Search

To assist higher education institutions in meeting the challenge of limited student engagement in the implementation of Learning Analytics services, the Questionnaire for Student Expectations of Learning Analytics (SELAQ) was developed. This instrument contains 12 items, which are explained by a purported two‐factor structure of "Ethical and Privacy Expectations" and "Service Feature Expectations." As it stands, however, the SELAQ has only been validated with students from UK university, which is problematic on account of the interest in Learning Analytics extending beyond this context. Thus, the aim of the current work was to assess whether the translated SELAQ can be validated in three contexts (an Estonian, a Spanish, and a Dutch University). The findings show that the model provided acceptable fits in both the Spanish and Dutch samples, but was not supported in the Estonian student sample. In addition, an assessment of local fit is undertaken for each sample, which provides important points that need to be considered in future work. Finally, a general comparison of expectations across contexts is undertaken, which are discussed in relation to the General Data Protection Regulation (2018). Lay Description: What is currently known about the subject matter: Accounting for student expectations allows for a service that is meaningful.SELAQ measures student expectations towards Learning Analytics services.The 12 items of the SELAQ can be explained by a two‐factor structure (Ethical and Privacy Expectations and Service Feature Expectations). What their paper adds to this: Validation of the SELAQ in three contextsA discussion of localized sources of strainAn assessment of measurement quality in each contextA general comparison of student expectations across contexts The implications of study findings for practitioners: SELAQ can be used with Spanish and Dutch students.SELAQ responses provide a much needed input from end‐users in Learning Analytics implementations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background and Purpose: Physiotherapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) are key professions providing treatment for the arm after stroke; however, knowledge about the content of these treatments is scant. Detailed data are needed to replicate interventions, evaluate their effective components, and evaluate PT and OT practice. This paper describes PT and OT treatment for the severely affected arm in terms of duration, content according to components and categories of the International Classification of Human Functioning, Disability and Health, and to analyze differences between professions. Methods: Design: This is a retrospective analysis of randomized trial data. Participants: 46 patients after stroke with poor arm motor control recruited from inpatient neurological units from three rehabilitation centers in the Netherlands. Procedure: PTs and OTs recorded duration and content of arm treatment interventions for 8 weeks using a bespoke treatment schedule with 15 International Classification of Human Functioning, Disability and Health categories. Results: PTs and OTs spent on average 4–7 min per treatment session (30 min) on arm treatment. OTs spent significantly more time providing arm treatment and treatment at the activities level than PTs. PTs spent 79% of their arm treatment time on body functions, OTs 41%. OTs spent significantly more time on “moving around using transportation,” “self care,” and “household tasks” categories. Conclusions: Patients after stroke with a severely affected arm and an unfavorable prognosis for arm motor recovery receive little arm‐oriented PT and OT. Therapists spent most arm treatment time on body functions. There was a considerable overlap in the content of PT and OT in 12 of the 15 categories. Results can be generalized only to patients with poor arm motor control and may not represent practice in other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Decision aids can be used to support shared decision making ( SDM). A patient-oriented treatment decision aid ( DA) was developed for type 2 diabetes but its use by general practice staff appeared to be limited. Objectives To explore views of practice staff towards SDM and the DA. Design A mixed-methods study within the Dutch PORTDA-diab trial. Setting and participants Included were 17 practices with staff members who were responsible for routine diabetes care and had worked with the DA, and 209 of their patients. Methods Interviews were conducted focusing on applicability, usefulness and feasibility of the DA. Interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim and subjected to content analysis for identifying and classifying views. Patient-reported data about the use of the DA were collected. Associations between specific views and use of the DA were tested using Pearson point-biserial correlation. Results The majority of practice staff expressed positive views towards SDM, which was associated with making more use of the DA. Most of the staff expressed that the DA stimulated a two-way conversation. By using the DA, several became aware of their paternalistic approach. Some staff experienced a conflict with the content of the DA, which was associated with making less use of the DA. Conclusions The DA was considered useful by practice staff to support SDM. A positive view towards SDM was a facilitator, whereas experiencing a conflict with the content of the DA was a barrier for making use of the DA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which aims to listen to peoples' perspectives on what constitutes a good physician communication. The researchers detail the study design using videotaped standardized medical encounters to discuss their preferences in gender-specific focus groups. It implies that the physicians' affective attitude is most desired and appreciated by patients.

Background Systematic pain registration and assessment with a visual analog scale ( VAS) or numeric rating scale ( NRS) at each visit are key recommendations in one of the most recent guidelines on cancer pain management. It is unclear whether this recommendation is applied. Objectives The aim was to explore registration of pain in medical records of patients visiting the medical oncology outpatient clinic. Methods In a multicenter study in six Dutch hospitals, data were extracted from medical records of 380 outpatients with cancer. Data of the first three visits at the outpatient clinic were studied. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results In 23% of all 987 visits at the outpatient clinic, pain or absence of pain was registered, and in an additional 15%, a nonspecific symptom description was given. Regarding all other visits, (62%) pain or absence of pain was not documented at all. Pain measurement using a VAS or NRS was documented in only one visit. Pain was more often registered in medical records of patients with metastasis, as well as in those of patients with urogenital tumors. Conclusion Pain in medical oncology outpatients is not systematically registered in their medical records. With one exception, pain was not registered with a VAS or NRS. Yet, registration and assessment of pain to monitor pain are essential to evaluate and adapt pain treatment over time. Pain registration has not improved since 2001 and therefore implementing the recommendations regarding systematic monitoring of pain is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]