Search results

Social inclusion policies in the higher education sector are implemented to ensure that all people – irrespective of socioeconomic background – have rights of access and the opportunities needed to participate and, ultimately, succeed. In Australia, and in other countries such as the UK, the USA, New Zealand and South Africa such policies are reflective of a commitment to the government's social inclusion agenda particularly aimed at improving access and participation of those from disadvantaged and low‐socioeconomic backgrounds. Such a commitment arrives at an historic moment in countries like Australia and the UK when there is a concurrent national renewal of quality assurance in higher education with a particular focus on academic standards. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussion on the extent to which a national social inclusion agenda may impact academic standards and student outcomes.

The authors argue that contemporary trends such as increasing student diversity, changing pattern of student participation, differentiated levels of preparedness for tertiary education and new modes of learning, will continue to grow and will not in and of themselves affect academic standards. The authors contend that it is the responsibility of higher education institutions to respond proactively to the diverse needs of students whilst ensuring that academic standards are maintained. In this way, the fulfilment of an essentially transformative moral purpose in higher education may also be achieved.

The evidence presented in this paper from various contexts suggests that a social inclusion agenda related to increasing the equity of access and participation of disadvantaged students does not have a negative impact on academic standards and outcomes. However, such commitment to widening participation requires the active “buy in” of a number of stakeholders.

The paper shows that institutions of higher education need to plan for and actively support the development of environments in which all people can realise their potential and are provided with the knowledge and skill sets they in turn will require in order to contribute to society.

The purpose of this paper is to establish the value placed on the facets that contribute to a meaningful leisure occupation for the residents of a residential care facility by the staff that care for them.

This was a service evaluation using a self-reported questionnaire, completed by six Activity Co-ordinators from the home of 158 individuals with a wide range of neuropalliative conditions.

The cultural/historical components, the built and social environment, learning, life satisfaction and goal orientation were reported as the least valued facets, which make up a leisure occupation. The staff did, however; value the sense of health and capability, purpose, the feeling of being fully human and the sense of belonging that comes about through leisure. They also valued preventing boredom, opportunities for self-expression, creativity, achievement, and control. Additionally they valued opportunities to gain a clear sense of the rhythm of life, of self-identity, choice of occupation, and engagement in the occupation.

The findings highlight a variance between the perceptions of staff members who deal with the day-to-day leisure opportunities and decisions of the residents, and the literature of occupational science about what makes an occupation meaningful, and therefore is worthy of consideration when planning a leisure occupation.

Personalised care requires consideration of the individual's cultural and historical background, the environment surrounding the occupation, opportunities for social interaction, individual learning, life satisfaction, and goal orientation when organising leisure opportunities. These facets are stressed because the participants undervalued them.

The context of this paper is a subset of individuals with neurological disabilities who experience profound disabilities, and the attitudes of staff to their leisure lifestyle.

The purpose of this paper is to examine gender differences in lifetime substance use and non-substance use (non-SUD) psychiatric disorders among illicit drug users and determine factors associated with non-SUD psychiatric disorders independently for males and for females.

Secondary analysis of five cross-sectional studies conducted in Barcelona, Spain during 2000-2006. Lifetime DSM-IV substance use and non-SUD psychiatric diagnoses were assessed using the Spanish Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental disorders (PRISM) among 629 people who use substances (68 per cent male) recruited from treatment (n=304) and out of treatment (n=325) settings. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using binary logistic regression.

The prevalence of any lifetime psychiatric (non-SUD) disorder was 41.8 per cent, with major depression (17 per cent) and antisocial personality disorder (17 per cent) being the most prevalent disorders. After adjusting for age and study, the odds of having any lifetime non-SUD (OR 2.10; 95%CI 1.48, 2.96); any mood disorder (OR 2.13; 95%CI 1.46, 3.11); any anxiety disorder (OR 1.86; 95%CI 1.19; 2.92); any eating disorder (OR 3.09; 95%CI 1.47, 6.47); or borderline personality disorder (OR 2.30; 95%CI 1.36, 3.84) were greater for females than males. Females were less likely than males to meet criteria for antisocial personality disorder (OR 0.59; 95%CI 0.36, 0.96) and attention deficit disorder (OR 0.37; 95%CI 0.17, 0.78).

Psychiatric disorders are common among people who use substances, with gender differences reported for specific disorders. Gender-sensitive integrated treatment approaches are required to prevent and to address comorbidity psychiatric disorders among this population.

This secondary analysis of five cross-sectional studies included a large sample size allowing sufficient power to examine the differences between men and women. An additional strength of the methodology is the use of the gold standard PRISM which was used to assess disorders.

Leadership studies which focus on categorising leadership styles have been critiqued for failure to consider the lived experience of leadership. The purpose of this paper is to use the framework of Jepson’s model of contextual dynamics to explore whether this framework assists understanding of the “how and why” of lived leadership experience within the nursing profession.

Themes for a purposeful literature search and review, having regard to the Jepson model, are drawn from the contemporary and dynamic context of nursing. Government reports, coupled with preliminary interviews with a nurse leadership team, guided selection of contextual issues.

The contextual interactions arising from managerialism, existing hierarchical models of leadership and increasing knowledge work provided insights into leadership experience in nursing, in the contexts of professional identity and changing educational and generational profiles of nurses. The authors conclude that employing a contextual frame provides insights in studying leadership experience. The author propose additions to the cultural and institutional dimensions of Jepson’s model.

The findings have implications for structuring and communicating key roles and policies relevant to nursing leadership. These include the need to: address perceptions around the legitimacy of current nursing leaders to provide clinical leadership; modify hierarchical models of nursing leadership; address implications of the role of the knowledge workers.

Observing nursing leadership through the lens of Jepson’s model of contextual dynamics confirms that this is an important way of exploring how leadership is enacted. The authors found, however, the model also provided a useful frame for considering the experience and understanding of leadership by those to be led.