How to use polarity thinkingTM to manage tensions between accountability and learner agency when using a multipurpose portfolio?

Portfolios are often implemented to target multiple purposes, e.g. assessment, accountability and/or self-regulated learning. However, in educational practice, it appears to be difficult to combine different purposes in one portfolio, as interdependencies between the purposes can cause tensions. This paper explored directions to manage tensions that are inextricably linked to multipurpose portfolio use. We used a systems thinking methodology, that was based on the polarity thinkingTM framework. This framework provides a step-by-step approach to chart a polarity map® that can help to balance the tensions present in specific settings. We followed the steps of the framework to chart a polarity map for multipurpose portfolio use. Based on literature and our prior research, we selected one overarching polarity: accountability and learner agency. This polarity seems responsible for multiple tensions related to multipurpose portfolio use. We formulated values (potential benefits) and fears (tensions that can arise) of the two poles of this polarity. Then, we organised a session with stakeholders who work with the portfolio of the Dutch General Practice speciality programme. Together we formulated action steps and early warnings that can help to balance accountability and learner agency during multipurpose portfolio use. In addition to previous recommendations concerning portfolio use, we advocate that it is important to create a shared frame of reference between all involved with the multipurpose portfolio. During this process, the acknowledgement and discussion of tensions related to multipurpose portfolio use are vital.

How is self-regulated learning documented in e-portfolios of trainees? A content analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is assumed that portfolios contribute to self-regulated learning (SRL). Presence of these SRL processes within the documentation kept in portfolios is presupposed in common educational practices, such as the assessment of reflective entries. However, questions can be asked considering the presence of SRL within portfolios. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the documentation of SRL processes within the electronic (e)-portfolio content of medical trainees. SRL consists of numerous processes, for this study the focus was on self-assessment via reflection and feedback, goal-setting and planning, and monitoring, as these are the processes that health professions education research mentions to be supported by portfolios. METHODS: A database containing 1022 anonymous e-portfolios from General Practitioner trainees was used to provide descriptive statistics of the various available e-portfolio forms. This was followed by a quantitative content analysis of 90 e-portfolios, for which, a codebook was constructed to rate the documentation of the included SRL processes. RESULTS: The numbers of forms in the e-portfolios varied to a great extent. Content analysis showed a limited documentation of reflective entries, and available entries mainly described events and experiences without explanations and context. Feedback was generally limited to comments on what went well and lacked specificity, context and suggestions for future action. Learning goals and plans were short of specificity, but did contain challenging topics and different goals were compatible with each other. 75% of the e-portfolios showed (limited) signs of monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The e-portfolio content showed limited documentation of SRL processes. As documentation of SRL requires time and asks for a high level of introspection and writing skills, one cannot expect documentation of SRL processes to appear in e-portfolio content without efforts.

Current clinical guideline definitions of airflow obstruction and COPD overdiagnosis in primary care.

The aim of the present study was to establish the agreement between two recommended definitions of airflow obstruction in symptomatic adults referred for spirometry by their general practitioner, and investigate how rates of airflow obstruction change when pre-bronchodilator instead of post-bronchodilator spirometry is performed. The diagnostic spirometric results of 14,056 adults with respiratory obstruction were analysed. Differences in interpretation between a fixed 0.70 forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1))/forced vital capacity (FVC) cut-off point and a sex- and age-specific lower limit of normal cut-off point for this ratio were investigated. Of the subjects, 53% were female and 69% were current or ex-smokers. The mean post-bronchodilator FEV(1)/FVC was 0.73 in males and 0.78 in females. The sensitivity of the fixed relative to the lower limit of normal cut-off point definition was 97.9%, with a specificity of 91.2%, positive predictive value of 72.0% and negative predictive value of 99.5%. For the subgroup of current or ex-smokers aged > or =50 yrs, these values were 100, 82.0, 69.2 and 100%, respectively. The proportion of false positive diagnoses using the fixed cut-off point increased with age. The positive predictive value of pre-bronchodilator airflow obstruction was 74.7% among current or ex-smokers aged > or =50 yrs. The current clinical guideline-recommended fixed 0.70 forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity cut-off point leads to substantial overdiagnosis of obstruction in middle-aged and elderly patients in primary care. Using pre-bronchodilator spirometry leads to a high rate of false positive interpretations of obstruction in primary care.

Factors associated with asthma control.

The aim of this study was to evaluate which factors are associated with asthma control experienced by asthma patients. In a cross-sectional study patients aged 16-60 years with mild to moderate asthma were selected. The influence of the following factors on asthma control was studied in a multivariate model: age, gender, socioeconomic status, smoking, perceived hyperresponsiveness (PHR, responding with asthma symptoms to one or more triggers), allergy (Phadiatop), long-acting bronchodilating agents, and inhaled corticosteroids. Asthma control was measured by means of the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) as developed by Juniper. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was measured by means of a portable spirometer. In this study with 311 patients, mean ACQ score was 1.39 (range 0-4.43). A stepwise backward linear regression analysis showed that low socioeconomic status (beta 0.425; p=0.001), current smoking (beta 0.555; p<0.001), high dose of inhaled corticosteroids (beta 0.364; p=0.04) and perceived hyperresponsiveness for increasing number of different triggers (PHR for 1 trigger beta 0.833; p=0.03; 2 triggers beta 0.810; p=0.03; 3 triggers beta 0.995; p=0.01; 4 triggers beta 1.131; p=0.002; 5 triggers beta 1.182; p=0.002) are independent predictors for poorer asthma control. Beside treatment with medication, stopping smoking and avoidance of triggers are factors, which may have a high impact on asthma control.

Self-management of asthma in general practice, asthma control and quality of life: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of asthma self-management in general practice. METHODS: Nineteen general practices were randomly allocated to usual care (UC) or self-management (SM). Asthma patients were included after confirmation of the GP diagnosis. Follow up was 2 years. Patients kept diary cards and visited the lung function laboratory every 6 months. Outcomes were number of successfully treated weeks, limited activity days, asthma specific quality of life, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), FEV(1) reversibility, concentration of histamine provoking a fall in FEV(1) of 20% or more (PC(20) histamine), and amount of inhaled steroids. RESULTS: A total of 214 patients were included in the study (104 UC/110 SM; one third of the total asthma population in general practice); 62% were female. The mean percentage of successfully treated weeks per patient in the UC group was 72% (74/103 weeks) compared with 78% (81/105 weeks) in the SM group (p=0.003). The mean number of limited activity days was 1.2 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.9) in the SM group and 3.9 (95% CI 2.5 to 5.4) in the UC group. The estimated increase in asthma quality of life score was 0.10 points per visit in the UC group and 0.21 points per visit in the SM group (p=0.055). FEV(1), FEV(1) reversibility, and PC(20) histamine did not change. There was a saving of 217 puffs of inhaled steroid per patient in favour of the SM group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Self-management lowers the burden of illness as perceived by patients with asthma and is at least as effective as the treatment usually provided in Dutch primary care. Self-management is a safe basis for intermittent treatment with inhaled corticosteroids.