Increasing the Writing Capacity and Dissemination of Evaluation Findings Among US Public Health Practitioners Funded to Improve Cardiovascular Health.

CONTEXT: Contributing to the evidence base, by disseminating findings through written products such as journal articles, is a core competency for public health practitioners. Disseminating practice-based evidence that supports improving cardiovascular health is necessary for filling literature gaps, generating health policies and laws, and translating evidence-based strategies into practice. However, a gap exists in the dissemination of practice-based evidence in public health. Public health practitioners face various dissemination barriers (eg, lack of time and resources, staff turnover) which, more recently, were compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. PROGRAM: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP) partnered with the National Network of Public Health Institutes to implement a multimodal approach to build writing capacity among recipients funded by three DHDSP cooperative agreements. This project aimed to enhance public health practitioners' capacity to translate and disseminate their evaluation findings. IMPLEMENTATION: Internal evaluation technical assistance expertise and external subject matter experts helped to implement this project and to develop tailored multimodal capacity-building activities. These activities included online peer-to-peer discussion posts, virtual writing workshops, resource documents, one-to-one writing coaching sessions, an online toolkit, and a supplemental issue in a peer-reviewed journal. EVALUATION: Findings from an informal process evaluation demonstrate positive results. Most participants were engaged and satisfied with the project's activities. Across eight workshops, participants reported increased knowledge (≥94%) and enhanced confidence in writing (≥98%). The majority of participants (83%) reported that disseminating evaluation findings improved program implementation. Notably, 30 abstracts were submitted for a journal supplement and 23 articles were submitted for consideration. DISCUSSION: This multimodal approach serves as a promising model that enhances public health practitioners' capacity to disseminate evaluation findings during times of evolving health needs.

Should my recommendation letter be written by artificial intelligence?

SummaryLetters of recommendation are increasingly important for the residency match. We assessed whether an artificial intelligence (AI) tool could help in writing letters of recommendation by analyzing recommendation letters written by 3 academic staff and AI duplicate versions for 13 applicants. The preferred letters were selected by 3 blinded orthopedic program directors based on a pre-determined set of criteria. The first orthopedic program director selected the AI letter for 31% of applicants, and the 2 remaining program directors selected the AI letter for 38% of applicants, with the staff-written versions selected more often by all of the program directors (p < 0.05). The first program director recognized only 15% of the AI-written letters, the second was able to identify 92%, and the third director identified 77% of AI-written letters (p < 0.05).

A practical guide for writing a PhD thesis.

There is an increasing number of PhD students in health sciences, but no formal reporting guideline for writing a thesis exists. This review provides a practical guide with an overview of the article-based/synopsis PhD thesis that consists of eight parts: 1) initial formalities, 2) introduction, 3) methodological considerations, 4) study presentations, 5) discussion, 6) conclusion, 7) perspectives, and 8) concluding formalities. It is elaborated with detailed information, practical advice, and a template, so the thesis complies with the demands of the Danish Graduate Schools of Health Sciences.

So .You Want to be a Peer Reviewer?

Peer review is essential to preserving the integrity of the scientific publication process. Peer reviewers must adhere to the norms of the peer review process, including confidentiality, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest, timeliness, constructiveness, and thoroughness. This mini review will discuss some of the different formats in which peer review might occur, as well as advantages and disadvantages of each. The topics then shift to providing advice for prospective reviewers, as well as a suggested format for use in writing a review.

Learning evidence-based practice by writing the bachelor's thesis - A prospective cohort study in undergraduate nursing education.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice has been the desirable healthcare standard for decades. To ensure evidence-based healthcare in the future, nursing education curricula must include strategies for teaching evidence-based practice to nursing students. Learning outcomes about evidence-based practice might be incorporated into courses like the bachelor's thesis. AIM: This study investigates whether writing a bachelor's thesis influences nursing students' practice, skills, and attitudes towards evidence-based practice, and explores whether there are differences between students writing the thesis as a literature study and students conducting empirical studies. DESIGN: This Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study collects data on students' practice, skills, and attitudes towards evidence-based practice through the Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire and two questions from the Norwegian version of the Evidence-Based Practice profile questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: The sample consists of 314 nursing students writing their bachelor's thesis in the last term of their nursing education. The responding students represent all institutions of higher education in Norway. METHODS: Paired t-tests were used to examine changes in the subscales practice, retrieving/reviewing, sharing/applying, attitudes and total scale for the Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire from before they started to submission of the bachelor's thesis. Linear multiple regression analyses were conducted to explore differences between students writing a literature study and students conducting empirical studies. RESULTS: The analysis showed that the nursing students significantly increased in the three subscales practice, retrieving/reviewing, and sharing/applying, in addition to the total scale for the questionnaire, while writing the bachelor's thesis. Further, the analysis showed no difference on the scales between the groups of students writing a literature study or conducting an empirical study. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that writing the bachelor's thesis leads to increased learning about evidence-based practice and does not depend on the kind of thesis the students write.

Exploring ChatGPT's abilities in medical article writing and peer review.

AIM: To evaluate the quality of ChatGPT-generated case reports and assess the ability of ChatGPT to peer review medical articles. METHODS: This study was conducted from February to April 2023. First, ChatGPT 3.0 was used to generate 15 case reports, which were then peer-reviewed by expert human reviewers. Second, ChatGPT 4.0 was employed to peer review 15 published short articles. RESULTS: ChatGPT was capable of generating case reports, but these reports exhibited inaccuracies, particularly when it came to referencing. The case reports received mixed ratings from peer reviewers, with 33.3% of professionals recommending rejection. The reports' overall merit score was 4.9±1.8 out of 10. The review capabilities of ChatGPT were weaker than its text generation abilities. The AI as a peer reviewer did not recognize major inconsistencies in articles that had undergone significant content changes. CONCLUSION: While ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in generating case reports, there were limitations in terms of consistency and accuracy, especially in referencing.

Association of reviewer experience with discriminating human-written versus ChatGPT-written abstracts.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if reviewer experience impacts the ability to discriminate between human-written and ChatGPT-written abstracts. METHODS: Thirty reviewers (10 seniors, 10 juniors, and 10 residents) were asked to differentiate between 10 ChatGPT-written and 10 human-written (fabricated) abstracts. For the study, 10 gynecologic oncology abstracts were fabricated by the authors. For each human-written abstract we generated a ChatGPT matching abstract by using the same title and the fabricated results of each of the human generated abstracts. A web-based questionnaire was used to gather demographic data and to record the reviewers' evaluation of the 20 abstracts. Comparative statistics and multivariable regression were used to identify factors associated with a higher correct identification rate. RESULTS: The 30 reviewers discriminated 20 abstracts, giving a total of 600 abstract evaluations. The reviewers were able to correctly identify 300/600 (50%) of the abstracts: 139/300 (46.3%) of the ChatGPT-generated abstracts and 161/300 (53.7%) of the human-written abstracts (p=0.07). Human-written abstracts had a higher rate of correct identification (median (IQR) 56.7% (49.2-64.1%) vs 45.0% (43.2-48.3%), p=0.023). Senior reviewers had a higher correct identification rate (60%) than junior reviewers and residents (45% each; p=0.043 and p=0.002, respectively). In a linear regression model including the experience level of the reviewers, familiarity with artificial intelligence (AI) and the country in which the majority of medical training was achieved (English speaking vs non-English speaking), the experience of the reviewer (ß=10.2 (95% CI 1.8 to 18.7)) and familiarity with AI (ß=7.78 (95% CI 0.6 to 15.0)) were independently associated with the correct identification rate (p=0.019 and p=0.035, respectively). In a correlation analysis the number of publications by the reviewer was positively correlated with the correct identification rate (r28)=0.61, p<0.001. CONCLUSION: A total of 46.3% of abstracts written by ChatGPT were detected by reviewers. The correct identification rate increased with reviewer and publication experience.

Could coping with your inner critic be the key to unlocking your scholarly writing?

INTRODUCTION: Though various barriers to productive writing habits exist in academia, scholarship is a critical part of faculty expectations. One barrier that has not been well addressed in the literature is the presence and interference of a negative inner critic, an internal voice or dialogue that criticizes work, halts creativity, and paralyzes writing. COMMENTARY: The purpose of this commentary is to describe the limited evidence-base and anecdotal strategies shown to support increased writing productivity by acknowledging and navigating the inner critic. With strategies such as proper identification, acknowledgment, strong mentor-mentee relationships, personifying the inner critic, embracing a growth mindset, and considering the distinct phases of writing, faculty can cope with their critical inner voice and reclaim control of their scholarly writing productivity. IMPLICATIONS: With such a heavy emphasis on writing productivity for faculty, faculty are encouraged to more formally explore and implement professional development strategies to help navigate their inner critic and bolster writing productivity.

Rest is essential for effective therapies, and so it is for preparing a manuscript.

Numerous medical articles are commented upon. This suggests that their scientific quality is insufficient. This need not be the case, however: most comments regard the presentation of the data, the conclusions or lacking information in the discussion. Such flaws can commonly be attributed to either too much haste in writing the manuscript, or insufficient time between finishing the manuscript and submission; this last problem seems the most common cause, as it deprives the author from reading his own text critically and with an open mind. The solution for this problem is simple: after having finished a manuscript, it should be laid aside for at least a week, after which the author should read it with the eyes of a reader, not the eyes of an author. Critical, open-minded reading after rest helps increase the quality of the resulting manuscript, just like rest helps a patient during most therapies.

Linguistic gender congruity differentially correlates with film and novel ratings by critics and audiences.

The film and publishing industries are fraught with gender disparities, with men overpowering nearly every sector of these domains. For instance, men are not only paid more than women in the film industry, but they also outnumber women in positions such as director, screenwriter, and lead acting roles. Similarly, women often resort to assuming gender-neutral or male pseudonyms to increase their prospects in the publishing industry. This widespread gender inequality in the film and publishing industries raises the question of how writers' gender relates to gendered language and narrative receptions. Two archival studies examined whether gender-linked language relates to film (N = 521) and novel (N = 150) ratings, and whether those associations differ as a function of writer gender or the expertise of the rater (professional critics and lay audience members). Results demonstrated that female screenwriters and novelists used a more feminine style of writing, whereas male screenwriters and novelists used a more masculine style of writing. Lay audiences gave more positive ratings to films and novels by writers who used a more gender-congruent writing style, in contrast with professional critics, who gave more positive reviews to films by writers who used a more gender-incongruent writing style. Our findings substantiate past research regarding the differing tastes of lay audiences and professional critics in addition to lending insight into subtle social dynamics that may sustain gender biases in the film and publishing industries.

Writing an effective National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget: How to get the money for your science.

In the scheme of developing an application for funding from any federal or foundation source, it is reasonable to place significant attention on the science. However, it is also imperative to remember that your budget is what will provide the resources to make sure you can complete your proposed investigations and, as such, deserves appropriate consideration. In the competitive arena of extramural funding, funding agencies are incentivized to ensure that the funds committed to research will yield maximum impact. A well-thought-out budget demonstrates to the funding agency 2 key factors: (1) that you understand the needs of the project and (2) you have a realistic expectation of the project costs. When these 2 things are communicated to the funding agency, in addition to the significance of your science, it is more likely that you will receive the budget you request. Herein, we put forth the fundamentals for preparing your budget and the nuances that may help you not only be in compliance but also improve your chances of success. This article will discuss issues to consider when designing a budget for large research grants, using the NIH R&R Budget as a prototype.