Search

The Scottish Government has tasked Higher Education Institutions with \ud improving the recruitment, retention and progression of students who are classified as living \ud within the lowest deprivation quintile according to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivati\ud on \ud (Scottish Government, 2012). The Scottish Funding Council allocates ringfenced funding for \ud this purpose and negotiates specific outcome agreements with each institution to measure \ud and evaluate success. As an initiative funded in this way, the School of \ud Health and Life \ud Science’s Learning Development Centre (LDC) at Glasgow Caledonian University is \ud required to support students from low participation postcodes.\ud The LDC provides enhancement\ud -\ud led, learning support to all students in the School through a \ud blend \ud of timetabled, in\ud -\ud programme teaching, workshops and one to one appointments. \ud Support for, and monitoring of, those identified as belonging to the ‘multiple deprivations’ \ud category (MD20s), however, is becoming an increasing priority. Whilst clearly a desira\ud ble \ud aim in terms of social justice and widening participation, it is less obvious how best to target \ud and measure support. The risks of stigmatising, alienating or even creating dependency \ud amongst what is surely a heterogeneous group are manifold.\ud This pape\ud r will report on research conducted by the LDC members that attempted to better \ud understand the diverse group of ‘MD20 students’ who attend, or potentially attend \ud programmes within the School. The aim of the project was to provide an evidence\ud -\ud base on \ud which \ud further support activities could be built. Cognisant of the diversity of the group in \ud question and the risk of labelling or categorising students, the project employed a narrative \ud or biographical approach which aimed to capture and explore the individual l\ud ife histories of \ud students (Field, Merrill & West, 2012). In particular, it investigated the paths their lives had \ud taken to lead them to study at university, how they felt about the MD20 focus and what kind \ud of support, if any, would empower them to succeed \ud in their studies. Alongside in\ud -\ud depth, \ud qualitative exploration of the issues, academic performance and baseline demographic data \ud were collected to gather as full a picture as possible of the group in question.

My colleague Lesley and I represented our learning development centre at the 10th ALDinHE conference about providing inclusive learning environments utilising demographic data to support our students.

World Health Organization (WHO) immunological and clinical criteria for monitoring first-line antiretroviral treatment (ART) offer low accuracy for predicting viral failure. Targeting viral load assays to those at high risk has been recommended and a system to do this has been developed in Cambodia. Systems for use in sub-Saharan African populations were evaluated.A new Ugandan-based scoring system for targeting viral load assays was developed from data from the first 4 years of a Ugandan cohort (N = 559) receiving first-line ART. The accuracy of this, the Cambodian system and the WHO criteria to predict viral failure, through targeting viral load assays, were compared in a separate population of 496 Ugandans.The new Ugandan scoring system included CD4 cell count, mean cell volume, adherence, and HIV-associated clinical events as predictors of viral failure. In the validation population, the Ugandan system undertook viral load assays in 61 (12.3%) cases offering 20.5% sensitivity and 100% positive predictive value (PPV) to predict viral failure. The Cambodian system undertook viral load assays in 33 (6.7%) cases producing 23.1% sensitivity and 90.0% PPV. WHO criteria recommended viral load assays in 72 (14.5%) cases offering 30.8% sensitivity and 100% PPV.Locally developed algorithms based on clinical and immunological criteria may offer little additional accuracy over WHO criteria for targeting viral load assays. When possible, confirming viral load before switching therapy is recommended. Scoring systems are more flexible than WHO criteria in allowing ART providers to choose the proportion of the population that undergo targeted viral load testing.

In western populations irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) affects between 10% and 30% of the population and has a significant effect on quality of life. It generates a substantial workload in both primary and secondary care and has significant cost implications. Gut-directed hypnotherapy has been demonstrated to alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life but has not been assessed outside of secondary and tertiary referral centres.To assess the effectiveness of gut-directed hypnotherapy as a complementary therapy in the management of IBS.Randomised controlled trial.Primary care patients aged 18-65 years inclusive, with a diagnosis of IBS of greater than 6 weeks' duration and having failed conventional management, located in South Staffordshire and North Birmingham, UK.Intervention patients received five sessions of hypnotherapy in addition to their usual management. Control patients received usual management alone. Data regarding symptoms and quality of life were collected at baseline and again 3, 6, and 12 months post-randomisation.Both groups demonstrated a significant improvement in all symptom dimensions and quality of life over 12 months. At 3 months the intervention group had significantly greater improvements in pain, diarrhoea and overall symptom scores (P0.05). No significant differences between groups in quality of life were identified. No differences were maintained over time. Intervention patients, however, were significantly less likely to require medication, and the majority described an improvement in their condition.Gut-directed hypnotherapy benefits patients via symptom reduction and reduced medication usage, although the lack of significant difference between groups beyond 3 months prohibits its general introduction without additional evidence. A large trial incorporating robust economic analysis is, therefore, urgently recommended.

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common health problem affecting a substantial proportion of the population. Many individuals with symptoms of IBS do not seek medical attention or have stopped consulting because of disillusionment with current treatment options. Such patients may choose to re-consult with the advent of new therapies with a resulting impact on health services.