6th Edinburgh Stroke Winter School – Feedback survey

Q1

Comments:

High Quality speakers Excellent Great session It would have been helpful to have access to this survey monkey from day 1 or a paper copy of the feedback in order to encourage more detailed feedback.

Q2

Comments

High Quality speakers I found the sample size talk a little bit overwhelming as a clinician as the concepts were difficult for me to understand I really enjoyed Prof Wardlaw’s talk I had never really thought about qualitative research up until the winter school so was great that I had an opportunity to learn about this. The practical parts in the research protocol talk was useful I found the qualitative research talk very educational as beforehand I had not appreciated what qualitative research was nor its value I learnt a lot with Jemma Hopewell Inclusion of the qualitative talk by Lisa Kidd provided a good contrast to the other qualitative methods discussed. It is inspiring to listen to presenter’s talk that are so passionate about their areas of speciality.

Q3

Comments:High Quality speakers Excellent speakers I particularly enjoyed Rustam’s talk and his journey as well as getting us to think about value of observational research which will be more doable and deliverable at my stage (pre PhD) I want to become bald Relevant, real presentations that provided invaluable information when planning the transition from purely clinical to part clinical part research.

Q4

Q5

Q6

Comments:

Very interesting their experiences Great to hear from those at the earlier stages of their research career I think the content of the presentations were very good and the breadth of experience of the presenters was fantastic. I can't think of any other course where so many leaders in their field would be present. Great session Very insightful and inspiring thank you. Very inspirational to meet researchers who have come through the Edinburgh Stroke Winter School and are at different stages in their journey.

Q7

Q8

Q9 – General comments on the Stroke Winter School

Were there any area you would like to see included for future schools?

More practical classes in little groups that allows to share knowledge and improve our research tools Nothing Perhaps a talk on pre-clinical research There were no areas that I would like to see included for future schools I believe the topics were very wisely chosen, so I would keep with those Sessions specifically focused on rehabilitation Maybe a lecture about lab science and translational research (from pre-clinical to clinical research). For the love of history I think it could be very nice to have a lecture dealing with stroke history, even a short one. It is always interesting to make the link between the past, the present and the future in this so dynamic specialty. Nil I think a session specifically dedicated to PPIE would be helpful and possibly a short session on co-production and how to do it.

What feature of the Winter School worked well?

The interaction between professors and participants The "simulation" sessions I really enjoyed the small group work to allow opportunity to develop my research idea Developing the research question throughout the course was a very useful aspect of the course. I loved that it was opened by a member of the public who had experienced a stroke. It was great to hear his personal experience. Breaking the days up with lectures and interactive workshops was great. The speed dating session was a really clever idea and really helped to focus and explain your idea. Having accommodation close by was really helpful as trying to commute and do all the work after that intense course would have been even more exhausting. Grant application Speed dating was excellent The fact that faculty members stayed and chipped into discussion was invaluable I really enjoyed interactive activities and the proximity to supervisors and professors. The atmosphere is both friendly and studious, it's perfect! Group work, developing and working on a research question, producing the grant application and presenting to colleagues Presenting our research questions from day 1 through to day 3 gave us an opportunity to apply the learning and constantly refine the question. The feedback was managed well so that I didn't feel crushed by negativity yet there was plenty of constructive criticism provided. The venue was great and the size of the group meant that over the 3 days I was able to get to meet most of the attendees. Dr Quinns talk on what defines academic success was extremely helpful and important and his concept of academic citizenship was inspired.

What would you have improved?

My organisation tools

Nothing

Given that PhD projects are less likely to be RCTs/interventional studies, allowing creative approaches to the application of PICO would have been more helpful

Air con in the room! And less bread at lunch. A little more instruction on what was expected in the grant application and presentation. It would have been helpful if the groups had been randomly allocated and rotated for each workshop so that everyone got a chance to interact with everyone else and didn't end up repeating their question to the same people - I kept ending up with the same people accidentally and by the end I knew their research question as well as my own.

A get together on the Sunday we all arrived would have been nice

Perhaps greater consideration for entry level researchers, talks about pilot/feasibility studies?

I have some suggestions for other interactive activities: 1/ write a cover letter, 2/ give articles without title and ask participants to find the best title (and then compare to the original's one) (a good title is crucial for publication) 3/create controversy and debate among participants (on the one hand the pros, on the other the cons)

In my first group session on the PICO question, when we discussed our research question in the group the facilitator (Hanne Christensen) was quite negative about the research questions pointing out why they would not work however did not provide much constructive feedback on how they could be adapted and improved. I think that many of us felt disheartened and a little lost after this session with regards to where to go with our questions. I understand that flaws in the questions need addressing however I would just highlight the importance of constructive feedback on the research questions in the group sessions to help people develop/adapt their ideas. Otherwise the course was excellent, thank you very much!

It might be good to have a few more therapists or nurse attendees to provide exposure to a larger range of research questions and methodologies to review in the group discussions and grant applications

Lectures and workshops should not involve all faculty members, they should include more participation of students and faculty members should avoid asking lots of questions and shadowing students in the process. After all, it is a course not a conference.