Late Cenozoic climate changes in China's western interior: a review of research on Lake Qinghai and comparison with other records

IEECAS SKLLQG

Exploring strategies for promoting the use of research findings in practice

Following the integration of nurse and midwifery education into institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom, a number of studies have shown that a defined clinical framework for nursing and midwifery lecturers in practice areas is lacking. The aim of this study was to explore strategies that nurse and midwifery lecturers from one higher education institution in south east England can use to work collaboratively with nurses and midwives to promote the utilization of research findings in practice. A cross-sectional survey using a structured questionnaire was sent to a sample of 60 nurse and midwifery lecturers and 90 clinical managers. Response rates of 67% (40) and 69% (62) respectively were obtained. The main strategies suggested were to make clinical staff more aware of what research exist in their specialties; to help them to access research information from research databases; and to critically appraise this information. Other strategies were for teachers to run research workshops on site; to undertake joint research projects with clinical staff; to set up journal clubs or research interest groups; and to help formulate clinical guidelines and protocols which are explicitly research-based.

Exploring strategies for promoting the use of research findings in practice

Following the integration of nurse and midwifery education into institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom, a number of studies have shown that a defined clinical framework for nursing and midwifery lecturers in practice areas is lacking. The aim of this study was to explore strategies that nurse and midwifery lecturers from one higher education institution in south east England can use to work collaboratively with nurses and midwives to promote the utilization of research findings in practice. A cross-sectional survey using a structured questionnaire was sent to a sample of 60 nurse and midwifery lecturers and 90 clinical managers. Response rates of 67% (40) and 69% (62) respectively were obtained. The main strategies suggested were to make clinical staff more aware of what research exist in their specialties; to help them to access research information from research databases; and to critically appraise this information. Other strategies were for teachers to run research workshops on site; to undertake joint research projects with clinical staff; to set up journal clubs or research interest groups; and to help formulate clinical guidelines and protocols which are explicitly research-based.

LibQUAL+ Survey 2004 @ Queen's University Library : analysis of results

Queen's University Library was one of 202 libraries, including 57 members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), to survey its users in spring 2004 using the LibQUAL+ survey instrument. LibQUAL+ was designed by ARL to assist libraries in assessing the quality of their services and identifying areas for improvement. # Overall: Queen's scored higher than the average for all ARL participants and 1st among the 2004 Canadian participants. This relatively high rating is due to very high scores in the dimensions of Library as Place and Affect of Service. However, there is considerable need for improvement in the area of Information Control where Queen's rated well below the ARL average. # Affect of Service: Queen's strong overall ratings are supported by the many respondent comments praising customer service throughout the system. The ratings and survey comments indicate greatest appreciation by faculty and more experienced students (e.g. graduate students) for the instruction and on-site services provided by the libraries. The ratings also indicate that undergraduates, growing up with the web, want and expected to be able to access library resources independently and do not value these services as highly. The comments also indicated some specific areas for improvement throughout the library system. # Library as Place : All Queen's libraries except for Law ranked well above the ARL and Canadian averages. Overall, Library as Place ranked lowest in importance among the service dimensions for all ARL participants including Queen's. Comparative analysis of LibQUAL results since the survey began shows a decline in “desired” ratings for Library as Place. However, undergraduates continue to give strong "desired" ratings to certain aspects of Library as Place and a relatively high rating for "minimum expected" service. The comments from Queen's survey respondents and ARL's analyses of focus groups indicate that undergraduates value the library much more as a place to study and work with peers rather than for its on-site resources and services. # Information Control: This is the area in greatest need of attention. While it ranked highest in importance for all user groups by a wide margin, Queen's performed poorly in this category. Overall, Queen's ranked far below both the ARL average and the top three Canadian scores. However, the major dissatisfaction was concentrated in the humanities/social sciences (Stauffer primary users) and the health sciences (Bracken primary users) where the overall rating of perceived service quality ranked below the minimum expected service rating. Primary users of the Education, Engineering/Science and Law libraries rated this service dimension higher than the ARL average. The great success of the Canadian National Site License Program (CNSLP) is reflected in the high overall rating generated by Engineering/Science Library users. The low ratings from the humanities and social sciences are supported by respondents' comments and are generally consistent with other ARL participants.

Grading gems: Appraising the quality of research about social work and social care.

The impetus towards basing practice and policy decisions more explicitly on sound research requires tools to facilitate the systematic appraisal of the quality of research encompassing a diverse range of methods and designs. Five exemplar tools were developed and assessed in terms of their usefulness in selecting studies for inclusion in a systematic review. The widely used ‘hierarchy of evidence’ was adapted and used to appraise internal validity. Four tools were then developed to appraise the external validity dimensions of generalizability (two scales) and methods of data collection (two scales). Methods of combining the scores generated by each tool were explored. Qualitative and quantitative studies were appraised, not separated into two spheres but by using complementary tools developed to appraise different aspects of rigour. There was a high level of agreement between researchers in applying the tools to twenty-two studies on decision making by professionals about the longterm care of older people. The scales for internal validity and generalizability discriminated between the qualities of studies appropriately. The two tools to appraise data collection gave diverse results. Excluding studies that scored in the lowest category on any scale appeared to be the scoring system that was most justifiable. This approach is presented to stimulate debate about the practical application of the evidence-based initiative to social work and social care. This study may assist in developing clearer definitions and common language about appraising rigour that should further the process of selecting robust research for synthesis to inform practice and policy decisions.