Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts

NCT03432143 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: IRB17-00374
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 568
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Manuscripts submitted to medical journals are typically reviewed by physicians or researchers, with no input from patients or other community members. However, involvement of community members in other phases of the research process suggests that they provide distinct and useful expertise. Such involvement may lead to enhanced understanding of community priorities, refinement of study designs to minimize participant burden, and increased recruitment and retention of subjects. The investigators propose a randomized controlled trial involving 24 community members who will receive training and mentoring in reviewing manuscripts. A total of 568 manuscripts submitted to 2 medical journals will be randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Intervention manuscripts will be reviewed by both a community member and by scientific reviewers while control manuscripts will be reviewed only by scientific reviewers. Journal editorial teams will use all reviews to help them make decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts.

Conditions

Peer Review, Research

Keywords

Peer Review; Community-Based Research; Community Perspectives

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• To compare community member reviews with those of scientific reviewers.

  The investigators will examine community and scientific reviewer ratings of intervention group manuscripts, including overall recommendations and ratings of specific aspects of the manuscripts. The overall recommendation categories will be converted into a 4 point Likert scale and combine data across journals.

  5 years

Secondary Outcomes (1)

• To determine the usefulness of community member reviews to editors.

  5 years

Other Outcomes (1)

• To explore how community reviews are integrated into published articles.

  5 years

Study Arms (2)

Community Reviewers

EXPERIMENTAL

24 community members will receive training and mentoring in reviewing manuscripts. Approximately 284 manuscripts will be randomized into the intervention group over the duration of the study. Manuscripts will be reviewed by both a community member and scientific reviewers.

Other: Community Reviewers

Scientific Reviewers Only

NO INTERVENTION

Approximately 284 manuscripts will be randomized into the control group over the duration of the study. Manuscripts will be reviewed by multiple scientific reviewers. Community reviewers will not be involved in reviewing these manuscripts.

Interventions

Community Reviewers OTHER

Intervention manuscripts will be reviewed by both a trained community member and scientific reviewers. Community reviewers will follow each journal's instructions regarding electronic access to manuscripts, use of drop-down menus and free-text boxes to address specific aspects of the review, and completion within the time frame specified by the journal.The journal editorial team will use all reviews to make decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts.

Community Reviewers

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• years or older
• At least a high school diploma
• Proficient in English speaking, reading, and writing
• Computer access
• Personal experience (having the condition or being a caregiver to someone with the condition) with 1 or more of these conditions: Cancer, diabetes, dementia, heart disease, hypertension, liver disease, lung disease, kidney disease, and stroke

You may not qualify if:

• Children under 18 years of age
• Non-high school graduates
• Individuals who work in health care settings
• Individuals who have formal training in health care or scientific research
• Manuscript Eligibility:
• Full length
• Original research

Sponsors & Collaborators

• MetroHealth Medical Center: lead

Study Sites (1)

MetroHealth Medical Center

Cleveland, Ohio, 44109, United States

Location

Related Publications (16)

• Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173-202. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173.

  PMID: 9611617 BACKGROUND

• Minkler M. Community-based research partnerships: challenges and opportunities. J Urban Health. 2005 Jun;82(2 Suppl 2):ii3-12. doi: 10.1093/jurban/jti034. Epub 2005 May 11.

  PMID: 15888635 BACKGROUND

• Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JE, Teerling J, Bunders JF. Patients' priorities concerning health research: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Health Expect. 2005 Sep;8(3):253-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00337.x.

  PMID: 16098155 BACKGROUND

• Hewlett S, Wit Md, Richards P, Quest E, Hughes R, Heiberg T, Kirwan J. Patients and professionals as research partners: challenges, practicalities, and benefits. Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Aug 15;55(4):676-80. doi: 10.1002/art.22091. No abstract available.

  PMID: 16874772 BACKGROUND

• Resnik DB, Kennedy CE. Balancing scientific and community interests in community-based participatory research. Account Res. 2010 Jul;17(4):198-210. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2010.493095.

  PMID: 20597018 BACKGROUND

• Wallerstein NB, Duran B. Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promot Pract. 2006 Jul;7(3):312-23. doi: 10.1177/1524839906289376. Epub 2006 Jun 7.

  PMID: 16760238 BACKGROUND

• Fleurence RL, Forsythe LP, Lauer M, Rotter J, Ioannidis JP, Beal A, Frank L, Selby JV. Engaging patients and stakeholders in research proposal review: the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Jul 15;161(2):122-30. doi: 10.7326/M13-2412.

  PMID: 25023251 BACKGROUND

• Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, Brito JP, Boehmer K, Hasan R, Firwana B, Erwin P, Eton D, Sloan J, Montori V, Asi N, Dabrh AM, Murad MH. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Feb 26;14:89. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.

  PMID: 24568690 BACKGROUND

• Forsythe LP, Frank L, Walker KO, Anise A, Wegener N, Weisman H, Hunt G, Beal A. Patient and clinician views on comparative effectiveness research and engagement in research. J Comp Eff Res. 2015 Jan;4(1):11-25. doi: 10.2217/cer.14.52.

  PMID: 25565066 BACKGROUND

• Reich SM, Reich JA. Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: a method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. Am J Community Psychol. 2006 Sep;38(1-2):51-62. doi: 10.1007/s10464-006-9064-1.

  PMID: 16807789 BACKGROUND

• Supple D, Roberts A, Hudson V, Masefield S, Fitch N, Rahmen M, Flood B, de Boer W, Powell P, Wagers S; U-BIOPRED PIP group. From tokenism to meaningful engagement: best practices in patient involvement in an EU project. Res Involv Engagem. 2015 Jun 25;1:5. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0004-9. eCollection 2015.

  PMID: 29062494 BACKGROUND

• Barber R, Boote JD, Parry GD, Cooper CL, Yeeles P, Cook S. Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study. Health Expect. 2012 Sep;15(3):229-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00660.x. Epub 2011 Feb 17.

  PMID: 21324054 BACKGROUND

• Staley K. 'Is it worth doing?' Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2015 Jul 31;1:6. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0008-5. eCollection 2015.

  PMID: 29062495 BACKGROUND

• Wright D, Foster C, Amir Z, Elliott J, Wilson R. Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Health Expect. 2010 Dec;13(4):359-68. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00607.x.

  PMID: 20629767 BACKGROUND

• Frank L, Forsythe L, Ellis L, Schrandt S, Sheridan S, Gerson J, Konopka K, Daugherty S. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Qual Life Res. 2015 May;24(5):1033-41. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0893-3. Epub 2015 Jan 6.

  PMID: 25560774 BACKGROUND

• Huml AM, Albert JM, Beltran JM, Berg KA, Collins CC, Hood EN, Nelson LC, Perzynski AT, Stange KC, Sehgal AR. Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts: a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2023 May;38(6):1393-1401. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07802-z. Epub 2022 Sep 26.

  PMID: 36163530 DERIVED

Study Officials

• Ashwini Sehgal

  Case Western Reserve University

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Investigator

Model Details: 24 community members will receive training and mentoring in reviewing manuscripts. The trial will involve 568 manuscripts that will be randomly assigned to two groups using a random number generator.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: February 7, 2018
• First Posted: February 14, 2018
• Study Start: June 13, 2018
• Primary Completion: November 30, 2021
• Study Completion: November 30, 2021
• Last Updated: September 29, 2022

Record last verified: 2022-09

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

US (1)