Backchannel chatter or spatter? A comparison of online synchronous chatroom use during STEM and Social Sciences lectures.

Student engagement in large lectures is challenging, and one of our strategies has been to introduce online chatting and polling during lectures. Although our initial experiences with a backchannel chat were positive across smaller STEM and larger Social Sciences courses, it became apparent that student usage might differ across disciplines. As such, this study aimed to directly compared the use of backchannel chat in second year Engineering (ENGG*2400; N=418) and Human Sexuality (FRHD*2100; N=263) courses at the University of Guelph. Kountu, a web-based online chat and polling application, was utilized during each Fall 2016 lecture for both courses. The majority of students (72% of FRHD*2100 and 64% of ENGG*2400) tried the chatroom at least once, with an ANOVA demonstrating that the FRHD*2100 students logged in significantly more often (p \u3c .001; m = 9.53 lectures) than ENGG*2400 students (m = 6.55 lectures). ENGG*2400 students, however, posted (m = 14.34) and ‘liked’ (m = 15.25) significantly more messages per person during each lecture than FRHD*2100 students (posts m = 4.38; likes m = 5.64). Interestingly, an online survey of 79 participants indicated that ENGG*2400 students engaged in significantly more off-topic conversations and found their chatroom to be significantly more distracting during lecture than FRHD*2100 students. Additionally, FRHD*2100 students felt significantly more comfortable participating in their chatroom as compared to ENGG*2400. Using live examples and audience participation in Kountu, we will demonstrate the potential reasons for these differences as well as highlight discipline-specific advantages and limitations of using backchannel chat during lecture

Measuring the impact of methodological research

Providing evidence of impact highlights the benefits of medical research to society. Such evidence is increasingly requested by research funders and commonly relies on citation analysis. However, other indicators may be more informative. Although frameworks to demonstrate the impact of clinical research have been reported, no complementary framework exists for methodological research. Therefore, we assessed the impact of methodological research projects conducted or completed between 2009 and 2012 at the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit Hub for Trials Methodology Research Hub, with a view to developing an appropriate framework

Randomised trial of glutamine, selenium, or both, to supplement parenteral nutrition for critically ill patients

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

When participants get involved: reconsidering patient and public involvement in clinical trials at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials aims to ensure that research is carried out collaboratively with patients and/or members of the public. However, current guidance on involving clinical trial participants in PPI activities is not consistent. METHODS: We reviewed the concept of participant involvement, based on our experience. Two workshops were held at the MRCCTU at UCL with the aim of defining participant involvement, considering its rationale; benefits and challenges; and identifying appropriate models for participant involvement in clinical trials. We considered how participant involvement might complement the involvement of other public contributors. Both workshops were attended by two patient representatives and seven staff members with experience of PPI in trials. Two of the staff members had also been involved in studies that had actively involved participants. They shared details of that work to inform discussions. RESULTS: We defined trial participants as individuals taking part in the study in question, including those who had already completed their trial treatment and/or follow-up. Because of their direct experience, involving participants may offer advantages over other public contributors; for example, in studies of new interventions or procedures, and where it is hard to identify or reach patient or community groups that include or speak for the study population. Participant involvement is possible at all stages of a trial; however, because there are no participants to involve during the design stage of a trial, prior to enrolment, participant involvement should complement and not replace involvement of PPI stakeholders. A range of models, including those with managerial, oversight or responsive roles are appropriate for involving participants; however, involvement in data safety and monitoring committees may not be appropriate where there is a potential risk of unblinding. Involvement of participants can improve the trial experience for other participants; optimising study procedures, improving communications; however, there are some specific, notably, managing participant confidentiality and practicalities relating to payments. CONCLUSIONS: Participant involvement in clinical trials is feasible and complements other forms of PPI in clinical trials. Involving active participants offers significant advantages, particularly in circumstances where trials are assessing new, or otherwise unavailable, therapies or processes. We recommend that current guidance on PPI should be updated to routinely consider including participants as valid stakeholders in PPI and potentially useful approach to PPI