The effects of birth order on personality traits and feelings of academic sibling rivalry

The influence of birth order on personality and sibling rivalry is controversial; little research has been conducted into academic sibling rivalry, and none into the connection with personality traits. This study considers the interaction of all three factors. Firstborns (N=22) and lastborns (N=24) completed online personality tests and an Academic Sibling Rivalry Questionnaire. Lastborns were found to experience more academic sibling rivalry: t=2.33, DF=44; p less than 0.05, whereas firstborns are more likely to be conscientious: F(1,44)=3.58; p less than 0.05, and dutiful: F(1,44)=5.39; p less than 0.05. This raises possible implications in domains including education, health and psychotherapy. Further research could be conducted to expand these findings in terms of variables and geographical location. (Contains 2 figures.)

‘Let’s talk about feedback’:an exploration of academic feedback practices in pharmacy education

Feedback is considered one of the most effective mechanisms to aid learning and achievement (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). However, in past UK National Student Surveys, perceptions of academic feedback have been consistently rated lower by final year undergraduate students than other aspects of the student experience (Williams and Kane, 2009). For pharmacy students in particular, Hall and colleagues recently reported that almost a third of students surveyed were dissatisfied with feedback and perceived feedback practice to be inconsistent (Hall et al, 2012). Aims of the Workshop: This workshop has been designed to explore current academic feedback practices in pharmacy education across a variety of settings and cultures as well as to create a toolkit for pharmacy academics to guide their approach to feedback. Learning Objectives: 1. Discuss and characterise academic feedback practices provided by pharmacy academics to pharmacy students in a variety of settings and cultures. 2. Develop academic feedback strategies for a variety of scenarios. 3. Evaluate and categorise feedback strategies with use of a feedback matrix. Description of Workshop Activities: Introduction to workshop and feedback on pre-reading exercise (5 minutes). Activity 1: A short presentation on theoretical models of academic feedback. Evidence of feedback in pharmacy education (10 minutes). Activity 2: Discussion of feedback approaches in participants’ organisations for differing educational modalities. Consideration of the following factors will be undertaken: experiential v. theoretical education, formative v. summative assessment, form of assessment and the effect of culture (20 minutes, large group discussion). Activity 3: Introduction of a feedback matrix (5 minutes). Activity 4: Development of an academic feedback toolkit for pharmacy education. Participants will be divided into 4 groups and will discuss how to provide effective feedback for 2 scenarios. Feedback strategies will be categorised with the feedback matrix. Results will be presented back to the workshop group (20 minutes, small group discussion, 20 minutes, large group presentation). Summary (10 minutes). Additional Information: Pre-reading: Participants will be provided with a list of definitions for academic feedback and will be asked to rank the definitions in order of perceived relevance to pharmacy education. References Archer, J. C. (2010). State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Medical education, 44(1), 101-108. Hall, M., Hanna, L. A., & Quinn, S. (2012). Pharmacy Students’ Views of Faculty Feedback on Academic Performance. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 76(1). Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112. Medina, M. S. (2007). Providing feedback to enhance pharmacy students’ performance. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 64(24), 2542-2545.

Perceptions and experiences of the implementation, management, use and optimisation of electronic prescribing systems in hospital settings:protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies

Introduction: There is increasing evidence that electronic prescribing (ePrescribing) or computerised provider/physician order entry (CPOE) systems can improve the quality and safety of healthcare services. However, it has also become clear that their implementation is not straightforward and may create unintended or undesired consequences once in use. In this context, qualitative approaches have been particularly useful and their interpretative synthesis could make an important and timely contribution to the field. This review will aim to identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies on ePrescribing/CPOE in hospital settings, with or without clinical decision support. Methods and analysis: Data sources will include the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, The Cochrane Library (CDSR, DARE and CENTRAL databases), Nursing and Allied Health Sources, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts via ProQuest and SCOPUS. In addition, other sources will be searched for ongoing studies (ClinicalTrials.gov) and grey literature: Healthcare Management Information Consortium, Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Science) and Sociological abstracts. Studies will be independently screened for eligibility by 2 reviewers. Qualitative studies, either standalone or in the context of mixed-methods designs, reporting the perspectives of any actors involved in the implementation, management and use of ePrescribing/CPOE systems in hospital-based care settings will be included. Data extraction will be conducted by 2 reviewers using a piloted form. Quality appraisal will be based on criteria from the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Studies will not be excluded based on quality assessment. A postsynthesis sensitivity analysis will be undertaken. Data analysis will follow the thematic synthesis method. Ethics and dissemination: The study does not require ethical approval as primary data will not be collected. The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.

Centralization of cleft care in the UK. Part 6:a tale of two studies

OBJECTIVES: We summarize and critique the methodology and outcomes from a substantial study which has investigated the impact of reconfigured cleft care in the United Kingdom (UK) 15 years after the UK government started to implement the centralization of cleft care in response to an earlier survey in 1998, the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG). SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A UK multicentre cross-sectional study of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Data were collected from children born in the UK with a unilateral cleft lip and palate between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We discuss and contextualize the outcomes from speech recordings, hearing, photographs, models, oral health and psychosocial factors in the current study. We refer to the earlier survey and other relevant studies. RESULTS: We present arguments for centralization of cleft care in healthcare systems, and we evidence this with improvements seen over a period of 15 years in the UK. We also make recommendations on how future audit and research may configure. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for children with a unilateral cleft lip and palate have improved after the introduction of a centralized multidisciplinary service, and other countries may benefit from this model. Predictors of early outcomes are still needed, and repeated cross-sectional studies, larger longitudinal studies and adequately powered trials are required to create a research-led evidence-based (centralized) service.

Research cultures and the pragmatic functions of humor in academic research presentations:A corpus-assisted analysis

Based on a corpus of English, German, and Polish spoken academic discourse, this article analyzes the distribution and function of humor in academic research presentations. The corpus is the result of a European research cooperation project consisting of 300,000 tokens of spoken academic language, focusing on the genres research presentation, student presentation, and oral examination. The article investigates difference between the German and English research cultures as expressed in the genre of specialist research presentations, and the role of humor as a pragmatic device in their respective contexts. The data is analyzed according to the paradigms of corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS). The findings show that humor is used in research presentations as an expression of discourse reflexivity. They also reveal a considerable difference in the quantitative distribution of humor in research presentations depending on the educational, linguistic, and cultural background of the presenters, thus confirming the notion of different research cultures. Such research cultures nurture distinct attitudes to genres of academic language: whereas in one of the cultures identified researchers conform with the constraints and structures of the genre, those working in another attempt to subvert them, for example by the application of humor. © 2012 Elsevier B.V.