ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Peer review is essential to the advancement of knowledge. However, training on how to conduct peer review is limited, unorganized, and not well studied. Thus, we sought to determine if a structured mentored peer-review program improved peer review training as measured by multiple quantitative and qualitative assessments. METHODS: This pre-post intervention study enrolled 55 mentees across 5 cohorts from 2020 to 2023. Each cohort completed pre-program evaluations, participated in 2 mentored reviews, and completed post-program evaluations over 6 months. Mentors and mentees completed pre-program demographic and review experience questionnaires. Outcome measures included (1) total and sub-scores on the modified Review Quality Index (mRQI) applied to the same pre-selected research manuscript reviewed by mentees both pre and post intervention, (2) mentee self-perceived comfort with and understanding of the review process using a custom questionnaire, and (3) mentor satisfaction surveys. Pre- and post-program measures were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Post-program total modified RQI score (median (IQR) = 31 (26.3-35.8)) was higher than pre-program total score (26.6 (19.7-29.7)) for the 42 mentees who completed both pre- and post-program reviews. Mentees reported improved perception of review (median (IQR) pre = 4 (3-4), post = 5 (4-5)) and editorial processes (pre = 3 (2-4), post = 4 (4-5)) as well as self-perceived confidence in completing an independent review of both scientific (median (IQR) pre = 2 (2-3), post = 4 (4-4)) and non-scientific (pre = 3 (2-4), post = 4 (4-5)) manuscripts following program participation. p < 0.0001 for all scores noted. Mentors reported high scores for enjoyment (median (range) 5/5 (3-5)) and interest in repeat participation (5/5 (2-5)). CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month structured mentored-review program including 2 mentored reviews improves peer review training as measured by the modified RQI as well as participant self-perceived understanding of publication science with high mentor satisfaction.
ABSTRACT
Palliative care services are beneficial for pediatric neurology patients with chronic, life-limiting illnesses. However, timely referral to palliative care may be impeded due to an inability to identify appropriate patients. The aim of this pilot case-control study was to test a quantitative measure for identifying patients with unmet palliative care needs to facilitate appropriate referrals. First, a random subset of pediatric neurology patients were screened for number of hospital admissions, emergency center visits, and problems on the problem list. Screening results led to the hypothesis that having six or more hospital admissions in one year indicated unmet palliative care needs. Next, hospital admissions in the past year were counted for all patients admitted to the neurology service during a six-month period. Patients with six or more admissions as well as age- and gender-matched controls were assessed for unmet palliative care needs. In hospitalized pediatric neurology patients, having six or more admissions in the preceding year did not predict unmet palliative care needs. While this pilot study did not find a quantitative measure that identifies patients needing a palliative care consultation, the negative finding highlights an important distinction between unmet social needs that interfere with care and unmet palliative care needs. Further, the method of screening patients used in this study was simple to implement and provides a framework for future studies.
