Developing effective communications (1993)

"Reviewed October 1993.

Developing Effective Communications (1988)

"Reprint 4/88/2.5M."It's been estimated that many Americans spend 70 to 80% of their time in communications: writing, reading, talking, listening. This is certainly true of Extension faculty. This suggests that communications may well be the key to success for an Extension worker.What is communication? -- The communication process -- Aristotle's model -- Lasswell's model -- The Shannon and Weaver model -- Schramm's model -- The Rileys' model -- Berlo's model -- Summar

Developing effective communications

"1/83/2.5M"Dick Lee (Agricultural Editior

Listening : Our Most Used Communication Skill (1993)

"Reviewed October 1993."Listening is the communication skill most of us use the most frequently. Various studies stress the importance of listening as a communication skill. A typical study points out that many of us spend 70 to 80 percent of our waking hours in some form of communication. Of that time, we spend about 9 percent writing, 16 percent reading, 30 percent speaking, and 45 percent listening. Studies also confirm that most of us are poor and inefficient listeners

Listening : our most used communication skill

"1/83/2M""Listening is the communication skill most of us most frequently. Various studies stress the importance of listening as a communication skill. A typical study points out that many of us spend 70 to 80 percent of our time in some form of communication. Of that time, we spend about 9 percent writing, 16 percent reading, 30 percent speaking, and 45 percent listening. Studies also confirm that most of us are poor or inefficient listeners. Why? Several reasons are likely."--First page.Dick Lee (Agricultural Editor), Delmar Hatesohl (Associate Agricultural Editor

Questioning the construct of \u27susceptibility\u27 in the causal link between tobacco industry promotion and adolescent smoking

The first article to report on a causal connection between tobacco industry promotion and adolescent smoking (Pierce et al. 1998) had, and continues to have, a significant influence on the marketing of cigarettes in many parts of the world. A key construct in determining causality was the ability to identify the respondents&rsquo; &ldquo;susceptibility to smoke&rdquo;. Through an analysis of the questions, and reanalysis of the original data used by Pierce et al. (1998), it is shown that the construct is flawed, and needs revision before a causal link can be claimed with the original data.<br /

Facts

Advice complied by Boston University School of Medicine students for incoming first year students and third or fourth year students preparing for clinical rotations

A parent-targeted group intervention for pediatric pain delivered in-person or virtually:feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness

OBJECTIVES: Parents play integral roles in their youth's chronic pain and can experience elevated distress related to caregiving. This study examined a cognitive-behavior therapy-based parent-targeted group intervention, including understudied/novel resilience/risk (eg, distress, parenting self-regulation), and compared the effect of in-person versus virtual delivery format. HYPOTHESES: (1) Adequate feasibility and acceptability (enrolment&gt;33%, attendance &gt;60%, attrition &lt;25%, satisfaction ratings &gt;90%), with higher indicators of feasibility in the virtual groups; (2) Significant improvements in parent psychological flexibility, protectiveness, distress, and parenting self-regulation at posttreatment that were maintained at follow-up, with no difference between delivery type. METHODS: Parents were enroled from an outpatient pediatric chronic pain clinic and participated in the group intervention in-person or virtually; questionnaires were completed at baseline, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Enrolment (55% in-person, 65% virtual) and attendance (86% in-person, 93% virtual) were higher, and attrition was lower than expected (4% in-person, 7% virtual). Satisfaction was high (4.95/5 in-person, 4.85/5 virtual); on written feedback, parents enjoyed connecting with other parents (27/56, 48%) the most. The least preferred were the virtual format (5/36, 14%) and timing of the group (6/52, 12%). There were no differences between delivery formats in feasibility/acceptability. The intervention significantly improved parents' psychological flexibility, protectiveness, distress, and parenting self-regulation over time. A small group difference favored the in-person format for psychological flexibility, and an interaction effect for parenting self-regulation was found. DISCUSSION: This standalone parent-targeted group intervention had positive effects on parent outcomes delivered either in-person or virtually.</p

A parent-targeted group intervention for pediatric pain delivered in-person or virtually:feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness

OBJECTIVES: Parents play integral roles in their youth's chronic pain and can experience elevated distress related to caregiving. This study examined a cognitive-behavior therapy-based parent-targeted group intervention, including understudied/novel resilience/risk (eg, distress, parenting self-regulation), and compared the effect of in-person versus virtual delivery format. HYPOTHESES: (1) Adequate feasibility and acceptability (enrolment&gt;33%, attendance &gt;60%, attrition &lt;25%, satisfaction ratings &gt;90%), with higher indicators of feasibility in the virtual groups; (2) Significant improvements in parent psychological flexibility, protectiveness, distress, and parenting self-regulation at posttreatment that were maintained at follow-up, with no difference between delivery type. METHODS: Parents were enroled from an outpatient pediatric chronic pain clinic and participated in the group intervention in-person or virtually; questionnaires were completed at baseline, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Enrolment (55% in-person, 65% virtual) and attendance (86% in-person, 93% virtual) were higher, and attrition was lower than expected (4% in-person, 7% virtual). Satisfaction was high (4.95/5 in-person, 4.85/5 virtual); on written feedback, parents enjoyed connecting with other parents (27/56, 48%) the most. The least preferred were the virtual format (5/36, 14%) and timing of the group (6/52, 12%). There were no differences between delivery formats in feasibility/acceptability. The intervention significantly improved parents' psychological flexibility, protectiveness, distress, and parenting self-regulation over time. A small group difference favored the in-person format for psychological flexibility, and an interaction effect for parenting self-regulation was found. DISCUSSION: This standalone parent-targeted group intervention had positive effects on parent outcomes delivered either in-person or virtually.</p