An Intramural Peer-Review Concept to Support Development in Academic Medicine.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01251-9.
SUBMITTER: Newcomb JD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7920635 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeTo establish the current peer-reviewed practices in the discipline of orthopaedic surgery and correlate these to the journal's impact factor. Unfortunately, this is not receiving much attention and a critical literature gap in various disciplines; thus, determining the current practices in the discipline of orthopaedic surgery could provide valid insight that may be potentially applicable to other academic medicine disciplines as well.MethodsOrthopaedic surgery journals belonging to the Journal Citation Reports were queried, and the following was extracted: impact factor (IF) and blinding practices: single (SBPR), double (DBPR), triple (TBPR), quadruple (QBPR), and open (OPR) blinding review process and possibility of author-suggested reviewer (ASR) and non-preferred reviewer (NPR) options.ResultsOf the 82 journals, four were excluded as they allowed submission by invitation only. In the remaining, blinding was as follows: SBPR nine (11.5%), DBPR 52 (66.7%), TBPR two (2.6%), QBPR zero (0%), and OPR three (3.8%), and in 12 (15.4%), this was unclear. ASR and NPR options were offered by 34 (43.6%) and 27 (34.6%) journals respectively, whereas ASR was mandatory in eight (10.2%). No correlation between IF and any other parameter was found.ConclusionThe rules of the "game" are unclear/not disclosed in a significant number of cases, and the SBPR system, along with the ASR (mandatory sometimes) and NPR, is still extensively used with questionable integrity and fairness. Several recommendations are provided to mitigate potentially compromising practices, along with future directions to address the scarcity of research in this critical aspect of science.
| S-EPMC10079738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo review systematically the evidence about what factors influence the decision to choose or not choose a career in academic medicine.DesignA systematic review of relevant literature from 1990 to May 2005.Data sourcesSearches of The Cochrane Library, Medline (using Ovid and PubMed) from 1990 to May 2005, and EMBASE from 1990 to May 2005 were completed to identify relevant studies that explored the influential factors. Additional articles were identified from searching the bibliographies of retrieved articles.Selection of studiesWe attempted to identify studies that included residents, fellows, or staff physicians. No restrictions were placed on the study methodologies identified and all articles presenting empirical evidence were retrieved. For cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, minimum inclusion criteria were the presence of defined groups, and the ability to extract relevant data. For surveys that involved case series, minimum inclusion criteria were a description of the population, and the availability of extractable data. Minimum inclusion criteria for qualitative studies were descriptions of the sampling strategy and methods.ResultsThe search identified 251 abstracts; 25 articles were included in this review. Completion of an MD with a graduate degree or fellowship program is associated with a career in academic medicine. Of the articles identified in this review, this finding is supported by the highest quality of evidence. Similarly, the completion of research and publication of this research in medical school and residency are associated with a career in academic medicine. The desire to teach, conduct research, and the intellectual stimulation and challenge provided in academia may also persuade people to choose this career path. The influence of a role model or a mentor was reported by physicians to impact their decision making. Trainees' interest in academic medicine wanes as they progress through their residency.ConclusionsIn order to revitalize academic medicine, we must engage trainees and retain their interest throughout their training. Research opportunities for medical students, and fellowships or graduate training can meet this challenge and influence career choice. Initiatives to stimulate and maintain interest in academic medicine should be evaluated in prospective studies across multiple sites.
| S-EPMC1924755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To summarise quantitative evaluations of interventions designed to support the careers of women in academia of any discipline. METHOD:A systematic search of English entries in PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar was conducted in September 2017. Methodological quality of the studies was independently assessed by two authors using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality appraisal checklists. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in methods and outcomes; results were synthesised and displayed narratively. RESULTS:Eighteen eligible studies were identified, mostly evaluating programmes in academic medicine departments. The most common interventions were mentoring, education, professional development and/or networking programmes. All programmes took a 'bottom-up' approach in that women were responsible for opting into and devoting time to participation. Study quality was low overall, but all studies reported positive outcomes on at least one indicator. Most often this included improvements in self-rated skills and capabilities, or satisfaction with the programme offered. Results regarding tangible outcomes were mixed; while some studies noted improvements in promotion, retention and remuneration, others did not. CONCLUSIONS:This review suggests that targeted programmes have the potential to improve some outcomes for women in academia. However, the studies provide limited high-quality evidence to provide information for academic institutions in terms of the best way to improve outcomes for women in academia. The success of an intervention appears to be undermined when it relies on the additional labour of those it is intending to support (ie, 'bottom-up' approaches). As such, academic institutions should consider and evaluate the efficacy of 'top-down' interventions that start with change in practice of higher management.
| S-EPMC5875640 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9328700 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reviewers do not only help editors to screen manuscripts for publication in academic journals; they also serve to increase the rigor and value of manuscripts by constructive feedback. However, measuring this developmental function of peer review is difficult as it requires fine-grained data on reports and journals without any optimal benchmark. To fill this gap, we adapted a recently proposed quality assessment tool and tested it on a sample of 1.3 million reports submitted to 740 Elsevier journals in 2018-2020. Results showed that the developmental standards of peer review are shared across areas of research, yet with remarkable differences. Reports submitted to social science and economics journals show the highest developmental standards. Reports from junior reviewers, women and reviewers from Western Europe are generally more developmental than those from senior, men and reviewers working in academic institutions outside Western regions. Our findings suggest that increasing the standards of peer review at journals requires effort to assess interventions and measure practices with context-specific and multi-dimensional frameworks.
| S-EPMC9186327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Patients and caregivers can experience a range of physical, psychologic, and cognitive problems following critical care discharge. The use of peer support has been proposed as an innovative support mechanism. DESIGN:We sought to identify technical, safety, and procedural aspects of existing operational models of peer support, among the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive Peer Support Collaborative. We also sought to categorize key distinctions between these models and elucidate barriers and facilitators to implementation. SUBJECTS AND SETTING:Seventeen Thrive sites from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia were represented by a range of healthcare professionals. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Via an iterative process of in-person and email/conference calls, members of the Collaborative defined the key areas on which peer support models could be defined and compared, collected detailed self-reports from all sites, reviewed the information, and identified clusters of models. Barriers and challenges to implementation of peer support models were also documented. Within the Thrive Collaborative, six general models of peer support were identified: community based, psychologist-led outpatient, models-based within ICU follow-up clinics, online, groups based within ICU, and peer mentor models. The most common barriers to implementation were recruitment to groups, personnel input and training, sustainability and funding, risk management, and measuring success. CONCLUSIONS:A number of different models of peer support are currently being developed to help patients and families recover and grow in the postcritical care setting.
| S-EPMC6719778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDespite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes.ObjectiveTo systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank.Data sourcesMedical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used.Study selectionA PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria.Data extraction and synthesisData from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary study outcome was the h-index.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.
| S-EPMC8243235 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeer support has been suggested as an alternative or complement to professional support for mothers with perinatal mental health difficulties. The aim of this realist review was to synthesise the evidence on perinatal mental health peer support programmes outside mental health services, to understand what is it about community-based perinatal mental health peer support that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects, and why.MethodsApplying realist methodology, an initial theoretical model was tested against evidence from empirical studies. 29 empirical studies were included, covering 22 antenatal and postnatal mental health interventions that offered one-to-one or group peer support, in person or by telephone. Data extraction identified the configurations of contexts (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) relevant to mothers' use of peer support and to the positive and negative effects of using peer support.Results13 C-M-O configurations explained take-up of peer support. These were based on mothers' perceptions that peer support would offer empathetic understanding and non-judgemental acceptance outside their social circle; their relationships with primary health professionals; their cultural background and perspectives on mental health; their desire for professional support; overcoming practical barriers; the format of the support; and the use of volunteers. A further 13 C-M-O configurations explained positive impact on mothers. These were based on receiving empathetic listening, acceptance, affirmation and normalisation; peers sharing ideas about self-care, coping, and services; peers using therapeutic techniques; the opportunity to give support to others; meaningful social relationships with volunteers and other mothers; and other benefits of attending a group. There were 8 C-M-O configurations explaining negative impact. These were based on lack of validation; self-criticism from downward and upward social comparison; a culture of negativity; peers being judgemental or directive; not feeling heard; peer support as a stressful social relationship; and distress at endings.ConclusionsPeer support works in complex ways that are affected by personal and social contexts. Providers, commissioners and evaluators can use this review to understand and maximise the valuable benefits of peer support, to minimise potential risks, and to devise ways of reaching mothers who do not currently engage with it.
| S-EPMC10410814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionYouth suicide is a significant public health priority, and is the second leading cause of death among young people between 15 and 29 years of age. An emerging intervention in suicide prevention programming with youth is peer support. Although increasingly used in other settings, the evidence for peer support interventions in youth suicide prevention remains nascent. This article presents a protocol for a scoping review aimed at systematically mapping the current evidence on peer support for youth suicide prevention.Methods and analysisArksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework will guide the review methods. The search strategy will be developed with guidance from a health sciences librarian. Multiple databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and grey literature will be identified using terms related to peer support and youth suicide prevention. Publication date restrictions will not be applied. All identified records of published literature will be collated and uploaded to a systematic review management software, Covidence, for review and selection. Screening will be completed in duplicate by two reviewers using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Conflicts during screening will be resolved by a third reviewer. The title and abstract screening and full-text review will be completed in Covidence. Two reviewers will complete data extraction from the selected records, using a tailored extraction form. Screening and data extraction will be completed between January and April 2021. A narrative summary will be completed to synthesise key findings as well as contextual information about the use of peer support interventions in youth suicide prevention programming.Ethics and disseminationThe results will be disseminated through a community research report, presentations of findings at relevant conferences and academic publications of the scoping review protocol and results. The data used for this scoping review will be derived from published resources; therefore, ethics approval is not required for this study.
| S-EPMC8693095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bibliometrics is widely used as an evaluation tool to assist prospective R&D decision-making. In the UK, for example, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has employed bibliometric analysis alongside wider information in several awarding panels for major funding schemes. In this paper, we examine various aspects of the use of bibliometric information by members of these award selection panels, based on interviews with ten panel members from three NIHR panels, alongside analysis of the information provided to those panels. The aim of the work is to determine what influence bibliometrics has on their decision-making, to see which types of bibliometric measures they find more and less useful, and to identify the challenges they have when using these data. We find that panel members broadly support the use of bibliometrics in panel decision-making, and that the data are primarily used in the initial individual assessment of candidates, playing a smaller role in the selection panel meeting. Panel members felt that the most useful measures of performance are normalised citation scores and the number or proportion of papers in the most highly cited X% (e.g. 5, 10%) for the field. Panel members expressed concerns around the comparability of bibliometrics between fields, but the discussion suggested this largely represents a lack of understanding of bibliometric techniques, confirming that effective background information is important. Based on the evidence around panel behaviour and concerns, we set out guidance around providing bibliometrics to research funding panels.
| S-EPMC5533850 | biostudies-other