No abstract

Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne.

In response to the pandemic, many countries have had multiple lockdowns punctuated by partial freedoms limiting physically being together. In 2020-21, during the COVID-19 pandemic parents were stressed and exhausted by the challenges of work, home schooling and barriers to typical childcare arrangements. Children were missing one another, their social lives and the variety of experiences that the world beyond the home brings. Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) offers tried and tested ways to enable children to maintain beyond-household family activities and dynamics. However, it is not viewed as a solution. Instead, as demonstrated through a multiple method study involving a Rapid Evidence Assessment; workshops with 91 teenagers; interviews with 15 experts; a Delphi study with 21 experts; 402 parent questionnaires pre-pandemic; 232 parent questionnaires during the pandemic; and longitudinal interviews with 13 parents during the first UK lockdown in 2020, IVR is not viewed as having value in the home beyond gaming. Results highlight limited consideration of IVR as a way to enhance family life or the home, with a lack of evidence and direction from current research, innovation and policy. The paper empirically demonstrates that experts, teenagers and parents have limited expectations for VR. Further, with parental resistance to adoption and a lack of ideas or innovations in how Immersive Virtual Reality could be used, the likelihood of VR-headset adoption remains low as does its potential as a means of educating, entertaining and socially engaging children and teenagers.

A561 material and provided the activities. A feedback was requested from participants after each training session; specific questions were included in the annual general survey for Partners. Results: Partners have been offered three face-to-face courses and several webinars which reached 90 people from 27 agencies and 25 countries. e-learning material (webcasts or recorded training sessions) were also created. All participants were satisfied or very satisfied, 70 % indicated having changed their practice following the training event. Stakeholders have been offered three face-to-face courses, which reached 70 participants (mostly patient organisations and manufacturers). All participants were satisfied of very satisfied ConClusions: EUnetHTA has succeeded in establishing a training program. Because EUnetHTA is a transnational network, use of e-learning should be extended so that more Partners will be able to increase their knowledge on EUnetHTA tools and methods in order to efficiently produce joint HTA information. Stakeholders also benefited from the training program to get a better comprehension of both HTA and EUnetHTA tools and methods. However, cost of pursuing this activity will need to be further assessed.

AimsMentoring is recognised by the RCPCH as a process which can provide valuable support to Paediatricians throughout their careers and is a process which is being introduced more widely in Paediatric training.The aim of this Quality Improvement Project was toIntroduce a Mentoring Programme into our local tertiary Children’s Hospital to ensure supportive and pastoral care for Junior Colleagues was availableTo implement a Mentoring Programme Deanery Wide for all trainees to accessMethodsA pilot scheme to mentor foundation year doctors/GP trainees was undertaken in December 2016. All paediatric trainees rotating into the Children’s hospital were contacted asking to express interest in mentoring. They were then matched with interested mentees. During induction week, information was provided to both mentors and mentees to explain the programme in further detail. Feedback was collected at two time periods during the 4 month process. A further programme has been rolled-out and we are currently creating a deanery wide scheme for all Paediatric trainees to access.ResultsA total of 18 mentoring partnerships were matched in the pilot scheme. Feedback for mentees was 4/18 and for mentors 5/15. This did not improve in the follow-up programme where feedback was 4/13 and 6/13 for mentors and mentees respectively.The feedback received included both positive and negative comments which have been acted upon to improve and develop the mentoring process.ConclusionThe main barrier we have encountered has been in relation to feedback which has been significantly suboptimal on both programmes. The feedback we have received has provided us with recommendations for improvement which we have attempted to integrate.Currently, we are creating a wider mentoring programme for all Paediatric trainees to access in the local Deanery. This will be rolled out in March 2018. There will be more active participation from mentees, including having a mentee-driven matching process. There will be a dedicated website for mentoring and we hope to provide local mentoring skills training. Our aim will be to seek permission to include compulsory (but anonymous) provision of feedback as part of the trainee’s responsibilities.