scholarly journals How well do doctors understand a scientific article in English when it is not their first language? A randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e043444
Author(s):  
Martine Rostadmo ◽  
Siri Lunde Strømme ◽  
Magne Nylenna ◽  
Pal Gulbrandsen ◽  
Erlend Hem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
First Language ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Potential Range ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Primary Care Medicine

IntroductionEnglish is the lingua franca of science. How well doctors understand English is therefore crucial for their understanding of scientific articles. However, only 5% of the world’s population have English as their first language.MethodsObjectives: To compare doctors’ comprehension of a scientific article when read in their first language (Norwegian) versus their second language (English). Our hypothesis was that doctors reading the article in Norwegian would comprehend the content better than those reading it in English.Design: Parallel group randomised controlled trial. We randomised doctors to read the same clinical review article in either Norwegian or English, before completing a questionnaire about the content of the article.Setting: Conference in primary care medicine in Norway, 2018.Participants: 130 native Norwegian-speaking doctors, 71 women and 59 men. One participant withdrew before responding to the questionnaire and was excluded from the analyses.Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to read a review article in either Norwegian (n=64) or English (n=66). Reading time was limited to 7 min followed by 7 min to answer a questionnaire.Main outcome measures: Total score on questions related to the article content (potential range −9 to 20).ResultsDoctors who read the article in Norwegian had a mean total score of 10.40 (SD 3.96) compared with 9.08 (SD 3.47) among doctors who read the article in English, giving a mean difference of 1.32 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.62; p=0.046). Age was independently associated with total score, with decreased comprehension with increasing age.ConclusionThe difference in comprehension between the group who read in Norwegian and the group who read in English was statistically significant but modest, suggesting that the language gap in academia is possible to overcome.

scholarly journals Pilot Randomised Evaluation of Singing in Dementia (PRESIDE): protocol for a two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled feasibility study with waiting-list control

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Becky Dowson ◽  
Justine Schneider ◽  
Boliang Guo ◽  
Philip M. Bath ◽  
Orii McDermott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Waiting List ◽  
Community Group ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Person With Dementia

Abstract Background As the number of people living with dementia grows, so does the need to provide them with adequate psychosocial support. Many people with dementia live at home with family carers, who also require social and emotional support to cope with their role. Community group singing has received attention for its potential to support people with dementia and their carers. It is postulated that singing can improve cognitive function, strengthen the bonds between care partners and help to establish social support networks. However, there is a lack of rigorous evidence of singing’s benefits for this population. This study aims to test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of community singing in dementia, to pave the way for a larger, conclusive study. Methods The PRESIDE study is designed as a two-arm, parallel-group randomised trial with a waiting list control. Dyads consisting of a person with dementia (n = 80) and their carer (n = 80) will be recruited. Each dyad will be randomised either to attend 10 weeks of community group singing sessions straight away or to wait for 3 months before attending the sessions. The singing sessions will be led by experienced professional musicians and will last about 90 min, including time for socialising. The primary outcome of this study is the attainment of feasibility criteria around recruitment, retention and the acceptability of the waiting list control. Secondary outcomes include the quality of life, mood, cognition, and musical engagement of the person with dementia, and quality of life, mood, and experiences/challenges of the carer. These data will be collected during home visits at baseline, and 3 and 6 months post-baseline. Discussion Despite growing public interest in the positive effects of singing, and encouraging findings from qualitative and non-randomised quantitative studies, there is a lack of rigorous evidence. This is the first randomised controlled trial of community group singing for people with dementia in Europe, to our knowledge. If the results favour a full trial, conclusively demonstrating the effectiveness of group singing could positively affect the opportunities available to community-dwelling people with dementia and their carers. Trial registration Unique identification number in ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN10201482. Date registered: 12 May 2020

scholarly journals Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial

BMJ ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 328 (7441) ◽  
pp. 673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Nick Black ◽  
Stephen Evans ◽  
James Carpenter ◽  
Fiona Godlee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Group Score ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Quality Instrument

AbstractObjective To determine the effects of training on the quality of peer review.Design Single blind randomised controlled trial with two intervention groups receiving different types of training plus a control group.Setting and participants Reviewers at a general medical journal.Interventions Attendance at a training workshop or reception of a self taught training package focusing on what editors want from reviewers and how to critically appraise randomised controlled trials.Main outcome measures Quality of reviews of three manuscripts sent to reviewers at four to six monthly intervals, evaluated using the validated review quality instrument; number of deliberate major errors identified; time taken to review the manuscripts; proportion recommending rejection of the manuscripts.Results Reviewers in the self taught group scored higher in review quality after training than did the control group (score 2.85 v 2.56; difference 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.44; P = 0.001), but the difference was not of editorial significance and was not maintained in the long term. Both intervention groups identified significantly more major errors after training than did the control group (3.14 and 2.96 v 2.13; P < 0.001), and this remained significant after the reviewers' performance at baseline assessment was taken into account. The evidence for benefit of training was no longer apparent on further testing six months after the interventions. Training had no impact on the time taken to review the papers but was associated with an increased likelihood of recommending rejection (92% and 84% v 76%; P = 0.002).Conclusions Short training packages have only a slight impact on the quality of peer review. The value of longer interventions needs to be assessed.

scholarly journals School-based intervention study examining approaches for well-being and mental health literacy of pupils in Year 9 in England: study protocol for a multischool, parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial (AWARE)

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e029044 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Hayes ◽  
Anna Moore ◽  
Emily Stapley ◽  
Neil Humphrey ◽  
Rosie Mansfield ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Implementation Evaluation ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThe prevalence of emotional difficulties in young people is increasing. This upward trend is largely accounted for by escalating symptoms of anxiety and depression. As part of a public health response, there is increasing emphasis on universal prevention programmes delivered in school settings. This protocol describes a three-arm, parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial, investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two interventions, alongside a process and implementation evaluation, to improve mental health and well-being of Year 9 pupils in English secondary schools.MethodA three-arm, parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial comparing two different interventions, the Youth Aware of Mental Health (YAM) or the Mental Health and High School Curriculum Guide (The Guide), to Usual Provision. Overall, 144 secondary schools in England will be recruited, involving 8600 Year 9 pupils. The primary outcome for YAM is depressive symptoms, and for The Guide it is intended help-seeking. These will be measured at baseline, 3–6 months and 9–12 months after the intervention commenced. Secondary outcomes measured concurrently include changes to: positive well-being, behavioural difficulties, support from school staff, stigma-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviours, and mental health first aid. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions, and a process and implementation evaluation (including a qualitative research component) will explore several aspects of implementation (fidelity, quality, dosage, reach, participant responsiveness, adaptations), social validity (acceptability, feasibility, utility), and their moderating effects on the outcomes of interest, and perceived impact.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by the University College London Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be published in a report to the Department for Education, in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN17631228.ProtocolV1 3 January 2019. Substantial changes to the protocol will be communicated to the trials manager to relevant parties (eg, ISRCTN).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document