No abstract

In this quasi-experimental case study, we compared five sections of a basic undergraduate technology course. Within an asynchronous web forum, preservice teachers wrote short critiques of websites designed by their classmates. This peer feedback was provided anonymously by students in two classes (n = 35) whereas providers and recipients of peer feedback were identified by their real names in three other classes (n = 37). Computermediated discourse analysis methods (Herring, 2004) were used to code student written comments according to substance and tone of feedback. Next, we estimated likelihoods of specific feedback patterns through Analysis of Patterns in Time (Frick, 1990). Results indicated that students who were anonymous were approximately five times more likely to provide substantively critical feedback than were those whose identities were known to their recipients. When feedback was given anonymously, students were approximately four times more likely to provide reasons for needed improvement to a website, and then to suggest design alternatives. In light of advantages afforded by this form of pseudonymity, we conclude with a discussion of pedagogical prescriptions for supporting learners' production of feedback.

In the past, drug developers in industry chose approaches mainly focusing on the drug product's efficacy, safety and quality according to the level required by regulatory expectations stipulated in guidelines, pharmacopoeia and other regulatory provisions. By putting more focus on the patient perspective, regulatory authorities are currently raising their requirements regarding successful product submissions. The increasing involvement of patients in the product development process (e.g. conduction of human factor use tests, integration of feedback from patient and patient advisory groups into clinical programmes) requires adaptations to the existing and established industrial drug development processes without compromising fast patient access to innovative therapies. This review provides an expert opinion on the emerging challenges and opportunities to implement a patient‐centric approach into new drug development programmes. The aim is to better understand the challenge of finding the right balance between bringing innovative drugs fast to the patients and to develop these in parallel in a patient‐centric product form as well as why this is an opportunity and how stakeholder parties (e.g. patients, clinicians, pharmacists, caregivers, regulators) can provide support to achieve desired outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract