Tag Archives: Research

Why Should I Be a Peer Reviewer?

Sarina Schrager, MD, MS
Editor-in -Chief, Family Medicine

Family Medicine, along with most other scientific journals, depends on volunteer peer reviewers to assure that we are publishing high quality papers. The act of peer reviewing advances the science of family medicine. Our editorial team is looking for a diversity of opinions and voices to assure the excellence of our published papers. I love peer reviewers and tell everyone I work with that they should volunteer to be one. Now, I am a little biased (being an editor of a journal that depends on peer reviewers), but I can’t overstate the important contributions of peer reviewers to the publication of our journal. So, if you already volunteer your time to do peer review, thank you. If you have not done any peer reviews, then let me tell you why you should.

First, being a peer reviewer will help you become a better writer and scholar. Reviewers may be inspired by positive attributes of papers while avoiding mistakes identified during the review. By reading what other people do, the way that they write and even how they do the research, you can decide what works and what you would do differently and then incorporate what you learn into your next paper. You can also learn about research methodology by reading about how others conducted studies. 

Peer reviewing can also help you learn about the publishing process and about science itself by reading what other reviewers and the associate editor says about a paper, and seeing what ends up getting published.  I always learn by reading reviewer comments and am excited when other reviewers had similar feedback to my own.

Second, being a peer reviewer can help your career.  It is an accomplishment that you can put on your CV and some journals will send a letter to your dean or chair recognizing you as a peer reviewer.   Also, if you do a good job with the review, you will be asked to review some more.  Potentially, you may be asked to be on the editorial board of the journal where you do peer reviews.   If you are interested in becoming an associate editor at a journal, the Editor in Chief will look at how many reviews you have done and whether they were high quality as a metric of your application. Being a peer reviewer can also build connections for future collaborations.   This is one way that you build your professional reputation.

Lastly, being a peer reviewer helps the discipline. By reading papers submitted to the journal, you will learn what is important in family medicine and what other scholars are studying in your area of interest.   You will be able to impact the quality of the papers that the journal publishes.  There is something very satisfying about seeing a paper in print that you reviewed because you helped make it as good as it is.

Doing a high-quality review does take time. The time needed to do a review will depend on the type of article (ie, an original research paper will take longer than a brief report or narrative because is it longer). Most people spend 1-3 hours on a review depending on the complexity of the article, your familiarity with the topic, and experience doing peer reviews. It is time well spent! Even one review a year greatly helps our journal.

We appreciate that people volunteer their time to do peer reviews and hope that we have helped convince you to sign up. Your voice is important. You bring unique skills and experience and can contribute to the excellence of our journal. You can sign up to be a reviewer at https://journals.stfm.org/familymedicine/reviewers/

Virtual Recruitment for Community-Engaged Qualitative Research During COVID-19

Marie Balfour, BA, Medical College of Wisconsin 
Karna Baraboo, BA, Medical College of Wisconsin

Elise Kahn, BS, Medical College of Wisconsin 
William Mead-Davies, BS, Medical College of Wisconsin

Annie Tuman, BA, Medical College of Wisconsin 
Benjamin Wrucke, BS, Medical College of Wisconsin (Equal Contribution)

Rebecca Bernstein, MD, MS Department of Family and Community Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin b

Corresponding Author:  Marie Balfour, BA 

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted health disparities across many communities in
the United States, and the call for community-engaged research has never been greater [1,2].
However, the minimization of in-person interaction has forced medical researchers to adjust their
methods of engagement significantly [3]. As a group of community-engaged medical student
researchers, we encountered several challenges and developed solutions as we adjusted to virtual
recruitment of research participants for qualitative research.

  
Challenge 1: BUILDING TRUST  

One barrier to virtual recruitment was establishing trust with research participants. Our
studies involved sensitive topics such as weight, aging, food insecurity, addiction and finances.
Originally, many of us planned to spend time in clinics, homeless shelters, and other community
sites to engage with potential participants and develop a sense of familiarity. Without this
opportunity, most participants did not see our faces until the virtual interview which may have
affected who was willing to participate. 


Solutions implemented: To compensate for the loss of in-person recruitment, many of us
utilized intermediaries such as physicians, mentors, caseworkers, school administrators, and
clinical administrators to communicate with potential participants. This strategy helped to
generate participant trust. In one project that recruited medical professionals, participant
invitations that did not include an intermediary led to a 40 percent participation rate, while
invitations including a faculty mentor or previous participant recommendation yielded
participation rates of 64 and 80 percent, respectively.  We noted that trust and familiarity gained
by introductions and recommendations from intermediaries led to an increased likelihood of
participation.  


Although effective, this strategy also presented challenges. Relying on intermediaries for
recruitment placed a greater burden on our community partners, who were asked to complete
additional tasks. This also may have slowed the research process because the schedule of the
intermediary dictated recruitment. Finally, trust was placed on the intermediary to recruit a
representative sample which may have introduced sampling bias.


Recommendations: 
● All community engagement projects should have a network of intermediaries who have
established trust with participants prior to beginning research. 
● Community engagement projects conducted during COVID-19 require enhanced
relationships with these networks in order to increase participation rates and create more
natural interactions. 

Challenge 2: LEVERAGING RECRUITMENT TECHNOLOGY  
At the outset of many of our projects, we used a common outreach method (such as
email) for all subjects. Due to virtual recruitment constraints and variable subject familiarity with
technology, many of us found that personalizing outreach methods led to more successful
participant engagement and recruitment.  

Solutions Implemented: Virtual recruitment proved to be increasingly population-
dependent and customized. Those in academic settings were more active on email and were
familiar with online meeting platforms. In contrast, working parents and senior groups were

more receptive to phone calls. The likelihood of phone pick-up was improved by masking
unfamiliar phone numbers and displaying familiar clinic numbers with a telephone number
masking application (e.g. Doximity Dialer). In one study, school administrators sent study
recruitment information through a specialized school-specific parent interface, allowing
recruitment materials to reach just over 1,800 families. Without utilizing these population-
specific avenues, recruitment and resource dissemination would have been significantly
impacted.  

Adding new strategies to improve virtual recruitment outcomes came with significant
challenges.  Submitting IRB amendments specifying recruitment protocol changes delayed
project benchmarks. Additionally, we recognize the choice of recruitment technology might
influence the study population. For example, benefits of online meeting platforms were most
apparent when the recruitment pool consisted of educated professionals frequently using these
platforms. Email-based recruitment methods also could have altered study outcomes, by limiting
participants to those with access to the Internet. 

 Recommendations:  
● Personalize outreach methods to a study population. 
● Administer communication preferences survey during recruitment in order to confirm
preferred communication method. 
● Begin recruitment using multiple methods in order to efficiently eliminate unsuccessful
methods. 
   

CONCLUSION  

Future research conducted remotely should be guided by themes of building trust and
leveraging recruitment technologies. While we focused on recruitment, it is important to
acknowledge the impact that COVID-19 will have on project outcomes. Given that our studies
included interviews, participants’ responses typically reflected their current situation, many of
which had been altered by COVID-19.  
   

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful for the support of Dr. Leslie Ruffalo and Dr. Bryan Johnston from the
Department of Family and Community Medicine at Medical College of Wisconsin. Research
reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute On Aging of the National
Institutes of Health under Award Number T35AG029793, the Department of Family and
Community Medicine at MCW, and the Wisconsin Medical Society. The content is solely the
responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of these
entities. 
 

REFERENCES 

  1. Tapp, Hazel. The Changing Face of Primary Care Research and Practice-Based Research
    Networks (PBRNs) in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Am Board Fam Med. 2020;33(5)645-
    649 
  2. Krouse, Helene J. COVID-19 and the Widening Gap in Health Inequity. Otolaryngol.
    Head Neck Surg. 2020;163(1)65-66 
  3. Ratneswaren, Anenta. The importance of community and patient involvement in COVID-
    19 research. Clin Med (Lond). 2020;20(4)120-122

Feed a Discipline (With Research Questions): Become Shark Bait

Winston R Liaw, MD, MPH

Winston R Liaw, MD, MPH

Research is to see what everybody else has seen and to think what nobody else has thought.

  • Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

Each year, my colleague, Alex Krist, and I sit down with our Virginia Commonwealth University family medicine residents to brainstorm potential research topics for their scholarly activities, and each year, we encounter a similar series of events. Initially, there is silence (frequently prolonged and often deafening) followed by musings about their lack of research experience. Then, a brave soul offers a question that has been plaguing her. A classmate asks a similar but related question. The conversation reminds a third resident about a different question he always wanted to answer. By the end of the hour, we have a list of fascinating, important questions.

  • Do calorie counters improve patient outcomes?
  • Why do our patients use the emergency room next door when our walk in clinic is open?
  • Has the new patient portal affected the volume and type of phone calls we receive?
  • Are patients at the community health center interested in doing video visits?

Your STFM Research Committee thought that family medicine residents and faculty nationwide may similarly have pressing questions to answer but lack the means to do so. Initially conceived by STFM Research Committee members Tammy Chang and Rob Post, we launched a session at the 2016 STFM Conference entitled: “Shark Tank for Family Medicine: Real-time Feedback for Primary Care Research Ideas”. During the workshop, seven participants pitched research ideas to three “sharks” (well-established primary care researchers). The sharks provided real-time feedback and then selected participants to mentor over the year. For those of you not tuned in to pop culture, our workshop is based on the TV show Shark Tank where contestants pitch business ideas to established entrepreneurs and winners receive funding and mentorship.

Continue reading