Search

Abstract Background Public and patient involvement aims to improve research quality, relevance, and appropriateness. Despite an increasing evidence base on the influence of public involvement in health research, the role of involvement in methodology research (i.e. research that aims to enhance the quality and rigour of research) is less clear. Using a qualitative case study, we explored public involvement in a research priority-setting partnership in rapid review methodology (Priority III) to give practical insights to inform public involvement in priority-setting for future methodological research. Methods Participant observation, documentary analysis, interviews and focus groups were used to explore the processes of Priority III and identify the views and experiences of the participants of a steering group (n = 26) regarding public involvement in Priority III. We used a case study research design and conducted two focus groups with five public partners; one focus group with four researchers; and seven one-to-one interviews with researchers and public partners. Nine episodes of participant observation of meetings were conducted. All data were analysed using template analysis. Results The findings of this case study present three themes and six subthemes: Theme 1 We all bring unique qualities to the table. Subtheme 1.1—Coming from different perspectives towards shared-decision making; Subtheme 1.2—Public partners bring pragmatism and grounding in reality; Theme 2 We need support and space at the table. Subtheme 2.1—Define and develop support needed for meaningful involvement; Subtheme 2.2—Creating safe space to listen, challenge and learn; Theme 3 We all benefit from working together. Subtheme 3.1—Reciprocity in mutual learning and capacity building; Subtheme 3.2—Relationships as partners in research, with a feeling of togetherness. Communication and trust, as inclusive ways of working, underpinned the partnership approach to involvement. Conclusions This case study contributes to knowledge on public involvement in research by explaining the supportive strategies, spaces, attitudes and behaviours that enabled a productive working partnership to develop between a team of researchers and public partners in this research context.

Plain English Summary All major problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics, require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Such problems require evidence-informed collaborative methods, multidisciplinary research and interventions in which the people who are affected are involved in every stage. However, there is currently no standardised way to share information about initiatives and problem-solving across and between fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, education, media and international development. A multi-disciplinary international team of over 100 citizens, experts and data-users has been involved in co-creating STARDIT to help everyone in the world share, find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as ‘initiatives’. STARDIT is an open access data-sharing system to standardise the way that information about initiatives is reported, including information about which tasks were done by different people. Reports can be updated at all stages, from planning to evaluation, and can report impacts in many languages, using Wikidata. STARDIT is free to use, and data can be submitted by anyone. Report authors can be verified to improve trust and transparency, and data checked for quality. STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems. Among its main benefits, STARDIT offers those carrying out research and interventions access to standardised information which enables well-founded comparisons of the effectiveness of different methods. This article outlines progress to date; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.

Abstract Background A failure of clinical trials to retain participants can influence the trial findings and significantly impact the potential of the trial to influence clinical practice. Retention of participants involves people, often the trial participants themselves, performing a behaviour (e.g. returning a questionnaire or attending a follow-up clinic as part of the research). Most existing interventions that aim to improve the retention of trial participants fail to describe any theoretical basis for the potential effect (on behaviour) and also whether there was any patient and/or participant input during development. The aim of this study was to address these two problems by developing theory- informed, participant-centred, interventions to improve trial retention. Methods This study was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy to match participant reported determinants of trial retention to theoretically informed behaviour change strategies. The prototype interventions were described and developed in a co-design workshop with trial participants. Acceptability and feasibility (guided by (by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability) of two prioritised retention interventions was explored during a focus group involving a range of trial stakeholders (e.g. trial participants, trial managers, research nurses, trialists, research ethics committee members). Following focus group discussions stakeholders completed an intervention acceptability questionnaire. Results Eight trial participants contributed to the co-design of the retention interventions. Four behaviour change interventions were designed: (1) incentives and rewards for follow-up clinic attendance, (2) goal setting for improving questionnaire return, (3) participant self-monitoring to improve questionnaire return and/or clinic attendance, and (4) motivational information to improve questionnaire return and clinic attendance. Eighteen trial stakeholders discussed the two prioritised interventions. The motivational information intervention was deemed acceptable and considered straightforward to implement whilst the goal setting intervention was viewed as less clear and less acceptable. Conclusions This is the first study to develop interventions to improve trial retention that are based on the accounts of trial participants and also conceptualised and developed as behaviour change interventions (to encourage attendance at trial research visit or return a trial questionnaire). Further testing of these interventions is required to assess effectiveness.

Plain English summary Patient and public involvement in research helps to make it more relevant and useful to the end-users. Researchers are therefore keen to involve people but are sometimes uncertain about who to involve. Some confusion comes from the terms used. The UK’s term ‘patient and public involvement’ suggests there is only one activity and that both inputs are needed or either will do. The terms ‘patient’, ‘carer’ and ‘public’ are not used in the same way by everyone. Involvement happens in many different situations, influencing different kinds of decisions, which then determines whose input will be most valuable. Being clear about the ‘why’ can help answer the ‘who’ question. However, not all researchers are clear about the purpose of involvement. When learning is understood to be the purpose, the most appropriate people to involve are those with relevant experiential knowledge. They provide insights based on their lived experience. In research projects, this is experience of the topic being studied. This could be patients, carers, public or health professionals. We discuss how involving people who do not have relevant experiential knowledge may limit impact. These people may be as likely as researchers to make wrong assumptions. This risks missing key insights or making unhelpful decisions. We conclude that greater attention should be given to the question of who to involve. Raising awareness of the importance of relevant experiential knowledge and other factors that determine whose input will be most useful, will help maximise opportunities for learning and increase the potential for impact.

Plain English summary The past decade has seen a genuine increase in patient and public involvement (PI) in clinical research, far beyond a symbolic presence on a trial management committee or inclusion on a grant application. The United Kingdom (UK) Standards for Public Involvement provide a useful structure to support PI throughout a study as well as defining a benchmark that can be used to improve the involvement of patients and the public in studies. The importance of reflecting on and reporting on PI in specific studies has been recognised since it contributes to a stepwise change process which will eventually lead to PI becoming normal practice for clinical research. A recent review identified a myriad of frameworks by which PI may be evaluated, risking an inconsistent approach to PI evaluation and consequently slowing down its progression. The Hospice Inpatient Deep vein thrombosis Detection study (HIDDen) was a national multicentre study to explore the prevalence and associated variables of blood clots in patients with advanced cancer when they were admitted to the specialist palliative care unit. In this paper we will be considering the HIDDen research in terms of the UK Standards for Public Involvement.

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders’ perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders’ perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

Abstract Poor recruitment to, and retention in, clinical trials is a source of research waste that could be reduced by more informed choices about participation. Barriers to effective recruitment and retention can be wide-ranging but relevance of the questions being addressed by trials and the outcomes that they are assessing are key for potential participants. Decisions about trial participation should be informed by general and trial-specific information and by considering broader assessments of ‘informedness’ and how they impact on both recruitment and retention. We suggest that more informed decisions about trial participation should encourage personally appropriate decisions, increase recruitment and retention, and reduce research waste and increase its value.

Abstract Background One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders. Methods This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. Results A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The ‘Top 10’ of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was ’What motivates a participant’s decision to complete a clinical trial?’ The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie. Conclusion The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

Abstract Background Non-retention of participants seriously affects the credibility of clinical trial results and significantly reduces the potential of a trial to influence clinical practice. Non-retention can be defined as instances where participants leave the study prematurely. Examples include withdrawal of consent and loss to follow-up and thus outcome data cannot be obtained. The majority of existing interventions targeting retention fail to describe any theoretical basis for the observed improvement, or lack of improvement. Moreover, most of these interventions lack involvement of participants in their conception and/or design, raising questions about their relevance and acceptability. Many of the causes of non-retention involve people performing a behaviour (e.g. not returning a questionnaire). Behaviour change is difficult, and the importance of a strong theoretical basis for interventions that aim to change behaviour is increasingly recognised. This research aims to develop and pilot theoretically informed, participant-centred, evidence-based behaviour change interventions to improve retention in trials. Methods This research will generate data through semi-structured interviews on stakeholders’ perspectives of the reasons for trial non-retention. It will identify perceived barriers and enablers to trial retention using the Theoretical Domains Framework. The intervention development work will involve identification of behaviour change techniques, using recognised methodology, and co-production of retention interventions through discussion groups with end-users. An evaluation of intervention acceptability and feasibility will be conducted in focus groups. Finally, a ready-to-use evaluation framework to deploy in Studies Within A Trial as well as an explanatory retention framework will be developed for identifying and tackling modifiable issues to improve trial retention. Discussion We believe this to be one of the first studies to apply a theoretical lens to the development of interventions to improve trial retention that have been informed by, and are embedded within, participants’ experiential accounts. By developing and identifying priority interventions this study will support efforts to reduce research waste.

Plain English summary Researchers carrying out research in the NHS in England have to obtain approval for their study from an NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC). Involving the public in research helps to ensure studies are ethically acceptable to the people taking part, and therefore supports the REC review. The form used by RECs asks researchers to describe any involvement that has taken place before the review or any planned for the future. We analysed researchers’ reports of involvement in 2748 applications to RECs in 2014, to assess how well their approaches to involvement are informing the review process. We found that researchers rarely describe involvement in enough detail to help REC members. It is difficult to judge whether previous involvement has shaped the research design in any way, and whether plans for future involvement are meaningful. It also seems that some researchers remain unclear about involvement and its purpose at different stages. This may be severely limiting its impact. So that public involvement can usefully inform REC reviews in future, the Health Research Authority, which oversees RECs, will carry out further work to find out what information RECS need about involvement. This information will be used to change the application form and to develop guidance and training for REC members and the wider research community. Researchers may also benefit from clearer guidance on the value and purpose of involvement at key research stages: early design, data collection and the dissemination of results. Abstract Background Researchers conducting research in the NHS in England are required to submit their study for approval by an NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC). Public involvement in research prior to REC review helps to ensure studies are ethically acceptable to participants, thus informing the review process. The Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) used by RECs, asks researchers to describe any involvement in the development of their project, and in its delivery and dissemination. We analysed researchers’ reports of involvement to assess how well current approaches to involvement are supporting REC review. Methods We used a mixed methods approach. The anonymised free-text data from all 2748 non-educational applications submitted to RECs in 2014 were analysed using NVivo. Themes were developed from the data and used to summarise and categorise the different types of reports of involvement. The frequency of common types of report was analysed using simple statistics. Results In general, researchers rarely describe any prior involvement in sufficient detail to know what was done and what difference this made. This makes it difficult to judge whether the involvement shaped the research design in any way to make it more ethically acceptable. Similarly, researchers’ plans for future involvement are not clear enough to enable RECs to make a proper assessment of whether this involvement will be meaningful, or whether potential ethical concerns raised by involvement have been addressed. This analysis also shows there is still considerable misunderstanding amongst researchers around what involvement means, and its purpose at different stages of a project. This may be severely limiting the potential for impact. Conclusions So that public involvement can usefully inform REC review in future, the HRA is undertaking a collaborative exercise to understand what information RECS need about involvement, and what changes need to be made to the IRAS form. At the same time it will develop guidance and training for REC members and the wider research community about how public involvement can support ethical review. Researchers may also benefit from guidance on the value and purpose of involvement at the research stages: design, data collection and dissemination of results.

Plain English summary Researchers who conduct studies in health and social care are encouraged to involve the public as early as possible in the process of designing their studies. Before their studies are allowed to start researchers must seek approval from a Research Ethics Committee, which will assess whether the study is going to be safe and ethical for patients or healthy volunteers to take part in. The process of ethical review does not consider how researchers work with patients and the public early on to design their studies. Furthermore, there is no requirement for researchers to seek ethical approval for public involvement. However, in our work advising researchers about public involvement we have found that the ways in which researchers involve the public in the design of their studies are sometimes unintentionally unethical, and this is the focus of our paper. We have observed ten areas where ethical issues may arise because of the actions researchers may or may not take and which might consequently have a negative impact. Therefore, we have used these observations to develop a “framework” to help researchers and the public work together at the early design stage in ways that are ethical. Our intention for the framework is to help researchers be mindful of these ten areas and how easily ethical issues can arise. The framework suggests some ways to overcome the potential issues in each of the ten areas. The ten areas are: 1) Allocating sufficient time for public involvement; 2) Avoiding tokenism; 3) Registering research design stage public involvement work with NHS Research & Development Trust Office at earliest opportunity; 4) Communicating clearly from the outset; 5) Entitling public contributors to stop their involvement for any unstated reasons; 6) Operating fairness of opportunity; 7) Differentiating qualitative research methods and public involvement activities; 8) Working sensitively; 9) Being conscious of confidentiality and 10) Valuing, acknowledging and rewarding public involvement. We looked to see whether any other similar approaches to helping researchers address potential ethical issues when working with the public on designing studies have been published and to our knowledge none exist. Our framework is presented as a draft and believe that it would now benefit from input from researchers and the public to gauge how useful it is and whether there are any other possible situations that it might need to cover. Abstract The current paper highlights real life examples of how ethical issues can arise during public involvement activities at the research design stage. We refer to “the research design stage” as the time between the generation of the research ideas and when formal permissions to start the work including ethical approval are granted. We argue that although most researchers work ethically at this early stage, some may still benefit from being informed about ethically conscious approaches to involving the public. The paper highlights 10 ethical issues that we have observed with involving the public at the research design stage. We provide examples of these observed scenarios to illustrate the issues and make suggestions for how they can be avoided to help researchers become more ethically conscious when involving the public at the research design stage. Currently the draft framework comprises: 1) Allocating sufficient time for public involvement; 2) Avoiding tokenism; 3) Registering research design stage public involvement work with NHS Research & Development Trust Office at earliest opportunity; 4) Communicating clearly from the outset; 5) Entitling public contributors to stop their involvement for any unstated reasons; 6) Operating fairness of opportunity; 7) Differentiating qualitative research methods and public involvement activities; 8) Working sensitively; 9) Being conscious of confidentiality and 10) Valuing, acknowledging and rewarding public involvement. The draft framework will help researchers to recognise the ethical issues when involving the public and is intended to be used voluntarily in a self-regulatory way. We believe that the draft framework requires further consultation and input from the wider research community and the public before endorsement by national UK bodies such as INVOLVE and the Health Research Authority (HRA).

Plain English summary Public involvement in research has become an important and integral part of the research process in health and social care, from the early stages of research prioritisation and development to the later stages of research conduct and dissemination. Learning and development opportunities, including training, can assist the public and researchers in working together in the research process, and a training schedule exists in Wales for this purpose. One of the key components of this training schedule in Wales is the course Involving the Public in the Design and Conduct of Research: Building Research Partnerships. Building on the existing successes of this UK-wide course, first developed by Macmillan Cancer Support, a project was established between Health and Care Research Wales and Macmillan Cancer Support to develop three members of the Involving People Network into trained facilitators. Once trained, the aim was for the three facilitators to deliver the course in Wales. Macmillan Cancer Support and Health and Care Research Wales selected, through a competitive process, three members of the Involving People Network to use their lived experience of Involvement in research projects, as well as any lived experience of a physical or mental health condition or illness, to become facilitators of the course in the unique context of public involvement in research in Wales. Through this process many benefits were realised, including developing the course content and its delivery in Wales, as well as building the skills and confidence of the individuals themselves as facilitators. This has contributed to a continuing commitment to the sustainable delivery of the Involving the Public in the Design and Conduct of Research: Building Research Partnerships course in Wales and a combined approach to addressing any challenges and obstacles which presented. Abstract Health and Care Research Wales has a strategic aim to Ensure public involvement and engagement is central to what we do and visible in all elements of it. As part of the ongoing development of the Health and Care Research Wales Training Programme a project was initiated to develop members of the public as facilitators to deliver a public involvement in research course. The project was undertaken in collaboration with Macmillan Cancer Support and was advertised via the Involving People Network in Wales. Three trainee facilitators were recruited, from 14 people that applied, to deliver a public involvement in research training course, the Building Research Partnerships course, as it was known then, originally developed for and by Macmillan Cancer Support. As members of the Involving People Network, the trainees were given training, mentorship, financial and administrative support to develop their role as facilitators over a two year period. This has been reciprocated with incredible commitment, ongoing course delivery in Wales, excellent course evaluations, course review and involvement in future planning. Through this project several benefits were realised, including developing the course content and its delivery and building the skills and confidence of the individual facilitators themselves. Additionally, and importantly, the project team found that patients and members of the public who are given appropriate training and support can greatly enhance a research training programme and act as highly effective ambassadors to further the cause of public involvement in research.

DRAFT Document prepared April 2014 At the ANZSSA conference held in Wellington in December 2013, a discussion was launched with the objective of developing quality standards for student advisors in post-secondary educational institutions.

DRAFT Document prepared April 2014 At the ANZSSA conference held in Wellington in December 2013, a discussion was launched with the objective of developing quality standards for Effective Practice in Orientation and Transition in postsecondary educational institutions. The draft below was developed in consultation with a number of stakeholders, and is now open to the wider professional community for comment. It is intended to table a revised version of this document for discussion at a Special Interest Forum at the ISANA/ANZSSA Conference in December 2014.

As I come to the end of my term as President of ANZSSA, and indeed rattle towards retiring entirely from full-time work at a university, it is a good time to pause and reflect (like Ebenezer Scrooge in Dickens’ famous tale) on ANZSSA Past, ANZSSA Present and ANZSSA Future. Having joined ANZSSA in 1989, and been actively involved in some way or other since 1991, I feel like something of a fixture. Indeed, in the back of my filing cupboard, I recently found the 1993 ANZSSA Directory of Student Services Personnel – a listing of everyone working in support services in Australia and New Zealand at the time. As I flick through the staff listings in that publication, I see mostly names of those retired, moved along or (in some cases) no longer alive. About half a dozen old lags remain in service – and I will not shame and name right here. They know who they are….

In November 2011, Sean Murray (WA ANZSSA Convenor and Head of Counselling and Disability Services at Curtin) and I both attended the ISANA Conference being held at the Crown Casino complex in Melbourne. In the middle of that conference, an ANZSSA Heads of Service meeting was being hosted at the other end of the central business district at RMIT.

In a perfect world, we would be able to draw a direct connection between interventions to improve access to higher education and subsequent entry, retention and achievement of the students who were the target of those programs. Unfortunately, this is not easy for several reasons: The variables that affect access to and participation in higher education are multiple, interactive and operate over long periods of time. Programs to address this may be highly focused on a small number of variables and funded over comparatively short time frames. There are usually pressures and influences to demonstrate that key performance indicators are being met over calendar year time frames. There may be some disconnection between the data arising from programs aimed at improving access, and those targeting subsequent participation and persistence in higher education. This brief paper responds to these data dilemmas by connecting the dots between access and retention programs. Data from several programs at Curtin University will be presented – Curtin LinkUp (an access program aimed at low SES secondary schools), Curtin‘s extensive Student Mentor Program and outreach programs aimed at supporting students who enter university from known at-risk groups. The paper seeks to demonstrate that the consistent sum of series of disconnected data sets may nonetheless give support to the effectiveness of access and retention programs.

Editorial: Volume 17 Issue 2, October 2009

Anyone who may be expecting a serious and scholarly analysis of counselling may be a little disappointed by this short paper. To be brutally honest, it is little more than a personal reflection on some of the things I gained and learned, from the perspective of no longer working in the direct delivery of counselling services as a therapist. I hope to avoid actually having a reference list at the end of this paper. Throughout my professional career, I have read an awful lot of academic material – text books, journal articles, research reports and so on. Plus I have read many therapeutic conclusions expressed more poetically in some of the great works of literature. (As Milton said in Paradise Lost “The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.”) But this reflection is more about what I learned from experience and from interactions with my colleagues, so don't expect to see the names of major writers and contributors to the profession.

Editorial: JANZSSA Volume 17 Issue 1, April 2009

Editorial: Volume 16 Issue 2, October 2008

Editorial: JANZSSA Volume 16 Issue 1, April 2008

Editorial: Volume 15 Issue 2, October 2007

Editorial: Volume 15 Issue 1, April 2007

Editorial: Volume 14 Issue 2, October 2006

Editorial: Volume 13 Issue 2, October 2005

Editorial: JANZSSA Volume 13 Issue 1, April 2005

Editorial: Volume 12 Issue 2, October 2004

Editorial: Volume 12 Issue 1, April 2004

We know very little about the level of use and the impact of the information contained in Counselling Service web sites. This paper describes the utter failure of an attempt to fill this gap in our knowledge by including a feedback form as part of the Counselling Service web site. There is some speculation on the meaning of an extremely high rate of “no responses” to a questionnaire.

Editorial: Volume 11 Issue 1, April 2003

Editorial: Volume 10 Issue 2, October 2002

Editorial: Volume 10 Issue 1, April 2002

Editorial: JANZSSA Volume 9 Issue 2, October 2001

Editorial: JANZSSA Volume 9 Issue 1, April 2001

This brief report recounts the author's experience at the Thirteenth International Conference on the First Year Experience held at Reading University, England from July 24-28 2000. It summarises sessions attended and offers JANZZSA readers further information about FYE conference issues.

Editorial: JANZSSA Volume 8 Issue 2, October 2000

Editorial: JANZSSA Volume 7 Issue 2, October 1999

This paper is a report on a seminar conducted by the Western Australian branch of ANZSSA. The seminar sought presentations from each of the metropolitan universities with the objective of sharing ideas for future orientation programs. The paper consists of several parts: a] an historical overview of orientation in Western Australia b] a report the ideas presented at the seminar from each university c] an evaluation of the seminar itself.

Editorial: JANZSSA Volume 7 Issue 1, 1999

Editorial: JANZSSA Volume 6 Issue 2, October 1998

Editorial: JANZSSA Volume 6 Issue 1, April 1998

Editorial: Volume 5 Issue 2, October 1997