排序方式： 共有24条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
21.
Christian Moro Zane Štromberga Athanasios Raikos Allan Stirling 《Anatomical sciences education》2017,10(6):549-559
Although cadavers constitute the gold standard for teaching anatomy to medical and health science students, there are substantial financial, ethical, and supervisory constraints on their use. In addition, although anatomy remains one of the fundamental areas of medical education, universities have decreased the hours allocated to teaching gross anatomy in favor of applied clinical work. The release of virtual (VR) and augmented reality (AR) devices allows learning to occur through hands‐on immersive experiences. The aim of this research was to assess whether learning structural anatomy utilizing VR or AR is as effective as tablet‐based (TB) applications, and whether these modes allowed enhanced student learning, engagement and performance. Participants (n = 59) were randomly allocated to one of the three learning modes: VR, AR, or TB and completed a lesson on skull anatomy, after which they completed an anatomical knowledge assessment. Student perceptions of each learning mode and any adverse effects experienced were recorded. No significant differences were found between mean assessment scores in VR, AR, or TB. During the lessons however, VR participants were more likely to exhibit adverse effects such as headaches (25% in VR P < 0.05), dizziness (40% in VR, P < 0.001), or blurred vision (35% in VR, P < 0.01). Both VR and AR are as valuable for teaching anatomy as tablet devices, but also promote intrinsic benefits such as increased learner immersion and engagement. These outcomes show great promise for the effective use of virtual and augmented reality as means to supplement lesson content in anatomical education. Anat Sci Educ 10: 549–559. © 2017 American Association of Anatomists. 相似文献
22.
23.
Josie Coburn Frederique Bone Michael M. Hopkins Andy Stirling Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz Stathis Arapostathis Martin J. Llewelyn 《Research Policy》2021,50(4):104140
This article provides prospective appraisal of key policy instruments intended to stimulate innovation to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR). AMR refers to the ability of microbes to evolve resistance to those treatments designed to kill them, and is associated with the overuse or misuse of medicines such as antibiotics. AMR is an emerging global challenge with major implications for healthcare and society as a whole. Diagnostic tests for infectious diseases can guide decision making when prescribing medicines, so reducing inappropriate drug use. In the context of growing international interest in policies to stimulate innovation in AMR diagnostics, this study uses multicriteria mapping (MCM) to appraise a range of policy instruments in order to understand their potential performance while also highlighting the uncertainties that stakeholders hold about such interventions in complex contexts. A contribution of the article is the demonstration of a novel method to analyse and visualise MCM data in order to reveal stakeholder inclinations towards particular options while exploring interviewees’ uncertainties about the effectiveness of each instrument's design or implementation. The article reports results from six European countries (Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK). The findings reveal which policy instruments are deemed most likely to perform well, and why, across stakeholder groups and national settings, with areas of common ground and difference being identified. Importantly, the conclusions presented here differ from prominent policy discourse, with international implications for the design of mixes of policy instruments to combat AMR. Strategic and practical methodological implications also emerge for general appraisal of innovation policy instrument mixes. 相似文献
24.
Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
The paper critically reviews the work of David Collingridge in the light of contemporary concerns about responsibility and accountability in innovation, public engagement with science and technology, and the role of scientific expertise in technology policy. Given continued interest in his thoughts on the ‘social control of technology’, and the ‘dilemma of control’, this attention is both timely and overdue. The paper illuminates a mismatch between the prevalence of citations to Collingridge’s work on the dilemma of control in the literature on responsible innovation, and the depth of engagement with his arguments. By considering neglected aspects of Collingridge’s substantive, methodological and philosophical analysis, important implications can be drawn for theory and practice relating to the governance of innovation and co-evolution between technology and society. The paper helps to improve understandings of wider political contexts for responsible innovation, especially in relation to anticipatory, participatory and institutional aspects of governance. 相似文献