Vaccine hesitancy plays a crucial role in worldwide pandemic-control efforts. The multifaceted nature of vaccine hesitancy entails many psychological factors that are widely discussed in the literature, although few studies specifically compile these factors. Thus, this systematic review aims to synthesize the psychological factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy. As per the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines, a systematic search was conducted on electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, PsycNET, and Web of Science, and a manual search was conducted on Google Scholar. Out of the 2289 articles obtained, 79 studies that met the inclusion criteria were deemed eligible for the review. The findings highlight appraisals of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine safety and side effects, vaccine confidence/trust, trust in government and healthcare professionals, scepticism around vaccine production, conspiracy beliefs, emotions, and information and knowledge about the vaccine as the major psychological factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy. Concerningly, misinformation on COVID-19 vaccination spread through social media platforms, increasing vaccine hesitancy. Recommendations for government authorities, healthcare professionals, and implications for future research are also outlined.

The state of Texas assumes certification tests with low and high biology contents yield teachers with equal teaching efficacy if candidates did not obtain an undergraduate degree in a teaching subject. But, the sense of efficacy of the generalist-certified teachers who took the test with only 30 percent life science contents may be impacted. Studies have used personal efficacy and outcome expectancy subscales in Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI) to measure teacher effectiveness. Few scales exist specifically for subject teachers teaching science in high schools. Hence, STEBI was adapted. This study assessed the validity and reliability of modified STEBI using data from 562 in-service biology teachers in public high schools. Principal Component Analysis supported the validity of the instrument, Confirmatory Factor Analysis failed. The reliability was established with Cronbach's alpha. The subscales were reliable; alpha was .81 and .81. STEBI could be adapted to study teaching efficacy beliefs of biology teachers.

The basis of any systematic scheme for college staff‐development is regular performance appraisal. Only from an analysis of shortcomings can staff‐development be planned. A senior administrator will be easily attracted to the logic of this for he will see his task as being the allocation of limited funds or resources to priorities that can be established by a rational comparison of needs. Two main problems of implementation exist: firstly, that teaching staff have tended to see their classroom performances as in some way secret and defended by some concept of professionalism and, secondly, the objectives against which performance is to be measured need to be established. Although some attention has been paid to this second difficulty it has to an extent been submerged under two old traditional approaches to FE teaching. It seems superficially obvious that the prime task of the teacher is to communicate well in the classroom (or workshop) and possibly to help ‘motivate’ his students. This tradition has been underpinned by and reflected in the attitudes of the colleges of education to the teaching‐practice of their students. Reports, where requested, have been dominated by classroom performance, and until very recently, the role of the staff of the host‐college in teacher‐development (rather than evaluation) has been ignored. The other traditional FE approach has been that the curriculum is ‘given’ by an external examining body which has in many cases been seen as specifying the number of teaching hours required. Thus, all the teacher has to do is to ‘present’ the curriculum.

AimsThe aim of our review was to ensure that:Curricula are aligned to the GMC's GPC and Excellence by Design FrameworksCurricula are capability focusedCurricula promote a flexible and adaptable approach to trainingCurricula are succinct, user friendly, patient-centred and reflective of current training in practiceBackgroundIn response to recommendations outlined in the Shape of Training Review (2013), the GMC developed their new framework for postgraduate medical education Excellence by Design (2015), alongside their Generic Professional Capabilities (GPC) Framework (2015).MethodGovernanceTo manage the review, a Curriculum Revision Working Group (CRWG) was set up to monitor and govern the review process. Members include Specialty Advisory Committee (SAC) chairs, trainee and patient/lay representatives.Curriculum Development & FrameworkThe CRWG, alongside SACs and specialty working groups, have undertaken a “Why, What, How” approach in developing the curriculum framework. Each curriculum is structured as follows:High Level Outcomes (HLOs) – These outline the “Why”, and provide an overarching view on what should be achieved by trainees. Each HLO is mapped directly onto each of the nine GMC GPC domains.Key Capabilities – These outline the “What”, and provide key detail on what trainees need to undertake to fulfil specific aspects of the curriculum.Training illustrations – These outline the “How”, and supplement the Key Capabilities by providing real-world examples of how to achieve each capability.Development of the curricula included:Mapping current Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) to the new HLO frameworkRe-writing competencies so that they were capability focusedUndertaking a thematic analysis of the curricula, to develop key themes/groupings for capabilitiesReview and update Workplace Based Assessments (WBPAs) to ensure they align to the new frameworkStakeholder EngagementPart of the review has been to ensure Key Stakeholders are involved at each stage of curriculum development. To ensure that all key stakeholders are provided opportunity for consultation, a stakeholder map was developed.Stakeholder engagement has included:Direct trainee/trainer/patient/lay involvement at curriculum review meetingsConsultation surveys at each development stage, including feedback on the draft curriculum framework and feedback on full draft curriculaAttendance at meetings with key stakeholders, including NHS Employers and Royal College meetingsResultThe review is currently ongoing. In 2020 we were successful in submitting all 10 of our curricula to the GMC for approval. We are continuing to further develop our curriculum framework, which includes: Psychiatry “Silver Guide”Curricula documentsTraining illustrationsARCP Decision AidsSupplementary GuidanceConclusionThe review of RCPsych curricula has provided an excellent opportunity to broaden curriculum capabilities, and ensure that the curricula are achievable and deliverable. Our aim is to ensure that the new curricula promote flexibility and adaptability within training, and are user friendly for both trainees and trainers.

Abstract. Differences in reading, mathematics, and writing achievement of Grade 7 students as a function of mobility were examined with and without controls for economic status in this investigation. Data were obtained from the Texas Education Agency Public Education Information Management System for the 2002-2003 through the 2007-2008 school years. Statistically significant differences were revealed in reading, mathematics, and writing test scores as a function of student mobility, both when controlling for and not controlling for economic status. Mobile students had statistically significantly lower reading, mathematics, and writing test scores than did non-mobile students for all 6 school years. Implications for policy and practice and suggestions for future research were made.