Rafael Venson

Forensic science education routinely exposes students to sensitive and potentially trauma-inducing content, such as violence, sexual assault, and death, yet the application of trauma-informed pedagogy (TIP) in this field remains largely unexplored. This study examined the knowledge and views of forensic science lecturers in the United Kingdom (UK) regarding TIP and its possible implementation in forensic science courses. A cross-sectional online survey combining multiple-choice, Likert-scale, and open-ended questions was distributed to lecturers teaching on UK forensic science courses between September and December 2024, yielding 59 responses. Awareness of TIP was limited: approximately half of participants had not heard of TIP before the survey, and only 5.1% had received formal training. Despite this, views were broadly positive, with 52.5% agreeing that it is important for educators to use TIP and 62.7% agreeing that training on TIP is important, with no participants disagreeing with the latter. Lack of training (~50%) and lack of time (~29%) were the most commonly reported barriers. Formal TIP training was significantly associated with self-reported knowledge of TIP, and participants with industry experience placed significantly greater importance on TIP training. Open-ended responses revealed both support for TIP and scepticism about its necessity and feasibility. These findings suggest that, whilst awareness of TIP amongst UK forensic science lecturers is low, there is willingness to engage, highlighting the need for evidence-based guidance, training, and further research in this field.

Mentoring is one of the important modalities that are known to enhance professional development of staff, including those who engage in teaching and learning of Health Professions in Higher Education as well as research of patients-focused subjects. However, while multiple mentoring schemes are available at University level, the impact they bring to the local community of staff is often unclear. With an aim to identify the current status of mentoring within School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, University of Glasgow, the Athena Swan-led Aspiration and Development Working Group has conducted a reflective study. We analysed benefits of the existing mentoring schemes, as well as challenges met by staff in the early stages of career in the Learning, Teaching and Scholarship and the Research and Teaching tracks. Reflection was also made on the equality, diversity and inclusion of Postgraduate Research students and LGBTQ+ members of the community. We have found that there was a limited uptake despite benefits, and that there were multiple causes for this, which was beyond a lack of time. This has led to a proposal of a new mentoring scheme that focuses on local needs and the process that centres more favourably to the prospective mentees, with an integrated monitoring platform of the scheme, which supports sustainability. We find that, for provision of a meaningful mentoring, careful design and implementation based on the EDI ethos is essential.

In this paper we present staff and student experiences of "Rainbow Office Hours", a distinct, safe space for LGBTQ+ community engagement in higher education, challenging traditional professional identity boundaries and promoting visibility and representation. Originating at the University of Glasgow in 2019, students are invited to attend specific times labelled as Rainbow Office Hours with an LGBTQ+ member of staff to discuss anything LGBTQ+ related. This initiative has helped foster an inclusive campus climate, underscoring the need for broader institutional support for LGBTQ+ identities. We advocate for integrating queer perspectives across academic disciplines, emphasising the critical role of representation in educational environments and critiquing the prevailing heteronormative and cisnormative institutional cultures that discourage the integration of sexual and gender minority issues into academia. We cannot, and will not, leave who we are at the door when we arrive at work.

In-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) are available in Scotland through the National Health Service (NHS) according to specific criteria. There is no standardised NHS tariff for these treatments in Scotland, and variation exists amongst different centres providing NHS services. The aim of this study was to calculate the mean cost of IVF and ICSI cycles for NHS-funded treatment in Scotland. A detailed cost analysis of fresh and frozen cycles was performed, and a breakdown of the various cost components was presented. A deterministic approach was applied using NHS-funded individual cycle data from 2015-2018 and aggregate data. All costs were calculated in UK pounds sterling (£- using 2018 prices). Resource use was assigned to individual cycles based on cycle-level data or expert-informed assumptions; whenever needed, average aggregate costs were assigned to cycles. A total of 9442 NHS-funded cycles were included in the analysis. The average cost of fresh IVF and ICSI cycles was £3247 [£1526-£4215] and £3473 [£1526-£4416], respectively. Frozen cycles averaged £938 [£272-£1085]. This data can be useful to decision-makers, especially where IVF/ICSI is publicly funded, as it delivers a detailed IVF/ICSI cost breakdown. It is an opportunity for other authorities to estimate IVF/ICSI costs, as the methods applied are clear and reproducible.