School-based filial therapy (SBFT) programs are training programs for teachers, school learning-support officers, and teacher’s aides (paraprofessionals) working in regional and remote primary-school settings. The program educates paraprofessionals in the therapeutic foundations and skills involved in facilitating child-centered play therapy (or, “special play sessions”) with children who have mild to moderate emotional and behavioral disturbances. The program is delivered in regional or remote locations over 3 days in a didactic and experiential format. When paraprofessionals become competent with therapeutic protocols involved in facilitating special play sessions, they design program implementations in their school settings to ensure the specific needs of each community are being met, in collaboration with their local school communities. This involves the use of local resources and abilities that take into consideration the unique cultural aspects of each school and community. Where children’s mental health treatment is limited by access, culture, stigma, low socioeconomic status, and/or isolation, the SBFT program provides one possible solution: prioritizing and supporting locally determined, rather than prescriptive, implementation of the program. This specific program aims to address the many barriers people living in rural communities face when they attempt to access specialist mental health care, thus potentially delivering better health outcomes. As such, this program can be adapted anywhere around the world where health-care delivery and accessibility are challenging, especially for young children.

This study explored the differences between on-and off-campus social work education focusing on student demographics, academic achievements, and student satisfaction. The study focused on a cohort of recent graduates from Monash University Bachelor of Social Work course. The study is quantitative with a small amount of qualitative data used to illustrate some of the quantitative findings. Data were collected using a telephone questionnaire/survey and student records. The data were analysed using the statistical computer package, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The study found differences in the demographics of on-and off-campus recent graduates but minimal differences in terms of general satisfaction and grades. However, while off-campus recent graduates were generally satisfied with their course, they tended to be less satisfied with their offcampus mode of study. It seems that they often studied off-campus because it was the only, or the most convenient, choice open to them. It is concluded that off-campus social work education meets the needs of a particular group of students and as such is an important option for social work education.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction:Identifying priority research topics that meet the needs of multiple stakeholders should maximise research investment.Aim: To identify priorities for health education research.Methods: A three-stage sequential mixed methods study was conducted. Priorities for health education research were identified through a qualitative survey with 104 students, patients, academics and clinicians across five health sciences and 12 professions (stage 1). These findings were analysed using framework analysis and transposed into a quantitative survey whereby 780 stakeholders rated and ranked the identified priorities. Descriptive statistics identified priorities, exploratory factor analysis grouped priorities and differences between stakeholders were determined using Mann-Whitney U tests (stage 2). Six individual or group interviews with 16 participants (stage 3) further explicated the results from previous stages.Results: Of 30 priorities identified, the top were: how best to ensure students develop the required skills for work; how to promote resiliency and well-being in students; and ensuring the curriculum prepares students for work. For the majority of priorities, no significant differences were found between different stakeholder groups.Conclusions: These findings will be used to inform health educational research strategy both locally and nationally. Further research should explore if setting priorities can be translated effectively into education research policy and practice. Practice points• Engaging in systematic and consultative processes with multiple stakeholders to identify health education research priorities is essential to maximise the efficiency and impact of health education research.• The highest-priority research areas identified were: ensuring that students develop the required skills for work/practice; how to promote resiliency and wellbeing in students; and ensuring the curriculum prepares for work/practice.• Research priority factors identified were: (i) Culture of learning together in the workplace; (ii) Preparation for work; (iii) Meeting future Australian healthcare needs;(iv) Pedagogical effectiveness; (v) Workforce issues; and (vi) Curriculum integration.• These research areas were prioritised as they were perceived to improve student learning, were seen as a current educational problem, supported the development of evidence-based education, and improved the quality of care and patient safety and preparedness for work.• The need still remains to determine if priority setting exercises can be translated effectively into education research policy (e.g. strategy) and practice (e.g. focused education research effort, enhanced education research quality).