METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 2×2 cross-over randomised mechanistic dietary trial will allocate 16 participants with NAFLD to a 2-week either HGI or LGI diet followed by a 4-week wash-out period and then the LGI or HGI diet, alternative to that followed in the first 2 weeks. Baseline and postintervention (four visits) outcome measures will be collected to assess liver fat content (using MRI/S and controlled attenuation parameter-FibroScan), gut microbiota composition (using 16S RNA analysis) and blood biomarkers including glycaemic, insulinaemic, liver, lipid and haematological profiles, gut hormones levels and short-chain fatty acids.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study protocol has been approved by the ethics committees of The University of Nottingham and East Midlands Nottingham-2 Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 19/EM/0291). Data from this trial will be used as part of a Philosophy Doctorate thesis. Publications will be in peer-reviewed journals.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04415632.
METHOD: A modified Delphi study was conducted among students and educators from University Malaya (UM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Taylor's University (TU) on three undergraduate programmes. In Round 1, participants were asked to select the topics from the respective syllabi to be developed into RLOs. Priority ranking was determined by using frequencies and proportions. The first quartile of the prioritised topics was included in Round 2 survey, which the participants were asked to rate the level of priority of each topic using a 5-point Likert scale. The mean score of the topics was compared between students and educators.
RESULT: A total of 43 educators and 377 students participated in this study. For UM and TU Pharmacy, there was a mismatch in the prioritised topics between the students and educators. For UPM, both the educators and students have prioritised the same topics in both rounds. To harmonise the prioritisation of topics between students and educators for UM and TU Pharmacy, the topics with a higher mean score by both the students and educators were prioritised.
CONCLUSION: The mismatch in prioritised topics between students and educators uncovered factors that might influence the prioritisation process. This study highlighted the importance of conducting needs assessment at the beginning of eLearning resources development.
METHODS: This is a qualitative study involving both the knowledge providers and receivers in focus group discussions (n = 25). Four focus group discussions were conducted in the early (n = 2) and mid-phase (n = 2) of the project by trained qualitative researchers using a topic guide designed to explore experiences and activities representing knowledge transfer in multi-institutional and multi-cultural settings. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and checked. The transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Five main themes emerged from this qualitative study: mismatched expectations between providers and receivers; acquiring new knowledge beyond the professional "comfort zone"; challenges in cascading newly acquired knowledge to colleagues and management; individual and organisational cultural differences; and disruption of knowledge transfer during the COVID-19 pandemic.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the need to create a conducive platform to facilitate continuous, timely and bi-directional needs assessment and feedback; this should be done in the early phase of the knowledge transfer process. The challenges and strategies identified in this study could guide more effective knowledge transfer between organisations and countries.