|
Caroline Morris, PhD, MRPharmS, is a research fellow
at the School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University
of Manchester
Shahireh Sharif, MSc, MRPharmS, is a research associate at the
School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester
Correspondence to Dr Caroline J.
Morris, Research Fellow, The Drug Usage and Pharmacy Practice Group,
School of Pharmacy and
Pharmaceutical Sciences,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL
e-mail
caroline.j.morris@man.ac.uk |
The change in the pharmacy degree course from a three-year bachelor’s
programme to the four-year master’s programme has implications
for the management and delivery of a variety of components of the course.
One component where the impact is likely to be substantial is the handling
of undergraduate research projects.
The current requirement for an undergraduate project comes essentially
from the influences of EU legislation.1 The EU Advisory Committee on
Pharmaceutical Training states: “Each student should carry out
a personally directed research project covering about three to six months
under the supervision of the academic staff and present a paper or dissertation
on the project.”
Panel 1: Society project
criteria for the course
MPharm projects must:
• Address a research question or problem
• Involve a critique of research methodology employed
• Include an analysis of results generated directly by the students
or indirectly by others as primary researchers |
This has been incorporated into the specifications that the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society lays down for projects as part of the accreditation of university
pharmacy degrees.1 The Society specifies that there is “a significant
research project of three to six months’ duration”. Laboratory,
clinical, survey-based, behavioural and literature-based research projects
are all currently acceptable. Although students may be involved in other
activities during this period, the project must fulfil the criteria in
Panel 1.
Researcher post
It has become increasingly clear within the schools of pharmacy that
changes need to be made to the way in which undergraduate projects
are managed. At the University of Manchester there is added pressure
due to
increasing student numbers, the associated
increase in academic staff workload and changes to the project credit
allocation. Currently, the final-year project is worth 25 credits and
students are allocated one day per week over one semester (approximately
13 days) to complete the project. During this time they are expected
to conduct a literature review, be involved in some elements of designing
and planning the project, and collect and analyse data. They produce
a written report and give an oral presentation of their findings. By
the 2005–06 academic year the number of credits is expected to
increase to 50 or 60, with an associated significant increase in the
time allocated to the project. Although audit projects are currently
accepted, it is unlikely that these will meet the criteria for independent
research in the future. Furthermore, the implications and demands of
research governance2 will put additional
pressures on academic staff, particularly in pharmacy practice, in terms
of ensuring that the procedures
for both local research and university ethical committee approval are
followed well in advance of the project period.
Panel 2: Key responsibilities of the research staff
• To provide specific research training for students to equip
them with the skills necessary to undertake successful projects
• To provide training and ongoing support in literature retrieval,
data analysis, report writing and preparing and delivering oral
presentations
• To provide a first point of contact for students with project-related
problems and to work with academic staff to enable resolution
of these problems as necessary |
In light of these issues, the Manchester school of pharmacy funded a
research staff post in the drug usage and pharmacy practice group (DUPPG)
for two days per week to support formally undergraduate projects, initially
for the 2002–03 academic year. It was a role that we shared, working
together, one day per week, on the students’ allocated project
day. Although a number of key responsibilities were identified in the
job profile (see Panel 2), from the outset the remit of the post was
flexible, the role being allowed to develop in response to the needs
of both academic staff and students. In addition, all academic staff
were fully aware that the role of the researcher was to support academics
and students, not to replace the academic supervisor.
Since DUPPG staff filled this post, formal support was essentially only
available to students and academic supervisors within this research group.
However, formal methodology training sessions were also offered to the
small number of students who were conducting projects outside the DUPPG
using practice research type methodologies. It was conditional that any
lessons learnt and positive and negative experiences were shared and
applied, where relevant, across the other school research groups (drug
action and design, drug delivery and pharmacokinetics). In addition,
research staff were tasked with producing drafts of project module handbooks
for students and supervisors that would be relevant school-wide.
After discussion with academic staff, a number of formal training sessions
were identified as being required by all students. These included further
training in literature searching, report writing and presentation skills.
A lecturer in evidence-based medicine was responsible for delivering
the literature searching session. This involved a didactic session where
the principles of literature searching were taught and the major databases
that were likely to be of use to the students covered. It was immediately
followed by a practical session in the school’s “computer
cluster”, where students were able to put the theory into practice
and begin the literature search relevant to their own research topic.
We were responsible for delivering the report writing and presentation
skills sessions. The latter included the practical use of a mainstream
computer software package.
Panel 3: Examples of specific training needs
Project 1: Observation of over-the-counter medicine sales
• The research method of observation
• The use of SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Scientists) software
Project 2: Assessing the medicines information needs and expectations
of nurse users of a (named) medicines information unit
• Questionnaire design
• The use of SPSS software |
In addition, some members of academic staff identified more specific
training needs for their students. Two examples are shown in Panel 3.
The training sessions were designed to be as practical and timely as
possible. For example, an introduction to SPSS took place once the students
had piloted their data collection forms. Setting up a database was therefore
covered using the students’ own forms. Similarly a session on data
analysis using SPSS was scheduled for approximately three weeks later.
By this time the students had generated some of their own research data
and entered it into their database. The issues covered could therefore
be immediately related to their own dataset.
We also introduced the concept of a “drop-in centre”. We
were available on the students’ allocated project day for them
to drop in and ask for help or advice. Providing we were not dealing
with another student at the time, we would stop whatever we were doing
to deal with their requests or concerns. The students’ perspective
In the 2002–03 academic year a total of 31 students undertook projects
in the DUPPG (16 in semester 1, 15 in semester 2). At the end of each
semester, students were asked to complete an evaluation form to gauge
their views on the usefulness of the research support staff. Of the 31
students, 28 completed and returned the evaluation form. Overall they
rated the support offered by the research staff highly. Of the 24 students
who rated the formal training sessions, 23 found them useful. Of these,
11 students rated them as very useful.
Table 1: Types of help or advice requested by students using the
drop-in centre (n=11)
|
Activity |
Number of student contacts |
Time spent (hours) |
Help with SPSS/Excel analysis |
8 |
9.25 |
Reassurance/confidence-building |
6 |
1.25 |
Methods/review of data collection instruments |
5 |
4.50 |
Advice on report-writing |
2 |
0.50 |
Help with locating references |
1 |
0.25 |
|
The research staff also kept records of how the drop-in centre was used.
Over the year there were 22 individual student contact episodes equating
to almost 16 hours in total. Eleven of the 31 students had made use of
the facility. The service was used for a variety of issues shown in Table
1. All 11 students that used this service found it useful. Of these,
six students rated it as very useful. It is notable that if a student
had used the facility once, then often they returned at a later date
for help or advice on a different issue. Some qualitative comments made
by the students on their evaluation forms give an indication of the value
of the service: “I would have struggled a lot more had it not
been available.”
“It was useful not to have to make an appointment to see my supervisor
about trivial things.”
“Caroline and Shahireh were very helpful at very end of project — wish
I had gone to see them sooner.”
Reassuringly, only one instance of a conflict of advice between the
research staff and an academic supervisor was identified. This related
to the length of an initial draft of a self-completion questionnaire.
In contrast to the supervisor, the research staff considered it to be
too long.
No formal evaluation of the role of this research post in supporting
students and staff was undertaken from the perspective of academic staff.
However, their views were informally canvassed and all staff had experienced
benefit from the availability of this additional resource.
The future
Such a post has a useful role to play in terms of both academic staff
and student support in schools of pharmacy. However, there are resource
implications for funding this type of post. Since many of the skills
required by students are specific to the area in which they are undertaking
their project, more than one post would be required. Although the provision
of specific training and drop-in support will need to be research group
specific, some of the training sessions (eg, presentation skills, report
writing) will be or may be (eg, SPSS) of direct relevance across all
of the research groups. To ensure the most efficient use of resources
wherever appropriate and feasible, formal training sessions should
ideally be combined. Consideration also needs to be given to identifying
the less obvious overlap between the research groups in terms of the
formal training needs of the students. In the future it is envisaged
that the researcher will support members of academic staff with technical
and administrative tasks, such as the completion of forms for ethical
committees.
Clearly, communication between academic staff and the research support
staff is crucial. Although it is vital that the research staff communicate
with academic staff regarding any difficulties that individual students
may be experiencing, this must be a two-way process. Only then can all
parties appropriately support students. Currently the research staff
have no formal input in student evaluation. However, this is undoubtedly
an area that will require consideration in the future.
During the course of the year drafts of project module handbooks for
students and supervisors were produced. Following review by the school
curriculum and teaching standards committees, these will now be used
across the whole school. As well as containing routine information, such
as objectives, project output and assessment, these handbooks also detail
the responsibilities of students, research support staff and academic
supervisors. This is to ensure that all those involved in undergraduate
student projects have a clear idea of not only what is reasonably expected
of them, but also what they can reasonably expect from the other people
involved in the process. As the students gain an appreciation of the
role of the research support staff, we expect that the informal drop-in
facility will become more widely used. To ensure that the handbooks are
a practical resource, issues such as ethical committee approval, personal
safety, laboratory safety, confidentiality and data protection are also
included.
The focus of this article has related to how research staff can support
undergraduate research projects in an academic environment. However,
many of the issues raised will be relevant wherever and whenever research
projects are being undertaken in any organisation. It is equally important
for pharmacists who have responsibility for the supervision of pre- or
postregistration research projects in primary care trusts or NHS trusts
to ensure that appropriate support and training is provided in the most
efficient way. In addition, making sure that the “researchers” are
fully aware of the implications of research governance and data protection
legislation is of paramount importance.
In the academic year 2002–03, the research staff post at the University
of Manchester has had a developmental role. The post will continue and
progress in a much more formal way in the 2003–04 academic year.
By October 2005, when the undergraduate project will become a much more
substantial part of the MPharm degree course, systems should be in place
school-wide to support both students and academic staff through the project
process. References
1. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Accreditation of
UK pharmacy degree courses. London: The Society; 2002.
2. Tully MP, Cantrill JA. The research governance framework and its implications
for pharmacy practice research. Pharm J 2003;271:51–4 (PDF 120K) |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal