Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Medical residents are among the most vulnerable healthcare workers making their job satisfaction a critical factor influencing mental health, quality of care, and retention. This study examines how resilience and perfectionism are associated with job satisfaction among Croatian medical residents, with particular attention to perfectionism’s mediating role in these relationships. Methods In a cross-sectional study, 148 residents (79.1% female; median age 30 years, IQR 29–32) completed an online survey between April and May 2024. Snowball sampling was conducted via closed social media groups for residents. Instruments included validated Croatian versions of the Brief Resilience Scale, the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, and the Index of Job Satisfaction. Results Participants were most frequently in their third year of training (Md = 3, IQR = 2–4); the most common specialty was anesthesiology ( n  = 17). Concern about mistakes, a maladaptive dimension of perfectionism, was negatively correlated with resilience ( r  = -0.476, p  < 0.001) and job satisfaction ( r  = -0.375, p  < 0.001). Regression analysis identified concern about mistakes as the sole predictor of job satisfaction (adjusted R 2  = 0.112). Mediation analysis showed that concern about mistakes partially mediated the relationship between resilience and job satisfaction. Other perfectionism dimensions were not significant predictors. Conclusions This study found that concern about mistakes, a maladaptive form of perfectionism, mediated the relationship between resilience and job satisfaction among Croatian medical residents. Other perfectionism dimensions were not significant predictors. These findings highlight maladaptive perfectionism as a key factor influencing resident resilience and job satisfaction.

Funding agencies rely on panel or consensus meetings to summarise individual evaluations of grant proposals into a final ranking. However, previous research has shown inconsistency in decisions and inefficiency of consensus meetings. Using data from the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, we aimed at investigating the differences between an algorithmic approach to summarise the information from grant proposal individual evaluations to decisions after consensus meetings, and we present an exploratory comparative analysis. The algorithmic approach employed was a Bayesian hierarchical model resulting in a Bayesian ranking of the proposals using the individual evaluation reports cast prior to the consensus meeting. Parameters from the Bayesian hierarchical model and the subsequent ranking were compared to the scores, ranking and decisions established in the consensus meeting reports. The results from the evaluation of 1,006 proposals submitted to three panels (Life Science, Mathematics, Social Sciences and Humanities) in two call years (2015 and 2019) were investigated in detail. Overall, we found large discrepancies between the consensus reports and the scores a Bayesian hierarchical model would have predicted. The discrepancies were less pronounced when the scores were aggregated into funding rankings or decisions. The best agreement between the final funding ranking can be observed in the case of funding schemes with very low success rates. While we set out to understand if algorithmic approaches, with the aim of summarising individual evaluation scores, could replace consensus meetings, we concluded that currently individual scores assigned prior to the consensus meetings are not useful to predict the final funding outcomes of the proposals. Following our results, we would suggest to use individual evaluations for a triage and subsequently not discuss the weakest proposals in panel or consensus meetings. This would allow a more nuanced evaluation of a smaller set of proposals and help minimise the uncertainty and biases when allocating funding.

This cross-sectional study compared plain language summaries (PLSs) from medical and non-medical organizations regarding conclusiveness, readability and textual characteristics. All Cochrane (medical PLSs, n = 8638) and Campbell Collaboration and International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (non-medical PLSs, n = 163) PLSs of latest versions of systematic reviews published until 10 November 2022 were analysed. PLSs were classified into three conclusiveness categories (conclusive, inconclusive and unclear) using a machine learning tool for medical PLSs and by two experts for non-medical PLSs. A higher proportion of non-medical PLSs were conclusive (17.79% vs 8.40%, P < 0.0001), they had higher readability (median number of years of education needed to read the text with ease 15.23 (interquartile range (IQR) 14.35 to 15.96) vs 15.51 (IQR 14.31 to 16.77), P = 0.010), used more words (median 603 (IQR 539.50 to 658.50) vs 345 (IQR 202 to 476), P < 0.001). Language analysis showed that medical PLSs scored higher for disgust and fear, and non-medical PLSs scored higher for positive emotions. The reason for the observed differences between medical and non-medical fields may be attributed to the differences in publication methodologies or disciplinary differences. This approach to analysing PLSs is crucial for enhancing the overall quality of PLSs and knowledge translation to the general public.

Although there is research interest to assess attitudes on psychedelics, no validated instrument exists for this purpose. We aimed to develop and examine the psychometric properties of the Attitudes on Psychedelics Questionnaire (APQ) in a sample of the Croatian general population. A cross-sectional, web-based survey among the general population was conducted on 1153 participants (62.1% female, 77.7% with a graduate or high school degree, 15.1% health care workers). We assessed participants’ ability to recognize psychedelic substances using a short knowledge test. The APQ consists of 20 items with four sub-scales: Legal Use of Psychedelics , Effects of Psychedelics , Risk Assessment of Psychedelics , and Openness to Psychedelics . This model demonstrated best fit in a confirmatory factor analysis. Total scale reliability was excellent (McDonald’s ω = 0.949, 95% CI = 0.944–0.953). A strong correlation with a similar unvalidated measure (r = 0.885, P < 0.001) demonstrated convergent validity. We observed an association between attitudes and knowledge on psychedelics (r = 0.494, P < 0.001). Younger age, male gender, and lower educational status were associated with higher APQ scores. The APQ is valid, reliable, and could be applied in assessing educational interventions, patients’ treatment outcomes, and the attitudes of different groups of experts. We encourage further validation of the APQ in English.

Most funding agencies rely on peer review to evaluate grant applications and proposals, but research into the use of this process by funding agencies has been limited. Here we explore if two changes to the organization of peer review for proposals submitted to various funding actions by the European Union has an influence on the outcome of the peer review process. Based on an analysis of more than 75,000 applications to three actions of the Marie Curie programme over a period of 12 years, we find that the changes – a reduction in the number of evaluation criteria used by reviewers and a move from in-person to virtual meetings – had little impact on the outcome of the peer review process. Our results indicate that other factors, such as the type of grant or area of research, have a larger impact on the outcome.

Peer review is often criticized for being flawed, subjective and biased, but research into peer review has been hindered by a lack of access to peer review reports. Here we report the results of a study in which text-analysis software was used to determine the linguistic characteristics of 472,449 peer review reports. A range of characteristics (including analytical tone, authenticity, clout, three measures of sentiment, and morality) were studied as a function of reviewer recommendation, area of research, type of peer review and reviewer gender. We found that reviewer recommendation had the biggest impact on the linguistic characteristics of reports, and that area of research, type of peer review and reviewer gender had little or no impact. The lack of influence of research area, type of review or reviewer gender on the linguistic characteristics is a sign of the robustness of peer review.

To evaluate the impact of research design on the perceived medical treatment effectiveness among researchers, healthcare workers (HCWs) and consumers in Croatia. A cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2021 to February 2022 using an online survey. The participants were researchers, HCWs and consumers from Croatia. The survey had six scenarios about the same medical treatment presented within different study designs and in random order. Participants were asked to assess on a scale from 1 to 10 if the descriptions presented a sufficient level of evidence to conclude that the treatment was effective. For researchers (  = 97), as the number of participants and degree of variable control in the study design increased, the perceived level of sufficient evidence also increased significantly. Among consumers (  = 286) and HCWs (  = 201), no significant differences in scores were observed between the cross-sectional study, cohort study, RCT, and systematic review. There is a need to implement educational courses on basic research methodology in lower levels of education and as part of Continuing Medical Education for all stakeholders in the healthcare system. Trial registration: this study has been registered on the Open Science Framework prior to study commencement (https://osf.io/t7xmf).

The publication of patient photographs in scientific journals continues to pose challenges regarding privacy and confidentiality, despite existing ethical guidelines. Recent studies indicate that key stakeholders-including health care professionals and patients-lack sufficient awareness of the ethical considerations surrounding patient photographs, particularly in the context of digital scientific publishing. This qualitative study aims to explore how different stakeholders-patients, medical students, and doctors-understand the challenges of patient privacy and confidentiality in scientific publications. Additionally, it sought to identify key areas for future research, particularly in the context of online, open-access articles. We conducted 4 online focus groups due to COVID-19 restrictions: 1 with patients, 2 with final-year medical students, and 1 with head and neck physicians and dentists who regularly handle patient photographs. Participants were invited via email, and those who accepted took part in discussions lasting approximately 1 hour. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. All 4 focus groups were asked the same set of questions, covering the following topics: (1) consent for publishing patient photographs, (2) information on guidelines and standards for consent to publish patient photographs, (3) the importance of informed consent for various purposes, (4) methods for deidentifying patient photographs, and (5) the use of patient photographs in online, open-access publishing. Three key themes emerged from the focus group discussions: (1) no definitive resources or practical recommendations available, (2) online publishing of patient images makes them more open to misuse, and (3) anonymization techniques have limitations. All stakeholder groups expressed a lack of knowledge about online publishing in general and concerns about the fate of patient photographs in the digital environment after publication. They emphasized the need for increased awareness among all relevant stakeholders and more stringent procedures for obtaining informed patient consent before publishing photographs. While they recognized the usefulness of image anonymization techniques in protecting patient identity, they were also aware that current methods remain insufficient to ensure complete anonymity. This qualitative study highlights that publishing patient photographs in open-access scientific journals is an important, serious, and largely unexplored issue, with all stakeholders still uncertain about the best ways to protect patient privacy. Clinicians, publishers, and journal editors should not only implement best practices to ensure fully informed patient consent for publishing identifiable photographs but also develop technical and governance safeguards. Future quantitative studies are needed to identify the most effective ways to enhance stakeholders' knowledge, policies, and procedures, ultimately guiding the development of practical recommendations for the ethical publication of patient photographs in scientific journals.

Background Medical schools should also evaluate applicants’ non-academic characteristics in the search for successful students and future physicians, but ideal non-academic criteria have not yet been found. We followed two successive generations of medical students at the University of Split School of Medicine (USSM) to assess both academic and non-academic constructs as predictors of academic performance, defined as medical school grade point average (GPA). We also interviewed some of the participants to gain additional insight for future studies. Methods We measured study GPA in first and last year, as well as attitudes towards science, motivation, emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and perceived personal incompetence in first year. We also obtained their scores on existing medical school enrollment criteria, the State Graduation Exam (SGE) and high-school GPA. Regression models were constructed for predictors of GPA in the last year of medical school. Four structured pilot interviews were conducted to explore participants’ perceptions of necessary traits for medical school and later practice. Results Regression analysis showed that only SGE predicted final academic performance in medical school (β=0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.06-0.64), while none of the non-academic constructs we assessed predicted this outcome of education. The two generations did not significantly differ in any variable except that intrinsic motivation was higher in the generation that enrolled in 2011 (OR=1.47, 95%CI=1.12-1.93, P =0.005). Discussion None of the non-academic constructs predicted academic performance in medical school. Their use as selection criteria may not be warranted as they could impact the academic quality of enrolling medical students.

Background Cochrane plain language summaries (PLSs) are an important format to present high‐quality healthcare evidence to patients with cancer and their families. They should be written in a way everyone can understand, since they serve as a tool in decision‐making and present a bridge to overcome the gap between the healthcare users and professionals. Objective The aim of the study was to assess the language characteristics of PLSs of Cochrane systematic reviews of oncology interventions in comparison with corresponding Cochrane scientific s (SAs). Methods In this cross‐sectional study, we included all Cochrane PLSs and SAs of systematic reviews of oncology interventions available in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We assessed text readability, measured using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index, and the prevalence of words related to different language tones (clout, authenticity, emotions and analytical tones). Two independent assessors categorized the conclusiveness of the efficacy of interventions into nine categories. Results The overall median SMOG index for 275 PLSs was 13.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.8–13.3). Readability scores did not differ across Cochrane Review Groups. SAs had a higher readability index than the corresponding PLSs (median = 16.6, 95% CI = 16.4–16.8). Regarding linguistic characteristics, PLSs were shorter than SAs, with less use of analytical tone, but more use of a positive emotional tone and authenticity. Overall, the ‘Unclear’ category of conclusiveness was the most common among all PLSs. Also, PLSs with ‘No evidence’ conclusions were the shortest and had the lowest SMOG index. Conclusion PLSs of Cochrane systematic reviews of oncological interventions have low readability and most give unclear conclusions about the efficacy of interventions. PLSs should be simplified so that patients and their families can benefit from appropriate health information on evidence synthesis. Further research is needed into reasons for unclear language to describe evidence from oncology trials. Plain language summaries (PLSs) of Cochrane systematic reviews of oncological interventions have low readability and most give unclear conclusions about the efficacyof interventions. PLSs should be simplified so that patients and their families can benefit from appropriate health information on evidence synthesis.