Developing a COVID-19 module for the European Social Survey

This short report describes the development of a COVID-19 module for Round 10 of the European Social Survey (ESS). The module is formed of 20 items, including 10 agreed with ESS National Coordinators and 10 developed by two academic teams following an external call for content. The majority of ESS participating countries will field the module for Round 10 fieldwork in 2020–2021. This report provides the rationale for the module, presents challenges of developing such a module for ESS, and gives an overview of the question development and testing process. The two external sub-modules—Government authority and legitimacy in the age of a pandemic and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and government rule compliance—are also introduced.

The doctor, development and (un)sociable monkey: An autoethnography of a social worker

This article is a critical autoethnographic investigation in which I explore development and social work vis-à-vis my own life episodes. I examine various tensions, for example, (1) becoming and being a colonial development subject; (2) encountering social work and compliance to it; (3) a U-turn, in disagreement with social work; and (4) a doctoral journey, reinvigorating my ‘social worker self’ through conceptualisation of a model of ‘decolonised, developmental social work’. This autoethnography leads me to critical discourses not only to question development and social work but also to uncover the ‘sense of (my) becoming and being’ regarding those two.

Use of Ecomaps in Qualitative Health Research

Qualitative health research plays a central role in exploring individuals’ experiences and perceptions of wellness, illness, and healthcare services. Visual tools are increasingly used for data elicitation. An ecomap is a visual tool that applies ecosystems theory to human communities and relationships to provide an illustration of the quality of relationships. We describe the use of ecomaps in qualitative health research. Searches across eight databases identified 407 citations. We screened them in duplicate to identify 129 publications that underwent full text review and included 73 in the final synthesis. We classified and summarized data based on iterative comparisons across sources. Benefits of using ecomaps include improving rapport and engagement with study participants, facilitating iterative question development, and highlighting the social contexts of relationships. When used in conjunction with interviews, they promote data credibility through triangulation. Investigators have used ecomaps as a tool to facilitate primary and secondary analysis of data. Researchers have adapted the ecomap to meet their health research needs. Challenges to their use include additional time and training needed to complete, and potential privacy and confidentiality concerns. Ecomaps can be useful in qualitative health research to enhance data elicitation, analysis, presentation, and to augment study rigor.

RESPON GURU DAN SISWA SEKOLAH DASAR TERHADAP HASIL PENGEMBANGAN SOAL ONLINE MENGGUNAKAN GOOGLE FORM SEBAGAI IMPLEMENTASI BELAJAR DARI RUMAH

In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 21st century digital era, it is very necessary to have questions that can be used online that are validated and ready to be used to assess the learning process that has been carried out, so online question development research is carried out using google form in learning Theme 3 Class V Elementary Schools as an implementation of Learning from Home (BDR) to reduce the spread of COVID-19. The research approach used to develop online questions using google form is a mixed method approach because the research carried out is classified as research and development or R&D research. The data collection technique is to answer the sub-problem formulation regarding the response of the teacher in using the results of the trial for developing online learning questions Theme 3 Class V Elementary Schools which are distributed via google form and student responses when working on the results of developing online learning questions Theme 3 Class V Elementary Schools in google form is an open interview with the teacher and provides a closed questionnaire to students. The results obtained were that the teacher gave a positive response regarding the use of the results of developing online learning questions for Theme 3 Class V Elementary Schools which were distributed through Google Form and students gave very good responses when working on the results of developing online learning questions Theme 3 Class V Elementary School on google form. Abstrak Pada era pandemi COVID-19 dan era digital abad 21 sangat diperlukan ketersediaan soal yang dapat digunakan secara online yang tervalidasi dan siap digunakan untuk menilai proses pembelajaran yang telah dilakukan, maka dilakukan penelitian pengembangan soal online menggunakan google form pada pembelajaran Tema 3 Kelas V Sekolah Dasar sebagai implementasi Belajar dari Rumah (BDR) untuk memutus penyebaran COVID-19. Pendekatan penelitian yang digunakan untuk mengembangkan soal online menggunakan google form ini adalah pendekatan mixed method dikarenakan penelitian yang dilakukan tergolong penelitian research and development atau R&D. Adapun teknik pengumpulan data untuk menjawab sub rumusan masalah mengenai respon guru dalam menggunakan hasil uji coba pengembangan soal online pembelajaran Tema 3 Kelas V Sekolah Dasar yang di sebarkan melalui google form dan respon siswa ketika mengerjakan hasil pengembangan soal online pembelajaran Tema 3 Kelas V Sekolah Dasar di google form adalah wawancara terbuka kepada guru dan memberikan angket tertutup kepada siswa. Adapun hasil yang di peroleh yaitu guru memberikan respon yang positif mengenai penggunaan hasil pengembangan soal online pembelajaran Tema 3 Kelas V Sekolah Dasar yang di sebarkan melalui google form serta siswa memberikan tanggapan yang sangat baik ketika mengerjakan hasil pengembangan soal online pembelajaran Tema 3 Kelas V Sekolah Dasar di google form.

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer health care questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for effects of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer health care questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for effects of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs

Eliciting Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences with a Single Question: Development and Validation of the MM1

The 10-item validated Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS-10) assesses patients’ preferences for aggressive v. more passive approaches to health care. However, because many research or clinical situations do not allow for use of a 10-item scale, we developed a single-item maximizer-minimizer elicitation question (the MM1) based on our experiences describing the construct to patient groups, clinical researchers, and the public. In 2 large samples of US adults ( N = 368 and N = 814), the correlation between MMS-10 scores and the MM1 was .52 and .60, respectively. Both measures were robust predictors of medical preferences in a set of 12 hypothetical scenarios, and both had strong (and roughly equivalent) associations with 7 self-report measures of health care utilization. Our results demonstrate that the MM1 is a valid, brief elicitation of maximizing-minimizing preferences that can be used in clinical or research contexts where the 10-item scale is infeasible.