A literature review to Examine the Validity and Reliability of group poster presentations as an assessment method of a module in an undergraduate nursing degree programme

The introduction of a poster presentation as a formative assessment method over a multiple choice examination after the first phase of a three phase “health and well-being” module in an undergraduate nursing degree programme was greeted with a storm of criticism from fellow lecturers stating that poster presentations are not valid or reliable and totally irrelevant to the assessment of learning in the module. This paper seeks to investigate these criticisms by investigating the literature regarding producing nurses fit for practice, nurse curriculum development and wider nurse education, the purpose of assessment, validity and reliability to critically evaluate the poster presentation as a legitimate assessment method for these aims.

Exploring the effects of a universal classroom management training programme on teacher and child behaviour: a group randomised controlled trial and cost analysis

Teachers frequently struggle to cope with conduct problems in the classroom. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management Training Programme for improving teacher competencies and child adjustment. The study involved a group randomised controlled trial which included 22 teachers and 217 children (102 boys and 115 girls). The average age of children included in the study was 5.3 years (standard deviation = 0.89). Teachers were randomly allocated to an intervention group (n = 11 teachers; 110 children) or a waiting-list control group (n = 11; 107 children). The sample also included 63 ‘high-risk’ children (33 intervention; 30 control), who scored above the cut-off (>12) on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire for abnormal socioemotional and behavioural difficulties. Teacher and child behaviours were assessed at baseline and 6 months later using psychometric and observational measures. Programme delivery costs were also analysed. Results showed positive changes in teachers’ self-reported use of positive classroom management strategies (effect size = 0.56), as well as negative classroom management strategies (effect size = −0.43). Teacher reports also highlight improvements in the classroom behaviour of the high-risk group of children, while the estimated cost of delivering the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management Training Programme was modest. However, analyses of teacher and child observations were largely non-significant. A need for further research exploring the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management Training Programme is indicated.

How using Technology Enhanced Learning could help modernise traditional large group teaching or Lecturing.

The efficiency of lecturing or large group teaching has been called into question for many years. An abundance of literature details the components of effective teaching which are not provided in the traditional lecture setting, with many alternative methods of teaching recommended. However, with continued constraints on resources large group teaching is here to stay and student’s expect and are familiar with this method.

Technology Enhanced Learning may be the way forward, to prevent educators from “throwing out the baby with the bath water”. TEL could help Educator’s especially in the area of life sciences which is often taught by lectures to engage and involve students in their learning, provide feedback and incorporate the “quality” of small group teaching, case studies and Enquiry Based Learning into the large group setting thus promoting effective and deep learning.

Cabazitaxel for Hormone-Relapsed Metastatic Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With a Docetaxel-Containing Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures cabazitaxel (Jevtana(®), Sanofi, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel for treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer (mHRPC) previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the company's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence for cabazitaxel was derived from a multinational randomised open-label phase III trial (TROPIC) of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone, which was assumed to represent best supportive care. The NICE final scope identified a further three comparators: abiraterone in combination with prednisone or prednisolone; enzalutamide; and radium-223 dichloride for the subgroup of people with bone metastasis only (no visceral metastasis). The company did not consider radium-223 dichloride to be a relevant comparator. Neither abiraterone nor enzalutamide has been directly compared in a trial with cabazitaxel. Instead, clinical evidence was synthesised within a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results from TROPIC showed that cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in both overall survival and progression-free survival compared with mitoxantrone. Results from a random-effects NMA, as conducted by the company and updated by the ERG, indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the three active treatments for both overall survival and progression-free survival. Utility data were not collected as part of the TROPIC trial, and were instead taken from the company's UK early access programme. Evidence on resource use came from the TROPIC trial, supplemented by both expert clinical opinion and a UK clinical audit. List prices were used for mitoxantrone, abiraterone and enzalutamide as directed by NICE, although commercial in-confidence patient-access schemes (PASs) are in place for abiraterone and enzalutamide. The confidential PAS was used for cabazitaxel. Sequential use of the advanced hormonal therapies (abiraterone and enzalutamide) does not usually occur in clinical practice in the UK. Hence, cabazitaxel could be used within two pathways of care: either when an advanced hormonal therapy was used pre-docetaxel, or when one was used post-docetaxel. The company believed that the former pathway was more likely to represent standard National Health Service (NHS) practice, and so their main comparison was between cabazitaxel and mitoxantrone, with effectiveness data from the TROPIC trial. Results of the company's updated cost-effectiveness analysis estimated a probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,982 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which the committee considered to be the most plausible value for this comparison. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be both cheaper and more effective than abiraterone. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be cheaper but less effective than enzalutamide, resulting in an ICER of £212,038 per QALY gained for enzalutamide compared with cabazitaxel. The ERG noted that radium-223 is a valid comparator (for the indicated sub-group), and that it may be used in either of the two care pathways. Hence, its exclusion leads to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. In addition, the company assumed that there would be no drug wastage when cabazitaxel was used, with cost-effectiveness results being sensitive to this assumption: modelling drug wastage increased the ICER comparing cabazitaxel with mitoxantrone to over £55,000 per QALY gained. The ERG updated the company's NMA and used a random effects model to perform a fully incremental analysis between cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide and best supportive care using PASs for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Results showed that both cabazitaxel and abiraterone were extendedly dominated by the combination of best supportive care and enzalutamide. Preliminary guidance from the committee, which included wastage of cabazitaxel, did not recommend its use. In response, the company provided both a further discount to the confidential PAS for cabazitaxel and confirmation from NHS England that it is appropriate to supply and purchase cabazitaxel in pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags, which would remove the cost of drug wastage. As a result, the committee recommended use of cabazitaxel as a treatment option in people with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with at least 225 mg/m(2) of docetaxel, as long as it was provided at the discount agreed in the PAS and purchased in either pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags or in vials at a reduced price to reflect the average per-patient drug wastage.