Search

BackgroundDual process theories propose that the brain uses 2 types of thinking to influence behavior: automatic processing and reflective processing. Automatic processing is fast, immediate, nonconscious, and unintentional, whereas reflective processing focuses on logical reasoning, and it is slow, step by step, and intentional. Most digital psychological health interventions tend to solely target the reflective system, although the automatic processing pathway can have strong influences on behavior. Laboratory-based research has highlighted that automatic processing tasks can create behavior change; however, there are substantial gaps in the field on the design, implementation, and delivery of automatic processing tasks in real-world settings. It is important to identify and summarize the existing literature in this area to inform the translation of laboratory-based research to real-world settings. ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to explore the effectiveness of automatic training tasks, types of training tasks commonly used, mode of delivery, and impacts of gamification on automatic processing tasks designed for digital psychological health interventions in real-world settings among adults. MethodsThe scoping review methodology proposed by Arskey and O’Malley and Colquhoun was applied. A scoping review was chosen because of the novelty of the digital automatic processing field and to encompass a broad review of the existing evidence base. Electronic databases and gray literature databases were searched with the search terms “automatic processing,” “computerised technologies,” “health intervention,” “real-world,” and “adults” and synonyms of these words. The search was up to date until September 2018. A manual search was also completed on the reference lists of the included studies. ResultsA total of 14 studies met all inclusion criteria. There was a wide variety of health conditions targeted, with the most prevalent being alcohol abuse followed by social anxiety. Attention bias modification tasks were the most prevalent type of automatic processing task, and the majority of tasks were most commonly delivered over the web via a personal computer. Of the 14 studies included in the review, 8 demonstrated significant changes to automatic processes and 4 demonstrated significant behavioral changes as a result of changed automatic processes. ConclusionsThis is the first review to synthesize the evidence on automatic processing tasks in real-world settings targeting adults. This review has highlighted promising, albeit limited, research demonstrating that automatic processing tasks may be used effectively in a real-world setting to influence behavior change.

While universities routinely use student data to monitor and predict student performance, there has been limited engagement with student and staff views, social and ethical issues, policy development, and ethical guidance. We reviewed peer-reviewed and grey-literature articles of 2007 to 2018 describing the perspectives of staff and students in tertiary education on the use of student-generated data in data analytics, including learning analytics. We used an ethics framework to categorize the findings. There was considerable variation but generally low awareness and understanding amongst students and staff about the nature and extent of data collection, data analytics, and use of predictive analytics. Staff and students identified potential benefits but also expressed concerns about misinterpretation of data, constant surveillance, poor transparency, inadequate support, and potential to impede active learning. This review supports the contention that consideration of ethical issues has failed to keep pace with the development of predictive analytics in the tertiary sector.

Objective: Governments use vaccination mandates, of different degrees of coerciveness, to encourage or require childhood vaccination. We elicited the views of well‐informed community members on the public acceptability of using childhood vaccination mandates in Australia. Methods: Four community juries were conducted in Canberra, Launceston, Cairns and Melbourne, Australia between 2021 and 2022. We recruited 51 participants from diverse backgrounds, genders and ages through random digit dialling and social media. Two juries were held in metropolitan areas, and two in regional/rural settings. Outcome measures included jury verdicts and reasons in response to structured questions. Results: All juries were concerned about collective protection and individual rights but prioritised the former over the latter. A majority in all juries supported mandates but juries disagreed with respect to the appropriate mandate types. All juries endorsed using the least restrictive or coercive means to encourage vaccination (providing incentives or education, e.g.) before imposing penalties such as financial losses and school exclusions. The overriding view was that it is fairer to place a direct burden on parents rather than children and that mandates should be designed to avoid inequitable impacts on less advantaged groups in society. Many jurors found conscientious objection acceptable as a controlled option for resolute refusers, provided that overall vaccination coverage remains high. Conclusion: This paper gives policymakers access to the reasons that Australians have for supporting or opposing different mandates under conditions of high knowledge, understanding and deliberation regarding policy options. Sustaining high rates of vaccination requires high levels of co‐operation between governments, public health actors and the public. Our findings highlight the importance of considering public values in the design and implementation of vaccination mandates. Patient and Public Involvement: We sought input from individuals who did and did not vaccinate during the study design. The views and perspectives of nonvaccinating parents were presented in the evidence to juries. We deliberately excluded nonvaccinating individuals from participating, as the divisive and often hostile nature of the topic, and their minority status, made it difficult to ensure they would feel safe as members of the jury without overrepresenting their perspective in the sample. Two related projects engaged directly with these parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A problem-based learning (PBL) assumption is that silence is incompatible with collaborative learning. Although sociocultural studies have reinterpreted silence as collaborative, we must understand how silence occurs in PBL groups. This essay presents students' explanations of dominance, leadership, and silence as PBL group roles. An ethnographic investigation of PBL groups, informed by social constructionism, was conducted at two dental schools (in Australia and Ireland). The methods used were observation, interviews, and focus groups. The participants were volunteer first-year undergraduates. Students attributed dominance, silence, and members' group roles to personal attributes. Consequently, they assumed that groups divided naturally into dominant leaders and silent followers. Sometimes silence had a collaborative learning function, but it was also due to social exclusion. This assumption enabled social practices that privileged some group members and marginalized others. Power and participation in decision making in PBL groups was restricted to dominant group members.

Groups are central to problem-based learning (PBL) and educational and professional outcomes relevant to clinical education. However, PBL groups in practice may differ from theoretical conceptions of groups. Therefore, this study explored students' understandings of the purpose and value of PBL groups for their learning. We conducted a naturalistic study with novice (first-year) students at two dental schools (Australia, Ireland), using observation and interviews analyzed thematically. Students constructed PBL learning as individual knowledge gain, and group purpose as information gathering and exchange; few students acknowledged the learning potential of group processes. Group value depended on assessment and curriculum context. Findings are explained in relation to how students' epistemologies and perceptions of their learning contexts shaped group behaviour. Implications for health professional education practice are considered.