In vivo laboratory practicals in research-led teaching: An example using glucose tolerance tests in lean and obese mice

The use of animal models is an essential part of medical research and drug development. The essential skills required to be able to do such research includes experimental design, statistical analysis and the actual handling and treating of the animals (in vivo skills). The number of students in the U.K. receiving training in handling and experimenting on animals has declined rapidly in the last few decades which has led to initiatives to increase numbers of students with these skills to meet demand. Within the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at King's College London, we run a course for 2nd year undergraduates entitled “Animal models of disease and injury”. This course not only covers the theoretical and ethical aspects of using animals in research, but also contains practical laboratory classes in which students get hands-on experience using animals. One of the laboratory classes we run is a glucose tolerance test in obese and lean mice. This is an example of research-led teaching which aims to develop research skills through engaging students in research like activities. In this paper, we outline the methodology of the glucose tolerance practical and highlight some of the skills we and the students think they gain by research-led teaching such as this

The impact of Cochrane Systematic Reviews : a mixed method evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research

© 2014 Bunn et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background: There has been a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, have been a key component of this movement. The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). The aim of this study was to identify the impacts of Cochrane reviews published by NIHR funded CRGs during the years 2007-11. Methods: We sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, interviewed guideline developers and used bibliometrics and documentary review to get an overview of CRG impact and to evaluate the impact of a sample of 60 Cochrane reviews. We used a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development, and impact on practice/services). Results: A total of 1502 new and updated reviews were produced by the 20 NIHR funded CRGs between 2007-11. The clearest impacts were on policy with a total of 483 systematic reviews cited in 247 sets of guidance; 62 were international, 175 national (87 from the UK) and 10 local. Review authors and CRGs provided some examples of impact on practice or services, for example safer use of medication, the identification of new effective drugs or treatments and potential economic benefits through the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures. However, such impacts are difficult to objectively document and the majority of reviewers were unsure if their review had produced specific impacts. Qualitative data suggested that Cochrane reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance although a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and guideline developers were barriers to their use. Conclusions: Health and economic impacts of research are generally difficult to measure. We found that to be the case with this evaluation. Impacts on knowledge production and clinical guidance were easier to identify and substantiate than those on clinical practice. Questions remain about how we define and measure impact and more work is needed to develop suitable methods for impact analysis.Peer reviewe

Following the impact factor: Utilitarianism or academic compliance?

The use of impact factors has grown substantially in academia and publishing far beyond their original intended use. They are now used extensively in academic and research assessments as well as in the promotion of journals, publishers, institutions and individuals. The implications of such metricisation for understandings of research quality are discussed as well as for research strategies, the commercialisation of academic publishing, the disciplining of academic knowledge and publishing strategies, knowledge development and the further neoliberalisation of higher education. The paradoxes and problems of current and potential future directions are discussed including with respect to the development of open access publications

Hospitality research: a pause for reflection

Over recent decades hospitality research has made considerable advancements and contributions to knowledge creation. However, a review of associated literature reveals that there exists a significant degree of debate concerning the definitional, philosophical and conceptual dimensions of hospitality. This paper aims to capture current thinking and key challenges confronting the research community. Conclusions are drawn calling for: definitional precision of hospitality; a clearly articulated research philosophy locating hospitality as a specialist field of study within the social science landscape; an enhanced degree of research philosophy awareness by researchers; and the benefits of formulating and agreeing an internally valid conceptual framework

Destination Marketing Organizations and destination marketing: A narrative analysis of the literature

This article presents the first narrative analysis of the areas of research that have developed within the destination marketing field since its commencement in 1973. Given the broad extent of the field, and the absence of any previous reviews in four decades, a key challenge is in providing a focus for such a disparate body of knowledge. The review is structured around one principal question: ‘To what extent is the Destination Marketing Organisation (DMO) responsible for the competitiveness of the destination’? In pursuit of this underlying question, we address a number of themes including nomenclature and the DMO, the evolution of the destination marketing literature, competitiveness as the DMO reason d’être, and DMO effectiveness including issues of branding and positioning, and future research themes in the field