Participants’ perceptions of groupwork in the management of cancer symptoms in older people

This paper explores groupwork within rehabilitative palliative care on three distressing cancer symptoms: pain, dyspnoea and fatigue. This was achieved through qualitative methodology using a phenomenological orientated psychological approach in a cohort with a median age of 66 years. Groupwork, which included: social, exercise and divertional therapy groups were seen as important components within rehabilitative palliative care. Through semi-structured interviews the participants’ perceptions of their symptoms, beliefs and attitudes towards their groupwork within rehabilitative palliative care were explored. The relevance and benefits of the groupwork were then identified using quality of life markers established during data analysis. The main factors uncovered and shown to contribute to the groupwork were: environmental factors, mobilisation and normalisation. However more research is required to comprehend how different forms of groupwork can help reduce pain, dyspnoea and fatigue in older people with cancer

A Reflective Evaluation of Group Assessment

There is a general agreement in the literature that groupwork helps to develop important interpersonal and personal skills (Race, 2001; Visram & Joy, 2003; Elliot & Higgins, 2005; Kench et al, 2008). However, one of the problems with groupwork for both students and lecturers is how the work should be assessed (Parsons & Kassabova, 2002). The possibility of having ‘free-riders’ and the difficulty of fairly awarding marks to reflect the level of students’ contribution to a group output are some of the key problem areas in groupwork assessment (Race, 2001). Peer assessment is seen as one of the methods to deal with these problems. It can generally involve students assessing each other’s level of contribution to the group’s output (Visram & Joy, 2003). This paper provides our reflection on the use of peer assessment on a student group project

Difficult behaviour in groups

This article is based on work with 24 groupworkers in a Children's Services agency in the English Midlands. Focus groups to consider the training priorities for groupworkers revealed one of the most pressing issues was difficult behaviours in groups. (This was initially referred to as challenging behaviour, but it was recognised that the word is ambiguous, so it was replaced by 'difficult'). The groupworkers were asked to present an example of difficult behaviour, some of which are reproduced here, as part of a process to understand the meaning of difficult behaviour and to add context. Nine themes arose from the work with the Children's Services groupworkers, and the article explores each theme and its implications for groupwork practice. The article relates the topic of difficult behaviour to the wider literature and suggests that the key to understanding and working with these behaviours in groups is the ability of the groupworker to unlock the meaning of the behaviour, and to find a way to articulate this alongside group members. Groupworkers' honesty with themselves about the feelings aroused by difficult behaviours emerges as a significant factor.</p

Groupwork assessments and international postgraduate students : reflections on practice

Groupwork is a common learning and assessment method in Business Schools throughout the UK. It has recognised pedagogic benefits, increases active or deep learning of a subject and, although it often appears to be unpopular amongst students, for these reasons it is popular among academic staff in Business Schools. The cultural diversity of a particular cohort of students (especially those who have received no previous education in the UK) arguably has an impact on teaching method and assessment methods. It brings another dimension to the debate of ‘traditional’ versus ‘innovative’ teaching approaches and is worth further examination, particularly as the increasingly multicultural aspect of the present UK higher education environment is not a well researched field. The impact of the increasing numbers of international students dictates that issues relating to the appropriateness of teaching and learning methods must be considered within a multicultural perspective. The preference of certain international students, particularly those from the Far East, is for the more traditional teaching methods; groupwork is unpopular (Bamford et al 2002). This adds weight to the argument for maintaining traditional methods in the multinational classroom. The issue is explored here through a case study on the use of a group assessment with a cohort of international students at postgraduate level

The changing of the guard: groupwork with people who have intellectual disabilities

This paper considers the impact of service systems on group activities. It describes an inter-professional groupwork project facilitated by a social worker and a community nurse. The project provided an emancipatory experience for a group of adults who had intellectual disabilities. The group was charged with the task of reviewing and updating the recruitment and interview processes used by a 'Learning Disability Partnership Board', when employing new support workers. The paper begins with a brief history of intellectual disability and provides a context to the underpinning philosophical belief that people should be encouraged and supported to inhabit valued social roles no matter what disability they may have. It then identifies the ways in which the sponsoring health, education and social care services impacted on the creation and development of a groupwork project. It might have been expected that the nature of the intellectual disability would have been the major influence on group process. However the paper reveals that organisational constraints had a significant impact on group functioning. Issues including, staffing budgets and transport contracts impacted on group process and function. The results of the project show how, with adequate support, people with intellectual disability can make important decisions that have long-reaching impacts on the services

The Field Guide: Applying <i>Making it Count</i> to health promotion activity with homosexually active men

This Field Guide considers a range of methods used to carry out health promotion with homosexually active men. It is a companion document to Making it count: a collaborative planning framework to reduce the incidence of HIV infection during sex between men (Hickson et al., 2003). Like Making it count, this document will be reviewed every two to three years and accompanied by training opportunities. The authors welcome comments and suggestions on this document and its use. These can be sent to: [email protected] or [email protected]. "Briefing papers" that add to the content of this guide will be produced as part of the CHAPS sector development programme. These will be available periodically from www. chapsonline.org.uk. Making it count describes a co-ordinated national framework to reduce HIV incidence occurring as a consequence of sex between men. It is intended for workers, managers, policy makers, legislators, health professionals or anyone with an investment in reducing HIV incidence among homosexually active men. This Field Guide is written for gay men's HIV health promoters. It places the theory, goals and strategic aims contained in Making it count in the context of day-to-day health promotion activity. It was developed through a range of formal interviews and informal discussion with more than 40 managers and key workers with experience and expertise in specific areas of HIV health promotion for homosexually active men. It concentrates mainly on direct contact work (Chapters 3 to 7), but also considers other types of health promotion that benefit homosexually active men by influencing the structures they live within (Chapter 8). Section one (Chapters 1 and 2) provides an overview of Making it count and the relationship between this document and that main framework. It outlines the key strategic aims of Making it count and contextualises what follows. Section two concerns direct contact with homosexually active men. Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 deal with different methods of carrying out direct contact work with this population. Chapter 7 considers the different target groups within the entire population of homosexually active men. It examines how to prioritise target groups using epidemiological and needs data and how best to target different groups in various settings. Section three (Chapter 8) addresses other types of health promotion interventions that are necessary including policy, community and service interventions. These are the interventions needed in order to facilitate direct contact interventions and attend to the broader determinants of sexual health for homosexually active men. It is anticipated that some (NHS) commissioners would benefit from reading this document in order to further their understanding of the range of work that they could fund. However, this document is not an implementation plan for the NHS in relation to HIV incidence among homosexually active men. Rather, Terrence Higgins Trust are currently in discussion with the Department of Health concerning further work to support the use of Making it count as the basis for Primary Care Trusts' planning and purchasing of HIV prevention activity for homosexually active men