Using Debates to Mimic Clinical Discussion in Experiential Education

Critical thinking and application of knowledge to an ambiguous patient care scenario are often difficult skills to cultivate in learners. Use of traditional teaching techniques (e.g. topic discussions and journal clubs) helps to develop these competencies within learners. However, alternative teaching strategies may help develop critical thinking and direct application. Debates have been used in healthcare education for decades with positive results. This paper provides supporting evidence for use of debates in pharmacy education and is designed to serve as a general guide for preceptors interested in implementing debates into the experiential setting. Specifically, the objectives are to: 1) highlight the pedagogical outcomes as reported in the literature, 2) offer practical considerations to implement debates as a teaching tool in experiential education, and 3) encourage future research and scholarship in this area.   Type: Idea Pape

Using Debates to Mimic Clinical Discussion in Experiential Education

Critical thinking and application of knowledge to an ambiguous patient care scenario are often difficult skills to cultivate in learners. Use of traditional teaching techniques (e.g. topic discussions and journal clubs) helps to develop these competencies within learners. However, alternative teaching strategies may help develop critical thinking and direct application. Debates have been used in healthcare education for decades with positive results. This paper provides supporting evidence for use of debates in pharmacy education and is designed to serve as a general guide for preceptors interested in implementing debates into the experiential setting. Specifically, the objectives are to: 1) highlight the pedagogical outcomes as reported in the literature, 2) offer practical considerations to implement debates as a teaching tool in experiential education, and 3) encourage future research and scholarship in this area.   Type: Idea Pape

Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2

The social cost of carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) measures the monetized value of the damages to society caused by an incremental metric tonne of CO2 emissions and is a key metric informing climate policy. Used by governments and other decision-makers in beneft–cost analysis for over a decade, SC-CO2 estimates draw on climate science, economics, demography and other disciplines. However, a 2017 report by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine1 (NASEM) highlighted that current SC-CO2 estimates no longer refect the latest research. The report provided a series of recommendations for improving the scientifc basis, transparency and uncertainty characterization of SC-CO2 estimates. Here we show that improved probabilistic socioeconomic projections, climate models, damage functions, and discounting methods that collectively refect theoretically consistent valuation of risk, substantially increase estimates of the SC-CO2. Our preferred mean SC-CO2 estimate is $185 per tonne of CO2 ($44–$413 per tCO2: 5$51 per tCO2. Our estimates incorporate updated scientifc understanding throughout all components of SC-CO2 estimation in the new open-source Greenhouse Gas Impact Value Estimator (GIVE) model, in a manner fully responsive to the near-term NASEM recommendations. Our higher SC-CO2 values, compared with estimates currently used in policy evaluation, substantially increase the estimated benefts of greenhouse gas mitigation and thereby increase the expected net benefts of more stringent climate policies

Evidence and argument in policymaking: development of workplace smoking legislation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We sought to identify factors that affect the passage of public health legislation by examining the use of arguments, particularly arguments presenting research evidence, in legislative debates regarding workplace smoking restrictions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a case-study based content analysis of legislative materials used in the development of six state workplace smoking laws, including written and spoken testimony and the text of proposed and passed bills and amendments. We coded testimony given before legislators for arguments used, and identified the institutional affiliations of presenters and their position on the legislation. We compared patterns in the arguments made in testimony to the relative strength of each state's final legislation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Greater discussion of scientific evidence within testimony given was associated with the passage of workplace smoking legislation that provided greater protection for public health, regardless of whether supporters outnumbered opponents or vice versa.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings suggest that an emphasis on scientific discourse, relative to other arguments made in legislative testimony, might help produce political outcomes that favor public health.</p