Problem based learning is used in many medical schools in the United Kingdom and worldwide. This article describes this method of learning and teaching in small groups and explains why it has had an important impact on medical education.

 ![][1] 

The group learning process: acquiring desirable learning skills

In problem based learning (PBL) students use “triggers” from the problem case or scenario to define their own learning objectives. Subsequently they do independent, self directed study before returning to the group to discuss and refine their acquired knowledge. Thus, PBL is not about problem solving per se, but rather it uses appropriate problems to increase knowledge and understanding. The process is clearly defined, and the several variations that exist all follow a similar series of steps.

#### Generic skills and attitudes

Group learning facilitates not only the acquisition of knowledge but also several other desirable attributes, such as communication skills, teamwork, problem solving, independent responsibility for learning, sharing information, and respect for others. PBL can therefore be thought of as a small group teaching method that combines the acquisition of knowledge with the development of generic skills and attitudes. Presentation of clinical material as the stimulus for learning enables students to understand the relevance of underlying scientific knowledge and principles in clinical practice.

However, when PBL is introduced into a curriculum, several other issues for curriculum design and implementation need to be tackled. PBL is generally introduced in the context of a defined core curriculum and integration of basic and clinical sciences. It has implications for staffing and learning resources and demands a different approach to timetabling, workload, and assessment. PBL is often used to deliver core material in non-clinical parts of the …

 [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif

https://www.cc-seas.columbia.edu/sites/dsa/files/what_is_PBL.pdf

Problem based learning

Death is the new sex, last great taboo in Western society and Western medicine, as Richard Smith discusses in his editorial (p 129). In the trinity of births, marriages, and deaths, only death does not have glossy magazines devoted to stylish consumption at the attendant ceremonies. On the web, of course, …

Death and dying

This report updates the 2009 recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine for the prevention and control of influenza (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-8] and CDC. Use of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine---recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP], 2009. MMWR 2009;58:[No. RR-10]). The 2010 influenza recommendations include new and updated information. Highlights of the 2010 recommendations include 1) a recommendation that annual vaccination be administered to all persons aged >or=6 months for the 2010-11 influenza season; 2) a recommendation that children aged 6 months--8 years whose vaccination status is unknown or who have never received seasonal influenza vaccine before (or who received seasonal vaccine for the first time in 2009-10 but received only 1 dose in their first year of vaccination) as well as children who did not receive at least 1 dose of an influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine regardless of previous influenza vaccine history should receive 2 doses of a 2010-11 seasonal influenza vaccine (minimum interval: 4 weeks) during the 2010--11 season; 3) a recommendation that vaccines containing the 2010-11 trivalent vaccine virus strains A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)-like (the same strain as was used for 2009 H1N1 monovalent vaccines), A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2)-like, and B/Brisbane/60/2008-like antigens be used; 4) information about Fluzone High-Dose, a newly approved vaccine for persons aged >or=65 years; and 5) information about other standard-dose newly approved influenza vaccines and previously approved vaccines with expanded age indications. Vaccination efforts should begin as soon as the 2010-11 seasonal influenza vaccine is available and continue through the influenza season. These recommendations also include a summary of safety data for U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines. These recommendations and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu); any updates or supplements that might be required during the 2010-11 influenza season also will be available at this website. Recommendations for influenza diagnosis and antiviral use will be published before the start of the 2010-11 influenza season. Vaccination and health-care providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information.

/pdf/prevention-and-control-of-seasonal-influenza-with-vaccines-4j4sn7f6zr.pdf

Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2009.

Summary Background No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza. Methods We searched Medline for randomised controlled trials assessing a relative reduction in influenza risk of all circulating influenza viruses during individual seasons after vaccination (efficacy) and observational studies meeting inclusion criteria (effectiveness). Eligible articles were published between Jan 1, 1967, and Feb 15, 2011, and used RT-PCR or culture for confirmation of influenza. We excluded some studies on the basis of study design and vaccine characteristics. We estimated random-effects pooled efficacy for trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) when data were available for statistical analysis (eg, at least three studies that assessed comparable age groups). Findings We screened 5707 articles and identified 31 eligible studies (17 randomised controlled trials and 14 observational studies). Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 59% [95% CI 51–67] in adults aged 18–65 years). No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 2–17 years or adults aged 65 years or older. Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69–91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years. No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 8–17 years. Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60–93). Interpretation Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality. Funding Alfred P Sloan Foundation.

/pdf/efficacy-and-effectiveness-of-influenza-vaccines-a-1oy0nz0810.pdf

Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

There are a number of ways in which a clinical diagnosis of dementia of the Alzheimer type can be made – the application of clinical criteria is the commonest but ancillary techniques such as neuroima

Clinical Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease

Background
Vaccines have been the main global weapon to minimise the impact of influenza in the elderly for the last four decades and are recommended worldwide for individuals aged 65 years or older The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of complications among persons who are most vulnerable

Objectives
To assess the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospital admissions, complications and mortality in the elderly 
To identify and appraise comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in the elderly 
To document types and frequency of adverse effects associated with influenza vaccines in the elderly

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 4); MEDLINE (January 1966 to October Week 1 2009); EMBASE (1974 to October 2009) and Web of Science (1974 to October 2009)

Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort and case-control studies assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety Any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention was considered

Data collection and analysis
We grouped reports first according to the setting of the study (community or long-term care facilities) and then by level of viral circulation and vaccine matching We further stratified by co-administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and by different types of influenza vaccines We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, hospital admissions, complications and deaths

Main results
We included 75 studies Overall we identified 100 data sets We identified one RCT assessing efficacy and effectiveness Although this seemed to show an effect against influenza symptoms it was underpowered to detect any effect on complications (1348 participants) The remainder of our evidence base included non-RCTs Due to the general low quality of non-RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly

Authors' conclusions
The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older To resolve the uncertainty, an adequately powered publicly-funded randomised, placebo-controlled trial run over several seasons should be undertaken

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

© 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Background: Helping young people to avoid starting smoking is a widely endorsed public health goal, and schools provide a route to communicate with nearly all young people. School-based interventions have been delivered for close to 40 years. Objectives: The primary aim of this review was to determine whether school smoking interventions prevent youth from starting smoking. Our secondary objective was to determine which interventions were most effective. This included evaluating the effects of theoretical approaches; additional booster sessions; programme deliverers; gender effects; and multifocal interventions versus those focused solely on smoking. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsyclNFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Health Star, and Dissertation Abstracts for terms relating to school-based smoking cessation programmes. In addition, we screened the bibliographies of articles and ran individual MEDLINE searches for 133 authors who had undertaken randomised controlled trials in this area. The most recent searches were conducted in October 2012. Selection criteria: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where students, classes, schools, or school districts were randomised to intervention arm(s) versus a control group, and followed for at least six months. Participants had to be youth (aged 5 to 18). Interventions could be any curricula used in a school setting to deter tobacco use, and outcome measures could be never smoking, frequency of smoking, number of cigarettes smoked, or smoking indices. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Based on the type of outcome, we placed studies into three groups for analysis: Pure Prevention cohorts (Group 1), Change in Smoking Behaviour over time (Group 2) and Point Prevalence of Smoking (Group 3). Main results: One hundred and thirty-four studies involving 428,293 participants met the inclusion criteria. Some studies provided data for more than one group. Pure Prevention cohorts (Group 1) included 49 studies (N = 142,447). Pooled results at follow-up at one year or less found no overall effect of intervention curricula versus control (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05). In a subgroup analysis, the combined social competence and social influences curricula (six RCTs) showed a statistically significant effect in preventing the onset of smoking (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; seven arms); whereas significant effects were not detected in programmes involving information only (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 14.87; one study), social influences only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 25 studies), or multimodal interventions (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08; five studies). In contrast, pooled results at longest follow-up showed an overall significant effect favouring the intervention (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96). Subgroup analyses detected significant effects in programmes with social competence curricula (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.88), and the combined social competence and social influences curricula (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87), but not in those programmes with information only, social influence only, and multimodal programmes. Change in Smoking Behaviour over time (Group 2) included 15 studies (N = 45,555). At one year or less there was a small but statistically significant effect favouring controls (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). For follow-up longer than one year there was a statistically nonsignificant effect (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.02). Twenty-five studies reported data on the Point Prevalence of Smoking (Group 3), though heterogeneity in this group was too high for data to be pooled. We were unable to analyse data for 49 studies (N = 152,544). Subgroup analyses (Pure Prevention cohorts only) demonstrated that at longest follow-up for all curricula combined, there was a significant effect favouring adult presenters (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96). There were no differences between tobacco-only and multifocal interventions. For curricula with booster sessions there was a significant effect only for combined social competence and social influences interventions with follow-up of one year or less (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.96) and at longest follow-up (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96). Limited data on gender differences suggested no overall effect, although one study found an effect of multimodal intervention at one year for male students. Sensitivity analyses for Pure Prevention cohorts and Change in Smoking Behaviour over time outcomes suggested that neither selection nor attrition bias affected the results. Authors' conclusions: Pure Prevention cohorts showed a significant effect at longest follow-up, with an average 12% reduction in starting smoking compared to the control groups. However, no overall effect was detected at one year or less. The combined social competence and social influences interventions showed a significant effect at one year and at longest follow-up. Studies that deployed a social influences programme showed no overall effect at any time point; multimodal interventions and those with an information-only approach were similarly ineffective. Studies reporting Change in Smoking Behaviour over time did not show an overall effect, but at an intervention level there were positive findings for social competence and combined social competence and social influences interventions.

/pdf/school-based-programmes-for-preventing-smoking-3y47h1ypfh.pdf

School‐based programmes for preventing smoking

We reviewed the socio-economic impact of telehealth, focusing on nine main areas: paediatrics, geriatrics, First Nations (i.e. indigenous peoples), home care, mental health, radiology, renal dialysis, rural/remote health services and rehabilitation. A systematic search led to the identification of 4646 citations or abstracts; from these, 306 sources were analysed. A central finding was that telehealth studies to date have not used socio-economic indicators consistently. However, specific telehealth applications have been shown to offer significant socio-economic benefit, to patients and families, health-care providers and the health-care system. The main benefits identified were: increased access to health services, cost-effectiveness, enhanced educational opportunities, improved health outcomes, better quality of care, better quality of life and enhanced social support. Although the review found a number of areas of socio-economic benefit, there is the continuing problem of limited generalizability.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1258/135763303771005207

The socio-economic impact of telehealth: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND\nSmoking rates in adolescents are rising in some countries. Helping young people to avoid starting smoking is a widely endorsed goal of public health, but there is uncertainty about how to do this. Schools provide a route for communicating with a large proportion of young people, and school-based programmes for smoking prevention have been widely developed and evaluated.\n\n\nOBJECTIVES\nTo review all randomized controlled trials of behavioural interventions in schools to prevent children (aged 5 to12) and adolescents (aged 13 to18) starting smoking.\n\n\nSEARCH STRATEGY\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsyclNFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Health Star, Dissertation Abstracts and studies identified in the bibliographies of articles. Individual MEDLINE searches were made for 133 authors who had undertaken randomized controlled trials in this area.\n\n\nSELECTION CRITERIA\nTypes of studies: those in which individual students, classes, schools, or school districts were randomized to the intervention or control groups and followed for at least six months.\n\n\nTYPES OF PARTICIPANTS\nChildren (aged 5 to12) or adolescents (aged 13 to18) in school settings. Types of interventions: Classroom programmes or curricula, including those with associated family and community interventions, intended to deter use of tobacco. We included programmes or curricula that provided information, those that used social influences approaches, those that taught generic social competence, and those that included interventions beyond the school into the community. We included programmes with a drug or alcohol focus if outcomes for tobacco use were reported. Types of outcome measures: Prevalence of non-smoking at follow up among those not smoking at baseline. We did not require biochemical validation of self-reported tobacco use for study inclusion.\n\n\nDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\nWe assessed whether identified citations were randomized controlled trials. We assessed the quality of design and execution, and abstracted outcome data. Because of the marked heterogeneity of design and outcomes, we computed pooled estimates only for those trials that could be analyzed together and for which statistical data were available. We predominantly synthesized the data using narrative systematic review. We grouped studies by intervention method (information; social competence; social influences; combined social influences/social competence; multi-modal programmes). Within each group, we placed them into three categories (low, medium and high risk of bias) according to validity using quality criteria for reported study design.\n\n\nMAIN RESULTS\nOf the 94 randomized controlled trials identified, we classified 23 as category one (most valid). There was one category one study of information-giving and two of teaching social comeptence. There were thirteen category one studies of social influences interventions. Of these, nine found some positive effect of intervention on smoking prevalence, and four failed to detect an effect on smoking prevalence. The largest and most rigorous study, the Hutchinson Smoking Prevention Project, found no long-term effect of an intensive eight-year programme on smoking behaviour. There were three category one RCTs of combined social influences and social competence interventions: one provided significant results and one only for instruction by health educators compared to self-instruction. There was a lack of high quality evidence about the effectiveness of combinations of social influences and social competence approaches. There was one category one study providing data on social influences compared with information giving. There were four category one studies of multi-modal approaches but they provided limited evidence about the effectiveness of multi-modal approaches including community initiatives.\n\n\nAUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS\nThere is one rigorous test of the effects of information-giving about smoking. There are well-conducted randomized controlled trials to test the effects of social influences interventions: in half of the group of best quality studies those in the intervention group smoke less than those in the control, but many studies failed to detect an effect of the intervention. There are only three high quality RCTs which test the effectiveness of combinations of social influences and social competence interventions, and four which test multi-modal interventions; half showed significant positive results.

School-based programmes for preventing smoking: School-based programmes for preventing smoking

Background Healthcare workers (HCW) (nurses, doctors, other health professionals, cleaners and porters), have substantial rates of clinical and sub-clinical influenza during influenza seasons and may transmit influenza to those in their care, especially the vulnerable elderly. Objectives To identify and summarise comparative studies assessing the effects of vaccinating healthcare workers (HCW) on the incidence of influenza, influenza-like-illness (ILI) and its complications on elderly residents in long-term facilities. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the NHS Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1966 to Week 1, February 2006); EMBASE (1974 to March 2006); Biological Abstracts (1969 to December 2004); and Science Citation Index-Expanded (1974 to March 2006). Selection criteria Comparative randomised and non-randomised studies reporting the effects of influenza vaccines on the incidence of viral infections in institutions for the elderly of any type, in any schedule of vaccination given to HCW caring for elderly residents of long-term facilities aged 60 years or older. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality using criteria from the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (for non-randomised studies). Main results We included two cluster randomised controlled trials (C-RCT) and one cohort study. Staff vaccination appears to have significant effect against ILI (absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) 86%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 40% to 97%) only when patients are vaccinated too; if patients are not vaccinated, staff immunisation shows no effect (based on one C-RCT). Based on a small number of observations from two C-RCTs, the vaccines have no efficacy against influenza (odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.68) or lower respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.20) but were effective against deaths from pneumonia (VE 39%, 95% CI 2% to 62%) and deaths from all causes (VE 40%, 95% CI 27% to 50%). All findings must be interpreted with caution given the presence of selection bias. Authors' conclusions We concluded that there is no credible evidence that vaccination of healthy people under the age of 60, who are HCWs caring for the elderly, affects influenza complications in those cared for. However, as vaccinating the elderly in institutions reduces the complications of influenza and vaccinating healthy persons under 60 reduces cases of influenza, those with the responsibility of caring for the elderly in institutions may want to increase vaccine coverage and assess its effects in well-designed studies.

Roger E. Thomas

Papers

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

School‐based programmes for preventing smoking

The socio-economic impact of telehealth: a systematic review.

School-based programmes for preventing smoking: School-based programmes for preventing smoking

Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly.