ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2024
A novel approach to peer support for academic researchers.
Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcademic researchers experience high levels of stress, isolation and loneliness, which compromise their well-being. There is a particular need to address these issues amongst early career and postgraduate research staff. 'Spaces for Listening' is an initiative to increase active listening and provide peer support.
aimsTo assess the feasibility, acceptability and potential impacts of Spaces for Listening in an academic setting.
methodsEarly career and postgraduate researchers from a large university in the UK were invited to attend 'Academic Spaces for Listening' (ASfL). Five ASfL sessions (including in-person and Chinese language) were held. A mixed-methods study using online survey and in-depth interviews was conducted. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data were analysed using principles of thematic analysis. The qualitative and quantitative findings were integrated at the interpretation phase.
resultsA total of 25 participants attended an ASfL session, 22 of them completed the survey and 6 participants participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants were very satisfied with the session content (68%, n = 15), organization (68%, n = 15) and delivery (68%, n = 15). Four themes were identified from qualitative analysis: (i) the 'Academic Spaces for Listening' (ASfL) experience; (2) impact of ASfL; (3) potential challenges of ASfL and (4) ASfL in the future. Interpersonal connectedness was an important outcome for participants during the session. Participants showed interest in the future of ASfL.
conclusionsImplementing Spaces for Listening in an academic setting is feasible and was well received by participants. The initiative may fill a gap in the social interactions amongst academic researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.