direction of travel.. · acceptable language the word obese was considered unacceptable with...

Direction of travel..

The message, the audience and the journal

Writing a manuscript and conference abstract

Finding & appraising literature

Co-authorsWriting a rebuttal letter or handling rejection

Tips and pitfalls

The message• What are the main findings

• Fit with current policy directions

• Media interest….

• How to get the message out to clinicians

The ‘originality’ question…

• Has the work already been published?

• How does your work fit with what we already know?

Search the literature!

The audienceAim to influence:

• Policy?

• Practice?

• Future research?

Timeliness of the content:

• Check ‘lag time’

Develop journal shortlist!

The journal• Aims and scope

• Methods

• Recent papers related to your study (?saturation)

• Main journal audience: national/international

• Length of papers and house style

• Styles of paper (experimental? Lit reviews? Opinion pieces? case studies? Heavily theoretical…?)

Starting to write …

• Follow the journal guidelines meticulously (e.g. presentation of stats)

• Read the journal: content, style, other papers in your area

• Write a plan: structure

• Follow format for similar papers in the journal

• Use sources of help

TITLE: maximizing discoverability

Title should contain the fewest possible words (<12) that adequately describe the content.

• Identify the main issue of the paper

• Begin with the subject of the paper

• Are accurate, specific, and complete

• Do not contain rarely-used abbreviations

Effective titles

Content• Participants• Design• Location: country/area and setting

content

• Introduction• Rationale, aims, key literature, rationale for the study,

scope of the paper

• Method• Sample/participants, data collection methods, data

analysis strategies, ethics issues/approvals

• Results (quant) or Findings (qual)• Answer the research questions/aims

• Discussion (generally longer than results)• Address key findings in context of literature

• Conclusions/Limitations/Recommendations (depending on house style)

Writing Qualitative papers (Belcher 2009)

Between 3000-7000 words

Vary in structure to accommodate data and findings

Acceptable to use the first person, judiciously

Outlining study context is essential

An element of reflexivity and disclosure

You are not seeking to generalise your data

Writing Quantitative papers

Tend to be between 2000-3000 words

Highly structured, detailed methods

Concise results; don’t repeat details in tables

and text

Funneling the background (Albarran J 2015, copyright)

Broad introduction of topic - sets the context

Nature and scale of the problem/relevance to the readership is

made explicitReview of published

studies and identification of gaps/knowledge

Studyaim

Methods

Use sub-headings relevant to the design:

settings, study population, intervention, outcomes, analysis,

and do not forget ethics approvals

Manuscript (qualitative studies)Findings:

Include participant characteristics:

van Staa et al. 2009

Overall, 3 women were primiparous and 8

were multiparous. All were in their third

trimester of pregnancy. Participants were

aged between 19 - 38 and were all white

British, with BMIs that ranged from 31.2 -

47.3 kg/m².

Manuscript: qualitative studies

Findings:

• Think about the narratives to include

• Usually two data excerpts max for each point

• Your account of the analysis supported by the data excerpts

• Don’t forget to add the participant for each data excerpt (P1)

• Provide the context if necessary (P1/FG2/UK)

• Indent or within the description?

Latour et al. 2011

Acceptable language

The word ‘obese’ was considered unacceptable with participants describing it as personal(Participant 7), degrading (Participant 2) and one stated “I don’t think that’s a nice word to use” (Participant 4). Only one woman (Participant 11) stated that obese was acceptable as it was a factual word.

The majority of women did not perceive themselves as obese. One (Participant 8) described obese people as “massive, massive people” and most explained that although it might factually describe them they did not feel that the word was appropriate to them.

“I see somebody that’s obese as somebody that doesn’t care about their weight, in a way… And when you, when I hear the word obese, I have seen obese people and I don’t look like obese people.” (Participant 2)

Your argument, supported by data

Manuscript: discussion

Discussion

Start with key findings in your study

Discuss and compare your results with other studies

Limitations, implications for clinical practice, conclusion

Review of published studies and confirm whether your data supports or

contradicts existing work

Identify implications and significance

Identify limitations honestly

Suggest future research/development

Conclusion- place research in the context

Specific: was study aim addressed?

Present results and relationships, emphasise key findings using relevant data

Framing the discussion (Albarran J 2015, copyright)










We reviewed the records of 1201 children in Phase 1 and 1090 children in Phase 2.

Our data generated three important findings: first, the care bundle intervention

improved pain assessment and management; second, the extent of improvements

varied significantly between EDs and MIUs, and, third, less than half of the children

who received analgesia had weight recorded, both before and after the care bundle

intervention.










We interviewed 55 nurses in Israel and England using focus group and individual

interviews and identified 11 sub-themes perceived to contribute to a good death and

good quality EoL care, grouped into 4 themes. Some of the sub-themes have been

described in previous studies, for example differences in clinician attitudes and

decision-making at EoL (Sprung et al 2007, 2008). However, data analysis yielded two

important findings: firstly, ……

Review of published studies and confirm whether your data supports or contradicts

existing work


Holistic Needs Assessment is promoted as a ‘process of gathering and discussing information with the patient’ (Snowden & White 2014, p5) and has the potential to trigger conversation between the patient and clinicians (Samarasinghe & Wiles 2012). Our findings indicate that HNA is assessed but does not form the basis of discussion with patients. This is similar to findings in the UK National Cancer Patient survey 2011-12, in which only 24% of patients reported that they were offered a written assessment and care plan (Department of Health 2012b). Reluctance to produce a care plan has also been attributed to lack of confidence (Wells et al 2015b).




Our study has some limitations. The Units recruited into the study were not

necessarily representative of their countries but were of varying size and patientcasemix. The interviews were all conducted in English; in Israel this generallywasn’t the participants native language and they occasionally drifted into Hebrew,which wasn’t the interviewer’s native language. However, this was anticipatedduring the planning stage and steps were put in place to mitigate. Interviewparticipants in Israel were from different cultural backgrounds whilst the UKparticipants were all caucasian; we do not know whether this may have influencedfindings, although table 2 illustrates similar findings across the participant groups.

http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/

If you’re not sure how to phrase, try this ….

http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/

Manuscript

Titles of Tables and Figures:

Remember

• Title of table always on top of table

• Title of figure always at the bottom of the figure

References:

Correct format according to the journal – dotn make errors!

Managing your co-authors

• Agreement from the outset

• Institutional requirements (as appropriate)

• Single author papers (from research) are rare

• Two heads are better than one…..

• Journal conventions re order of authors

• Collaboration adds to time: be firm about response dates

• Availability of corresponding author for reviews/proofs

• Use ‘Acknowledgements’ section for those who don’t meet authorship rules

SUBMIT - have ready ….

• All files in correct format e.g. separate or integrated?

• Your co-authors details: title, qualifications, phone number

• Some journals require a lot of detail ….

• Cover letter -> short only versus selling your manuscript

• Potential reviewer names – required by some journals:• Who has used similar methods• Who have you cited in your paper

After submission….

• Rejection is common esp for popular journals• Back to the journal shortlist

• Respond objectively to each point raised by reviewers

• Avoid being defensive

• ‘enjoy’ the critique

• Do not submit the same version (unchanged…) to another journal …

Why submit a conference abstract

Promote your work or innovation

Opportunity to speak to colleagues personally: good networking

Help justify funding to attend to conference

Can be used for other purposes at work

Key points

Choose the right meeting/conference

Best networking opportunities for you?

Is there a theme - does it fit your project/case?

Read the guidelines!

Remember:

Unlike journal abstracts, conference abstracts are presented alone to conference organisers.

You will not get a chance for a rewrite…….

Poor abstracts are very unlikely to be accepted.

Preparation

The title and themes of the conference

Check format: is the count in words or characters

Who will comprise the audience?

What is the format? Access sample of previous abstracts

Deadline and format of submission?

Who will write the abstract, order of authors

Get ready

When and where do I start writing?

ASAP, NOW, Today, after this session

At home, work, train, bus, plane…

Choose your own comfortable place

Don’t leave your mobile on

Turn off your email account

direction of travel.. · acceptable language the word obese was considered unacceptable with...

Documents