Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review.

BACKGROUND: There is a power imbalance between authors and reviewers in single-blind peer review. We explored how switching from single-blind to double-blind peer review affected 1) the willingness of experts to review, 2) their publication recommendations, and 3) the quality of review reports. METHODS: The Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review in September 2017. The proportion of review invitations that resulted in a received review report was counted. The reviewers' recommendations of "accept as is", "minor revision", "major revision" or "reject" were explored. The content of the reviews was assessed by two experienced reviewers using the Review Quality Instrument modified to apply to both original research and review manuscripts. The study material comprised reviews submitted from September 2017 to February 2018. The controls were the reviews submitted between September 2015 and February 2016 and between September 2016 and February 2017. The reviewers' recommendations and the scorings of quality assessments were tested with the Chi square test, and the means of quality assessments with the independent-samples t test. RESULTS: A total of 118 double-blind first-round reviews of 59 manuscripts were compared with 232 single-blind first-round reviews of 116 manuscripts. The proportion of successful review invitations when reviewing single-blinded was 67%, and when reviewing double-blinded, 66%. When reviewing double-blinded, the reviewers recommended accept as is or minor revision less often than during the control period (59% vs. 73%), and major revision or rejection more often (41% vs 27%, P = 0.010). For the quality assessment, 116 reviews from the double-blind period were compared with 104 reviews conducted between September 2016 and February 2017. On a 1-5 scale (1 poor, 5 excellent), double-blind reviews received higher overall proportion of ratings of 4 and 5 than single-blind reviews (56% vs. 49%, P < 0.001). Means for the overall quality of double-blind reviews were 3.38 (IQR, 3.33-3.44) vs. 3.22 (3.17-3.28; P < 0.001) for single-blind reviews. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the reviews conducted double-blind was better than of those conducted single-blind. Switching to double-blind review did not alter the reviewers' willingness to review. The reviewers became slightly more critical.

Satisfaction of young ENT surgeons with their work. A Finnish national study.

The objective was to investigate work satisfaction among recently graduated otorhinolaryngologist - head and neck surgeons - (ENT surgeons). An electronic questionnaire was sent to all ENT surgeons graduated in Finland during a ten-year period. Answers about work satisfaction were analyzed in detail with regards to age, gender, university of specialist training, experience, place of work and further education.Altogether 125/129 (96.9%) responded. The majority (87.8%) of the respondents enjoyed their current main occupation. The older age group (≥40 vs <40 years) was more satisfied (93.7% vs. 81.7%; p=0.042). Consultation opportunities and workplace atmosphere were reported as good by 85.6% and 90.4% of the respondents, respectively. Training opportunities were considered good by 82.4%, albeit by only 60% of the private physicians (p=0.047). Private sector practitioners were also less satisfied with the versatility of their work (p<0.001). Work at a university hospital was considered more strenuous (p<0.001). Over half (54.8%) felt insecure about continuation of their employment status. Most of the recently graduated Finnish ENT surgeons are satisfied with their current occupation, consultation opportunities and workplace atmosphere. However, work at university hospitals in particular was considered often strenuous and over half of the respondents felt insecure about the continuity of their employment.

Employment status of young otorhinolaryngologists in Finland during a 10-year period.

We determined the employment status of recently graduated otorhinolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons (ENT doctors) in Finland during the past 10 years. We also investigated the job vacancy rate of the Departments of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (Department of ORL-HNS). An electronic questionnaire was sent to all ENT doctors who had graduated during 2007-2017 and to chief physicians of all Departments of ORL-HNS. Chi-square and Fisher's test were used in the analyses. Altogether 129 ENT doctors had graduated and 125 (96.9%) responded. Thirty (24%) physicians had been employed in a position that did not correspond to their ENT doctor training. All 30 chief physicians responded and a total of 306 physicians were working at their departments (215 ENT doctors, 91 residents). However, there were only 241 available positions (197 for ENT doctors, 44 for residents). It was estimated that 65 ENT doctors would retire within 10 years. At the moment there does not seem to be a significant shortage of ENT doctors in Finland. The current national volume of resident intake in the ENT training programme is twofold in comparison with the estimated retirement rate in the public sector.

Ethically problematic treatment decisions: a physician survey.

BACKGROUND: Experiencing ethical problems requires both ethically problematic situations and ethical sensitivity. Ethically problematic treatment decisions are distressing and might reflect health care quality problems. Whether all physicians actually experience ethical problems, what these problems are and how they vary according to physician age, gender and work sector are largely unknown. METHODS: A mail survey of all non-retired physicians licensed in Finland (n = 17,172, response rate 75.6%). RESULTS: The proportion of physicians reporting having made ethically problematic treatment decisions decreased in linear fashion from 60% at ages below 30 years to 21% at ages over 63 years. The only problem that did not decrease in frequency with age was having withdrawn necessary treatments. Women and primary care physicians reported problematic decisions most often, although gender differences were small. Primary care physicians most often reported having performed too many investigations or having pressured patients, whereas hospital physicians emphasized having withdrawn necessary treatments. Performing unnecessary treatments or investigations was explained by pressure from patients or relatives, and performing too few treatments or investigations was explained by inadequate resources. CONCLUSIONS: In general, young physicians felt pressured to do too much, whereas older physicians felt they could not do enough due to inadequate resources. Older physicians might be less exposed to ethically problematic situations, be more able to handle them or have lower ethical sensitivity. Young physicians could benefit from support in resisting pressure to perform unnecessary treatments, whereas older physicians might benefit from training in recognizing ethical issues.