Ivlev Ilya, Vander Ley Kelly J, Wiedrick Jack, Lesley Kira, Forester Amy, Webb Rebekah, Broitman Marina, Eden Karen B
Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon, USA.
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 20;9(9):e028732. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028732.
The peer review of completed Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded research includes reviews from patient reviewers (patients, caregivers, and patient advocates). Very little is known about how best to support these reviewers in writing helpful comments from a patient-centred perspective. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a new training in peer review for patient reviewers.
Observational study.
Online.
Adults registered in the PCORI Reviewer Database as a patient stakeholder.
A new online training in peer review.
Changes in reviewers' knowledge and skills; change in self-efficacy and attitudes, satisfaction with the training and perceived benefits and relevance of the training.
Before-after training survey data were analysed for 37 (29.4% of 126) patient reviewers invited to participate in an online training as part of a quality improvement effort or as part of a PCORI peer review. The reviewers improved their answers to the knowledge questions (p<0.001, median number of answers improved 4 (95% CI 3 to 5), large effect size (ES) Cohen's =0.94) after the training, particularly in the questions targeting the specifics of PCORI peer review. Reviewers improved their skills in recognising helpful review comments, but those without peer-review background improved proportionally more (p=0.008, median number of answers improved 2 (95% CI 1 to 3), medium ES =0.60). The use of training modestly increased reviewers' confidence in completing a high-quality peer review (p=0.005, mean increase in 5-point Likert rating 0.51 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.86), small-to-medium ES Cliff's =0.32) and their excitement about providing a review slightly increased (p=0.019, mean increase in 5-point Likert rating 0.35 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.68), small ES =0.19). All reviewers were satisfied with the training and would recommend it to other reviewers.
Training improved knowledge, skills and self-efficacy and slightly increased enthusiasm for completing a PCORI peer review.
对已完成的患者为中心的结果研究所（PCORI）资助研究进行同行评审，其中包括患者评审员（患者、护理人员和患者权益倡导者）的评审。对于如何以患者为中心的视角，最好地支持这些评审员撰写有帮助的评论，我们知之甚少。本研究旨在评估一项针对患者评审员的同行评审新培训的效果。
观察性研究。
在线。
在PCORI评审员数据库中注册为患者利益相关者的成年人。
一项新的同行评审在线培训。
评审员知识和技能的变化；自我效能感和态度的变化、对培训的满意度以及对培训的感知益处和相关性。
对37名（126名中的29.4%）受邀参加在线培训的患者评审员进行了培训前后的调查数据分析，该培训是质量改进工作的一部分或PCORI同行评审的一部分。培训后，评审员对知识问题的回答有所改善（p<0.001，回答中位数提高了4个（95%置信区间3至5），效应量较大（ES），科恩氏=0.94），特别是在针对PCORI同行评审具体内容的问题上。评审员识别有帮助的评审意见的技能有所提高，但没有同行评审背景的评审员提高得更多（p=0.008，回答中位数提高了2个（95%置信区间1至3），中等ES =0.60）。培训的使用适度提高了评审员完成高质量同行评审的信心（p=0.005，5分制李克特量表评分平均提高0.51（95%置信区间0.17至0.86），小到中等ES 克里夫氏=0.32），他们提供评审的积极性也略有提高（p=0.019，5分制李克特量表评分平均提高0.35（95%置信区间0.03至0.68），小ES =0.19）。所有评审员对培训都很满意，并会向其他评审员推荐。
培训提高了知识、技能和自我效能感，并略微提高了完成PCORI同行评审的积极性。
