Cochrane systematic review as a PhD thesis: an alternative with numerous advantages

In this article we propose that the production of a systematic review within The Cochrane Collaboration should be considered a valid mode of achieving doctoral title in medicine and related professions, including biochemistry. While engaging in a Cochrane systematic review, an author first registers a title, then writes a peer-reviewed protocol consisting of introduction and methods, and finally publishes a full systematic review in The Cochrane Library, a monthly publication, which in 2009 reached an impact factor of 5.65. Conducting a Cochrane systematic review can give PhD candidates not only an opportunity to acquire a high level of content and methodological expertise, but also the capacity to learn and solve problems by using critical and analytical thinking. This capacity is considered one of the key generic and transferable skills necessary for future researchers. While working on a Cochrane systematic review, an author builds international research network. Cochrane Review Groups as editorial bases of The Cochrane Collaboration offer ongoing support and advice to the authors. Besides being clinically relevant and high-impact, Cochrane systematic reviews should be especially interesting to doctoral students from low- and middle-income countries because they are associated with relatively small financial burden. In conclusion, systematic reviews have a number of advantages and therefore institutions offering postgraduate training should consider adopting a "Cochrane PhD", and students should consider doing a Cohrane systematic review for their doctoral thesis

Between forwarding and mentoring: a qualitative study of recommending medical doctors for international postdoctoral research positions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Young scientists rarely have extensive international connections that could facilitate their mobility. They often rely on their doctoral supervisors and other senior academics, who use their networks to generate opportunities for young scientists to gain international experience and provide the initial trigger for an outward move.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To explore the process of informal recommending of young physicians from a small country for postdoctoral research positions in foreign countries, we conducted in-depth interviews with eight senior academics who acted as recommenders and eight physicians who, based on the recommendations of senior academics, spent at least a year working in a laboratory abroad. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed by using the framework approach.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The findings showed that recommending can take four distinct forms: 1) forwarding information, 2) passive recommending, 3) active recommending, and 4) mentor recommending. These forms differ in their level of commitment and mutual trust among actors, and possible control over the success of the process. Two groups of recommendees - 'naive' and 'experienced' - can be distinguished based on their previous scientific experience and research collaboration with the recommender. Crucial for the success of the process is an adequate preparation of recommendees' stay abroad, as well as their return and reintegration. The benefits of recommending extend beyond the individual participants to the scientific community and broader society of the sending country.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>With a sufficient level of commitment by the actors, informal recommending can be a part of or grow into an all-encompassing developmental relationship equal to mentoring. The importance of senior academics' informal contacts and recommendations in promoting junior scientists' mobility should be acknowledged and encouraged by the research institutions and universities, particularly in developing countries.</p

Zdravljem do mira: doprinos Hrvatske novoj akademskoj disciplini

“Zdravljem do mira” (engl. Peace through Health – PtH) razmjerno je nova akademska disciplina koja istražuje na koji način zdravstvene intervencije mogu pridonijeti izgradnji i očuvanju mira. Sveučilište McMaster u Hamiltonu (Kanada), jedno od glavnih središta PtH-a u proteklih desetak godina, i britanski biomedicinski časopis Lancet organizirali su od 5. do 8. svibnja 2005. međunarodni kongres “Zdravljem do mira: učenje iz akcije”. Na poziv organizatora, sudjelovao sam na kongresu kako bih s međunarodnim stručnjacima podijelio iskustva Croatian Medical Journala (CMJ) i naše spoznaje o ulozi medicinske i znanstvene zajednice u promicanju mira

National vs. international journals: views of medical professionals in Croatia

Scholarly journals, especially in non-English-speaking countries, may perform very different functions depending on whether they are published for national or international audiences. Four hundred and sixty-six academic physicians and non-academic general practitioners in Croatia were surveyed on their knowledge about two Croatian medical journals: Liječnički vjesnik (published in Croatian) and Croatian Medical Journal (published in English). The physicians were also surveyed about the importance of all national and international journals published in Croatia, and the types of articles they thought should be published in these journals. More respondents rated national (n = 329, 72.6%) than international journals (n = 275, 63.5%, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test) as very important for the medical profession. On the other hand, publishing in international journals was more often rated as important than publishing in national journals (n = 184, 42.5% vs. n = 125, 27.8%; P < 0.001, Wilcoxon test). Guidelines for clinical practice were rated as the most important publication item in national journals, and original scientific articles in international journals

Cochrane systematic review as a PhD thesis: an alternative with numerous advantages

In this article we propose that the production of a systematic review within The Cochrane Collaboration should be considered a valid mode of achieving doctoral title in medicine and related professions, including biochemistry. While engaging in a Cochrane systematic review, an author first registers a title, then writes a peer-reviewed protocol consisting of introduction and methods, and finally publishes a full systematic review in The Cochrane Library, a monthly publication, which in 2009 reached an impact factor of 5.65. Conducting a Cochrane systematic review can give PhD candidates not only an opportunity to acquire a high level of content and methodological expertise, but also the capacity to learn and solve problems by using critical and analytical thinking. This capacity is considered one of the key generic and transferable skills necessary for future researchers. While working on a Cochrane systematic review, an author builds international research network. Cochrane Review Groups as editorial bases of The Cochrane Collaboration offer ongoing support and advice to the authors. Besides being clinically relevant and high-impact, Cochrane systematic reviews should be especially interesting to doctoral students from low- and middle-income countries because they are associated with relatively small financial burden. In conclusion, systematic reviews have a number of advantages and therefore institutions offering postgraduate training should consider adopting a "Cochrane PhD", and students should consider doing a Cohrane systematic review for their doctoral thesis

Transition from Longitudinal to Block Structure of Preclinical Courses: Outcomes and Experiences

Aim To evaluate the transition from a longitudinal to block/modular structure of preclinical courses in a medical school adapting to the process of higher education harmonization in Europe. Methods Average grades and the exam pass rates were compared for 11 preclinical courses before and after the transition from the longitudinal (academic years 1999/2000 to 2001/2002) to block/modular curriculum (academic years 2002/2003 to 2004/2005) at Zagreb University School of Medicine, Croatia. Attitudes of teachers toward the 2 curriculum structures were assessed by a semantic differential scale, and the experiences during the transition were explored in focus groups of students and teachers. Results With the introduction of the block/modular curriculum, average grades mostly increased, except in 3 major courses: Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology. The proportion of students who passed the exams at first attempt decreased in most courses, but the proportion of students who successfully passed the exam by the end of the summer exam period increased. Teachers generally had more positive attitudes toward the longitudinal (median [C]±intequartile range [Q], 24 ± 16) than block/modular curriculum (C±Q, 38 ± 26) (P = 0.001, Wilcoxon signed rank test). The qualitative inquiry indicated that the dissatisfaction of students and teachers with the block/modular preclinical curriculum was caused by perceived hasty introduction of the reform under pressure and without much adaptation of the teaching program and materials, which reflected negatively on the learning processes and outcomes. Conclusion Any significant alteration in the temporal structure of preclinical courses should be paralleled by a change in the content and teaching methodology, and carefully planned and executed in order to achieve better academic outcomes