Medicine & Health

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • (2004) Muir, Alison; Meiser, Bettina; Tucker, Monica; Andrews, Leslie; Tucker, Katherine; Friedlander, Michael
    Journal Article
    There is significant interest in developing chemoprevention trials for women at high risk for breast cancer, yet it is not clear how acceptable these strategies are. Results of clinical trials with tamoxifen have demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of breast cancer in women at increased risk, but rates of participation in such trials have been lower than expected. No previous Studies have assessed the attitudes of high-risk women toward participating in chemoprevention trials using drugs causing ovarian Suppression. All women who had attended a large familial cancer clinic in Sydney, New South Wales, between 1994 and 2000 who were eligible for the Raloxifene and Zoladex Research Study being piloted in the United Kingdom at the time were approached. Telephone interviews were conducted with the 35 high-risk women willing to participate in this study. Almost half the women Surveyed expressed willingness to participate in a randomized trial, and slightly fewer women considered participating in a nonrandomized trial. The women who Would consider participating were younger than those who would not. The most frequently mentioned reasons for interest In participating in trials were to aid research, help others, and learn more, which indicates that altruism may have played a significant part in the women`s willingness to participate. Most women interviewed were participating in risk reduction and early detection strategies and expressed high interest in research screening tests. Given the interest in randomized trials and the fact that women at high risk for breast cancer consider the side effects as mainly acceptable, undertaking Such trials may be worthwhile.

  • (2009) Quinnell, Rosanne; Russell, Carol; Thompson, Rachel; Nancy, Marshall; Cowley, Jill
    Conference Paper
    A raft of models and definitions of SoTL exist and the best appear to transcend disciplinary contexts, and are sufficiently robust for academics to measure scholarly practices. Critical engagement with the scholarly literature is necessary for academics to gain a realistic view of where their work practices are situated within the scholarly domain. Because academic staff are disciplinary experts they are best placed to comment on whether the models of scholarship describe the scholarship of learning and teaching within the context of their own disciplines as well as within the confines of the Australian higher education sector. This paper pushes the existing debates on reconciling what evidence of scholarship in the disciplines actually is and what is considered valid, and in doing so uncovers why the process of reconciliation, between current practice and supporting evidence, remains elusive. Higher education academics need to identify and reconcile tacit disciplinary knowledge with their SoTL approach in order to unpack the complexity and value of their practices. Enabling academic staff to annotate their activities, roles and accomplishments and then map these items onto the various models of scholarship will enrich the status of scholarship of teaching and learning within the higher education sector.