Benefits and barriers to engagement of mental health caregivers in advisory roles: Results from a cross-sectional survey.

Background and Aims: Mental health institutions and community organizations have had difficulty recruiting patients and caregivers onto their Patient, Family, and Community Advisory Committees (PFACs). Previous research has focused on barriers and enablers of engaging patients and caregivers who have advisory experience. This study acknowledges the experiential difference between patients and caregivers by focusing only on caregivers; further, we compare the barriers and enablers between advising versus non-advising caregivers of loved ones with mental illness. Methods: Data from a cross-sectional survey codesigned by researchers, staff, clients, and caregiver affiliated with a tertiary mental health center were completed by n = 84 caregivers (n = 40 past/current PFAC advising caregivers; n = 44 non-advising caregivers). Results: Caregivers were disproportionately female and late middle-aged. Advising and non-advising caregivers differed on employment status. There were no differences of the demographics of their care-recipients. More non-advising caregivers reported being hindered from PFAC engagement by family-related duties and interpersonal demands. Finally, more advising caregivers considered being publicly acknowledged as important. Conclusions: Advising and non-advising caregivers of loved ones with mental illness were similar in demographics and in reporting the enablers and hindrances that impact PFAC engagement. Nevertheless, our data highlights specific considerations that institutions/organizations should consider when recruiting and retaining caregivers on PFACs. Patient or Public Contribution: This project was led by a caregiver advisor to address a need she saw in the community. The surveys were codesigned by a team of two caregivers, one patient, and one researcher. The surveys were reviewed by a group of five caregivers external to the project. The results of the surveys were discussed with two caregivers involved directly with the project.

Online collaborative learning for healthcare continuing professional development: a cross-case analysis of three case studies.

There has been increasing interest in the use of computers to facilitate collaborative learning between healthcare professionals for continuing professional development but many schemes appear to be unsuccessful. The aim of the study was to identify, from a cross-case analysis of three case studies, the main factors that facilitate and inhibit online collaborative learning for healthcare continuing professional development. The intervention was an asynchronous, structured and moderated discussion board. Data were collected by semi-structured telephone interviews on a purposive sample from each case study, documentary analysis of all self-reported comments made in the discussion boards, log of technical problems and evaluation of discussion board activity. Three key factors were identified: the need for implementation based on the requirements of users, the acceptance of this approach by the user and the development of a supportive organization within which the healthcare professionals work. This study has highlighted the overall low level of activity and this would appear to be because implementation has not been based on an understanding of the healthcare context.

Restrictions impeding web-based courses: a survey of publishers' variation in authorising access to high quality on-line literature.

BACKGROUND: Web-based delivery of educational programmes is becoming increasingly popular and is expected to expand, especially in medicine. The successful implementation of these programmes is reliant on their ability to provide access to web based materials, including high quality published work. Publishers' responses to requests to access health literature in the context of developing an electronic Master's degree course are described. METHODS: Two different permission requests were submitted to publishers. The first was to store an electronic version of a journal article, to which we subscribe, on a secure password protected server. The second was to reproduce extracts of published material on password protected web pages and CD Rom. RESULTS: Eight of 16 publishers were willing to grant permission to store electronic versions of articles without levying charges additional to the subscription. Twenty of 35 publishers gave permission to reproduce extracts of published work at no fee. Publishers' responses were highly variable to the requests for access to published material. This may be influenced by vague terminology within the 'fair dealing' provision in the copyright legislation, which seems to leave it open to individual interpretation. Considerable resource costs were incurred by the exercise. Time expended included those incurred by us: research to identify informed representatives within the publishing organisation, request 'chase-ups' and alternative examples being sought if publishers were uncooperative; and the publisher when dealing with numerous permission requests. Financial costs were also incurred by both parties through additional staffing and paperwork generated by the permission process, the latter including those purely borne by educators due to the necessary provision of photocopy 'course packs' when no suitably alternative material could be found if publishers were uncooperative. Finally we discuss the resultant bias in material towards readily available electronic resources as a result of publisher's uncooperative stance and encourage initiatives that aim to improve open electronic access. CONCLUSIONS: The permission request process has been expensive and has resulted in reduced access for students to the relevant literature. Variations in the responses from publishers suggest that for educational purposes common policies could be agreed and unnecessary restrictions removed in the future.