The Hidden benefits of “poster presentation assessment”: Skill acquirement and learning; evaluated from the nursing students perspective

Introduction
This paper reports to an exercise in evaluating poster group work and poster presentation and the extra learning and skill acquisition that this can provide to nursing students, through a creative and stimulating assessment method. Much had been written about the benefits of using posters as an assessment method, yet there appears to be a lack of research that captures the student experience.
Aim
This evaluative study sought to evaluate the student experience by using a triangulation approach to evaluation:
Methodology
All students from the February 2015 nursing intake, were eligible to take part (80 students) of which 71 participated (n=71). The poster group presentations took place at the end of their first phase of year one teaching and the evaluation took place at the end of their first year as undergraduate. Evaluation involved;
1. Quantitative data by questionnaires
2. Qualitative data from focus group discussions
Results
A number of key themes emerged from analysis of the data which captured the “added value” of learning from the process of poster assessment including:
 Professionalism: developing time keeping skills, presenting skills.
 Academic skills: developing literature search, critic and reporting
 Team building and collaboration
Overall 88% agreed that the process furnished them with additional skills and benefits above the actual production of the poster, with 97% agreeing that these additional skills are important skills for a nurse.
Conclusion
These results would suggest that the process of poster development and presentation furnish student nurses with many additional skills that they may not acquire through other types of assessment and are therefore beneficial. The structure of the assessment encourages a self-directed approach so students take control of the goals and purposes of learning. The sequential organization of the assessment guides students in the transition from dependent to self-directed learners.

Late cardiac effects of chemotherapy in breast cancer survivors treated with adjuvant doxorubicin: 10-year follow-up

Doxorubicin (Dox), a mainstay of adjuvant breast cancer treatment, is associated with cardiac toxicity in the form of left ventricular dysfunction (LVD), LV diastolic dysfunction, or LV systolic dysfunction. Study objectives were to evaluate the prevalence of LVD in long-term breast cancer survivors treated with Dox and determine if brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) may help identify patients at risk for LVD. Patients who participated in prospective clinical trials of adjuvant Dox-based chemotherapy for breast cancer with a baseline left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction evaluation from 1999 to 2006 were retrospectively identified from the St Vincent's University Hospital database. Patients were invited to undergo transthoracic echocardiography, BNP analysis, and cardiovascular (CV) risk factor assessment. LVDD was defined as left atrial volume index >34 mL/m(2) and/or lateral wall E prime <10 m/s, and LVSD as LVEF <50 %. Of 212 patients identified, 154 participated, 19 patients had died (no cardiac deaths), and 39 declined. Mean age was 60.7 [55:67] years. A majority of the patients (128, 83 %) had low CV risk (0/1 risk factors), 21 (13.6 %) had 2 RFs, and 5 (3.2 %) ≥3 RFs. BMI was 27.2 ± 4.9 kg/m(2). Median Dox dose was 240 mg/m(2) [225-298]; 92 patients (59.7 %) received ≤240 mg/m(2) and 62 (40.3 %) > 240 mg/m(2). Baseline LVEF was 68.2 ± 8 %. At follow-up of 10.8 ± 2.2 years, LVEF was 64.4 ± 6 %. Three (1.9 %) subjects had LVEF <50 % and one (0.7 %) had LVDD. Dox >240 mg/m2 was associated with any LVEF drop. BNP levels at follow-up were 20.3 pg/ml [9.9-36.5] and 21.1 pg/ml [9.8-37.7] in those without LVD and 61.5 pg/ml [50-68.4] in those with LVD (p = 0.04). Long-term prospective data describing the impact of Dox on cardiotoxicity are sparse. At over 10 years of follow-up, decreases in LVEF are common, and dose related, but LVD as defined is infrequent (2.6 %). Monitoring with BNP for subclinical LVD needs further evaluation.

Episodic Future Thinking in 4-Year-Olds, Poster Symposium: The who, what, where and when of episodic foresight development

The ability to project oneself into the future to pre-experience an event is referred to as episodic future thinking (Atance & O’Neill, 2001). Only a relatively small number of studies have attempted to measure this ability in pre-school aged children (Atance & Meltzoff, 2005; Busby & Suddendorf, 2005ab, 2010; Russell, Alexis, & Clayton, 2010).Perhaps the most successful method is that used by Russell et al (2010). In this task, 3- to 5-year-olds played a game of blow football on one end of a table. After this children were asked to select tools that would enable them to play the same game tomorrow from the opposite, unreachable, side of the table. Results indicated that only 5-year-olds were capable of selecting the right objects for future use more often than would be expected by chance. Above-chance performance was observed in this older group even though most children failed the task because there was a low probability of selecting the correct 2 objects from a choice of 6 by chance.This study aimed to identify the age at which children begin to consistently pass this type of task. Three different tasks were designed in which children played a game on one side of a table, and then were asked to choose a tool to play a similar game on the other side of the table the next day. For example, children used a toy fishing rod to catch magnetic fish on one side of the table; playing the same game from the other side of the table required a different type of fishing rod. At test, children chose between just 2 objects: the tool they had already used, which would not work on the other side, and a different tool that they had not used before but which was suitable for the other side of the table. Experiment 1: Forty-eight 4-year-olds (M = 53.6 months, SD = 2.9) took part. These children were assigned to one of two conditions: a control condition (present-self) where the key test questions were asked in the present tense and an experimental condition (future-self) where the questions were in the future tense. Surprisingly, the results showed that both groups of 4-year-olds selected the correct tool at above chance levels (Table 1 shows the mean number of correct answers out of three). However, the children could see the apparatus when they answered the test questions and so perhaps answered them correctly without imagining the future. Experiment 2: Twenty-four 4-year-olds (M = 53.7, SD = 3.1) participated. Pre-schoolers in this study experienced one condition: future-self looking-away. In this condition children were asked to turn their backs to the games when answering the test questions, which were in the future tense. Children again performed above chance levels on all three games.Contrary to the findings of Russell et al. (2010), our results suggest that episodic future thinking skills could be present in 4-year-olds, assuming that this is what is measured by the tasks. Table 1. Mean number of correct answers across the three games in Experiments 1 and 2Experimental Conditions (N=24 in each condition)Mean CorrectStandardDeviationStatistical SignificanceExp. 1 (present-self, look) – 2 items2.750.68p < 0.001Exp. 1 (future-self, look) – 2 items 2.790.42p < 0.001Exp. 2 (future-self, away) – 2 items 2.330.64p < 0.001Exp. 3 (future-self away) – 3 items1.210.98p = 0.157

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up.

METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923.

FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.