Access to cancer clinical trials for racialised older adults: an equity-focused rapid scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The intersection of race and older age compounds existing health disparities experienced by historically marginalised communities. Therefore, racialised older adults with cancer are more disadvantaged in their access to cancer clinical trials compared with age-matched counterparts. To determine what has already been published in this area, the rapid scoping review question are: what are the barriers, facilitators and potential solutions for enhancing access to cancer clinical trials among racialised older adults? METHODS: We will use a rapid scoping review methodology in which we follow the six-step framework of Arksey and O'Malley, including a systematic search of the literature with abstract and full-text screening to be conducted by two independent reviewers, data abstraction by one reviewer and verification by a second reviewer using an Excel data abstraction sheet. Articles focusing on persons aged 18 and over who identify as a racialised person with cancer, that describe therapies/therapeutic interventions/prevention/outcomes related to barriers, facilitators and solutions to enhancing access to and equity in cancer clinical trials will be eligible for inclusion in this rapid scoping review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All data will be extracted from published literature. Hence, ethical approval and patient informed consent are not required. The findings of the scoping review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at international conferences.

Twelve tips for creating and sustaining a peer assessment program of clinical faculty.

While feedback is essential for learning in the health professions, clinical teachers rarely get feedback on their teaching, and the existing feedback is often non-specific and distant from teaching encounters. To enhance clinical teaching, we created a peer assessment program for clinical faculty. This program has been well-received and sustained for five years despite the challenges of faculty turnover and the pandemic. In this article, we identify twelve tips for creating and sustaining a peer assessment program for clinical faculty based on this experience. These tips focus on how to create a culture that supports peer assessment, on how best to implement a peer assessment program in practical terms, and on how to sustain a peer assessment program long-term. We hope these tips help educators receive better feedback about their clinical teaching and improve the future care delivered by our learners.

Community engagement in the development of health-related data visualizations: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to address a gap in the literature on community engagement in developing data visualizations intended to improve population health. The review objectives are to: (1) synthesize literature on the types of community engagement activities conducted by researchers working with community partners and (2) characterize instances of "creative data literacy" within data visualizations developed in community-researcher partnerships. METHODS: Using the 2018 PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, the review focuses on peer-reviewed journal articles from 2010 to 2022 in PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. A community engagement tool was applied to the studies by independent reviewers to classify levels of community engagement, social determinants, and vulnerable populations. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles were included in the scoping review. Twelve articles worked with vulnerable populations. Four articles attempted to alleviate barriers to representation in their respective studies, with addressing language barriers being the most prevalent approach. Thirteen articles considered social determinants of health. Sixteen studies engaged in iterative approaches with intended users when developing the visualization or tool. DISCUSSION: Only a few significant examples of creative data literacy are incorporated in the studies. We recommend a specific focus on engaging intended users at every step of the development process, addressing language and cultural differences, and empowering intended users as data storytellers. CONCLUSIONS: There is room for deeper and more meaningful community involvement in the development of health-related data visualizations geared towards them.

Peer assessment in medical communication skills training in programmatic assessment: A qualitative study examining faculty and student perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: Current literature recommends assessment of communication skills in medical education combining different settings and multiple observers. There is still a gap in understanding about whether and how peers assessment facilitates learning in communication skills training. METHODS: We designed a qualitative study using focus group interviews and thematic analysis, in a medical course in the Netherlands. We aimed to explore medical students' and teachers' experiences, perceptions, and perspectives about challenges and facilitating factors in PACST (Peer assessment in medical communication skills training). RESULTS: Most of the participants reported that peer feedback was a valuable experience when learning communication skills. The major challenges for the quality and credibility of PACST reported by the participants are the question whether peer feedback is critical enough for learning and the difficulty of actually engaging students in the assessment process. CONCLUSION: Teachers reviewing students' peer assessments may improve the quality and their credibility and the reviewed assessments can best be used for learning purposes. We suggest to pay sufficient attention to teachers' roles in PACST, ensuring a safe and trustworthy environment and additionally helping students to internalize the value of being vulnerable during the evaluation process.

Gender disparities among publications within international sexual medicine urology journals and the impact of blinding in the review process.

BACKGROUND: While female urologists are known to publish at less frequency than their male peers, The Journal of Sexual Medicine was reported to have among the highest growth in female authorship from 2002 to 2020 in urology journals. AIM: We sought to assess the frequency of female authorship in sexual medicine journals worldwide and the factors that affect this, including the blinded/unblinded review process. METHODS: Eleven sexual medicine journals were assessed for geographic location, peer review method, and SCImago Journal Rank citation index (a metric of citation frequency and prestige). Journals were grouped into top, middle, and bottom quartiles based on metric score. Web of Science was used to access the publications' first, second, last, and corresponding authors from the past 5 years. An internet search or Gender-API.com was used to determine the gender identities of authors. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were performed. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included the likelihood of female authorship (first, second, last, and corresponding) based on journal location and ranking, the clustering of female authors, the journal's peer review process, and the frequency of female editorial board members. RESULTS: Overall, 8938 publications were identified. Women represented 30.7%, 31.3%, 21.3%, and 18.7% of the first, second, last, and corresponding authors, respectively; gender was unable to be assessed for 2.6%, 17.2%, 7.3%, and 2.7%. On univariate analysis, journals from North America, in the top quartile, and with a double-blind review process were more likely to have female authors (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, articles were more likely to have a female first author if they had a double-blind peer review process (odds ratio [OR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), a female second author (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 2.26-2.85), or a female corresponding author (OR, 7.80; 95% CI, 6.69-9.10). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Gender-concordant mentoring and universal double-blind manuscript review processes may minimize the impact of gender bias and increase female authorship rates, in turn producing more diverse research. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first study assessing female authorship in sexual medicine journals. Limitations include not assessing every author listed on articles and being unable to determine gender identities for some authors. CONCLUSION: Female authorship rates are higher than reported rates of practicing female urologists but still lower than their male peers. Female authors were more likely to be published in journals with double-blind peer review processes and when publishing with additional female authors.

Use of the positive deviance approach for healthcare system service improvement: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare systems are currently facing challenges in enhancing access and improving the quality of healthcare services around the world, and one of the innovative strategies that have been used to address such challenges is the positive deviance (PD) approach. The approach assumes that identifying, examining, understanding and disseminating solutions to problems that are already available within the community and organisations including the healthcare system can help in bringing improvements at scale. However, to the best of the researcher's knowledge, there is no scoping review, that is, conducted to map and synthesise the available evidence on the use of the PD approach for healthcare system service improvements. Hence, this scoping review aims to map and synthesise resources on the methodologies and reported outcomes and identify gaps and potentials regarding the use of the PD approach in the healthcare system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Articles will be searched and retrieved in research databases such as PubMed, Embase and Scopus. Retrieved articles will be screened independently for inclusion through a title and, or abstract review. Then, articles that passed the title and abstract review will be screened by reading the full texts. A descriptive mapping and synthesis of the literature will be employed to present data using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and data will be presented in text, figure and table formats. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of this scoping review will be published in peer-reviewed reputable international journals. Furthermore, it will also be disseminated through conference presentations, and popular press to the wider community. However, formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected.

ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review.

The peer review process is a critical step in ensuring the quality of scientific research. However, its subjectivity has raised concerns. To investigate this issue, I examined over 500 publicly available peer review reports from 200 published neuroscience papers in 2022-2023. OpenAI's generative artificial intelligence ChatGPT was used to analyze language use in these reports, which demonstrated superior performance compared to traditional lexicon- and rule-based language models. As expected, most reviews for these published papers were seen as favorable by ChatGPT (89.8% of reviews), and language use was mostly polite (99.8% of reviews). However, this analysis also demonstrated high levels of variability in how each reviewer scored the same paper, indicating the presence of subjectivity in the peer review process. The results further revealed that female first authors received less polite reviews than their male peers, indicating a gender bias in reviewing. In addition, published papers with a female senior author received more favorable reviews than papers with a male senior author, for which I discuss potential causes. Together, this study highlights the potential of generative artificial intelligence in performing natural language processing of specialized scientific texts. As a proof of concept, I show that ChatGPT can identify areas of concern in scientific peer review, underscoring the importance of transparent peer review in studying equitability in scientific publishing.

Peer review is a vital step in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research before publication. Experts assess research manuscripts, advise journal editors on publishing them, and provide authors with recommendations for improvement. But some scientists have raised concerns about potential biases and subjectivity in the peer review process. Author attributes, such as gender, reputation, or how prestigious their institution is, may subconsciously influence reviewers' scores. Studying peer review to identify potential biases is challenging. The language reviewers use is very technical, and some of their commentary may be subjective and vary from reviewer to reviewer. The emergence of OpenAI's ChatGPT, which uses machine learning to process large amounts of information, may provide a new tool to analyze peer review for signs of bias. Verharen demonstrated that ChatGPT can be used to analyze peer review reports and found potential indications of gender bias in scientific publishing. In the experiments, Verharen asked ChatGPT to analyze more than 500 reviews of 200 neuroscience studies published in the scientific journal Nature Communications over the past year. The experiments found no evidence that institutional reputation influenced reviews. Yet, female first authors were more likely to receive impolite comments from reviewers. Female senior authors were more likely to receive higher review scores, which may indicate they had to clear a higher bar for publication. The experiments indicate that ChatGPT could be used to analyze peer review for fairness. Verharen suggests that reviewers might apply this tool to ensure their reviews are polite and accurate reflections of their opinions. Scientists or publishers might also use it for large-scale analyses of peer review in individual journals or in scientific publishing more widely. Journals might also use ChatGPT to assess the impact of bias-prevention interventions on review fairness.

School health professionals' understanding of culture: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Culture is highlighted in previous research as important in encounters where health professionals and children do not share a language or culture. In these encounters, culture is described as mainly related to the child, whereas the health professionals' understanding of their own culture as impacting the encounter tends to be left out. To clarify how culture is understood and conceptualised among professionals, it is of relevance to collate previous research on health professionals' understanding of culture. In the scoping review that this protocol describes, we aim to focus on the context of the school health services, being a context accessible to many children in their everyday life. The aim of the review will be to identify, describe and analyse previous research concerning school health professionals' (ie, school nurses, school social workers, school doctors and school psychologists) understanding of culture. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be guided by the methodology described by Peters et al and Khalil et al. Searches will be conducted in Scopus, PubMed, Cinahl Plus, SocIndex, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, APA PsycInfo, APA PsycArticles, Web of Science and Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA). Any published scientific papers focusing on school health professionals' understanding of culture (conceptualised through a variety of related terms) and school health services conducted within the last 10 years (2013-2023) will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles and abstracts for inclusion. Two reviewers will conduct the screening of full-text documents and the extraction of information. Qualitative content analysis as well as discourse analysis will be employed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study. The findings will be disseminated through peer review publication as well as presentation at conferences and to relevant stakeholders.

Assessment of redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential discrepancies of results of systematic reviews of early mobilisation of critically ill adults: a meta-research protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of early mobilisation in critically ill adults with heterogeneous methodology and results. Redundancy in conducting SRs, unclear justification when leading new SRs or updating, and discordant results of SRs on the same research question may generate research waste that makes it difficult for clinicians to keep up to date with the best available evidence. This meta-research aims to assess the redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential reasons for discordance in the results reported by SRs conducted to determine the effectiveness of early mobilisation in critically ill adult patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A meta-research of early mobilisation SRs in critically ill adult patients will be conducted. A search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and other search resources will be conducted. Two independent reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The redundancy of SRs will be assessed by the degree of overlap of primary studies. In addition, the justification for conducting new SRs will be evaluated with the 'Evidence-Based Research' framework. The methodological quality of the SRs will be assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 tool, and the quality of the reports through compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. To assess the potential reasons for discordance in the results of the SRs considering divergence in results and their interpretation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As meta-research, this study does not involve the participation of people whose rights may be violated. However, this overview will be developed rigorously and systematically to achieve valid and reliable results. The findings of this meta-research study will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal related to rehabilitation, critical care or research methodology. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/kxwq9.

The Changing Medical Publishing Industry: Economics, Expansion, and Equity.

Medical journal publishing has changed dramatically over the past decade. The shift from print to electronic distribution altered the industry's economic model. This was followed by open access mandates from funding organizations and the subsequent imposition of article processing charges on authors. The medical publishing industry is large and while there is variation across journals, it is overall highly profitable. As journals have moved to digital dissemination, advertising revenues decreased and publishers shifted some of the losses onto authors by way of article processing charges. The number of open access journals has increased substantially in recent years. The open access model presents an equity paradox; while it liberates scientific knowledge for the consumer, it presents barriers to those who produce research. This emerging "pay-to-publish" system offers advantages to authors who work in countries and at institutes with more resources. Finally, the medical publishing industry represents an unusual business model; the people who provide both the content and the external peer review receive no payment from the publisher, who generates revenue from the content. The very unusual economic model of this industry makes it vulnerable to disruptive change. The economic model of medical publishing is rapidly evolving and this will lead to disruption of the industry. These changes will accelerate dissemination of science and may lead to a shift away from lower-impact journals towards pre-print servers.

Nation-based peer assessment of Europe's Sustainable Development Goal performance.

Less than seven years remain for Europe to meet the targets of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However robust and accurate methods for assessing SDG progress are currently lacking. Through the development of several SDG indices, this study addresses this critical knowledge gap by providing the means to accurately identify national 'problem areas' and thereby accelerate SDG achievement. Specifically, an indicator-based approach has been used to create a composite index containing 166 unique SDG indicators that assess a nation's SDG performance compared to the best and worst performers in the European Union (EU). Our results indicate that each EU nation is on average, 58% of the way towards the best performer in the overall SDG indicator framework. A nuanced taxonomy has been developed that allows for the assessment of SDG performance in several critical dimensions of the SDGs, including in 'Means-of-Implementation (MoI)', 'Linkage', and 'Outcome' indicators. The index's comprehensive framework allows for EU's performance in individual SDG indicators to be investigated while providing the most accurate assessment of national SDG performance, to date. Overall, the indices presented in this paper can significantly enhance the understanding of SDG performance while concurrently guiding national and EU SDG policy development.

Assessment of diversity-based approaches used by American Universities to increase recruitment and retention of biomedical sciences research faculty members: A scoping review protocol.

Diversity enriches the educational experience by improving intellectual engagement, self-motivation, citizenship, cultural engagement, and academic skills like critical thinking, problem-solving, and writing for students of all races. Faculty role models from similar backgrounds are essential for students from traditionally underrepresented groups as it sends a powerful message of support, belonging, and the confidence to pursue higher education. However, in the biomedical sciences, the percentage of historically underrepresented tenure-track faculty is far lower than that of their white colleagues. For this to change, a strong strategic plan and commitment from the university are imperative. This scoping review will assess the size and scope of available peer-reviewed research literature on diversity programs that aim to increase the recruitment and retention of biomedical sciences research faculty and are implemented and evaluated at American Universities. The information provided in this scoping review will help universities identify novel, successful diversity-based approaches for recruiting and retaining biomedical science faculty that might suit their own unique academic and geographic needs and be incorporated into their diversity initiatives and policies. The review follows the Population-Concept-Context methodology for Joanna Briggs Institution Scoping Reviews. Relevant peer-reviewed studies published in English between June 1, 2012, to June 1, 2022, will be identified from the following electronic databases; MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus (Elsevier), EMBASE (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), and ERIC (EBSCO). The search strings using the key variables "biomedical research faculty," "recruitment/retention," "diversity/ minority/ underrepresented, and "mentoring" will be conducted using Boolean logic. Two independent reviewers will conduct all title and abstract screening, followed by a full article screening and data extraction. Due to the possible heterogeneity of the studies, we hope to use either a narrative analysis and/or descriptive figures/tables to depict the results.

Peer reviewers from low- and middle-income countries(LMIC) for open access journals in oncology can improve the equity in cancer research and clinical trials.

Open access journals (OAJ) in biomedicine are promoted to improve the reach and distribution of global health research (GHR). However, in the last 20 years, article publishing charge (APC) is attracting and publishing the vast majority of papers from high-income countries (HIC) in "oncology" journals under OAJ. This paper outlines the impediments for cancer research and publication from low-and middle-income countries (LMIC): (a) existing disparities in cancer care facilities and survival outcomes between HIC and LMIC, (b) more than 70 % of OAJ in 'oncology' subject levy APC, becoming unaffordable for scientists and clinicians from LMIC, (c) impactful OAJ in oncology engage less than 10 % of members from LMIC in editorial board or as peer reviewer, whereas two-third of cancer diagnosis and management occur in these countries. Peer review serves the editors by recommending the relevant papers. Thus, peer reviewers from developing countries working for the OAJs in "oncology" can increase the diversity in publication, improving the GHR in cancer management. The cancer research and clinical trials which can bring to notice the challenges and hurdles faced by researchers, clinicians and cancer patients in LMIC will be served to some measure by engaging peer reviewers from those countries who understand the ecosystem.

Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups.

Peer review is central to the scientific process and scientists' career advancement, but bias at various stages of the review process disadvantages some authors. Here we use peer review data from 312,740 biological sciences manuscripts across 31 studies to (1) examine evidence for differential peer review outcomes based on author demographics, (2) evaluate the efficacy of solutions to reduce bias and (3) describe the current landscape of peer review policies for 541 ecology and evolution journals. We found notably worse review outcomes (for example, lower overall acceptance rates) for authors whose institutional affiliations were in Asia, for authors whose country's primary language is not English and in countries with relatively low Human Development Indices. We found few data evaluating efficacy of interventions outside of reducing gender bias through double-blind review or diversifying reviewer/editorial boards. Despite evidence for review outcome gaps based on author demographics, few journals currently implement policies intended to mitigate bias (for example, 15.9% of journals practised double-blind review and 2.03% had reviewer guidelines that mentioned social justice issues). The lack of demographic equity signals an urgent need to better understand and implement evidence-based bias mitigation strategies.

PreprintMatch: A tool for preprint to publication detection shows global inequities in scientific publication.

Preprints, versions of scientific manuscripts that precede peer review, are growing in popularity. They offer an opportunity to democratize and accelerate research, as they have no publication costs or a lengthy peer review process. Preprints are often later published in peer-reviewed venues, but these publications and the original preprints are frequently not linked in any way. To this end, we developed a tool, PreprintMatch, to find matches between preprints and their corresponding published papers, if they exist. This tool outperforms existing techniques to match preprints and papers, both on matching performance and speed. PreprintMatch was applied to search for matches between preprints (from bioRxiv and medRxiv), and PubMed. The preliminary nature of preprints offers a unique perspective into scientific projects at a relatively early stage, and with better matching between preprint and paper, we explored questions related to research inequity. We found that preprints from low income countries are published as peer-reviewed papers at a lower rate than high income countries (39.6% and 61.1%, respectively), and our data is consistent with previous work that cite a lack of resources, lack of stability, and policy choices to explain this discrepancy. Preprints from low income countries were also found to be published quicker (178 vs 203 days) and with less title, abstract, and author similarity to the published version compared to high income countries. Low income countries add more authors from the preprint to the published version than high income countries (0.42 authors vs 0.32, respectively), a practice that is significantly more frequent in China compared to similar countries. Finally, we find that some publishers publish work with authors from lower income countries more frequently than others.

Supporting implementation of interventions to address ethnicity-related health inequities: frameworks, facilitators and barriers - a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Health inequities are differences in health between groups of people that are avoidable, unfair and unjust. Achieving equitable health outcomes requires approaches that recognise and account for the differences in levels of advantage between groups. Implementation science, which studies how to translate evidence-based interventions into routine practice, is increasingly recognised as an approach to address health inequities by identifying factors and processes that enable equitable implementation of interventions. This article describes the protocol for a scoping review of the literature relating to the equitable implementation of interventions, focusing on ethnicity-related health inequities. The scoping review aims to identify equity-focused implementation science theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) and to synthesise and analyse the evidence relating to the factors that aid or inhibit equitable implementation of health interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review is guided by the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley and enhanced by Levac and colleagues. Relevant literature will be identified by searching electronic databases, grey literature, hand-searching key journals and searching the reference lists and citations of studies that meet the inclusion criteria. We will focus on literature published from 2011 to the present. Titles, abstracts and full-text articles will be screened independently by two researchers; any disagreements will be resolved through discussion with another researcher. Extracted data will be summarised and analysed to address the scoping review aims. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The scoping review will map the available literature on equity-focused implementation science TMFs and the facilitators and barriers to equitable implementation of interventions. Ethical approval is not required. Dissemination of the results of the review will include publications in peer-review journals and conference and stakeholder presentations. Findings from the review will support those implementing interventions to ensure that the implementation pathway and processes are equitable, thereby improving health outcomes and reducing existing inequities.