Do GPs Make Good Research Participants?

Background Childhood cancers cause the largest numbers of deaths by disease in children aged 0-14 years1 with more than 400 children a year dying from cancer in the UK.2 Parental preference for their child to die within the family home2 coupled with the speciality of children’s palliative care medicine being still in its infancy, highlights the importance of the GP’s role in this highly specialised area of clinical practice. An understanding of the GP’s role will help inform the development of this specialty and identify best collaborative practice. A NIHR/CAT CL funded study examined the role of the GP in paediatric oncology palliative and bereavement care from the perspective of both the GP and the bereaved parent. This presentation will detail how GPs were approached and recruited, the reasons GPs declined participation and factors influencing the actual data collection. Methods The mixed method study used both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. Phase 1: Semi-structured interviews to explore the experiences of GPs and parents. Phase 2: Q methodology with GPs who had a child with cancer on their caseload. Q methodology is a research tool that uses statistical analysis to cluster participants’ experiences according to similarity of their viewpoint Results The method and effectiveness of recruiting GPs for both phases of the study will be presented. In addition factors influencing collecting such emotive and sensitive data will be discussed. Conclusions Researcher flexibility and perseverance in participant recruitment was rewarded by the rich data collected. Findings from this study have identified four different GP role viewpoints and have provided a new dimension in understanding GP viewpoints on their role in this arena.

Higher Education - Border or Boundary? Can Theatre in Education Help Promote a University Education?

With the expansion and increased availability of Higher Education the progression to study for an undergraduate degree has been viewed as a simple stepping stone with examination success a straight - forward border pass. Changes in the funding of degree courses has established a series of more challenging boundaries to entry which demand a rigorous assessment of the benefits of Higher Education. The Widening Participation Unit at The University of Worcester has sought to ease this border crossing for pupils whose parents have not been to university. Their experience from previous projects was that school pupils more easily relate to undergraduate students whose experience of Higher Education is recent and relevant. With this in mind they commissioned the Drama and Performance Department to create a Theatre in Education programme that introduced an awareness of post sixteen options and future choices to challenge Higher Education stereotypes. As a result of this collaboration Why Bother? was created, directed by myself and devised and researched with four students who were studying drama. Their own experiences were used to inform the character development and dealt with worrying as a mature student about integration into full – time education, loss of income after working, the pressures of emotional commitments to partners and being away from home. The programme toured to two thousand year 9 – 11 pupils in Worcestershire and Herefordshire schools in January and May 2011. Devising and touring Why Bother provided students with an opportunity to work as a professional paid TIE team that it is not possible for them to do as part of their undergraduate degree course. My initial research looks at the effectiveness and limitations of this project based on pupil questionnaires and the experiences of the team which are explored within the broader context of TIE and its potential for affecting attitudinal change. This has given rise to a number of questions that need consideration in the development of a new TIE programme aimed at raising the awareness of sixth form students who are about to make the decision whether to apply to university or not. Collaboration with university students in exploring the value of an education that they have subscribed to raises issues of bias and whether their powers of persuasion actually prevent pupils from making their own individual decision. The ethics of promoting a “free” university education seem much less complex than the decision required now which involves balancing the real value against the high financial cost suggested in the working title of Is it Worth it? This paper will present my first attempts to develop research methods and methodologies that will enable me to evaluate the success of this and future TIE.