Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33148757›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Psychiatry peer review groups in Australia: a mixed-methods exploration of structure and function.

Jeanette Lancaster, Shirley Prager, Louise Nash, Aspasia Karageorge

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Australian healthcare workers experiences of peer support during COVID-19: Hand-n-Hand peer support.Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Jeanette LancasterConsultant Psychiatrist, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Shirley PragerConsultant Psychiatrist, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Louise NashBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Aspasia KarageorgeBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aspasia.karageorge@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-7898-042X
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine Australian psychiatrists' experience of participation in a small group learning format of continuing professional development, known as peer review groups (PRGs), with a particular emphasis on group structure and functions.

methodAn exploratory mixed-methods study comprising a survey (n=77) and semistructured interviews (n=6) with Australian psychiatrists participating in a PRG in the previous 12 months.

resultsQualitative findings indicate that PRGs address experiential learning through a focus on both breadth and specificity of work, as well as participants' experiences. Participants described using PRGs as a forum to manage difficult and complex work (through critiquing work, learning from one another, considering theory and guidelines, benchmarking, validating, reflecting and generalising learning) and to manage stress and well-being associated with crises, everyday stress and professional isolation. Particular structural aspects of PRGs considered essential to achieve these functions were self-selection of members, self-direction of meeting content and provision of a safe environment. These findings were convergent with the quantitative findings from scale survey data. Difficulties experienced during PRG participation are also described.

conclusionQualitative and quantitative findings from psychiatry PRGs demonstrate how practice-based professional experience functions as both a source of learning and of collegial connection that contributes to well-being and reduction in professional stress. Study limitations and future research directions are discussed.

Indexed as

PsychiatryAustraliaHumansPeer GroupPeer ReviewProblem-Based Learninghealth & safetymedical education & trainingpsychiatryqualitative researchquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID33148757
PMCPMC7640519
OpenAlexW3095053656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.