scholarly journals Ensuring Quality in a Foreign Language Tutoring Program for Future Teachers

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-32
Author(s):  
Deissy Angélica Velandia
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Tutoring Program ◽  
Physical Resources ◽  
French And English

This article reports on an exploratory, mixed methods study aimed at identifying the methodological and epistemological criteria necessary to ensure the quality and a self-revision process of a pilot tutoring program offered to students enrolled in the BEd in philology and languages (English and French programs) at Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota. Ten students of the French and English Philology programs and six tutors voluntarily participated in the research. The data were collected through document reviews, focus group discussions, and questionnaires completed by the tutors and tutees. The study revealed that a comprehensive, personalized tutoring plan was needed. Likewise, self-efficacy development, human capital, as well as technological and physical resources must be considered in order to determine the weaknesses, strengths, opportunities, and overall impact of the program.

scholarly journals Talking the talk in junior interprofessional education: Is healthcare terminology a barrier or facilitator?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamara Nadarajah ◽  
Arden Azim ◽  
Derya Uzelli Yılmaz ◽  
Matthew Sibbald
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Safe Space ◽  
Word Count ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Physician Assistant Students ◽  
Prior Experiences

Abstract Background: Use of jargon and complex healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). Healthcare terminology can be separated into two categories: inclusive terminology shared amongst professions, and exclusive terminology unique to one profession. We sought to understand how terminology is perceived by junior learners in an IPE setting.Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study involving medical, nursing, and physician assistant students attending IPE simulation workshops. Students reviewed scenarios used in the workshops and identified terminology they considered “inclusive” or “exclusive”. Then, students participated in focus group discussions surrounding attitudes/perceptions towards healthcare terminology.Results: 23 students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (29% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by >50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, unfamiliarity with terminology was often attributed to being early in training even if exclusive, simulation was considered a safe space for learning, and learning terminology was a valued objective in early IPE.Conclusions: Students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in learning materials, which is recognized as a valuable learning objective in their early IPE experiences, but also a challenge. Categorization of healthcare language is inconsistent among students and may reflect individual differences in prior experiences. Overall, healthcare terminology is a valued desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

scholarly journals Talking the talk in junior interprofessional education: Is healthcare terminology a barrier or facilitator?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamara Nadarajah ◽  
Arden Azim ◽  
Derya Uzelli Yılmaz ◽  
Matthew Sibbald
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Safe Space ◽  
Word Count ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Physician Assistant Students ◽  
Prior Experiences

Abstract Background Use of jargon and complex healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). Healthcare terminology can be separated into two categories: inclusive terminology shared amongst professions, and exclusive terminology unique to one profession. We sought to understand how complex terminology is perceived by junior learners in an IPE setting. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study involving medical, nursing, and physician assistant students attending IPE simulation workshops. Students reviewed scenarios used in the workshops and identified terminology they considered “inclusive” or “exclusive”. Then, students participated in focus group discussions surrounding attitudes/perceptions towards healthcare terminology. Results 23 students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (29% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by > 50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, unfamiliarity with terminology was often attributed to being early in training even if exclusive, simulation was considered a safe space for learning, and learning terminology was a valued objective in early IPE. Conclusions Students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in learning materials, which is recognized as a valuable learning objective in their early IPE experiences, but also a challenge. Categorization of healthcare language is inconsistent among students and may reflect individual differences in prior experiences. Overall, healthcare terminology is a valued desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

scholarly journals Medication adherence, self-efficacy and health literacy among patients with glaucoma: a mixed-methods study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e039788
Author(s):  
Maria Achilleos ◽  
Anastasios Merkouris ◽  
Andreas Charalambous ◽  
Evridiki Papastavrou
Keyword(s):  
Social Support ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Medication Adherence ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Stage 1

IntroductionAs the world population ages, glaucoma is becoming an increasingly significant cause of blindness. A key component in the management of glaucoma is the use of prescribed medications and the adherence to treatment. However, there is evidence of low adherence to prescribed medication in chronic diseases, such as glaucoma. This study aims to explore the level of medication adherence, self-efficacy, social support and health literacy among the patients with glaucoma and to determine if there are any correlations between them. The ultimate aim is to use the information to develop an educational programme for patients with glaucoma at a later stage.Methods and analysisThis is a mixed-methods study which includes two stages: a descriptive study (stage 1) and focus group discussions (stage 2). Sample: Patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, using at least one kind of drops, from two ophthalmology clinics. Selected measures include: The Glaucoma Treatment Compliance Assessment Tool, The European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire, The Glaucoma Medication Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Two focus groups will be used for the collection of qualitative data, aiming to enrich the study with the patients’ experiences. The data will be analysed with SPSS, using descriptive and inferential statistics for stage 1 whereas content analysis will be used for the data from the focus group discussions (stage 2).Ethics and disseminationPermission to conduct the study was received from the National Bioethics Committee and the board of management of the two ophthalmology clinics. All participants will be informed fully on the purpose and methods of the study. Consent forms will be signed and at any time participants will have the right to withdraw. Confidentiality and the protection of data will be respected at all times.

scholarly journals Talking the talk in junior interprofessional education: is healthcare terminology a barrier or facilitator?

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamara Nadarajah ◽  
Arden Azim ◽  
Derya Uzelli Yılmaz ◽  
Matthew Sibbald
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Word Count ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Physician Assistant Students ◽  
Simulation Based ◽  
Survey Responses

Abstract Background Use of healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). This study describes how junior learners perceive and classify healthcare terminology in IPE settings. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study involving 29 medical, 14 nursing, and 2 physician assistant students who had previously attended or were registered to participate in educational activities at McMaster University’s Centre for Simulation-Based Learning. 23 participants identified “inclusive” or “exclusive” terminology in a series of scenarios used for IPE workshops using an online survey. We collated lists of “inclusive” and “exclusive” terminology from survey responses, and characterized the frequencies of included words. 22 students participated in focus group discussions on attitudes and perceptions around healthcare terminology after attending IPE workshops. We identified themes through an iterative direct content analysis of verbatim transcripts. Results Students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (28% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by > 50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, lack of familiarity with terminology was often attributed to inexperience, simulation was considered a safe space for learning terminology, and learning terminology was a valued IPE objective. Conclusions While students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in IPE learning materials, categorization of terminology as “inclusive” or “exclusive” is inconsistent. Moreover, healthcare terminology is perceived as a desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

scholarly journals Vaccination coverage and the factors influencing routine childhood vaccination uptake among communities experiencing disadvantage in Vellore, southern India: a mixed-methods study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Rohit Francis ◽  
J. Pekka Nuorti ◽  
Kirsi Lumme-Sandt ◽  
Rajeev Zachariah Kompithra ◽  
Vinohar Balraj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Vaccination Coverage ◽  
Household Survey ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Childhood Vaccination ◽  
Routine Immunization ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Factors Influencing

Abstract Background In 2015, the Vellore district in southern India was selected for intensified routine immunization, targeting children from communities experiencing disadvantage such as migrant, tribal, and other hard-to-reach groups. This mixed-methods study was conducted to assess routine immunization coverage and the factors influencing childhood vaccination uptake among these communities in Vellore. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional household survey (n = 100) and six focus group discussions (n = 43) among parents of children aged 12–23 months from the known communities experiencing disadvantage in Vellore during 2017 and 2018. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to examine associations between the parental characteristics and children’s vaccination status in the household survey data; the qualitative discussions were analyzed by using the (previously published) “5As” taxonomy for the determinants of vaccine uptake. Results In the household survey, the proportions of fully vaccinated children were 65% (95% CI: 53–76%) and 77% (95% CI: 58–88%) based on information from vaccination cards or parental recall and vaccination cards alone, respectively. Children whose mothers were wage earners [Adjusted prevalence odds ratio (aPOR): 0.21, 95% CI = 0.07–0.64], or salaried/small business owners [aPOR: 0.18, 95% CI = 0.04–0.73] were less likely to be fully vaccinated than children who had homemakers mothers. In the focus group discussions, parents identified difficulties in accessing routine immunization when travelling for work and showed knowledge gaps regarding the benefits and risks of vaccination, and fears surrounding certain vaccines due to negative news reports and common side-effects following childhood vaccination. Conclusions Vaccination coverage among children from the surveyed communities in Vellore was suboptimal. Our findings suggest the need to target children from Narikuravar families and conduct periodic community-based health education campaigns to improve parental awareness about and trust in childhood vaccines among the communities experiencing disadvantage in Vellore.

scholarly journals Talking the talk in junior interprofessional education: Is healthcare terminology a barrier or facilitator?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamara Nadarajah ◽  
Arden Azim ◽  
Derya Uzelli Yılmaz ◽  
Matthew Sibbald
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Safe Space ◽  
Word Count ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Physician Assistant Students ◽  
Prior Experiences

Abstract Background: Use of jargon and complex healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). Healthcare terminology can be separated into two categories: inclusive terminology shared amongst professions, and exclusive terminology unique to one profession. We sought to understand how terminology is perceived by junior learners in an IPE setting.Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study involving medical, nursing, and physician assistant students attending IPE simulation workshops. Students reviewed scenarios used in the workshops and identified terminology they considered “inclusive” or “exclusive”. Then, students participated in focus group discussions surrounding attitudes/perceptions towards healthcare terminology.Results: 23 students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (29% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by >50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, unfamiliarity with terminology was often attributed to being early in training even if exclusive, simulation was considered a safe space for learning, and learning terminology was a valued objective in early IPE.Conclusions: Students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in learning materials, which is recognized as a valuable learning objective in their early IPE experiences, but also a challenge. Categorization of healthcare language is inconsistent among students and may reflect individual differences in prior experiences. Overall, healthcare terminology is a valued desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

scholarly journals Talking the talk in junior interprofessional education: Is healthcare terminology a barrier or facilitator?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamara Nadarajah ◽  
Arden Azim ◽  
Derya Uzelli Yılmaz ◽  
Matthew Sibbald
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Word Count ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Physician Assistant Students ◽  
Simulation Based ◽  
Survey Responses

Abstract Background: Use of healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). This study describes how junior learners perceive and classify healthcare terminology in IPE settings.Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study involving 29 medical, 14 nursing, and 2 physician assistant students who had previously attended or were registered to participate in educational activities at McMaster University’s Centre for Simulation-Based Learning. 23 participants identified “inclusive” or “exclusive” terminology in a series of scenarios used for IPE workshops using an online survey. We collated lists of “inclusive” and “exclusive” terminology from survey responses, and characterized the frequencies of included words. 22 students participated in focus group discussions on attitudes and perceptions around healthcare terminology after attending IPE workshops. We identified themes through an iterative direct content analysis of verbatim transcripts.Results: Students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (29% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by >50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, lack of familiarity with terminology was often attributed to inexperience, simulation was considered a safe space for learning terminology, and learning terminology was a valued IPE objective.Conclusions: While students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in IPE learning materials, categorization of terminology as “inclusive” or “exclusive” is inconsistent. Moreover, healthcare terminology is perceived as a desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

Dari Idealisme ke Pragmatisme: Pergeseran Paradigma dalam Pengembangan Hukum Ekonomi Syariah di Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-210
Author(s):  
Addiarrahman Addiarrahman ◽  
Illy Yanti
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Business World ◽  
Key Informants ◽  
The Public ◽  
Financial Products ◽  
Legal Consideration ◽  
Economic Law ◽  
Islamic Economic

This study seeks to understand the pragmatism of the development of sharia economic law, and its implications for Islamic financial products in Indonesia. The data comes from the results of interviews and focus group discussions with key informants from academics, practitioners, authorities, and the public. This research finds that pragmatism in the development of Islamic economic law is an approach that still dominates the DSN-MUI fatwas. The pragmatism style used is complex-eclectic pragmatism which is represented through makhārij al-fiqhiyyah, which is to choose a mild opinion by sticking to the strongest method or also called "taysīr al-manhajī". The use of this method is intended to ensure that the fatwa is truly able to answer the needs of the business world, as well as being in line with sharia principles. DSN-MUI also does not use maslahah as a legal consideration in a free or liberal way. Rather, it returns maslahah in consideration of the method, so that it is permissible to use the bay’ al-'inān contract only in a forced state (ḍarurah).

scholarly journals “Stages of change, smoking behavior and acceptability of a textmessaging intervention for tobacco cessation among cigarette, dokha and shishasmokers: A qualitative research study.”

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e029144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusra Elhidaia Elobaid ◽  
Andrea Leinberger Jabari ◽  
Aisha Al Hamiz ◽  
Abdul Rizzak Al Kaddour ◽  
Sherif Bakir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Text Messaging ◽  
Tobacco Cessation ◽  
Text Messages ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions

ObjectivesTo explore: (A) the underlying motivators and barriers to smoking cessation among young Arabic speaking smokers and (B) to examine the suitability and preferences for tobacco cessation interventions (specifically text messages) and study the possibility of enrollment methods for a randomised controlled study using text messages as an intervention for tobacco cessation.DesignQualitative research using focus group discussions and content analysis.Setting(s)Two universities, one of them is the first and foremost comprehensive national university in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The third setting is the largest hospital in the UAE and the flagship institution for the public health system in the emirate of Abu Dhabi.ParticipantsSix focus group discussions with a total of 57 participants. Forty-seven men and 10 women. Fifty-three of them were current smokers.ResultsThe analysis of six focus groups was carried out. Main themes arose from the data included: preferences for tobacco cessation interventions and acceptability and feasibility of text messaging as tobacco cessation intervention. Different motives and barriers for quitting smoking including shisha and dokha were explored.ConclusionInterventions using text messaging for smoking cessation have not been used in the Middle East and they could potentially be effective; however, tailoring and closely examining the content and acceptability of text messages to be used is important before the conduction of trials involving their use. Social media is perceived to be more effective and influential, with a higher level of penetration into communities of young smokers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document