WkS+paper+1

Page created for paper by Andrea, Andrew, Astrid & Christine.

Hello, I've just read my emails to find out we are the lucky first ones to figure out what this wiki is all about. I'm still a bit confused by it all and am hoping it falls into place the more I waffle on. I still have this wierd feeling like something is due all the time, like thinking you've left the oven on when you leave home. Anyway, I'm going to have a browse around some media sites to find something sciencey for suggestions or comments. I'm just hoping my mobile internet connection can handle journal documents! Hope to hear from you soon. Christine.

Christine I have emailed other members of your group to remind them about this task. Mary It is now midday wednesday. Christine if you have not heard from the other members of your group by midday tomorrow I suggest you go ahead and do it as a solo effort. If the 3 As appear after this time they can do a separate workshop paper. Would this suit you? Mary

That's ok, I probably won't get to having a good look at this til the weekend, so maybe someone else will have shown up by then. I prefer to write on this message board too, it's easier to follow a conversation. We just copy and paste our work into blackboard anyway don't we? So we can filter out all the chatter. Thanks for the constant feedback. Christine.

Hi, I'm Andrew. Actually I'm not really late in replying, I live in Germany so with the time difference it's even a few minutes before "midday wednesday". Isn't that freaky!? Anyway, I'll try to get a start on this task today. Andrew OK, I found a couple of other articles (media report and original study are listed respectively): Mobile phones may spread deadly superbugs in hospitals http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25147157-30417,00.html Are we aware how contaminated our mobile phones are with nosocomial pathogens? http://www.ann-clinmicrob.com/content/pdf/1476-0711-8-7.pdf

Study suggests baby is 'better out than in' http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/03/09/2510930.htm?site=science&topic=latest Adverse drug reactions to tocolytic treatment for preterm labour: prospective cohort study http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/338/mar05_2/b744

The one with the mobile phones isn't bad, but otherwise I think we could just use the one from Christine (under 'Discussions'), it looks pretty good. Once we've agreed to that we could start writing some comments to the article. Andrew

CMF: Hi Andrew, pleased to 'meet' you. I have read the discussion under the WkS paper-example tab, and it's seems a bit impractical trying to find a mutual time to have an online chat considering you're on the other side of the world. Mary, I think alot of off-campus students might have trouble with that, as you've said, we're a different breed of students (okay, not exactly your words.). I've had a look at the articles you mentioned Andrew, and I too find the one about mobile phones interesting. Maybe instead of waiting until tomorrow morning for me to wait for your response, I'm going to make an executive decision and say let's write our summary about the mobile phones. I just like the word 'nosocomial'. Otherwise we could be here all weekend just trying to decide a topic. I'm going to have a read over it properly and will try and post some comments about this article tonight (within 12 hours). Cheers, Christine.

Can't work out this page. I justr saved but all I can see is what you have writeen Christine. Message was not to wait for Astrid - who has withdrawn. Mary

CMF: Something happened to your last post, I could read it under the recent changes tab. I'm not sure if we need an extension. I'm assuming now that Andrew knows what's going on he'll be checking regularly. I think maybe by Wednesday would be good (this was due Monday, no?) just to be on the safe side. ML: this is a bit weird isn't it. I assumed that the first one of us to save would have their message inserted first, but in fact yours seems to have over-ridden mine, anyway you have the message. Mary

CMF: By the way Mary, in your emails you've stated this is due on Monday, but in the Unit Guide it states workshop papers are due on the Wednesday of the workshop. If this paper is for workshop 2, then that is this Wed 18th? Just making sure. ML. Ahh. I thought I'd give people a week for the task and forgot what I'd said in the notes. We'll go with the notes, so wed 10 am it is.

AK: OK, here are a few points. Most are written in full sentences but not yet fully structured as paragraphs. - "Superbug" is an informal term for microorganisms resistant to antibiotics. It is often used by the media since it is an expression which the wider public can relate to (opposed to the scientific name of the referred to bacteria 'methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus') - "hospital-aquired" instead of "nosocomial" - "alarmingly" is used to provoke a sense of tension or seriousness - use of "deadly" and "superbug" in the title to catch the interest of the potential reader - Findings that are too specific were left out, i.e. the numbers of particular bacteria types (with the exception of the so-called "superbug") or bacterial colony counts. - The journalist relays the results in a degree of accuracy appropriate for the interests of the non-scientific public, who are not interested in figures that are overly exact. An example is the use "almost 35 per cent" instead of "34.0%", or the case in which "94.5%" is rounded up to "ninety-five per cent ". - In the manuscript the dangers posed by the found bacteria to humans are not really explained. This is done by the journalist: explaining that the bacteria can "cause illness ranging from minor skin irritations to deadly disease " or alternatively that they are "generally harmless to healthy people ". The intent here is to bring the human interest in the study across to the public. This is again done by giving numbers of deaths cause by MRSA. In this case, further statistics have been taken from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in the US.

CMF: Thanks for your points Andrew, I unfortunately didn't get back you when I said I would, but anyway, I have had a bit of a go at drafting our response. I'll just type it out, and if you want to make any changes (delete stuff if I ramble on too much) just go ahead, I won't be offended!

//The news article this analysis is based on appeared online in "The Australian" (14/03/09) with the title "Mobile phones may spread deadly superbugs in hospitals", which was taken from the study titled "Are we aware how contaminated our mobile phones with nosocomial pathogens?" published in the Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials. The keys words in the title which are used to grab attention are clearly 'deadly superbugs', a direct attempt to convey the content of the journal article as serious and urgent.

The newspaper article seems fairly true to the journal article which it was based on with some notable differences to make the news article more appropriate for a general audience. As opposed to specific numerical data, the journalist rounds off data and uses such terms as 'one in eight of the handsets showed MRSA' which was determined from data in the tables and the results section of the study. Also the use of words such as 'hospital-acquired' as opposed to 'nosocomial' and 'bugs' instead of 'pathogens' are used to simplify scientific terminology. The actual quote presented in the news article is not word-for-word, but a summary of a paragraph using similar wording.

The news article is definitely highlighting the significance of one particular pathogen (MRSA) identified in the study, and unlike the journal article, it actually describes some of the implications of infection by MRSA, by drawing on other sources such as the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, which brings a more personal aspect from the study to the public. The Australian article also states the uncertainty of the results and notes the small sample size of the experiment which is true to the study.

Overall, the news article sourced from an international agency is presented accurately while focussing on current public awareness and concern over hospital born infections.//

//The full news article and journal document can be accessed online at:// [|//http://www.ann-clinmicrob.com/content/pdf/1476-0711-8-7.pdf//] and []

I haven't done a word count, I just typed this straight into Wiki. As I said, feel free to add or delete something you feel is important or could be worded better. Christine

AK: Nicely written! The word count is already more than 300, so I don't think any further content is necessary. I've just fixed a few typpos and changed a few words around. Otherwise, I think we're finished. We need to add it to Blackboard, but according to the week 2 mailout it should be made available on this very page for discussion (if I've understood the mailout correctly). Shall we delete all the chit-chat on this page, just leaving the article analysis (and article links)? If you agree, you can go ahead and do that. Then I just have to add it to Blackboard before Wednesday and finito. Andrew

ML: I would rather you left it as it is because it serves as a model to others, but it is up to you. Well done. Don't forget to put in links to the 2 articles when you post to Blackboard - and to check the marking guidelines I sent out a few days ago.

CMF: I just added in the weblinks to the articles and have checked over the marking criteria. I think we've covered everything. I'm assuming if there are no images or photos with the article then it's not necessary to mention it. As far as I'm concerned we can post this on blackboard and get on with some other assignments? Pleasure working with you Andrew.

AK: Likewise. I've now copied our work to Blackboard (now being Tuesday).