Networking A novel approach to research presentations for networks: - PDF document

Primary Health Care Research and Development 2001; 2 : 205–207 Networking A novel approach to research presentations for networks: an evaluation of Visual Presentation with Expert Review (ViPER) Michael Moore Three Swans Surgery, Salisbury, Helen Smith, Joan Dunleavey, Jenny Field, Angela Fenwick Department of Primary Medical Care, University of Southampton, Southampton, Peter White Nightingale Surgery, Romsey and Alison Woodcock Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, London, UK Introduction tated group discussion with input from an expert in the field. We call this Visual Presentation with Primary care research networks have a broad remit Expert Review (ViPER). which includes stimulating an interest in research, training practitioners in research skills, dissemi- nating research findings and encouraging a critical Evaluation of ViPERs evidence-based approach to practice (Mant, 1997). Since 1994, the Wessex Primary Care Research Abstracts were first presented in ViPER format at Network (WReN) has held an annual meeting for our 1998 conference. Four presenters were invited its members to present their research endeavours to present a ViPER and were asked to prepare: to each other. Initially, participants either made a 1) a poster describing their research; 10-minute oral presentation (followed by 5 minutes 2) a 5-minute presentation using three overheads, for questions) or displayed a poster. After three summarizing key points and highlighting the conferences, we began to question the suitability particular areas in which they welcomed help of these conventional methods of presentation at from the expert and audience. our meetings. Although no formal evaluation has ever been conducted, posters and short oral Information about the ViPER format was presentations appear to be effective when the aim included in the conference registration details and is to disseminate recent results to experienced aca- the programme. Participants were encouraged to demic researchers. However, a conference for view the posters and select the ViPER presentation practice-based novice researchers has more com- that was most relevant to their interests. plex aims. These include the provision of a sup- A formal evaluation was conducted to ensure portive environment for practitioners to present that the ViPER achieved its intended educational their own research and receive expert advice and objectives both for participants and for presenters. constructive feedback, as well as assisting the audi- Given the limited resources, the evaluation focused ence in improving their research competencies. on reaction and learning rather than on resultant With these goals in mind, we have developed a behaviour (Hutchinson, 1999). Data was collected novel presentation format that increases the opport- by the following methods: unities for active engagement in discussion. Our method consists of a poster presentation and brief • direct observation – observers made contempor- oral presentation followed by 20 minutes of facili- aneous notes of the setting and the behaviour of and interactions between the presenter, expert and participants. They also looked for any unex- Address for correspondence: Helen Smith, Wessex Primary pected constraints or difficulties; Care Research Network, Primary Medical Care, Aldermoor • Participant questionnaires – on exiting the Health Centre, Aldermoor Close, Southampton SO16 5ST, UK. ViPER, all participants were asked to comment Email: wren � soton.ac.uk  Arnold 2001 1463-4236(2001)PC074XX Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 192.151.151.66, on 12 Aug 2020 at 03:09:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1191/146342301682157674

206 Michael Moore, Helen Smith, Joan Dunleavey et al. on their learning experience and to rate ViPERs the presenter in the concluding remarks provided as a presentation form on a scale of 1 to 10 the jumping-off point for the subsequent discussion. (where 1 = no value, and 10 = maximum value). I learnt from the contributions made in the The conference evaluation form, which was dis- discussion. tributed at the end of the day, asked participants to indicate their preferred format for learning Helpful for ideas on conducting research, as about research (i.e., poster, short oral presen- many of the comments are transferable. tation or ViPER); • telephone interview – each presenter, each Even those who did not contribute actively to the expert and a sample of participants were inter- discussion reported benefit. viewed. To obtain the greatest diversity of par- I have a better understanding of how to look ticipant opinion, we sampled six high and six at evidence-based practice. Made me think. I low scorers from the participant questionnaire. didn’t contribute, but I listened hard. Useful . Did not participate, but would have Findings been comfortable doing so. This was my first WReN meeting. It was unthreatening and I was reassured and would consider presen- Value to participants tation myself. Immediate feedback was enthusiastic, with high ratings of perceived value (mean 7.5, mode 8, range 3–10) ( n = 54). In total, 94% (32/34) of parti- The presenters’ perspective cipants who completed a conference evaluation Presenters liked the ViPER format because it form indicated that ViPERs were their preferred was more interactive than conventional oral pres- format for learning about research, as opposed to entations, with plenty of time for discussion and more conventional methods. questions. Presenters found the discussion helpful, Viewing of the posters helped participants to sel- as it provided ‘constructive’ and ‘good sensible’ ect the ViPER most relevant to their interests, and input, with ‘hints and ideas’. It helped to ‘raise the enhanced their understanding of the topic and their study profile’ and ‘opened doors with potential col- readiness to ask questions. laborators’. Presenters commented that this presen- tation style was particularly valuable when It was good to know what the ViPER was research was in the planning or data-interpret- about and have a chance to think about some ation phase. of the issues prior to the session. The experts’ experiences Valuable because it allows you to absorb The experts perceived added benefits of ViPER more information as the researcher presented. presentation for the presenter, including the following. Very useful in preparing ideas to share with presenter. Opportunity to share ideas not fully worked out. It was considered to be very important to have read the poster first, and those who, because of lim- Vigorous discussion about subject matter in ited time or unfamiliarity with the ViPER format, informal group setting . . . wouldn’t have had not read the poster recognized that they were happened in formal presentation. at a disadvantage. Suggestions for future ViPERs included clearer instructions for participants, the For participants, the experts felt that the ViPER allocation of dedicated poster-viewing time within format changed the balance of the meeting and the programme, and handouts of the poster. enabled ‘everyone to chip in’ and ‘exchange ideas’. The short oral presentations provided parti- The experts found their role unexpectedly com- cipants with ‘an essential synopsis’ and ‘focused plex. In addition to the provision of advice, they attention on key points’. The questions posed by found themselves, like teachers, involved in the Primary Health Care Research and Development 2001; 2 : 205–207 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 192.151.151.66, on 12 Aug 2020 at 03:09:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1191/146342301682157674