practice recommendations
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

987
(FIVE YEARS 424)

H-INDEX

65
(FIVE YEARS 15)

2022 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenni Jones ◽  
Helen A. Smith

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to evaluate two coaching and mentoring programmes focused on the ever-increasingly important aim of enhancing the chances of professional level employment for undergraduate students, at two UK universities. In addition, to offer recommendations to enhance coaching and mentoring success within higher education (HE).Design/methodology/approachTwo similar programmes are compared; the first study is a coaching programme delivered in two phases involving over 1,500 students within the business school. The second study is a mentoring programme involving over 250 students over a ten-year period within the business school at a different institution.FindingsThe two programmes have been compared against the key success criteria from the literature, endorsed by coaching and mentoring experts. The results highlight the importance of integrating with other initiatives, senior management commitment, budget, an application process, clear matching process, trained coaches and mentors, induction for both parties, supportive material, ongoing supervision and robust evaluation and record keeping.Research limitations/implicationsThe research focuses on two similar institutions, with comparable student demographics. It would have been useful to dig deeper into the effect of the diverse characteristics of coach/mentor and coachee/mentee on the effectiveness of their relationships. In addition, to test the assumptions and recommendations beyond these two institutions, and to validate the reach and application of these best practice recommendations further afield.Practical implicationsThe results identify a number of best practice recommendations to guide HE institutions when offering coaching and mentoring interventions to support career progression of their students.Originality/valueThere are limited comparison studies between universities with undergraduate career-related coaching and mentoring programmes and limited research offering best practice recommendations for coaching and mentoring programmes in HE. The top ten factors offered here to take away will add value to those thinking of running similar programmes within HE.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler A Beeton ◽  
Antony S Cheng ◽  
Melanie M Colavito

Abstract Collaboration is increasingly emphasized as a tool to realize national-level policy goals in public lands management. Yet, collaborative governance regimes (CGRs) are nested within traditional bureaucracies and are affected by internal and external disruptions. The extent to which CGRs adapt and remain resilient to these disruptions remains under-explored. Here, we distill insights from an assessment of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) projects and other CGRs. We asked (1) how do CGRs adapt to disruptions? and (2) what barriers constrained CGR resilience? Our analysis is informed by a synthesis of the literature, case examples and exemplars from focus groups, and a national CFLRP survey. CGRs demonstrated the ability to mobilize social capital, learning, resources, and flexibility to respond to disruptions. Yet authority, accountability, and capacity complicated collaborative resilience. We conclude with policy and practice recommendations to cultivate collaborative resilience moving forward. Study Implications Collaborative approaches between public lands management agencies and nongovernment organizations have become common in forest restoration. Yet collaborative progress may be affected by turnover, wildfire disturbances, or legal or policy changes. We assessed how forest collaboratives in the United States adapted to changes that affected their performance and documented the factors that constrained response. We found that forest collaboratives developed myriad strategies to adapt to these changes, although limited authority, capacity, and accountability constrain adaptation options. We offer policy and practice recommendations to overcome these constraints, increase adaptation options, and enhance the sustainability of forest collaboratives.


2022 ◽  
pp. 104973232110591
Author(s):  
Kimberly Aguillard ◽  
Rosemary Hughes ◽  
Gretchen L. Gemeinhardt ◽  
Vanessa Schick ◽  
Sheryl McCurdy

Women with disabilities are at risk of experiencing multiple forms of severe and prolonged violence, yet guidelines for screening this population are unclear, screening rates are historically low, and screening tools may be inadequate to capture disability-related aspects of abuse. We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 33 rural women in the United States with diverse disabilities and experiences of violence. They described overarching healthcare provider and system factors that influenced their trust and confidence in healthcare delivery as an avenue to support their safety. Women described interactions with the healthcare system during their experience of violence as a missed opportunity for identifying and responding to their abuse and connecting them with resources. We conclude with policy and practice recommendations based on women with disabilities’ perspectives and insights.


Author(s):  
Werner Bader ◽  
Claudia Maria Vogel-Minea ◽  
Jens-Uwe Blohmer ◽  
Volker Duda ◽  
Christian Eichler ◽  
...  

AbstractFor many years, breast ultrasound has been used in addition to mammography as an important method for clarifying breast findings. However, differences in the interpretation of findings continue to be problematic 1 2. These differences decrease the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound after detection of a finding and complicate interdisciplinary communication and the comparison of scientific studies 3. In 1999, the American College of Radiology (ACR) created a working group (International Expert Working Group) that developed a classification system for ultrasound examinations based on the established BI-RADS classification of mammographic findings under consideration of literature data 4. Due to differences in content, the German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM) published its own BI-RADS-analogue criteria catalog in 2006 3. In addition to the persistence of differences in content, there is also an issue with formal licensing with the current 5th edition of the ACR BI-RADS catalog, even though the content is recognized by the DEGUM as another system for describing and documenting findings. The goal of the Best Practice Guideline of the Breast Ultrasound Working Group of the DEGUM is to provide colleagues specialized in senology with a current catalog of ultrasound criteria and assessment categories as well as best practice recommendations for the various ultrasound modalities.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Gisondi ◽  
Daniel Chambers ◽  
Tatum Minh La ◽  
Alexa Ryan ◽  
Adyant Shankar ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic continues to challenge the world’s population, with approximately 266 million cases and 5 million deaths to date. COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation led to vaccine hesitancy among the public, particularly in vulnerable communities, which persists today. Social media companies are attempting to curb the ongoing spread of an overwhelming amount of COVID-19 misinformation on their platforms. In response to this problem, the authors hosted INFODEMIC: A Stanford Conference on Social Media and COVID-19 Misinformation (INFODEMIC) to develop best practices for social media companies to mitigate online misinformation and disinformation. OBJECTIVE The primary aim of this study was to develop recommendations for social media companies to address The COVID-19 Infodemic. The authors report the methods used to execute the INFODEMIC conference, conference attendee engagement and analytics, and a qualitative thematic analysis of the conference presentations. The primary study outcomes were the identified themes and corresponding recommendations. METHODS Using a constructivist paradigm, the authors conducted a thematic analysis of the 6-hour conference transcript to develop best practice recommendations. The INFODEMIC conference was the study intervention, the conference speakers were the study participants, and transcripts of their presentations were the data for this study. The authors followed the 6-step framework for thematic analysis described by Clark and Braun. They also used descriptive statistics to report measures of conference engagement including registrations, viewership, post-conference asynchronous participation, and conference evaluations. RESULTS A total of 26 participants spoke at the virtual conference and represented a wide array of occupations, expertise, and countries of origin. From their remarks, the authors identified 18 response categories and four themes: trust, equity, social media practices, and interorganizational partnerships. From these, a total of 16 best practice recommendations were formulated for social media companies, healthcare organizations, and the general public. These recommendations focused on rebuilding trust in science and medicine among certain communities, redesigning social media platforms and algorithms to reduce the spread of misinformation, improving partnerships between key stakeholders, and educating the public to critically analyze online information. Of the 1,090 conference registrants, 587 (54%) attended the live conference and another 9,996 individuals viewed or listened to the conference recordings asynchronously. Conference evaluations averaged 8.9 (best = 10). CONCLUSIONS Social media companies play a significant role in the The COVID-19 Infodemic and should adopt evidence-based measures to mitigate misinformation on their platforms.


Diabetes Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S185-S194
Author(s):  

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.


Diabetes Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S8-S16
Author(s):  

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.


Diabetes Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S39-S45
Author(s):  

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document