The effectiveness of peer-based interventions on health promoting behaviors in older people: A systematic review protocol of quantitative evidence

Peer-based interventions have the potential to enhance quality of life and functioning; however their role specifically within the older population has not been fully investigated. The objective of this review therefore is to locate, appraise and synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of peer-based interventions on changes in health behaviors, specifically for the older population. The specific question to be answered is: “what is the effectiveness of peer-based interventions on health promoting behaviors in older adults, when compared to non peer-based interventions?”

The effectiveness of peer mentoring in promoting a positive transition to higher education for first-year undergraduate students: a mixed methods systematic review protocol

Background: The global transfer of nursing and midwifery education to higher education institutes has led to student nurses and midwives experiencing challenges previously faced by traditional third-level students, including isolation, loneliness, financial difficulties and academic pressure. These challenges can contribute to increased stress and anxiety levels which may be detrimental to the successful transition to higher education, thus leading to an increase in attrition rates. Peer mentoring as an intervention has been suggested to be effective in supporting students in the transition to third-level education through enhancing a sense of belongingness and improving student satisfaction, engagement and retention rates. This proposed systematic review aims to determine the effectiveness of peer mentoring in enhancing levels of student engagement, sense of belonging and overall satisfaction of first-year undergraduate students following transition into higher education.
Methods: MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, ProQuest, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO and CENTRAL databases will be searched for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies on the implementation of peer assessment strategies in higher education institutes (HEIs) or universities for full-time, first-year adult students (>17 years). Included studies will be limited to the English language. The quality of included studies will be assessed using a validated Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The findings will be presented as a narrative synthesis or meta-analysis as appropriate following sequential explanatory synthesis.
Discussion: The review will provide clear, non-biased evidence-based guidance to all third-level educators on the effectiveness of peer-mentoring programmes for first-year undergraduates. The review is necessary to help establish which type of peer mentoring is most effective. The evidence from qualitative and quantitative studies drawn from the international literature will be utilised to illustrate the best way to implement and evaluate peer mentoring as an effective intervention and will be useful in guiding future research and practice in this area. These findings may be applied internationally across all disciplines.

Streamlined research funding using short proposals and accelerated peer review : an observational study

Background Despite the widely recognised importance of sustainable health care systems, health services research remains generally underfunded in Australia. The Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI) is funding health services research in the state of Queensland. AusHSI has developed a streamlined protocol for applying and awarding funding using a short proposal and accelerated peer review. Method An observational study of proposals for four health services research funding rounds from May 2012 to November 2013. A short proposal of less than 1,200 words was submitted using a secure web-based portal. The primary outcome measures are: time spent preparing proposals; a simplified scoring of grant proposals (reject, revise or accept for interview) by a scientific review committee; and progressing from submission to funding outcomes within eight weeks. Proposals outside of health services research were deemed ineligible. Results There were 228 eligible proposals across 4 funding rounds: from 29% to 79% were shortlisted and 9% to 32% were accepted for interview. Success rates increased from 6% (in 2012) to 16% (in 2013) of eligible proposals. Applicants were notified of the outcomes within two weeks from the interview; which was a maximum of eight weeks after the submission deadline. Applicants spent 7 days on average preparing their proposal. Applicants with a ranking of reject or revise received written feedback and suggested improvements for their proposals, and resubmissions composed one third of the 2013 rounds. Conclusions The AusHSI funding scheme is a streamlined application process that has simplified the process of allocating health services research funding for both applicants and peer reviewers. The AusHSI process has minimised the time from submission to notification of funding outcomes.

Identifying effective behavioural components of Intervention and Comparison group support provided in SMOKing cEssation interventions (IC-SMOKE) : a systematic review protocol

Funding The research described in this paper is funded by Cancer Research UK, registered under application number C50862/A18446. The systematic review protocol reported in this paper was previously peer-reviewed by Cancer Research UK as part of the funding process. The funders had no role in protocol design, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

The peer-to-patent initiative : revitalizing patent examination with peer review

Every day we hear someone complain that this or that patent should not have been granted. People complain that the patent system is now a threat to existing business and innovation be- cause the patent office grants with alarming regularity patents for inventions that are neither novel nor non-obvious. People argue that the patent office cannot keep up with the job of examining the backlog of hundreds of thousands of patents and that, even if it could, the large volumes of prior art literature that need to be considered each time a patent application is received make the decision as to whether a patent should be granted or not a treacherous one.

Thinking Collaboratively about the Peer-Review Process for Journal- Article Publication

In this conversation, Kevin K. Kumashiro shares his reflections on challenges to publishing anti-oppressive research in educational journals. He then invites eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals--William F. Pinar, Elizabeth Graue, Carl A. Grant, Maenette K. P. Benham, Ronald H. Heck, James Joseph Scheurich, Allan Luke, and Carmen Luke--to critique and expand on his analysis. Kumashiro begins the conversation by describing his own experiences submitting manuscripts to educational research journals and receiving comments by anonymous reviewers and journal editors. He suggests three ways to rethink the collaborative potential of the peer-review process: as constructive, as multilensed, and as situated. The eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals then critique and expand Kumashiro's analysis. Kumashiro concludes the conversation with additional reflections on barriers and contradictions involved in advancing anti-oppressive educational research in educational journals. (Contains 3 notes.)

Helping undergraduate students across disciplines and cultures actively engage and collaborate as equal members of a community of scholars : peer review within an e-learning environment

At the international level, the higher education sector is currently being subjected to increased calls for public accountability and the current move by the OECD to rank universities based on the quality of their teaching and learning outcomes. At the national level, Australian universities and their teaching staff face numerous challenges including financial restrictions, increasing student numbers and the reality of an increasingly diverse student population. The Australian higher education response to these competing policy and accreditation demands focuses on precise explicit systems and procedures which are inflexible and conservative and which ignore the fact that assessment is the single biggest influence on how students approach their learning. By seriously neglecting the quality of student learning outcomes, assessment tasks are often failing to engage students or reflect the tasks students will face in the world of practice. Innovative assessment design, which includes new paradigms of student engagement and learning and pedagogically based technologies have the capacity to provide some measure of relief from these internal and external tensions by significantly enhancing the learning experience for an increasingly time-poor population of students. That is, the assessment process has the ability to deliver program objectives and active learning through a knowledge transfer process which increases student participation and engagement. This social constructivist view highlights the importance of peer review in assisting students to participate and collaborate as equal members of a community of scholars with both their peers and academic staff members. As a result of increasing the student’s desire to learn, peer review leads to more confident, independent and reflective learners who also become more skilled at making independent judgements of their own and others' work. Within this context, in Case Study One of this project, a summative, peer-assessed, weekly, assessment task was introduced in the first “serious” accounting subject offered as part of an undergraduate degree. The positive outcomes achieved included: student failure rates declined 15%; tutorial participation increased fourfold; tutorial engagement increased six-fold; and there was a 100% student-based approval rating for the retention of the assessment task. However, in stark contrast to the positive student response, staff issues related to the loss of research time associated with the administration of the peer-review process threatened its survival. This paper contributes to the core conference topics of new trends and experiences in undergraduate assessment education and in terms of innovative, on-line, learning and teaching practices, by elaborating the Case Study Two “solution” generated to this dilemma. At the heart of the resolution is an e-Learning, peer-review process conducted in conjunction with the University of Melbourne which seeks to both create a virtual sense of belonging and to efficiently and effectively meet academic learning objectives with minimum staff involvement. In outlining the significant level of success achieved, student-based qualitative and quantitative data will be highlighted along with staff views in a comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages to both students and staff of the staff-led, peer review process versus its on-line counterpart.

Academic wage structure by gender : the roles of peer review, performance, and market forces

We focus on understanding the role of productivity in determining wage structure differences between men and women in academia. The data arise from a pay-equity study carried out in a single Midwestern U.S. university over the 1996–7 academic year. Econometric results confirm that external market forces exert influence over both male and female salary. But peer review ratings play a significant role in male but not female earnings determination, with similar results for objective measures of research, teaching and service.

Peer review : a professional development process for librarians

Peer review is a reflective process which allows us to formalise, and gain maximum benefit from, collegial feedback on our professional performance. It is also a process that encourages us to engage in cycles of planning, acting, recording and reflection which are familiar components of action learning and action research. Entering into these cycles within the peer-review framework is a powerful and cost-effective means of facilitating professional development which is readily adapted to the library context. In 1996, a project implementing peer review, in order to improve client interaction at the reference desk, was completed at the University of Southern Queensland (USQ) Library. For that project we developed a set of guidelines for library staff involved in peer review. These guidelines explained the value of peer review, and described its principles and purposes. We also devised strategies to assist staff as they prepared for the experience of peer review, engaged in the process and reflected on the outcomes. A number of benefits were identified; the peer-review process enhanced team spirit, enhanced client-orientation, and fostered collaborative efforts in improving the reference service. It was also relatively inexpensive to implement. In this paper we will discuss the nature of peer review and its importance to library and information professionals. We will also share the guidelines we developed, and discuss the implementation and outcomes of the peer review project at the University of Southern Queensland. We will conclude by discussing the benefits perceived and the issues that arose in the USQ context, and by suggesting a range of other aspects of library service in which peer-review could be implemented.

The effectiveness of health education using the teach-back method on adherence and self-management in chronic disease: A systematic review protocol

Review question/objective What is the effect of using the teach-back method for health education to improve adherence to treatment regimen and self-management in chronic disease? Inclusion criteria Types of participants This review will consider all studies that include adult patients (aged 18 years and over) in any healthcare setting, either as inpatients (eg acute care, medical and surgical wards) or those who attend primary health care, family medical practice, general medical practice, clinics, outpatient departments, rehabilitation or community settings. Participants need to have been diagnosed as having one or more chronic diseases including heart failure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, respiratory disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, arthritis, epilepsy or a mental health condition. Studies that include seriously ill patients, and/or those who have impairments in verbal communication and cognitive function will be excluded. Types of intervention This review will consider studies that investigate the use of the teach-back method alone or in combination with other supporting education, either in routine or research intervention education programs; regardless of how long the programs were and whether or not a follow-up was conducted. The intervention could be delivered by any healthcare professional. The comparator will be any health education for chronic disease that does not include the teach-back method. Types of outcomes Primary outcomes of interest are disease-specific knowledge, adherence, and self-management knowledge, behavior and skills measured using patient report, nursing observation or validated measurement scales. Secondary outcomes include knowledge retention, self-efficacy, hospital readmission, hospitalization, and quality of life, also measured using patient report, nursing observation, hospital records or validated measurement scales.

Peer review of teaching practice and resources : exploring new spaces to embrace cultural change

The implementation of systematic peer review as a professional development activity, and as a support for educational design activities is under-utilised in many Australian higher education institutions. This case study reports on the first stages of planning and implementation of an institution-wide project to enhance teaching and learning quality at a remote and regional university, where one of the major strategies for improvement is peer review. Through a systematic process of staff engagement in peer review, within and from outside the organisation, a substantial change in flexible learning is envisaged. A mix of new and different learning spaces are to be used in the project, including blended learning spaces for academic development. This paper describes the research framework that will guide the peer review process and examines the early findings of the design-based research. Leadership, awareness raising and development of a supportive community of inquiry are seen as key components for successful implementation of peer review. In addition, unique contextual elements add to the complexity of designing for transformative change within such a relatively new organization.

Building and sustaining a culture to support peer review of teaching

1. Background/context This presentation will report on emerging results from a two phase project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC). The project was designed in partnership with five universities and aimed to embed peer review within the local teaching and learning culture by using a distributive leadership framework. 2. The initiative/practice The presentation will highlight research outcomes that bring together both the fundamentals of peer review of teaching with the broader contextual elements of Integration, Leadership and Development. It will be demonstrated that peer review of teaching can be implemented and have advantages for academic staff, teaching evaluation and an organisation if attention is given to strategies that influence the contexts and cultures of teaching. Peer review as a strategy to develop excellence in teaching is considered from a holistic perspective that by necessity encompasses all elements of an educational environment. Results demonstrate achievements that can be obtained through working to foster conditions needed for sustainable leadership and change. The work has implications for policy, research, teaching development and student outcomes and has potential application world-wide. 3. Method(s) of evaluative data collection and analysis The 2 phase project collected focus group and questionnaire data to inform research results that were analysed using a thematic qualitative approach and statistical exploration. 4. Evidence of effectiveness The presentation will demonstrate the effectiveness of distributive leadership and strategic approaches to working for cultural change through the presentation of project findings.

Developing a culture to support peer review of teaching in higher education

This presentation addresses issues related to leadership, academic development and scholarship of teaching and learning, and highlights research funded by the Australian Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT) designed to embed and sustain peer review of teaching within the culture of 5 Australian universities: Queensland University of Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, University of Adelaide, Curtin University, and Charles Darwin University. Peer review of teaching in higher education will be emphasised as a professional process for providing feedback on teaching and learning practice, which if sustained, can become an effective ongoing strategy for academic development (Barnard et al, 2011; Bell, 2005; Bolt and Atkinson, 2010; McGill & Beaty 2001, 1992; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000). The research affirms that using developmental peer review models (Barnard et al, 2011; D'Andrea, 2002; Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004) can bring about successful implementation, especially when implemented within a distributive leadership framework (Spillane & Healey, 2010). The project’s aims and objectives were to develop leadership capacity and integrate peer review as a cultural practice in higher education. The research design was a two stage inquiry process over 2 years. The project began in July 2011 and encompassed a development and pilot phase followed by a cascade phase with questionnaire and focus group evaluation processes to support ongoing improvement and measures of outcome. Leadership development activities included locally delivered workshops complemented by the identification and support of champions. To optimise long term sustainability, the project was implemented through existing learning and teaching structures and processes within the respective partner universities. Research outcomes highlight the fundamentals of peer review of teaching and the broader contextual elements of integration, leadership and development, expressed as a conceptual model for embedding peer review of teaching within higher education. The research opens a communicative space about introduction of peer review that goes further than simply espousing its worth and introduction. The conceptual model highlights the importance of development of distributive leadership capacity, integration of policies and processes, and understanding the values, beliefs, assumptions and behaviors embedded in an organizational culture. The presentation overviews empirical findings that demonstrate progress to advance peer review requires an ‘across-the-board’ commitment to embed change, and inherently demands a process that co-creates connection across colleagues, discipline groups, and the university sector. Progress toward peer review of teaching as a cultural phenomenon can be achieved and has advantages for academic staff, scholarship, teaching evaluation and an organisation, if attention is given to strategies that influence the contexts and cultures of teaching practice. Peer review as a strategy to develop excellence in teaching is considered from a holistic perspective that by necessity encompasses all elements of an educational environment and has a focus on scholarship of teaching. The work is ongoing and has implication for policy, research, teaching development and student outcomes, and has potential application world-wide.