Appreciate we are individual humans with previous experience : An exploration of sessional marker experiences

Continuous increase of global reliance on sessional staff in higher education has not been accompanied by the development of strategies to enhance quality learning and teaching or understanding the experiences of these staff. This has resulted in a general discontent among this category of academics. The growing importance of building respectful working environments that integrate inclusive care and performance quality leads to the emergence of standards frameworks. Explorations of sessional staff lived experiences are vital to inform policy and practice. This study examined sessional staff predominantly in a marking role in a local context of an Aotearoa/New Zealand University. We explored our markers’ agreement with selected principles of an Australian national framework. Based on an anonymous Qualtrics survey, the quantitative data showed our markers agreed with most of the selected Australian framework principles at the individual and department levels. An appreciative inquiry of the qualitative data identified markers’ desires for increased professional development, infrastructure and resources, and personal motivation. Considering our markers’ experiences, we propose several actions in a workshop format to provide insights for developing better structures and policies for retaining, training, and engaging with sessional staff

UK ethnicity data collection for healthcare statistics : the South Asian perspective

Background Ethnicity data collection has been proven to be important in health care but despite government initiatives remains incomplete and mostly un-validated in the UK. Accurate self-reported ethnicity data would enable experts to assess inequalities in health and access to services and help to ensure resources are targeted appropriately. The aim of this paper is to explore the reasons for the observed gap in ethnicity data by examining the perceptions and experiences of healthy South Asian volunteers. South Asians are the largest ethnic minority group accounting for 50% of all ethnic minorities in the UK 2001 census. Methods Five focus groups, conducted by trained facilitators in the native language of each group, recruited 36 South Asian volunteers from local community centres and places of worship. The topic guide focused on five key areas:1) general opinions on the collection of ethnicity, 2) experiences of providing ethnicity information, 3) categories used in practice, 4) opinions of other indicators of ethnicity e.g. language, religion and culture and 5) views on how should this information be collected. The translated transcripts were analysed using a qualitative thematic approach. Results The findings of this Cancer Research UK commissioned study revealed that participants felt that accurate recording of ethnicity data was important in healthcare with several stating the increased prevalence of certain diseases in minority ethnic groups as an appropriate justification to improve this data. The overwhelming majority raised no objections to providing this data when the purpose of data collection is fully explained. Conclusions This study confirmed that the collection of patients' ethnicity data is deemed important by potential patients but there remains uncertainty and unease as to how the data may be used. A common theme running through the focus groups was the willingness to provide these data, strongly accompanied by a desire to have more information with regard to its use

A systematic review of the impact of stigma and nihilism on lung cancer outcomes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study systematically reviewed the evidence on the influence of stigma and nihilism on lung cancer patterns of care; patients’ psychosocial and quality of life (QOL) outcomes; and how this may link to public health programs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Medline, EMBASE, ProQuest, CINAHL, PsycINFO databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were: included lung cancer patients and/or partners or caregivers and/or health professionals (either at least 80% of participants had lung cancer or were partners or caregivers of lung cancer patients, or there was a lung cancer specific sub-group focus or analysis), assessed stigma or nihilism with respect to lung cancer and published in English between 1^st January 1999 and 31^st January 2011. Trial quality and levels of evidence were assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eighteen articles describing 15 studies met inclusion criteria. The seven qualitative studies were high quality with regard to data collection, analysis and reporting; however most lacked a clear theoretical framework; did not address interviewer bias; or provide a rationale for sample size. The eight quantitative studies were generally of low quality with highly selected samples, non-comparable groups and low participation rates and employed divergent theoretical and measurement approaches. Stigma about lung cancer was reported by patients and health professionals and was related to poorer QOL and higher psychological distress in patients. Clear empirical explorations of nihilism were not evident. There is qualitative evidence that from the patients’ perspectives public health programs contribute to stigma about lung cancer and this was supported by published commentary.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Health-related stigma presents as a part of the lung cancer experience however there are clear limitations in the research to date. Future longitudinal and multi-level research is needed and this should be more clearly linked to relevant theory.</p