The ABC of peer mentoring – what secondary students have to say about cross-age peer mentoring in a regional Australian school

Cross-age peer mentoring is an educational model that builds on peer support and mentoring to assist young people to enhance social relationships, develop cognitive skills, and promote positive identity development. In this article, we outline the evaluation process of a cross-age peer-mentoring program implemented in an Australian secondary school. This program had a distinctive focus on blending cross-age peer mentoring, academic tutoring, and social support roles. We focus on the program's consumers – the voices of Year 7 students (mentees) and Year 10 students (mentors). Student perspectives were gathered using qualitative methods through repeated focus groups. Data were thematically analysed, and the findings show observed changes in social relationships, problem-solving skills, and engagement with literacy. We discuss the importance of this relationship for effective learning and examine the reported changes to engagement with relationship building. Implications for developing whole-of-school support and increasing wider participation are discussed

Performance of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society versus European Society of Cardiology guideline criteria for hospital admission of patients with syncope

BACKGROUND: Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society (ACC/AHA/HRS) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend different strategies to avoid low-yield admissions in patients with syncope. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to directly compare the safety and efficacy of applying admission criteria of both guidelines to patients presenting with syncope to the emergency department in 2 multicenter studies. METHODS: The international BASEL IX (BAsel Syncope EvaLuation) study (median age 71 years) and the U.S. SRS (Improving Syncope Risk Stratification in Older Adults) study (median age 72 years) were investigated. Primary endpoints were sensitivity/specificity for the adjudicated diagnosis of cardiac syncope (BASEL IX only) and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (30d-MACE). RESULTS: Among 2560 patients in the BASEL IX and 2085 in SRS studies, ACC/AHA/HRS and ESC criteria recommended admission for a comparable number of patients in BASEL IX (27% vs 28%), but ACC/AHA/HRS criteria less often in SRS (19% vs 32%; P <.01). Recommendations were discordant in ∼25% of patients. In BASEL IX, sensitivity for cardiac syncope and 30d-MACE among patients without admission criteria was comparable for ACC/AHA/HRS and ESC criteria (64% vs 65%, P = .86; and 67% vs 71%, P = .15, respectively). In SRS, sensitivity for 30d-MACE was lower with ACC/AHA/HRS (54%) vs ESC criteria (88%; P <.001). Similarly, specificity for cardiac syncope and 30d-MACE in BASEL IX was comparable for both guidelines, but in SRS the ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines showed a higher specificity for 30d-MACE than the ESC guidelines. CONCLUSION: ACC/AHA/HRS and ESC guidelines showed disagreement regarding admission for 1 in 4 patients and had only modest sensitivity, all indicating possible opportunities for improvements

Performance of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society versus European Society of Cardiology guideline criteria for hospital admission of patients with syncope.

BACKGROUND Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society (ACC/AHA/HRS) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend different strategies to avoid low-yield admissions in patients with syncope. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to directly compare the safety and efficacy of applying admission criteria of both guidelines to patients presenting with syncope to the emergency department in 2 multicenter studies. METHODS The international BASEL IX (BAsel Syncope EvaLuation) study (median age 71 years) and the U.S. SRS (Improving Syncope Risk Stratification in Older Adults) study (median age 72 years) were investigated. Primary endpoints were sensitivity/specificity for the adjudicated diagnosis of cardiac syncope (BASEL IX only) and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (30d-MACE). RESULTS Among 2560 patients in the BASEL IX and 2085 in SRS studies, ACC/AHA/HRS and ESC criteria recommended admission for a comparable number of patients in BASEL IX (27% vs 28%), but ACC/AHA/HRS criteria less often in SRS (19% vs 32%; P <.01). Recommendations were discordant in ∼25% of patients. In BASEL IX, sensitivity for cardiac syncope and 30d-MACE among patients without admission criteria was comparable for ACC/AHA/HRS and ESC criteria (64% vs 65%, P = .86; and 67% vs 71%, P = .15, respectively). In SRS, sensitivity for 30d-MACE was lower with ACC/AHA/HRS (54%) vs ESC criteria (88%; P <.001). Similarly, specificity for cardiac syncope and 30d-MACE in BASEL IX was comparable for both guidelines, but in SRS the ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines showed a higher specificity for 30d-MACE than the ESC guidelines. CONCLUSION ACC/AHA/HRS and ESC guidelines showed disagreement regarding admission for 1 in 4 patients and had only modest sensitivity, all indicating possible opportunities for improvements

Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity

CITATION: O’Brien, S. P., et al. 2016. Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1:9, doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0012-9.The original publication is available at https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.comThese Proceedings contain the abstracts of the presentations given at the 4th World Conference in concurrent sessions, partner symposia, and poster sessions. Also included are summaries of the discussions in three focus tracks, which allowed delegates to consider and work on questions about the roles of funders, institutions, and countries in improving research systems and strengthening research integrity. Videos of the plenary presentations are available at the conference website (www.wcri2015.org).https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0012-