Happy New Year to you all!
Monday, December 21, 2015
Good Tidings to You!
This week is the last before we leave for the holiday break.
I will post no lengthy blog this week, but instead will wish you the very best
for this Christmas season, and even better for the coming new year. We will be
back in action in 2016!
Monday, December 14, 2015
Two New Papers
Shin Y,
Shin JS, Lee J, Lee YJ, Kim M, Ahn YA, Park KB, Shin BC, Lee MS, Kim JH, Cho
JH, He IH. survey among Korea Medicine
doctors (KMDs) in Korea on patterns of integrative Korean Medicine practice for
lumbar intervertebral disc displacement: Preliminary research for clinical
practice guidelines. BMC Comple Alternative Med 201515:432, DOI: 10.1186/s12906-015-0956-1
ABSTRACT
Background: Patients seek Korean Medicine (KM)
treatment for a broad range of complaints in Korea, but predominantly for
musculoskeletal disorders. We investigated lumbar Intervertebral Disc
Displacement (IDD) practice patterns of Korean Medicine doctors (KMDs) within a
hospital/clinic network specializing in KM treatment of spinal disorders
through survey of diagnosis and treatment methods.
Methods: Questionnaires on clinical practice
patterns of KM treatment for lumbar IDD were distributed to 149 KMDs on January
25th, 2015. The questionnaire included items on sociodemographic
characteristics, clinical practice patterns, and preferred method of lumbar IDD
diagnosis and treatment. KMDs were asked to grade each treatment method for absolute
and relative importance in treatment and prognosis, and safety.
Results: A total 79.19 % KMDs (n = 118/149)
completed the survey, and results showed that integrative care mainly
consisting of acupuncture, herbal medicine, Chuna manipulation, and pharmacopuncture
was administered to IDD patients. The participant KMDs largely relied on
radiological findings (MRI and X-ray) for diagnosis. ‘Eight principle pattern
identification’, ‘Qi and Blood syndrome differentiation’ and ‘Meridian system
syndrome differentiation’ theories were generally used for KM syndrome
differentiation. The most frequently prescribed herbal medication was
Chungpa-jun, and most commonly used Chuna technique was ‘sidelying lumbar
extension displacement treatment’. IDD patients received 1.9 ± 0.3 treatment
sessions/week, and KMDs estimated that an average 9.6 ± 3.5 weeks were
needed for 80 % pain relief.
Conclusions: This is the first study to investigate
expert opinion on KM treatment of IDD. Further randomized controlled trials and
clinical guidelines based on clinical practice patterns of KM are called for
Hung
CH, Lin CY. Using concept mapping to evaluate knowledge structure in
problem-based learning. BMC Med Educ201515:212, DOI: 10.1186/s12909-015-0496-x
ABSTRACT
Background: Many educational programs incorporate
problem-based learning (PBL) to promote students’ learning; however, the
knowledge structure developed in PBL remains unclear. The aim of this study was
to use concept mapping to generate an understanding of the use of PBL in the
development of knowledge structures.
Methods: Using a quasi-experimental study
design, we employed concept mapping to illustrate the effects of PBL by
examining the patterns of concepts and differences in the knowledge structures
of students taught with and without a PBL approach. Fifty-two occupational
therapy undergraduates were involved in the study and were randomly divided
into PBL and control groups. The PBL group was given two case scenarios for
small group discussion, while the control group continued with ordinary
teaching and learning. Students were asked to make concept maps after being
taught about knowledge structure. A descriptive analysis of the morphology of
concept maps was conducted in order to compare the integration of the students’
knowledge structures, and statistical analyses were done to understand the
differences between groups.
Results: Three categories of concept maps were
identified as follows: isolated, departmental, and integrated. The students in
the control group constructed more isolated maps, while the students in the PBL
group tended toward integrated mapping. Concept Relationships, Hierarchy
Levels, and Cross Linkages in the concept maps were significantly greater in
the PBL group; however, examples of concept maps did not differ significantly
between the two groups.
Conclusions: The data indicated that PBL had a
strong effect on the acquisition and integration of knowledge. The important
properties of PBL, including situational learning, problem spaces, and small
group interactions, can help students to acquire more concepts, achieve an
integrated knowledge structure, and enhance clinical reasoning.Monday, December 7, 2015
Remembering the Framework of a Scientific Paper
The general organization of a scientific paper is as follows: abstract; introduction; methods; results, discussion; conclusion; references.
The Abstract should be structured, unless journal protocol
says to use a narrative form. The abstract should tell the reader what question
you asked, explain what methods were used to answer the question, what was
found and what was concluded. All in 250 words or less.
The Introduction should, well, introduce the topic of the
paper, describe briefly some background information the gap in the literature
your paper will address, and close by providing the reader with the actual
research question.
The Methods section should describe how the research was
done. It should provide enough detail that an interested reader could replicate
what you did. It is, for example, not enough to simply say that some was
adjusted using side-posture positioning; your paper should fully describe how
the adjustment was rendered.
The Results should provide the answer to the question you
asked, along with supplementary information that has helped address the
question. Generally, this is provided as group mean values, depending on the
kind of paper and the statistics used.
The Discussion provides context and discusses the findings
of your paper in light of what is already known. It helps to put your work into
that larger context and also again addresses what is new and novel about your
work. It usually concludes by providing additional research direction.
The Conclusion really just summarizes what you have already
reported in your paper. It, too, can offer future direction.
References are done to journal style. In most biomedical
journals, this is using Vancouver formatting. This is a numerical system. Note
that variants of this system exist, so note the journal style requirements.
This is the briefest of overviews of a scientific paper, but
it helps to keep this all in mind when you sit down to write.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2015- Summary
(Dear Colleagues- this is the specific language offered by the US Department of Helath and Human Services, related to changes in the Common Rule, 45CFR46, which governs our use of human subjects in research. In future articles I will discuss the implications of this proposed rule change).
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and
fifteen other Federal Departments and Agencies have announced proposed
revisions to modernize, strengthen, and make more effective the Federal Policy
for the Protection of Human Subjects that was promulgated as a Common Rule in
1991. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal
Register on September 8, 2015 (PDF
1063 KB). The NPRM seeks comment on proposals to better protect human
subjects involved in research, while facilitating valuable research and
reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators.
Some of the major changes being proposed that will better protect research
subjects and help build public trust are the rules relating to informed
consent. With regard to informed consent in general (such as consent to
participating in clinical trials), the rules would be significantly tightened
to make sure that the process becomes more meaningful. Consent forms would no
longer be able to be unduly long documents, with the most important information
often buried and hard to find. They would need to give appropriate details
about the research that is most relevant to a person’s decision to participate
in the study, such as information a reasonable person would want to know, and
present that information in a way that highlights the key information. In
addition, to assure that these rules do indeed change current practices, there
will be a one-time posting requirement for the consent forms for clinical
trials, so that anyone drafting a consent form will do so knowing that it will
eventually be subject to public scrutiny.
In addition, informed consent would generally be required for secondary
research with a biospecimen (for example, part of a blood sample that is left
over after being drawn for clinical purposes), even if the investigator is not
being given information that would enable him or her to identify whose
biospecimen it is. Such consent would not need to be obtained for each specific
research use of the biospecimen, but rather could be obtained using a “broad”
consent form in which a person would give consent to future unspecified
research uses.
The NPRM also attempts to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of
the oversight system by making the level of review more proportional to the
seriousness of the harm or danger to be avoided. Research that poses greater
risk to subjects should receive more oversight and deliberation than less risky
research. The NPRM seeks to avoid requirements that do not enhance protection
and impose burden, which can decrease efficiency, waste resources, erode trust,
and obscure the true ethical challenges that require careful deliberation and
stakeholder input. Cumbersome and outdated regulatory standards overwhelm and
distract institutions, IRBs, and investigators in ways that stymie efforts to
appropriately address the real risks and benefits of research.
The result of these types of changes, as the NPRM proposes to implement
them, is that some studies that currently require IRB review would now become
exempt. Some that are currently exempt would specifically be declared as
outside the scope of the regulations (“excluded”), and thus would not require
any administrative or IRB review. Further, in terms of determining when a study
is exempt, a web-based “decision tool” will be created. That decision tool will
provide a determination of whether or not a study is exempt. That result, so
long as the tool was provided with accurate information, will be presumed by
the Common Rule agencies to be an appropriate determination of exempt status.
It is expected that in many instances the tool would be used by the
investigators themselves, thus obviating both the need for further review and
the concern that the institution might be subjecting itself to future liability
by allowing investigators to use the tool. For all of the excluded and
exempt research activities, this NPRM also affirms the importance of applying
the ethical principle of respect for persons, in addition to the importance of
abiding by this principle in fully regulated non-exempt research involving
human subjects.
The following list encompasses the most significant changes to the Common
Rule proposed in the NPRM:
1.
Improve informed
consent by increasing transparency and by imposing stricter new requirements
regarding the information that must be given to prospective subjects, and the
manner in which it is given to them, to better assure that subjects are
appropriately informed before they decide to enroll in a research study.2. Generally require informed consent for the use of stored biospecimens in secondary research (for example, part of a blood sample that is left over after being drawn for clinical purposes), even if the investigator is not being given information that would enable him or her to identify whose biospecimen it is. That consent would generally be obtained by means of broad consent (i.e., consent for future, unspecified research studies) to the storage and eventual research use of biospecimens.
3. Exclude from coverage under the Common Rule certain categories of activities that should be deemed not to be research, are inherently low risk, or where protections similar to those usually provided by IRB review are separately mandated.
4. Add additional categories of exempt research to accommodate changes in the scientific landscape and to better calibrate the level of review to the level of risk involved in the research. A new process would allow studies to be determined to be exempt without requiring any administrative or IRB review. Certain exempt and all non-exempt research would be required to provide privacy safeguards for biospecimens and identifiable private information. New categories include:
- a. certain research involving benign interventions with adult subjects;
- b. research involving educational tests, surveys, interviews or observations of public behavior when sensitive information may be collected, provided that data security and information privacy protections policies are followed;
- c. secondary research use of identifiable private information originally collected as part of a non-research activity, where notice of such possible use was given;
- d. storing or maintaining biospecimens and identifiable private information for future, unspecified secondary research studies, or conducting such studies, when a broad consent template to be promulgated by the Secretary of HHS is used, information and biospecimen privacy safeguards are followed, and limited IRB approval of the consent process used is obtained.
6. Mandate that U.S. institutions engaged in cooperative research rely on a single IRB for that portion of the research that takes place within the United States, with certain exceptions. To encourage the use of IRBs that are otherwise not affiliated with or operated by an assurance-holding institution (“unaffiliated IRBs”), this NPRM also includes a proposal that would hold such IRBs directly responsible for compliance with the Common Rule.
7. Eliminate the continuing review requirement for studies that undergo expedited review and for studies that have completed study interventions and are merely analyzing data or involve only observational follow-up in conjunction with standard clinical care.
8. Extend the scope of the policy to cover all clinical trials, regardless of funding source, conducted at a U.S. institution that receives federal funding for non-exempt human subjects research.
In sum, the proposed modifications described above are designed to continue
to uphold the ethical principles upon which the Common Rule is based, as
applied to the current social, cultural, and technological environment.
Monday, November 23, 2015
Monday, November 16, 2015
Monday, November 2, 2015
New Papers
Kelly MP, Heath I,
Howick J, Greenhalgh T. The importance of values in evidence-based medicine. BMC Medical Ethics 2015, 16:69
doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0063-3
Summary: Through ‘values based’ approaches, EBM’s connection to the humanitarian principles upon which it was founded will be strengthened.
Background:
Evidence-based
medicine (EBM) has always required integration of patient values with ‘best’
clinical evidence. It is widely recognized that scientific practices and
discoveries, including those of EBM, are value-laden. But to date, the science
of EBM has focused primarily on methods for reducing bias in the evidence,
while the role of values in the different aspects of the EBM process has been
almost completely ignored.
Discussion:
In this
paper, we address this gap by demonstrating how a consideration of values can
enhance every aspect of EBM, including: prioritizing which tests and treatments
to investigate, selecting research designs and methods, assessing effectiveness
and efficiency, supporting patient choice and taking account of the limited
time and resources available to busy clinicians. Since values are integral to
the practice of EBM, it follows that the highest standards of EBM require
values to be made explicit, systematically explored, and integrated into
decision making. Summary: Through ‘values based’ approaches, EBM’s connection to the humanitarian principles upon which it was founded will be strengthened.
Pearce W, Raman S,
Turner A. Randomised trials in context: practical problems and social aspects
of evidence-based medicine and policy. Trials 2015, 16:394
doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0917-5
ABSTRACT
Randomised
trials can provide excellent evidence of treatment benefit in medicine. Over
the last 50 years, they have been cemented in the regulatory requirements
for the approval of new treatments. Randomised trials make up a large and
seemingly high-quality proportion of the medical evidence-base. However, it has
also been acknowledged that a distorted evidence-base places a severe
limitation on the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). We describe four
important ways in which the evidence from randomised trials is limited or
partial: the problem of applying results, the problem of bias in the conduct of
randomised trials, the problem of conducting the wrong trials and the problem
of conducting the right trials the wrong way. These problems are not intrinsic
to the method of randomised trials or the EBM philosophy of evidence;
nevertheless, they are genuine problems that undermine the evidence that
randomised trials provide for decision-making and therefore undermine EBM in
practice. Finally, we discuss the social dimensions of these problems and how
they highlight the indispensable role of judgement when generating and using
evidence for medicine. This is the paradox of randomised trial evidence: the
trials open up expert judgment to scrutiny, but this scrutiny in turn requires
further expertise.
Tsakitzidis G,
Timmermans O, Callewaert N, Truijen S, Meulmans H, Van Royen P. Participant
evaluation of an education module on interprofessional collaboration for
students in healthcare studies. BMC Medical Education 2015, 15:188
doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0477-0
ABSTRACT
Background:
Interprofessional
collaboration is considered a key-factor to deliver the highest quality of
care. Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) assumes a model of working
together, in particular with awareness of the process of interprofessional
collaboration, to develop an integrated and cohesive answer to the needs of the
client/family/population. Educational modules are developed in response to a
perceived need to improve interprofessional collaboration for the benefit of
patientcare. Up until 2005 no explicit module on interprofessional
collaboration existed in the education programs of the Antwerp University
Association (AUHA). During a decade the ‘Interprofessional Collaboration In
Healthcare (IPCIHC) – module’ is organised and evaluated by its participants.
Methods: One group,
post-test design was used to gather data from the participating students using
a structured questionnaire. Data was collected between March 2005 and March
2014 from participating final year students in healthcare educational programs.
Results: 3568
(84 % overall response) students evaluated the IPCIHC module from 2005 up
to 2014. Over 80 % of the participants were convinced the IPCIHC increased
their knowledge and changed their understanding that it will impact their
future professional relationships, and felt a greater understanding about
problem-solving in healthcare teams. Even though the results indicate that the
goals of the IPCIHC module were achieved, less than 60 % of the
participants experienced a change in attitude towards other professional
groups.
Conclusions:
Despite the
positive outcomes from the participants, the challenge still remains to keep on
educating future healthcare providers in interprofessional collaboration in
order to achieve an increase in interprofessional behaviour towards other
professional groups. Research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of
undergraduate programs on the quality and safety of patientcare in practice.
Monday, October 12, 2015
It’s the End of the Term! Psychedelic Music Version.
West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BERPKo2LUTM
Thirteenth Floor Elevators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQBfJwYlLY]
Savage Resurrection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbVG01_S94U
Bubble Puppy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml7pzflhNIk
We shall return at the beginning of the new term in Davenport.
Thirteenth Floor Elevators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQBfJwYlLY]
Savage Resurrection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbVG01_S94U
Bubble Puppy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml7pzflhNIk
Monday, October 5, 2015
Monday, September 28, 2015
A Musing on Technology and Teaching
This will be a brief entry, as CCE is visiting with us for the
next three days. But I was thinking about technology, and how it applies in the
classroom and clinical settings, for educational purposes. It is clear that
today’s students learn in ways somewhat alien to those of us who are older, who
learned via the traditional teaching method of lecture and lab. I grew up in
that world, and am comfortable with taking notes, reading books and studying
hard. Our students are not.
This was made clear to me in a couple of ways. The first is
that when I came to class last Thursday morning, my early students (there
before class was to begin) were, without exception, sitting in class looking at
either their tablet or their smartphone. They were not taking to each other;
rather, they were reading something, either a text message or a webpage of some
sort. And most of our students now come to class armed with such technology,
and as a result they are now less likely to interact in class. This is now how
they communicate. Think about it- have you ever received a text message from
someone in your office suite who could have easily walked 20 feet to your
office? Happens to me daily- text messages are the way people communicate now-
and I find it impersonal and a bit passive aggressive, to be honest. The second thing is that we no longer need to remember information. Google has become our collective memory; whatever piece of information you need can be found there. Of course, once we find a piece of information, we need to verify that it is true. If nothing else, the information posted on Facebook is often twisted and wrong, yet is posted by people who believe it is true because it fits in with some sort of preconceived belief- political, scientific- they already hold. Thank goodness for websites such as snopes. Com, which often deconstructs or exposes the falsehood.
But that is why critical thinking is so important. That is
the skill we need to focus on, training our students to think critically about
the information they find. I think we do this fairly well, and we do so by
yoking technology, such as Brightspace, to our abilities as teachers and
clinicians.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Brightspace: First News Item
Best Practice: First News Item
The folks at Brightspace were kind enough to provide
us with a Best Practices users’ guide, from which the below appears on page 17
(The Basics: D2LBrightspace Mechanics and Best Practices. Normandale Community
College, 2015:17)
First News Item
The
first thing new students will see is your Course Homepage, and the first News
item. Among other things, that first News item should direct students
specifically to a “Read Me First” file in the Content area. Providing a link in
the first News item to it is also good – it avoids the phrase, Go to the
Materials tab in the upper banner, click on Content, and then click on “Read Me
First”, or something like that. This is fine, but a link is a quicker means to
the goal of providing definite, easy directions. The first News item should
contain, AT A MINIMUM:
· Welcome
·
Instructor Name, Course Name, Formal Course Number
· Instructor Contact Methods and Hours (phone, email, and
office location. State when you will/will not be available).
· Instructions to “Start Here” or “Read me First”
· Online office hours (provided via group chat) one
hour/week/three credit course.
· Show some personality! Enter your credentials, a photo,
teaching philosophy, etc.
· The classroom delivered courses should have a notice that the
syllabus is posted and other directions as to how you intend to use the course.
· Current / newest News item goes on top, keep old ones below
for reference.
· Always repeat contact info, office hours in current News Item
(copy and paste), unless you have an Instructor Contact widget on your
homepage.
· Keep News items short, bulleted, include a graphic, a link,
etc. Students won’t read long items.
· Try to change News items each week. More frequently is even
better! Use it to have a conversation with your students like you would in
class.
· If you use the News area to direct students to assignments
for the week, do it for each week of the course, to be consistent. Students
will grow to depend on it.
· Make them relevant – insert links to current “real” news
items pertaining to your course, or a video.
· Some people use the news area to display the content. Links
that direct them to the content from the News is an option often used. In the
Content area, you may create lesson modules that have links to all your
content.
Monday, September 14, 2015
How to Set Up Your Grade Book in Brightspace
This is reprinted from Brightspace documentation, located at
https://community.brightspace.com/resources/documentation/how_to/howtosetupyourgradebook
Setting up the grade book is one of the first things you
should do when preparing your course.
First Steps
·
Consult your course syllabus for a list of all
assessment items
·
Decide on a grading system
·
Determine if your institution uses a grading
scheme, and if you will need to recreate it for your grade book
·
Decide how you want to group grade items, and
what weight those groups should have
·
Decide how you want to calculate your final
grades
·
The Grades Setup Wizard
Use the Grades Setup Wizard to set up your grade book for
the course. When you access the Grades tool, the Grades Setup Wizard displays
by default until you set up your grade book. The Grades Setup Wizard takes you
through a 7 step process to set up your gradebook.
1.
Select a Grading System. You can select Weighted
Points, or Formula. For more information on selecting a grading system, see the
one-paged “How to select a grading system for your grade book.”
2.
Determine which type of final grade calculation
you want to release to students. You can select either Calculated Final Grade
or Adjusted Final Grade.
3.
Determine how much you want to treat ungraded
items. You can select either Drop ungraded items or Treat ungraded items as 0.
You can also keep users’ final grades up to date automatically by selecting
Automatically keep final grade updated.
4.
Choose a default grading scheme. Organization
Schemes are provided by your institution, or you can create a custom Course
Scheme. See “Creating grade schemes for more information.
5.
Control how many decimal points display for items
in the grade book.
6.
Control what your student see when they look at
their grade books, including Grade Details, Decimals Displayed, Characters Displayed
and Final Grade Calculation
7.
Review and finalize grade book set up decision.
Click Finish to finalize your decisions or Go Back to make changes.
The
link at page top will bring you to the page where this appears. There is some
additional information available there that may help give you additional
guidance, and you will also find links to the “Creating grade schemes” page.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
New Papers from Biomed Central
Khoiriyah U, Roberts C, Jorm C, Ven der Vleuten CPM.
Enhancing students’ learning in problem based learning: validation of a
self-assessment scale for active learning and critical thinking. BMC Med Educ
2015, 15:140
doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0422-2
Tzeng DS, Wu YC, Hsu JY. Latent variable modeling and its implications for institutional review board review: variables that delay the reviewing process. BMC Med Ethics 2015, 16:57 doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0050-8
ABSTRACT
Background: Problem based learning (PBL) is a powerful
learning activity but fidelity to intended models may slip and student
engagement wane, negatively impacting learning processes, and outcomes. One
potential solution to solve this degradation is by encouraging self-assessment
in the PBL tutorial. Self-assessment is a central component of the
self-regulation of student learning behaviours. There are few measures to
investigate self-assessment relevant to PBL processes. We developed a Self-assessment
Scale on Active Learning and Critical Thinking (SSACT) to address this gap. We
wished to demonstrated evidence of its validity in the context of PBL by
exploring its internal structure.
Methods: We used a mixed methods approach to scale
development. We developed scale items from a qualitative investigation,
literature review, and consideration of previous existing tools used for study
of the PBL process. Expert review panels evaluated its content; a process of
validation subsequently reduced the pool of items. We used structural equation
modelling to undertake a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the SSACT and
coefficient alpha.
Results: The 14 item SSACT consisted of two domains “active
learning” and “critical thinking.” The factorial validity of SSACT was
evidenced by all items loading significantly on their expected factors, a good
model fit for the data, and good stability across two independent samples. Each
subscale had good internal reliability (>0.8) and strongly correlated with
each other.
Conclusions: The SSACT has sufficient evidence of its
validity to support its use in the PBL process to encourage students to
self-assess. The implementation of the SSACT may assist students to improve the
quality of their learning in achieving PBL goals such as critical thinking and
self-directed learning.
Tzeng DS, Wu YC, Hsu JY. Latent variable modeling and its implications for institutional review board review: variables that delay the reviewing process. BMC Med Ethics 2015, 16:57 doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0050-8
ABSTRACT
Background: To investigate the factors related to approval
after review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), the structure equation
model was used to analyze the latent variables ‘investigators’, ‘vulnerability’
and ‘review process’ for 221 proposals submitted to our IRB.
Methods: The vulnerability factor included vulnerable cases,
and studies that involved drug tests and genetic analyses. The principal
investigator (PI) factor included the license level of the PI and whether they
belonged to our institution. The review factor included administration time,
total review time, and revision frequency. The revision frequency and total
review time influenced the efficiency of review.
Results: The latent variable of reviewing was the most
important factor mediating the PIs and vulnerability to IRB review approval.
The local PIs moderated with genetic study and revision frequency had an impact
on the review process and mediated non-approval.
Conclusions: Better guidance of the investigators and
reviewers might improve the efficiency with which IRBs function.
Chapman PD, Stomski NJ, Losco B, Walker BF. The simulated
early learning of cervical spine manipulation technique utilising mannequins.
Chiropr Man Ther 2015, 23:23
doi:10.1186/s12998-015-0067-6
ABSTRACT
Background: Trivial pain or minor soreness commonly follows
neck manipulation and has been estimated at one in three treatments. In
addition, rare catastrophic events can occur. Some of these incidents have been
ascribed to poor technique where the neck is rotated too far. The aims of this
study were to design an instrument to measure competency of neck manipulation
in beginning students when using a simulation mannequin, and then examine the
suitability of using a simulation mannequin to teach the early psychomotor
skills for neck chiropractic manipulative therapy.
Methods: We developed an initial set of questionnaire items
and then used an expert panel to assess an instrument for neck manipulation
competency among chiropractic students. The study sample comprised all 41
fourth year 2014 chiropractic students at Murdoch University. Students were
randomly allocated into either a usual learning or mannequin group. All
participants crossed over to undertake the alternative learning method after
four weeks. A chi-square test was used to examine differences between groups in
the proportion of students achieving an overall pass mark at baseline, four
weeks, and eight weeks.
Results: This study was conducted between January and March
2014. We successfully developed an instrument of measurement to assess neck
manipulation competency in chiropractic students. We then randomised 41
participants to first undertake either “usual learning” (n = 19) or “mannequin
learning” (n = 22) for early neck manipulation training. There were no
significant differences between groups in the overall pass rate at baseline (χ
2 = 0.10, p = 0.75), four weeks (χ 2 = 0.40, p = 0.53), and eight weeks (χ 2
= 0.07, p = 0.79).
Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the use of a
mannequin does not affect the manipulation competency grades of early learning
students at short term follow up. Our findings have potentially important
safety implications as the results indicate that students could initially gain
competence in neck manipulation by using mannequins before proceeding to
perform neck manipulation on each other.Monday, August 31, 2015
ACC Call for Scientific Submissions
Association
of Chiropractic Colleges
Educational Conference and Research
Agenda Conference
March 17-19, 2016
ACC-RAC
Call for Scientific Submissions
due by September 15, 2015
Conference
Theme: The theme for the 2016 conference is “Best Practices;” however, submissions may be in
any of the categories listed below.
Categories: The call for ACC-RAC scientific submissions
invites original research that promotes the dissemination and discussion of new
information in the following research categories:
·
Basic Science (e.g. experimental trials, quantitative
basic science research, etc.)
·
Education (e.g. classroom research, quantitative/qualitative
education/administration research, etc.)
·
Clinical (e.g. clinical trials, quantitative/qualitative
clinical research, cohort studies, etc.)
·
Case Studies/Reports (e.g. clinical case reports or
case series)
·
Public Health (e.g. population health studies,
preventive care, etc.)
·
Integration (e.g. research on integration of
chiropractic services into hospital settings, etc.)
·
Conference Theme - “Best Practices” (e.g. best
practices in education, research, clinical practice, chiropractic profession,
college administration, healthcare, etc.)
Important
Information: Please note the following:
1. Presentation
of accepted work is expected. Authors
must register and attend the conference to present. An author who does not register and present
an accepted work will be disqualified from submitting/presenting for the
following two years.
2. It
is the author’s responsibility to find funding to register and attend the
conference. It is strongly recommended
that funding is secured or confirmed in advance of submission. Registration for the conference is required,
or the invitation to present will be revoked.
Only authors may present at the conference.
3. If
accepted, a 195-word maximum abstract will be printed in the conference
proceedings in the Journal of
Chiropractic Education. This will
allow you to publish your completed paper in any journal you wish.
4. Due
to time and space limitations, and ability to cover poster presentations, a
maximum of 2 poster presentations per author/presenter are allowed.
5. If
the submission does not meet the submission requirements (e.g. not a completed
research study, missing items, etc.), it will not be accepted for review. The ACC-RAC peer review chair will not
contact authors if any submission does not meet the requirements. Notification will be sent out as a rejection
notice. Concept submissions and incomplete
works will be rejected.
6. It
is the responsibility of the primary author to ensure that all requirements are
met. The primary author will be the
contact person responsible for submission of all required materials and all
correspondence. Please do not send
communications through a third party, staff member, or co-author.
7. The
peer review board may request additional information for any item that is
submitted. This may be for internal
quality control purposes or to check on materials if a concern is raised.
8. If
the peer review board confirms that there is an inappropriate submission, it
will be disqualified. Examples of
inappropriate submissions include, but are not limited to, submissions that
have been previously submitted at ACC-RAC, incomplete submissions, concept submission,
duplicate submissions, no human subjects/ethics review when one was necessary
(excludes expedited review), no signed patient consent form for case
reports/series, non-authors listed as authors, plagiarized work, etc.
9. Only
emailed submissions to the ACC-RAC peer review committee chair will be
considered. No faxed, mailed, or hand
delivered submissions will be considered.
All submissions
will be evaluated for completeness, strength of contribution to the profession,
and relevance to the ACC-RAC conference.
Submissions will be reviewed by the peer review committee based upon the
following criteria:
·
Practical
Significance
·
Originality
·
Theoretical/Conceptual
Framework
·
Quality
of Experimental or Descriptive Design
·
Discussion/Findings/Results
·
Clarity
of Presentation of Findings
·
Conclusions
·
Interpretation
of Results
·
Implications
for Chiropractic Education/Research/Practice
·
Citation
of Appropriate Literature
·
Applicability
to the Chiropractic Profession/Classroom Use/Future Research/Critical
Concerns/Etc.
·
Completed
Study
·
Overall
Rating of the Paper
Instructions: This call for scientific submissions invites
original research that will promote the dissemination and discussion of new
information. To be considered, please
submit all of the following items no later than September 15, 2015:
Blinded Submission
·
Word Count - 2100 words or less for peer reviewers
to assess the quality of completed work.
References are expected but not included in word count.
·
Completed Study - Incomplete work is not accepted (e.g.
an idea for a project that has not yet begun, a project begun but no data
collected, etc.).
·
Headings - Please include headings, such as Title,
Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, and References.
·
Blinding - Please omit author names and/or
institutional affiliations anywhere in the title or text of the file.
·
Graphs/Tables - Include no more than two of any
combination in the Word document:
diagrams, figures, pictures, graphs, or tables (e.g. one graph and one
table). Please do not submit separate
files, videos, or slide shows. Refrain
from including websites or links to websites, videos, etc., anywhere in the
blinded file.
·
Size - Use 12-point font and double-spacing. File size limit is 2MB.
·
File Name Protocol - Name the file Last Name, First
Name, Conference Year, Number of Submission, and Proposal. For example:
StevensonTammi2016-1-Proposal
Please submit these
materials to the following website: www.OpenConf.org/ACCRAC2016. Submissions that do not meet the above
requirements will not be accepted.
Abstract
·
Word Count - 195 words or less for conference
proceedings only; abstracts will be published in the Journal of Chiropractic Education if submission is accepted.
·
Headings - Please include subheadings in the
abstract. For research studies, use the
subheadings Objective, Methods, Results,
and Conclusion. For case reports,
use the subheadings Objective, Clinical
Features, Intervention and Outcome, and Conclusion. Please do not include references, pictures,
tables, or figures in the abstract.
·
Blinding - Please omit title, author information,
institutional affiliations, and/or references in the abstract field.
·
Size - Use 12 point font and double-spacing.
·
File Name Protocol - Name the file Last Name, First
Name, Conference Year, Number of Submission, and Abstract. For example:
StevensonTammi2016-1-Abstract
Please submit these
materials to the following website: www.OpenConf.org/ACCRAC2016. Submissions that do not meet the above
requirements will not be accepted.
Signature Form
·
Required Signatures - Corresponding author must
collect and submit signed authorship forms for all authors.
·
Commitment - Presenting author must register and
attend the conference. Funding should be
confirmed in advance of submission.
Submission is a commitment from authors to present accepted submissions
at the conference.
·
File Name Protocol - Name the file Last Name, First
Name, Conference Year, Number of Submission, and Authorship. For example:
StevensonTammi2016-1-Signature
Please submit these
materials to ACCPeerReview@aol.com.
Submissions that do not meet the above requirements will not be
accepted.
Ethics Materials
·
Human Subjects Research - Studies
involving human subjects (surveys, observational, and any research studies)
must be approved by proper Institutional Review Board (IRB’s)/Research Ethics
Boards (REB’s)/Ethics Committees. State
these processes in the blinded submission.
Questions should be directed to your institution’s board/committee. Submit a copy of the signed approval,
expedited review, or exemption letter from the IRB/REB/Ethics Chair. For
studies not involving human subjects (e.g. literature review), this document is
not required.
·
Case Studies - Case studies (case reports) require
consent forms, unless your institution also requires IRB/REB/Ethics
review. For case studies, submit a
patient consent to publish form from your institution, a journal, or other consent
form.
·
File Name Protocol - Name the file Last Name, First
Name, Conference Year, Number of Submission, and/or Ethics/Consent. For example:
StevensonTammi2016-1-Ethics (for IRB/REB/Ethics Committee documents) or StevensonTammi2016-1-Consent (for Case Study/Report Consent Forms).
Please submit these
materials to ACCPeerReview@aol.com.
Submissions that do not meet the above requirements will not be
accepted.
Process: Once all items are submitted, the submission
will be evaluated by a blinded peer review committee, and these results will be
sent to the ACC-RAC planning committee for review and final decision. If accepted, all presenters must register and
attend the conference. Funding should be
confirmed in advance of the submission, as submission is a commitment from the
authors of presentation at the conference, if accepted.
Notification: Corresponding authors will be notified of
peer review results by Mid-November 2015. For submissions that are accepted, an
author is required to register and present the work at the conference. All accepted presenters must register for the
conference no later than December 15,
2015.
If you have questions or concerns about
this process, please contact:
Dana J. Lawrence,
DC, MMedEd, MA
ACC-RAC
Peer Review Chair
ACCPeerReview@aol.com
(563) 884-5302
Association
of Chiropractic Colleges
Educational Conference and Research
Agenda Conference
March 17-19, 2016
ACC-RAC
Scientific Submission Signature Form
due by September 15, 2015
INSTRUCTIONS: The presenting
author should collect all signatures. If
more space is needed, or if authors are at different locations, please use
additional pages. Submit this completed
form scanned as one document by September
15, 2015.
By
signing this form:
1.
If accepted, I/we understand that
I/we are responsible for all our own costs (e.g. travel, hotel, conference
registration, etc.). I/we understand
that I/we are responsible to secure funding in advance of the submission and
that lack of funding is not an acceptable rationale for withdrawing.
2.
I/we understand that presentation of
an accepted submission at the conference is required. Authors of accepted submissions
must register, attend, and be present at the scheduled session.
3.
Submission is a commitment to
present. I/We understand that withdrawing after acceptance will prevent us from
submitting to future ACC-RAC annual conferences.
4.
I/We confirm that each of us qualify
as an author and presenter of this submission, am/are responsible for all of
its content, and give permission for (1) its presentation if accepted to the
ACC-RAC conference, (2) the publication of the abstract in
the proceeding within the Journal of
Chiropractic Education, and (3) am/are capable of presenting/defending all
of its content
5.
I/we confirm that appropriate
IRB/REB/Ethics Committee documents and/or patient consent to publish/present
forms have been secured and are attached to the submission.
6.
I/we understand that presentations
may not be used to promote any goods, products, or services. All presentations must be done in a
non-commercial and non-self-promotional manner.
7.
I/we will comply with the following
due dates:
a. Forms and materials
for all authors are due no later than September
15, 2015.
b. Presenters
must register for the conference no later than December 15, 2015.
c. PowerPoint
files for platform presentations are due no later than March 1, 2016. Multiple
files for a single presentation must be combined into one master file before
submitting.
Submission
ID# (from Open
Conference confirmation email)
|
Submission
Title
|
Presenting
Author (this
author will register for the conference and present research)
Printed
Name Email
Address Signature
Date
|
Corresponding/Lead
Author (if
different than Presenting Author)
Printed
Name Email
Address Signature
Date
|
Co-Author(s)
Printed Name Email Address
Signature Date
|
|
|
|
|
Please keep a copy of this completed form for your records.
Submit this form by September
15, 2015 to ACCPeerReview@aol.com.
Association of Chiropractic Colleges
Association of Chiropractic Colleges
Educational Conference and Research
Agenda Conference
March 17-19, 2016
ACC-RAC
Patient Case Consent for Publication/Presentation
due by September 15, 2015
Title
of Case Study/Series:
|
Author(s)
Names:
|
As
the patient in this case study/series, I hereby give my consent for clinical
information relating to my case to be reported at a scientific conference, in
conference proceedings, and/or published in a scientific journal.
I
understand that my name, initials, and/or any protected health information such
as my identification number, billing information, address, etc., will not be
published and that efforts will be
made to conceal my identity, but that anonymity cannot be guaranteed.
I
understand that the material may be published in a journal, the website of a
journal, and/or in products derived from the publication. As a result, I
understand that the material may be seen by the general public.
Name
of Patient: (printed)
|
Signature
of Patient: (or person
giving consent on behalf of the patient, if patient is a minor or deceased)
|
Date
Signed:
|
If
you are not the patient, what is
your relationship to him/her? (The
person giving consent should be a substitute decision maker, legal guardian, or
hold power of attorney for the patient.)
|
Why
is the patient not able to give consent?
(e.g. Is the patient a minor, incapacitated, deceased, etc.?)
|
If images of the patient’s face or distinctive body markings are to be
published, the following section must also be signed in
addition to the section above:
As the patient stated above, I give
permission for images of my face or distinctive body markings to be published
and recognize that I might therefore be identifiable even though my name and
initials will not be published.
Signature
of Patient: (or person
giving consent on behalf of the patient, if patient is a minor or deceased)
|
Date
Signed:
|
Please keep a copy of this completed form for your records.
Submit this form by September
15, 2015 to ACCPeerReview@aol.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)