FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Using evidence to identify teaching strategies to improve student competencies

Abstract

Background

Organizational assessment revealed opportunities to develop a critical mass of faculty educated about EBP and integrate competencies into practice. The faculty orientation online program did not include information about the EBP process, teaching strategies, or student competencies.

Purpose

The purpose of this EBP project was to investigate the best teaching strategies that foster student competencies.

Implementation Plan

Based on the evidence, an online EBP module was developed including the best teaching strategies for instruction of EBP, the student competencies that must be mastered and teaching barriers that must be overcome. The results and implementation plan were presented to leaders and faculty Online Council for feedback, approval, and buy-in.

Outcomes

Twenty-five faculty completed the EBP online module over 1 year providing examples for teaching strategies that related EBP to clinical practice, teaching methods that engaged students and examples of assignments that promoted student competency.

Implications for Practice

Using evidence to develop an EBP module for faculty orientation to online teaching provided a cost-effective way to develop a critical mass of faculty educated in EBP teaching strategies and methods that foster student competencies.

Research priorities for childrens cancer: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in the UK

Por: Aldiss · S. · Hollis · R. · Phillips · B. · Ball-Gamble · A. · Brownsdon · A. · Chisholm · J. · Crowther · S. · Dommett · R. · Gower · J. · Hall · N. J. · Hartley · H. · Hatton · J. · Henry · L. · Langton · L. · Maddock · K. · Malik · S. · McEvoy · K. · Morgan · J. E. · Morris · H. · Parke
Objectives

To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda.

Design

James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

Setting

UK health service and community.

Methods

A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities.

Participants

Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population.

Results

Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children’s surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was ‘can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?’

Conclusions

We have identified research priorities for children’s cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.

Protocol for the EACH trial: a multicentre phase II study evaluating the safety and antitumour activity of the combination of avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 agent, and cetuximab, as any line treatment for patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous

Por: Ng · K. · Metcalf · R. · Sacco · J. · Kong · A. · Wheeler · G. · Forsyth · S. · Bhat · R. · Ward · J. · Ensell · L. · Lowe · H. · Spanswick · V. · Hartley · J. · White · L. · Lloyd-Dehler · E. · Forster · M.
Introduction

Head and neck cancer is the eighth most common cancer in the UK. Current standard of care treatment for patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell head and neck carcinoma (HNSCC) is platinum-based chemotherapy combined with the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) monoclonal antibody, cetuximab. However, most patients will have poor median overall survival (OS) of 6–9 months despite treatment. HNSCC tumours exhibit an immune landscape poised to respond to immunotherapeutic approaches, with most tumours expressing the immunosuppressive receptor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). We undertook the current study to determine the safety and efficacy of avelumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the interaction between PD-L1 and its receptor on cytotoxic T-cells, in combination with cetuximab.

Methods and analysis

This is a multi-centre, single-arm dose de-escalation phase II safety and efficacy study of avelumab combined with cetuximab; the study was to progress to a randomised phase II trial, however, the study will now complete after the safety run-in component. Up to 16 participants with histologically/cytologically recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (including HNSCC) who have not received cetuximab previously will be recruited. All patients will receive 10 mg/kg avelumab and cetuximab (500, 400 or 300 mg/m2 depending on the cohort open at time of registration) on days 1 and 15 of 4-week cycles for up to 1 year, (avelumab not given cycle 1 day 1). A modified continual reassessment method will be used to determine dose de-escalation. The primary objective is to establish the safety of the combination and to determine the optimum dose of cetuximab. Secondary objectives include assessing evidence of antitumour activity by evaluating response rates and disease control rates at 6 and 12 months as well as progression-free and OS.

Ethics and dissemination

Approval granted by City and East REC (18/LO/0021). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at conferences.

Trial registration number

NCT03494322.

❌