WST UWE MA Graphic Arts group 22mar11

1. Will Stahl-Timmins 22nd Mar 2011 Associate Research Fellow: Visual Presentation of Environment and Human Health Data and Information European Centre for Environment and Human Health

2. PhD research intro A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Current work Opportunities

4. what is a PhD? PhD research intro A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Current work Opportunities

5. what is a PhD? PhD research intro research training A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) large original research project Current work Opportunities

6. what is a PhD? PhD research intro research training A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) large original research project Current work 3-4 years full time Opportunities 5+ years part time?

8. PhD research intro A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Current work Opportunities + defence

24. PhD research intro Also see: A journey (MA) Stahl, W. 2009. Branding and Presentation of Smart Clothing Products to Consumers in A journey (PhD) Smart Clothes and Wearable Technology Eds. McCann, J & Bryson, D. Woodhead: Current work Cambridge, UK. Opportunities

27. HTA PhD research intro A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Health Technology Current work Assessment Opportunities

28. countries with ‘universal’ health care: PhD research intro A journey My PhD (so far) Opportunities

29. Health Policy Medical Practice PhD research intro A journey (MA) EBM A journey (PhD) Current work HTA Opportunities Scientific Evidence

32. PhD research intro A journey My PhD (so far) Opportunities

40. TAR review • 50 reports reviewed PhD research intro • content analysis A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) • graphics categorised Current work Opportunities

43. OTHER LINE 353 301 PhD research intro AREA A journey (MA) /POSITION FLOW 187 A journey (PhD) 124 Current work 102 124 37 38 78 41 5 88 55 44 331 22 Opportunities BAR CHART SCATTER PLOT FOREST PLOT STATE TRANSITION THRESHOLD ANALYSIS DECISON TREE TIME SERIES CEAC OTHER OTHER OTHER OTHER

45. Assessed for eligibility (n = 253) Excluded (n = 44) Declined to participate Randomized (n = 44) (n = 209) Allocated to brachytherapy Allocated to stent placement (n = 101) (n = 108) PhD research intro Did not receive allocated Did not receive allocated intervention (n = 6) intervention (n = 3) 1 died before treatment 3 had problems during endoscopy 2 died before treatment 1 was un t for treatment A journey (MA) 2 did not ful ll inclusion criteria A journey (PhD) Centers (n = 9) performing Centers (n = 9) performing Current work the intervention the intervention Number of patients treated Number of patients treated by each center (median = 5 by each center (median = 6 [IQR: 1–10]; min = 0, [IQR: 1–9]; min = 1, max = 60) max = 64) Opportunities Lost to follow-up (n = 0) Lost to follow-up (n = 0) Discontinued intervention Discontinued intervention Received stent (n = 45) Received brachytherapy Received second (n = 2) brachytherapy (n = 3) Received second stent treatment (n = 24) Analyzed (n = 101) Analyzed (n = 108)

46. Assessed for eligibility (n = 253) Excluded (n = 44) Randomized Declined to participate (n = 209) (n = 44) PhD research intro Allocated to brachytherapy Allocated to stent placement (n = 101) (n = 108) Did not receive allocated A journey (MA) intervention (n = 6) Did not receive allocated 1 died before treatment intervention (n = 3) 3 had problems during 2 died before treatment endoscopy 2 did not fulfill inclusion 70 1 was unfit for treatment A journey (PhD) criteria 70 60 Centers (n = 9) performing 60 50 the stent placement Centers (n = 9) performing the brachytherapy. 50 40 40 30 Number of patients treated by each center (median = 6 Current work Number of patients treated 20 [IQR: 1–9]; min = 1, 30 by each center (median = 5 max = 64) 20 10 [IQR: 1–10]; min = 0, Opportunities 10 0 max = 60) 0 Discontinued intervention, receiving brachytherapy (n = 2) Discontinued intervention, receiving second brachytherapy (n = 3) Discontinued intervention, receiving second stent treatment (n = 24) Discontinued intervention, receiving stent (n = 45) Lost to follow-up (n = 0) Lost to follow-up (n = 0) Analyzed (n = 108) Analyzed (n = 101)

47. jul 08: Info Vis 08 conference: Health Technology Assessment as an area of application for Information Graphics. jan 09: International Journal of Technology Assessment in PhD research intro Health Care: M. Pitt, W. Stahl-Timmins, R. Anderson, and A journey (MA) K. Stein. Using information graphics in health technology assessment: Toward a structured A journey (PhD) approach. Int.J.Technol.Assess.Health Care 25 (04):555-563, 2009. Current work Opportunities jun 09: Data Designed for Decisions (DD4D) conference: NICE graphics: Empirical evidence of the beneﬁts of graphical display. feb 10: Information Design Journal: Graphical Presentation of Data for Health Policy Decisions: An Exploratory Online Decision Task Experiment to Measure Effectiveness

48. measurements test (experiment) online decision gradually increasing task study decision complexity (subgroups) sample: general PhD research intro internet-using measurements: public - respondent decision accuracy, A journey (MA) -driven sample time & preference A journey (PhD) Current work Opportunities numerical presentation graphical presentation

49. measurements test (experiment) online decision gradually increasing task study decision complexity (subgroups) sample: general PhD research intro internet-using measurements: public - respondent decision accuracy, A journey (MA) -driven sample time & preference A journey (PhD) http:// Current work www.pms.ac.uk/ Opportunities infographics/

50. measurements test (experiment) online decision gradually increasing task study decision complexity (subgroups) sample: general PhD research intro internet-using measurements: public - respondent decision accuracy, A journey (MA) -driven sample time & preference A journey (PhD) http:// Current work www.pms.ac.uk/ Opportunities infographics/

51. measurements test (experiment) online decision gradually increasing task study decision complexity (subgroups) sample: general PhD research intro internet-using measurements: public - respondent decision accuracy, A journey (MA) -driven sample time & preference A journey (PhD) Current work seed 1 Opportunities seed 2 25+ participants... seed 3

52. measurements test (experiment) online decision gradually increasing task study decision complexity (subgroups) sample: general PhD research intro internet-using measurements: public - respondent decision accuracy, A journey (MA) -driven sample time & preference A journey (PhD) Current work increasing complexity Opportunities single group males and females low, medium, high risk males and females

53. measurements test (experiment) online decision gradually increasing task study decision complexity (subgroups) sample: general PhD research intro internet-using measurements: public - respondent decision accuracy, A journey (MA) -driven sample time & preference A journey (PhD) Current work Opportunities

54. measurements test (findings) PhD research intro A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Current work Opportunities

55. measurements test (findings) Study Duration: PhD research intro 36 days (15th June - 21st July 2009) A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Current work Opportunities

56. measurements test (findings) Study Duration: PhD research intro 36 days (15th June - 21st July 2009) A journey (MA) 244 entries were recorded during A journey (PhD) this time. Current work Opportunities

57. measurements test (findings) Study Duration: PhD research intro 36 days (15th June - 21st July 2009) A journey (MA) 244 entries were recorded during A journey (PhD) this time. Current work 48 excluded as possible Opportunities duplicates, leaving 196 for the analysis

58. measurements test (findings) Study Duration: PhD research intro 36 days (15th June - 21st July 2009) A journey (MA) 244 entries were recorded during A journey (PhD) this time. Current work 48 excluded as possible Opportunities duplicates, leaving 196 for the analysis 99 participants received the graphical presentation first. 97 received the numerical one first.

59. Randomised to receive: Numerical first (N=97) Graphical first (N=99) did not did not complete complete task 1 (N=19) task 1 (N=22) Task 1 did not complete did not complete task 2 (N=7) Task 2 task 2 (N=7) did not complete did not complete task 3 (N=3) Task 3 task 3 (N=2) PhD research intro did not complete did not complete details collection Details details collection (N=6) collection (N=2) A journey (MA) did not complete did not complete task 4 (N=7) Task 4 task 4 (N=2) A journey (PhD) did not complete Task 5 task 5 (N=2) Current work did not complete task 6 (N=2) Task 6 did not complete task 6 (N=2) Opportunities did not give preference (N=2) Preference did not give preference (N=5) collection 38 people gave a 25 people liked 43 people gave a preference for the the displays preference for the numerical display equally graphical display

60. Average Deaths (mean) Numerical - Graphical group 7787 7787 7787 Graphical - Numerical group Max. Possible Deaths 7224 7224 7224 95% confidence 5920 mean (g-n group) mean (n-g group) 5466 95% confidence Min. Possible Deaths 5074 5114 5015 4748 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 N=78 N=71 N=69 N=65 N=63 N=61 N=77 N=70 N=67 N=54 N=54 N=52

62. NICE technical advisors telephone interviews - needs assessment • 5 interviews PhD research intro • ~30 minutes A journey (MA) • gist transcribed A journey (PhD) • framework analysis Current work • Looking for instances of: Opportunities - complexity - summary/overview needed - comparison needed - time limited - selective focussing needed

63. technical leads 1.01 interview 1 technical advisors 1.02 interview 2 committee members 1.03 lead team 1.04 interview 3 scoping 1.05 interview 4 evidence submission 1.06 interview 5 pre-meeting briefing / overview 1.07 slide presentation / committee meetings 1.08 complexity / overwhelming volume of data 2.01 condensing / summarising / one page only 2.02 comparison 2.03 limited time 2.04 disaggregation / selective focussing 2.05 magnitude 2.06 background of condition 3.01 clinical effectiveness (general) 3.02 survival 3.03 quality of life / utilities 3.04 multiple outcomes 3.05 subgroup analysis 3.06 costs 3.07 economic analysis / cost-effectiveness (general) 3.08 model / model structure 3.09 sensitivity analysis 3.10 probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) 3.11 cost-effectiveness acceptablility curves (CEACs) 3.12 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) 3.13 multiple comparisons 3.14 sequencial treatments 3.15 absent information 3.16 changing assumptions at committee 3.17 how informed are decision-makers? 3.18 methodology 3.19 base case assumptions 3.20 uncertainty 3.21 belief/trust 3.22 current use of graphics 3.23 multiple vs single technology assessments 3.24 different backgrounds of committee members 3.25 face validity of results 3.26 scenario analyses 3.27 quality of evidence 3.28 interim analysis 3.29 discrete event simulation 3.30 pair-wise comparisons 3.31 large volume of trials 3.32 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) 3.33 mixed treatment comparisons 3.34 probability in decision-making 3.35 licensing 3.36

64. NICE technical advisors telephone interviews - needs assessment When asked if time was limited (in any part of the appraisal process), PhD research intro interviewees responded: A journey (MA) “Time is always limited” A journey (PhD) or Current work “Yes, is the short answer!” Opportunities All five interviewees stated that time was always limited for decision-makers to familiarise themselves with the necessary information before an appraisal committee.

65. NICE technical advisors telephone interviews - needs assessment PhD research intro A journey (MA) The most commonly mentioned type of A journey (PhD) data that needed to be compared to another was the ICER, the overall Current work measure of the cost-effectiveness of an Opportunities intervention.

66. NICE technical advisors telephone interviews - needs assessment Complexity was related to clinical PhD research intro effectiveness by three of the five A journey (MA) interviewees. The data presented in systematic reviews of clinical A journey (PhD) effectiveness was reported to be quite problematic to present. This is likely to be Current work the case particularly where there are Opportunities different subgroups of people that are of interest in the analysis, or where the trials reviewed used a large number of different outcome measures.

67. 10 information graphics The Friday Information Graphic 09 16th Oct 2009 Link diagrams for showing PhD research intro connections between search strategies in multiple systematic reviews A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Current work Opportunities Peninsula Technology Information Graphics in Assessment Group Health Technology Assessment www.pms.ac.uk/pentag www.pms.ac.uk/infographics Noy Scott House Will Stahl-Timmins Barrack Road wstahl-timmins@pms.ac.uk Exeter EX2 5DW +44 (0) 1392 406 967 1

70. COGS (Clinical effectiveness Overview Graphical Summary PhD research intro A journey My PhD (so far) Opportunities

71. EFFECTIVENESS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF COCHLEAR IMPLANTS CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS – CHILDREN Table 15 Summary of study characteristics unilateral cochlear implants vs. acoustic hearing aids – children Study ID Mildner et al 2006 125 Design Cross-sectional Intervention group N = 29 Control group N = 20 PhD research intro Croatia Age yrs: mean 11.6 (7-15) Length of follow up: n/a Degree of deafness: profound >98 Degree of deafness: profound dBHL N = 49 Mean age (yrs: months) at implant: 8.2 (2-12) > 98 dBHL A journey (MA) Mean time (yrs) between deafness and implantation: Not reported A journey (PhD) Tomblin et al126 1999 Non-randomised controlled N = 29 N = 29 U SA Prospective trial with Age yrs mean (SD): 10 (2.9) Age yrs mean (SD): 9 (3.65) Length of follow up: 5 yrs N = 58 cross-overs allowed Degree of deafness: profound Pr e-l i ngu all y deaf Mean (SD) age (yrs) at implant: Degree of Pre-lingually deaf Current work 4.76 (1.57, 2-13) Mean time (yrs) between Osberger et al127 1999 Pre/Post prospective deafness and implantation: NR Participants N = 58 Opportunities USA Repeated measures Age mean yrs: 5.4

72. COGS test Task-based cognitive interviewing PhD research intro 9 expert users (HTA systematic A journey (MA) reviewers) A journey (PhD) Randomised, sequencial comparison Current work to report Opportunities Quantitative results (time and accuracy) Qualitative results (actions and words of participants - framework analysis)

73. Task 4: Can you tell me about selection bias in the Peters et al. (2007) trial please? COGS display report section 1 4 5 8 9 2 3 6 7 6.9% 9.3% 12.0% 12.3% 13.5% 16.4% 17.0% 17.9% 24.1%

74. Task 8: Of the unilateral cochlear implants vs non-technological support trials, which reported at least one significant outcome measure, and which measures were these? report section COGS display 1 4 5 8 9 2 3 6 7 5.4% 5.1% 6.3% 7.9% 13.3% 15.0% 15.1% 18.2% 32.4%

75. stated preference for COGS key stated preference for report did not state preference during task using report display 1 using COGS familiar- isation 1 task 1 task 2 task 3 task 4 general reliability 1 PhD research intro display 2 familiar- A journey (MA) isation 2 task 5 task 6 Thematic category 7: A journey (PhD) Preference task 7 Current work task 8 general reliability 2 display 3 Opportunities familiar- isation 3 task 9 task 10 task 11 task 12 probe general questions useful for this review? useful for other reviews? validate tasks interactive version

76. outcome measures used no. of design, size baseline study cog func be glo author location centres & follow-up MMSE sex ages quality ADCS-ADL ADCS-CGIC ADAS-cog other other other CIBIC MMSE DAD PDS CDR QoL SIB NPI GDS 0yr 1 2 0 10 20 30 55 75 95 Donepezil 1mg N = 42 M F Rogers & Rand Donepezil 3mg N = 40 M F ? N = 161 Donepezil 5mg N = 39 M F Char Blind Analy 1mg 3mg 1996 F Placebo N = 40 M 5mg Donepezil 5mg N = 154 M F 5mg Rogers et al. Rand M F Char 10 Donepezil 10mg N = 157 Blind mg 1998 (A) N = 473 Analy M F Placebo N = 162 Donepezil 5mg N = 157 M F 5mg Rogers et al. Rand M F Char 10 Donepezil 10mg N = 158 mg Blind 1998 (B) N = 468 Analy M F Placebo N = 153 Donepezil 5mg N = 271 M F 5mg Burns et al. Rand M F Char 10mg Donepezil 10mg N = 273 Blind 1999 Analy N = 818 M F Placebo N = 274 Greenberg Donepezil 5mg (D) Rand et al. group 1 (p-D-p-p) N=30 M F Char group 2 (p-p-D-p) N=30 M F Blind N = 60 Analy 2000 Placebo (p) Donepezil 5mg N = 134 Homma et al. M F Rand Char Blind 2000 N = 268 M F Analy Placebo N = 129 Donepezil 10mg N = 214 Mohs et al. M F Rand Char ADCS-CGIC ADCS-ADL Blind ADAS-cog 2001 N = 431 M F Analy MMSE CIBIC Placebo N = 217 DAD other other other CDR GDS PDS QoL NPI SIB 0yr 1 2 0 10 20 30 55 75 95 cog func be glo

77. SOC (State Occupancy Chart) PhD research intro A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Current work Opportunities

78. Temozolomide model QALYs SOC (state occupancy chart) Temozolomide model costs SOC (state occupancy chart) Length of bars show state occupancy. Colours show QALYs experienced by the simulated cohort. Length of bars show state occupancy. Colours show costs incurred. placebo arm colours show QALYs experienced comparative incremental state occupancy and TMZ arm colours show QALYs experienced in £300k £0 £300k £600k-900k £9m in one model state in placebo arm incremental QALYs experienced in each state one model state in temozolomide arm incurred in placebo arm a state with no cost incurred in temozolomide arm 20 10 0 4 (placebo) 0 4 (TMZ) 20 10 0 placebo arm incremental temozolomide arm state occupancy and absolute costs state occupancy and incremental costs state occupancy and absolute costs 0 250 500 750 1000 stable progressive death 0 250 500 750 1000 0 250 500 750 1000 stable progressive death 0 250 500 750 1000 week week week week 13 13 13 13 week week week week 26 26 26 26 week week week week 39 39 39 39 week week week week 52 52 52 52 week week week week 65 65 65 65 week week week week 78 78 78 78 week week week week 91 91 91 91 week week week week 104 104 104 104 week week week week 117 117 117 117 week week week week 130 130 130 130 week week week week 143 143 143 143 week week week week 156 156 156 156 week week week week 169 169 169 169 week week week week 182 182 182 182 week week week week 195 195 195 195 week week week week 208 208 208 208 week week week week 221 221 221 221 week week week week 234 234 234 234 week week week week 247 247 247 247 week week week week 260 260 260 260

79. State Occupancy & Absolute Quality of Life 2 State Occupancy & Absolute Costs Per Person 3 placebo arm treatment arm placebo arm treatment arm 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% week 1 surgery 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% week 1 week 1 surgery week 1 week 2 week 2 weeks 2-6 post-op recovery weeks 2-6 post-op recovery week 7 week 7 weeks 7-12 radiotherapy weeks 7-12 radiotherapy week week week 13+ stable/progressive/death 13 week 13+ stable/progressive/death 13 week week week week 26 26 26 26 is information graphic shows is information graphic shows the absolute quality of life week week the absolute costs incurred per week week experienced by the simulated 39 39 person in the model, on a scale 39 39 patients in the model. e week week from black (£3000 per person) week week shades of grey provide a scale 52 52 to white (£0 per person). 52 52 from black (a utility of 1 per week week week week person) to white (a utility of 0 65 65 ese shades of grey are 65 65 per person). presented in bars whose length week week correspond to the number week week 78 78 of people incurring that cost 78 78 ese shades of grey are presented in bars whose length in that state in the model, as in week week week week correspond to the number 91 91 graphic 1 — State Occupancy. 91 91 of people in that state in the week week week week model during that week, as in 104 104 e small dark bars appearing 104 104 graphic 1 — State Occupancy. between the progressive and week week death states represent the week week 117 117 one-o costs assigned to death 117 117 e slowly lightening e ect in in the model. e length of the progressive state is caused week week week week 130 130 these bars is again proportional 130 130 by the gradual decomposition to the number of people dying of utility values in this state in week week during that week of the model. week week the model. e simulated 143 143 143 143 patients experience less quality Similar dark boxes appear week week week week of life the longer they spend in 156 156 between the stable and 156 156 this state. e values presented progressive states to indicate here are the average (mean) of week week the higher costs assigned week week the utility scores experienced 169 169 169 169 to a patient’s rst week in the by the cohort in that week of week week progressive state. week week the model. 182 182 182 182 Costs for surgery in week week week week week 195 195 1 are o the scale at £5953 per 195 195 person, but this cost is identical utility of 1 week week week week (per person) 208 208 in both arms of the model. 208 208 week week week week 221 221 221 221 £3000 per person utility of 0.5 week week week week 234 234 234 234 £1500 per person week week week week 247 247 247 247 utility of 0 week week £0 per person week week 260 260 260 260

80. SOC test Task-based cognitive interviewing PhD research intro 6 expert users (HTA A journey (MA) mathematical modellers) A journey (PhD) Single group study Current work Opportunities Quantitative results (time and accuracy) Qualitative results (actions and words of participants - framework analysis)

81. Tasks for validation Task 4: Where do the costs tend to come from in each arm of the model? PhD research intro A journey (MA) participants must consider both A journey (PhD) length and colour of bars treatment arm Current work 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% surgery = £5.9m week 1 week 2 Opportunities week 7 radiotherapy = £5.4m week 13 week drug course 26 (weeks 17– 40) = £5.4m week 39

82. Tasks for validation value value (placebo arm) (treatment arm) surgery £5.9m £5.9m radiotherapy (weeks 7–12) £1.6m £5.4m drug course £0.2m £5.1m (weeks 17–40) progressive disease £6.7m £5.9m death £3.1m £3.1m 1 2 3 4 5 6 39s 109s 100s 119s 166s 240s

83. mentioned by potential times mentioned participants: functions (overall) 5 complexity 1 condensing 0 3 4 5 comparison 5 3 6 limited time 2 selective focussing 0 modelling 1 2 3 4 5 6 states 45 1 2 3 4 5 ICER 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 costs 44 PhD research intro 1 2 3 4 5 6 quality of life 55 4 6 other methods 6 2 3 4 6 6 discounting model validation 2 10 A journey (MA) interpretation 1 2 3 4 5 uncertainty 23 A journey (PhD) 1 3 4 5 6 transformation 11 6 overview 1 1 sizing 1 Current work 1 2 learning 5 1 5 obviousness 4 3 4 cognitive load 2 Opportunities 2 5 6 orientation 4 1 2 3 4 6 units 12 4 5 6 memory 3 actions 1 3 4 5 focussing aids 6 2 3 angling 3 3 5 6 peering 5 6 bookmarking 1 1 3 6 design production 3 Qualitative 2 3 4 5 6 media 8 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 5 detail alternatives suggestions 13 4 3 results

84. Question 3: Do you think this kind of display would be useful or confusing for a decision- maker at NICE? The most common idea mentioned (by PhD research intro participants 1, 4 and 6) was that the graphic A journey (MA) would give decision-makers an idea of what was A journey (PhD) ‘driving’ the model, and why the costs per QALY (or ICER) were high or not. Participant 3 thought Current work that giving the decision makers an idea of how Opportunities costs and QALYs were accrued over time was something that they were not currently able to see. Qualitative results

85. Conclusions measurements test (findings) PhD research intro A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Current work Opportunities

86. Conclusions measurements test (findings) Design of information graphics in HTA Start with user needs Iterative design PhD research intro Formal and informal testing A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Current work Opportunities

87. Conclusions measurements test (findings) Design of information graphics in HTA Start with user needs Iterative design PhD research intro Formal and informal testing A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Production of information graphics in HTA Current work Researchers produce with standard spreadsheet software Develop specialist software for new HTA information graphics Opportunities Production by design on individual basis

88. Conclusions measurements test (findings) Design of information graphics in HTA Start with user needs Iterative design PhD research intro Formal and informal testing A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Production of information graphics in HTA Current work Researchers produce with standard spreadsheet software Develop specialist software for new HTA information graphics Opportunities Production by design on individual basis Use of information graphics in HTA Assess complexity of data on health intervention being considered Search for creative solutions appropriate to communicate that data

89. COMPARATIVE pilot STUDY testing redesign informal may be needed advice INFORMATION initial design work real data incorporation NEEDS SPECIFICATION PROTOTYPE DEPLOY MONITOR INDIVIDUAL STUDY informal conversations needs research studies research research research outputs outputs outputs

91. Fi$isEFii$' FiiIili FrFl iEi tiiii$igii ffifF$ "Yl lft st (D o g s' ill 3 NCT J (a T n o R6- 6- o E!? xilir*;$rf al p o t. 9 s cLo $tIrgrir{! F rvB d t rH o o iH$r$FiE'rFiri$ ='o tiil?EH3r rFg[ E13+E[F* iltlf.fi N F o- A w (Jl { u S H bR s ;e s 6'e be 5 (o/o Television of all 36' o NJ S&T tv coverage) d ; ts N) H X UJ N) u Ol @ = o ul ol 91 be s ;s s s s 5 0 NJ H (J Ltl t) u (Jl u A o s s ;s s s s F (o F NJ Radio(% of all radic S&T coverage) &' a 6 E -E lqil{$[gfl[Ei w A 5 @ o $f ilF a 3E [l?{F[[u ffilE il[n r-gu$ rE s ;e ;s s s s Ol g Ui p- tJ H Ol NJ N) @ @ NJ 5 (7o Newspapers of :e s ;e s s ;e coverage) { @ ! @ N) all press III {+ iFFiigilIitE} ;e >R s s s ;s Ol Totals [lfE +ilFi $i llrs+EEil 'grcrlgF*tIiF H Ol ! H s s s s s s and the Media. Peter Lang: New York, USA. Boyce, T. & Lewis, J. (Eds.) 2009. Climate Change Opportunities Current work A journey (PhD) A journey (MA) PhD research intro

97. Studentships - Advertised jobs.ac.uk university sites private arrangement PhD research intro A journey (MA) A journey (PhD) Current work Opportunities

98. Studentships - Advertised jobs.ac.uk university sites private arrangement PhD research intro A journey (MA) Funding Proposal A journey (PhD) www.ahrc.ac.uk www.rcuk.ac.uk Current work charities? Opportunities

99. Studentships - Advertised jobs.ac.uk university sites private arrangement PhD research intro A journey (MA) Funding Proposal A journey (PhD) www.ahrc.ac.uk www.rcuk.ac.uk Current work charities? Opportunities Support from Employer Part time, with teaching load

100. Studentships - Advertised jobs.ac.uk university sites private arrangement PhD research intro A journey (MA) Funding Proposal A journey (PhD) www.ahrc.ac.uk www.rcuk.ac.uk Current work charities? Opportunities Support from Employer Part time, with teaching load Private Funding

102. Thank you Will Stahl-Timmins w.stahl-timmins@exeter.ac.uk European Centre for Environment and Human Health

WST UWE MA Graphic Arts group 22mar11

WST UWE MA Graphic Arts group 22mar11

WST UWE MA Graphic Arts group 22mar11

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Will Stahl-Timmins

More from Will Stahl-Timmins (8)

WST UWE MA Graphic Arts group 22mar11

Editor's Notes

Report as inappropriate

1 like

views

This saved item is also in a list.

Add to a new list