Search

Several interventions have been implemented across higher education institutions with the aim of reducing the prevalence of plagiarism internationally, yet research dedicated to understanding the situational and contextual factors that contribute to plagiarism in an Australian context has been minimal. The objectives of this study were to explore the experiences, views, and understandings of plagiarism from the perspectives of students and teaching staff, and to identify the perceived barriers and enablers of 'ethical' academic writing. The Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivations, and Behaviour (COM-B) model was used as the theoretical framework for this study. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 37 undergraduate students and seven university teaching staff recruited across four health-related academic disciplines within Australia's largest university to elicit their perceptions of plagiarism and the factors that contribute to its prevalence. A total of 16 themes were identified and divided across the Capabilities, Opportunities, and Motivations domains of the COM-B model. Each of the themes within these three domains were classified as either a barrier or enabler of ethical academic writing. The findings reported herein provide the basis of several recommendations for intervention through teaching practice and university policy change to reduce the prevalence of plagiarism within higher education institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Programme evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have potential to enhance understanding of trial outcomes. This paper describes a multi-level programme evaluation to be conducted alongside an RCT of a falls prevention programme (RESPOND). Objectives (1) To conduct a process evaluation in order to identify the degree of implementation fidelity and associated barriers and facilitators. (2) To evaluate the primary intended impact of the programme: participation in fall prevention strategies and the factors influencing participation. (3) To identify the factors influencing RESPOND RCT outcomes: falls, fall injuries and emergency department (ED) re-presentations. Methods/design 528 community-dwelling adults aged 60-90 years presenting to two EDs with a fall will be recruited and randomly assigned to the intervention or standard care group. All RESPOND participants and RESPOND clinicians will be included in the evaluation. A mixed methods design will be used and a programme logic model will frame the evaluation. Data will be sourced from interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, clinician case notes, recruitment records, participant-completed calendars, hospital administrative datasets and audio-recordings of intervention contacts. Quantitative data will be analysed via descriptive and inferential statistics and qualitative data will be interpreted using thematic analysis. Discussion The RESPOND programme evaluation will provide information about contextual and influencing factors related to the RESPOND RCT outcomes. The results will assist researchers, clinicians and policy makers regarding decisions about future falls prevention interventions. Insights gained may be applicable to a range of chronic conditions where similar preventive intervention approaches are indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]