What impact do posters have on academic knowledge transfer? A pilot survey on author attitudes and experiences

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research knowledge is commonly facilitated at conferences via oral presentations, poster presentations and workshops. Current literature exploring the efficacy of academic posters is however limited. The purpose of this initial study was to explore the perceptions of academic poster presentation, together with its benefits and limitations as an effective mechanism for academic knowledge transfer and contribute to the available academic data.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A survey was distributed to 88 delegates who presented academic posters at two Releasing Research and Enterprise Potential conferences in June 2007 and June 2008 at Bournemouth University. This survey addressed attitude and opinion items, together with their general experiences of poster presentations. Descriptive statistics were performed on the responses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A 39% return was achieved with the majority of respondents believing that posters are a good medium for transferring knowledge and a valid form of academic publication. Visual appeal was cited as more influential than subject content, with 94% agreeing that poster imagery is most likely to draw viewer's attention. Respondents also believed that posters must be accompanied by their author in order to effectively communicate the academic content.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This pilot study is the first to explore perceptions of the academic poster as a medium for knowledge transfer. Given that academic posters rely heavily on visual appeal and direct author interaction, the medium requires greater flexibility in their design to promote effective knowledge transfer. This paper introduces the concept of the IT-based 'MediaPoster' so as to address the issues raised within published literature and subsequently enhance knowledge-transfer within the field of academic medicine.</p

Systematic meta-review of supported self-management for asthma: a healthcare perspective

BACKGROUND: Supported self-management has been recommended by asthma guidelines for three decades; improving current suboptimal implementation will require commitment from professionals, patients and healthcare organisations. The Practical Systematic Review of Self-Management Support (PRISMS) meta-review and Reducing Care Utilisation through Self-management Interventions (RECURSIVE) health economic review were commissioned to provide a systematic overview of supported self-management to inform implementation. We sought to investigate if supported asthma self-management reduces use of healthcare resources and improves asthma control; for which target groups it works; and which components and contextual factors contribute to effectiveness. Finally, we investigated the costs to healthcare services of providing supported self-management. METHODS: We undertook a meta-review (systematic overview) of systematic reviews updated with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the review search dates, and health economic meta-analysis of RCTs. Twelve electronic databases were searched in 2012 (updated in 2015; pre-publication update January 2017) for systematic reviews reporting RCTs (and update RCTs) evaluating supported asthma self-management. We assessed the quality of included studies and undertook a meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 27 systematic reviews (n = 244 RCTs) and 13 update RCTs revealed that supported self-management can reduce hospitalisations, accident and emergency attendances and unscheduled consultations, and improve markers of control and quality of life for people with asthma across a range of cultural, demographic and healthcare settings. Core components are patient education, provision of an action plan and regular professional review. Self-management is most effective when delivered in the context of proactive long-term condition management. The total cost (n = 24 RCTs) of providing self-management support is offset by a reduction in hospitalisations and accident and emergency visits (standard mean difference 0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.09 to 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from a total of 270 RCTs confirms that supported self-management for asthma can reduce unscheduled care and improve asthma control, can be delivered effectively for diverse demographic and cultural groups, is applicable in a broad range of clinical settings, and does not significantly increase total healthcare costs. Informed by this comprehensive synthesis of the literature, clinicians, patient-interest groups, policy-makers and providers of healthcare services should prioritise provision of supported self-management for people with asthma as a core component of routine care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: RECURSIVE: PROSPERO CRD42012002694 ; PRISMS: PROSPERO does not register meta-reviews