A method for the madness: An international survey of health professions education authors' journal choice

INTRODUCTION: Scholarship is a key activity in health professions education (HPE). When disseminating scholarly work, how one selects the journal to which they submit is often argued to be a key determinant of subsequent success. To draw more evidence-based recommendations in this regard, we surveyed successful scholars working in HPE regarding their perspectives and experiences with journal selection. METHODS: We conducted an international survey of HPE scholars, investigating their decisions regarding journal choice. Corresponding authors were identified from a sample of 4000 papers published in 2019 and 2020. They were invited via email with up to four reminders. We describe their experience and use principle component and regression analyses to identify factors associated with successful acceptance. RESULTS: In total, 863 responses were received (24.7% response rate), 691 of which were included in our analyses. Two thirds of respondents had their manuscripts accepted at their first-choice journal with revisions required in 98% of cases. We identified six priority factors when choosing journals. In descending order of importance, they were: fit, impact, editorial reputation, speed of dissemination, breadth of dissemination, and guidance from others. Authors who prioritised fit higher and who selected a journal earlier were more likely to have their manuscripts accepted at their first-choice journal. DISCUSSION: Based on our results we make three recommendations for authors when writing manuscripts: do not be disheartened by a revise decision, consider journal choice early in the research process, and use the fit between your manuscript and the journal as the main factor driving journal choice

How to… support others in developing a career in clinical education research

The Incubator for Clinical Education Research (ClinEdR) is a UK-wide network, established with support from the National Institute for Health Research, to lead initiatives to build capacity in the field. A key barrier identified by this group is that many experienced educators, clinicians, and researchers, who may be committed to supporting others, have little guidance on how best to do this. In this “How to …” paper, we draw on relevant literature and our individual and collective experiences as members of the National Institute for Health Research ClinEdR incubator to offer suggestions on how educators can support others to develop successful careers involving ClinEdR. This article offers guidance and inspiration for all professionals whose role involves research and scholarship and who encounter aspiring or developing clinical education researchers in the course of their work. It will also be of interest to researchers who are starting out and progressing in the field

How to … navigate entry into the field of clinical education research and scholarship

Abstract Clinical education research (ClinEdR) is a growing field that aims to ensure the way healthcare professionals are taught and learn is evidence-based. There is growing interest in how this evidence is generated in a robust, timely and cost-effective fashion. In this ?How to ?? paper, we draw on relevant literature and our own experiences to offer suggestions on how novice researchers can navigate entry into the field of ClinEdR. We summarise key resources for those at the earliest stages of their interest in ClinEdR and scholarship and provide personal experiences of networking, collaborating and balancing research with a clinical or teaching role. This paper will be of interest to those at any stage in their clinical career with little to no experience of ClinEdR, but the enthusiasm to get started

Ethnicity-related stereotypes and their impacts on medical students: A critical narrative review of health professions education literature

Background: Stereotypes are oversimplified beliefs about groups of people. Social psychology concepts and theories describing ethnicity-related stereotypes are well reported in non-medical educational settings. In contrast, the full impact of stereotyping on medical students, and the extent to which they were represented in health professions education (HPE) is less well-described. Using the lens of social psychological theory, this review aimed to describe ethnicity-related stereotypes about medical students portrayed in HPE literature and the impacts of those stereotypes. Methods: A critical narrative approach was undertaken. Social psychology concepts and theories were used as a framework through which to review the impacts of ethnicity-related stereotypes on medical students as described in HPE literature. A database search of Ovid MEDLINE, JSTOR, Project Muse, and PsychINFO was conducted to identify both theoretical and empirical articles relating to this topic in the HPE literature. Data was synthesised using thematic analysis, giving particular care to appraise the evidence from perspectives in social psychology. Findings: In HPE, the experiences and impact of stereotyping on learners from minority ethnic groups was explained by social psychology concepts such as stereotype threat, stereotype reactance, attributional ambiguity, self-fulfilling prophecy, stereotype boost, stereotype lift, and stereotype masking. Stereotype boost and stereotype lift were particularly described among students who identified as White, whereas stereotype threat was described more commonly among students from minority ethnics groups. The impact of stereotyping is not just on assessment, but may be across all teaching and learning activities at medical school. Interpretation: Social psychology concepts and theories can be used to describe the experience and impact of ethnicity-related stereotypes in HPE. Educators can better support learners from minority ethnic groups by self-reflecting over assumptions about individuals from minority ethnic groups, as well as minimise the impact of stereotyping and bias to create more inclusive learning environments

Study protocol for ELIXIR: an evaluation of learning and exposure to the undergraduate Interventional Radiology curriculum

Background: Despite the initiation of a suggested undergraduate curriculum for Interventional Radiology (IR) by the British Society of Interventional Radiology, there is still a lack of exposure to IR amongst medical students and junior doctors. It is unclear how much of the proposed curriculum is implemented in the undergraduate curricula of the respective medical schools in the UK. Methods and Materials: This is a cross-sectional study that aims to evaluate the level of awareness of IR as a subspecialty amongst medical students in the UK. All final year students from the 34 UK medical universities that award primary medical qualifications are eligible for the study. A student representative from each university will be recruited through a social media drive to distribute a survey. The online questionnaire is divided into five different sections; (i) Particulars, (ii) Basic knowledge on IR, (iii) Medical School Curriculum and Exposure, (iv) Career Prospects and (v) Satisfaction with Medical School Curriculum, with the intent of gauging their exposure and understanding of IR throughout the years of medical school and assessing their perceptions of IR as a potential career choice

Virtual classroom proficiency-based progression for robotic surgery training (VROBOT): a randomised, prospective, cross-over, effectiveness study

Robotic surgery training has lacked evidence-based standardisation. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of adjunctive interactive virtual classroom training (VCT) in concordance with the self-directed Fundamentals of Robotic Surgery (FRS) curriculum. The virtual classroom is comprised of a studio with multiple audio-visual inputs to which participants can connect remotely via the BARCO weConnect platform. Eleven novice surgical trainees were randomly allocated to two training groups (A and B). In week 1, both groups completed a robotic skills induction. In week 2, Group A received training with the FRS curriculum and adjunctive VCT; Group B only received access to the FRS curriculum. In week 3, the groups received the alternate intervention. The primary outcome was measured using the validated robotic-objective structured assessment of technical skills (R-OSAT) at the end of week 2 (time-point 1) and 3 (time-point 2). All participants completed the training curriculum and were included in the final analyses. At time-point 1, Group A achieved a statistically significant greater mean proficiency score compared to Group B (44.80 vs 35.33 points, p = 0.006). At time-point 2, there was no significant difference in mean proficiency score in Group A from time-point 1. In contrast, Group B, who received further adjunctive VCT showed significant improvement in mean proficiency by 9.67 points from time-point 1 (95% CI 5.18-14.15, p = 0.003). VCT is an effective, accessible training adjunct to self-directed robotic skills training. With the steep learning curve in robotic surgery training, VCT offers interactive, expert-led learning and can increase training effectiveness and accessibility

Global Variation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quality of the Prostate

BACKGROUND: High variability in prostate MRI quality might reduce accuracy in prostate cancer detection. PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the quality of MRI scanners taking part in the quality control phase of the global PRIME (Prostate Imaging Using MRI ± Contrast Enhancement) trial using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) standardized scoring system, give recommendations on how to improve the MRI protocols, and establish whether MRI quality could be improved by these recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the prospective clinical trial (PRIME), for each scanner, centers performing prostate MRI submitted five consecutive studies and the MRI protocols (phase I). Submitted data were evaluated in consensus by two expert genitourinary radiologists using the PI-QUAL scoring system that evaluates MRI diagnostic quality using five points (1 and 2 = nondiagnostic; 3 = sufficient; 4 = adequate, 5 = optimal) between September 2021 and August 2022. Feedback was provided for scanners not achieving a PI-QUAL 5 score, and centers were invited to resubmit new imaging data using the modified protocol (phase II). Descriptive comparison of outcomes was made between the MRI scanners, feedback provided, and overall PI-QUAL scores. RESULTS: In phase I, 41 centers from 18 countries submitted a total of 355 multiparametric MRI studies from 71 scanners, with nine (13%) scanners achieving a PI-QUAL score of 3, 39 (55%) achieving a score of 4, and 23 (32%) achieving a score of 5. Of the 48 (n = 71 [68%]) scanners that received feedback to improve, the dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences were those that least adhered to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1, criteria (44 of 48 [92%]), followed by diffusion-weighted imaging (20 of 48 [42%]) and T2-weighted imaging (19 of 48 [40%]). In phase II, 36 centers from 17 countries resubmitted revised studies, resulting in a total of 62 (n = 64 [97%]) scanners with a final PI-QUAL score of 5. CONCLUSION: Substantial variation in global prostate MRI acquisition parameters as a measure of quality was observed, particularly with DCE sequences. Basic evaluation and modifications to MRI protocols using PI-QUAL can lead to substantial improvements in quality. Clinical trial registration no. NCT0457184

A BURST-BAUS consensus document for best practice in the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion : the Finding consensus for orchIdopeXy In Torsion (FIX-IT) study

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Jacqueline Emkes and Rachel Jury for their contribution to our protocol development with respect to patient and public involvement. Similarly, the authors would like to thank Dr Matthew Coward, Department of Urology, University of North Carolina, and Dr Selcuk Sarikaya, Department of Urology, University of Ankara, for their international perspectives and input to our study protocol. We would like to acknowledge the BAUS Trustees for allowing this collaboration. Unrelated to this work, The BURST Research Collaborative would like to acknowledge funding from the BJUI, the Urology Foundation, Ferring Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Rosetrees Trust and Action Bladder Cancer UK. Veeru Kasivisvanathan is an Academic Clinical Lecturer funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. PubMed Indexed Collaborative Authors: Matthew Coward, Selcuk Sarikaya, Jacqueline Emkes, Rachel Jury. Research Funding Department of Health National Institute for Health Research National Institute for Health Research Rosetrees Trust Ferring Pharmaceuticals Urology Foundation University of North CarolinaPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Comparing biparametric to multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men (PRIME): a prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority within-patient, diagnostic yield trial protocol

INTRODUCTION: Prostate MRI is a well-established tool for the diagnostic work-up for men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Current recommendations advocate the use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), which is composed of three sequences: T2-weighted sequence (T2W), diffusion-weighted sequence (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequence (DCE). Prior studies suggest that a biparametric MRI (bpMRI) approach, omitting the DCE sequences, may not compromise clinically significant cancer detection, though there are limitations to these studies, and it is not known how this may affect treatment eligibility. A bpMRI approach will reduce scanning time, may be more cost-effective and, at a population level, will allow more men to gain access to an MRI than an mpMRI approach. METHODS: Prostate Imaging Using MRI±Contrast Enhancement (PRIME) is a prospective, international, multicentre, within-patient diagnostic yield trial assessing whether bpMRI is non-inferior to mpMRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa. Patients will undergo the full mpMRI scan. Radiologists will be blinded to the DCE and will initially report the MRI using only the bpMRI (T2W and DWI) sequences. They will then be unblinded to the DCE sequence and will then re-report the MRI using the mpMRI sequences (T2W, DWI and DCE). Men with suspicious lesions on either bpMRI or mpMRI will undergo prostate biopsy. The main inclusion criteria are men with suspected PCa, with a serum PSA of ≤20 ng/mL and without prior prostate biopsy. The primary outcome is the proportion of men with clinically significant PCa detected (Gleason score ≥3+4 or Gleason grade group ≥2). A sample size of at least 500 patients is required. Key secondary outcomes include the proportion of clinically insignificant PCa detected and treatment decision. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee West Midlands, Nottingham (21/WM/0091). Results of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. Participants and relevant patient support groups will be informed about the results of the trial

Audit, Feedback, and Education to Improve Quality and Outcomes in Transurethral Resection and Single-Instillation Intravesical Chemotherapy for Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Treatment: Protocol for a Multicenter International Observational Study With an Embedded Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) accounts for 75% of bladder cancers. It is common and costly. Cost and detriment to patient outcomes and quality of life are driven by high recurrence rates and the need for regular invasive surveillance and repeat treatments. There is evidence that the quality of the initial surgical procedure (transurethral resection of bladder tumor [TURBT]) and administration of postoperative bladder chemotherapy significantly reduce cancer recurrence rates and improve outcomes (cancer progression and mortality). There is surgeon-reported evidence that TURBT practice varies significantly across surgeons and sites. There is limited evidence from clinical trials of intravesical chemotherapy that NMIBC recurrence rate varies significantly between sites and that this cannot be accounted for by differences in patient, tumor, or adjuvant treatment factors, suggesting that how the surgery is performed may be a reason for the variation. OBJECTIVE: This study primarily aims to determine if feedback on and education about surgical quality indicators can improve performance and secondarily if this can reduce cancer recurrence rates. Planned secondary analyses aim to determine what surgeon, operative, perioperative, institutional, and patient factors are associated with better achievement of TURBT quality indicators and NMIBC recurrence rates. METHODS: This is an observational, international, multicenter study with an embedded cluster randomized trial of audit, feedback, and education. Sites will be included if they perform TURBT for NMIBC. The study has four phases: (1) site registration and usual practice survey; (2) retrospective audit; (3) randomization to audit, feedback, and education intervention or to no intervention; and (4) prospective audit. Local and national ethical and institutional approvals or exemptions will be obtained at each participating site. RESULTS: The study has 4 coprimary outcomes, which are 4 evidence-based TURBT quality indicators: a surgical performance factor (detrusor muscle resection); an adjuvant treatment factor (intravesical chemotherapy administration); and 2 documentation factors (resection completeness and tumor features). A key secondary outcome is the early cancer recurrence rate. The intervention is a web-based surgical performance feedback dashboard with educational and practical resources for TURBT quality improvement. It will include anonymous site and surgeon-level peer comparison, a performance summary, and targets. The coprimary outcomes will be analyzed at the site level while recurrence rate will be analyzed at the patient level. The study was funded in October 2020 and began data collection in April 2021. As of January 2023, there were 220 hospitals participating and over 15,000 patient records. Projected data collection end date is June 30, 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to use a distributed collaborative model to deliver a site-level web-based performance feedback intervention to improve the quality of endoscopic bladder cancer surgery. The study is funded and projects to complete data collection in June 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.org NCT05154084; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05154084. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/42254