire revealed that users of first generation anticoagulant rodenticides rarely protected or checked bait stations, and so took little effort to prevent primary exposure of non-targets. Users almost never searched for and removed poisoned carcasses and many baited for prolonged periods or permanently. These factors are all likely to enhance the likelihood of primary and secondary exposure of non-target species. (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.