Pre-meetings to increase belonging and involvement among novice EBHC trainees

Authors: Sherli Koshy-Chenthittayil ^1,2, Megan DeArmond ^1,3, Patricia Strobehn ^1,4, Kelly Mecham ^1,4, Catie Chung ^1,4

1. 1. JBI Healthcare Research at Touro University Nevada, Touro University Nevada, Henderson, NV, USA
2. 2. Department of Research, Touro University Nevada, Henderson, NV, USA
3. 3. Jay Sexter Library, Touro University Nevada, Henderson, NV, USA
4. 4. School of Nursing, Touro University Nevada, Henderson, NV, USA

Introduction

Conducting quality systematic reviews using a rigorous and transparent approach is both time- and energy-intensive. Using the JBI methodology to perform systematic reviews, institutions around the world are working to get the best evidence to the patient’s bedside. Systematic reviews are a way of collaboratively collecting evidence for clinicians to implement research. A foundation for conducting such reviews can be built using JBI’s Comprehensive Systematic Review Training Program (CSRTP), which involves teaching how to go from protocol to review. CSRTP can be done over either 3 or 5 full days. Our collaboration with JBI began with two faculty members learning the JBI systematic review methodology through a CSRTP in 2018. Those two faculty members then became trainers for the program in 2019 and launched an affiliated group in January 2020. We are now part of the collective that forms the JBI Collaboration (JBIC). The 2025 campaign of ‘Collaborative Knowledge Communication’ is particularly relevant to us as our JBIC entity is committed to performing and communicating good systematic reviews.

At our institution, Touro University Nevada (TUN), we are constantly looking for experiences to expand the research capacity of both faculty staff and students. We have a Doctor of Osteopathic Medical school that enrols 180 students per year.  These students are especially keen to understand and conduct scholarly activities, which prepare them for competitive academic research training and residency positions upon graduation. 

After we became an affiliated group in 2020, the COVID-19 virus drove all of us into our homes to be connected via technology alone for the quarantine. JBI granted all the trainers the ability to teach CSRTP virtually, as there was no other delivery method available for trainers and potential participants in many countries.

Although our experience to that point had been teaching and learning JBI methodologies in person, we pivoted to a virtual platform to offer training in July 2020. Our trainers were excited to try the new format. At TUN, the CSRTP is usually conducted over 5 days. It can be rather overwhelming to assimilate. We were hopeful that people being at home in comfortable environments would reduce some of that burden. Offering the training virtually expanded our capacity to serve more participants. We had primarily trained health professions faculty to that point, but we decided to open the training to both faculty and students for the 2020 training. This decision was also to train student health professionals in the best practices to work with the faculty and use the best evidence available for research.

Conducting CSRTP virtually taught us some things. 

1. 1. Since the participants could only see one another on the tiny videoconference rectangles, it was more difficult to sense the ‘tone’ of the classroom. Without easily discernible visual cues, the trainers didn’t know which content to spend more time explaining.
2. 2. When we would breakout into small groups to help with activities and questions, we realised that participants were struggling with content and cognitive overload because we had novice researchers in the course.
3. 3. These realisations came about because of verbal feedback from the participants during the small breakout sessions as well as after class each day. 

Acting on this feedback, we knew we needed a better solution moving forward if we wanted to continue training healthcare professionals who were novice researchers, especially in a virtual environment. Via a survey, we noticed that the virtual training was preferred, so we decided to keep it virtual.  The virtual platform helped us to reach more participants. Our training group decided to use a two-part intervention for the 2021 CSRTP participants. Decisions to make the training virtual and to implement the intervention were made because of collaboration with former participants and the trainers.

The intervention

2021
First, we decided to form collaborative research teams including CSRTP registrants and previously trained faculty staff, who serve as project leaders, before the registrants began the training course. Second, our trainer team held ‘pre-meetings’ for registrants who were novice researchers prior to CSRTP. The ‘pre-meetings’ were a way of reducing ‘belongingness uncertainty’. We thought of it as a means of making the participants warm up to the comprehensive training to follow and help them understand what they would achieve from the training. Pre-meetings also help prevent disengaged participants and increase the benefits of the training.

Pre-meetings were held several weeks before JBI CSRTP. During this time, participants were encouraged to meet with their research teams and begin preliminary searches on topics of interest. The pre-meetings covered:

• A brief introduction to systematic reviews and the JBI organisation. We emphasised its difference from primary studies as well as the rigour and involvement in conducting evidence syntheses. Many of our teams were familiar with bench research or gathering data from survey research, which is why we felt this emphasis was important.
• Guidelines for conducting preliminary searches on chosen topics using library resources. We held a second pre-meeting since the participants wanted to workshop their question and preliminary searches.
• The importance of properly formatting research questions and selecting appropriate frameworks for questions related to different types of reviews.
• The commonly used types employed by TUN researchers.

2022–2024
Based on verbal and survey feedback, we decided to keep the pre-meetings through 2022–2024 to increase collaboration and knowledge communication between teams. The pre-meetings helped the participants as they heard the discussions and search demonstrations of other teams. The trainers also got a sense of where attendees were with understanding evidence synthesis methodology and the types of appropriate topics to explore. The attendees were given tasks to prepare them for the actual CSRT. The feedback about the tasks was positive. As can be seen, the intervention was revised over the years in a collaborative manner between the trainers and participants.

Outcomes

So as to fully understand the collaborations over the years, we made note of the following points, both verbally and by surveys. 

1. 1. Students started having a clearer idea of whether their research question was primary research or a review after the first pre-meeting.
2. 2. Some teams used the resources for pre-searching to see if their question had been answered.
3. 3. During the second pre-meeting, we noticed the groups were prepared to refine their proposed question or their pre-searching. During these sessions, the trainers were able to steer the teams to a more reasonable review question based on the pre-searching.
4. 4. The pre-sessions helped the team to be more active in the training. For example, students mentioned that it was easier to ask relevant questions as they felt they had established a rapport with the trainers.
5. 5. It also helped the trainers to guide the participants better towards a finished protocol/conference presentation.
6. 6. Our training team also noticed that CSRT participants who attended the pre-meetings were able to move further along with components of their protocol during the training.

Next steps

To follow our intent of collaboratively communicating knowledge, we decided to combine our pre-meetings along with additional post-training meetings. These monthly check-ins are to let the teams know that the trainers are there to help them move their evidence synthesis projects forward. The check-ins also help the trainers keep track of which manuscripts need their input/edits. 

References

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82. 

https://www.mural.co/blog/prework

To link to this article - DOI: https://doi.org/10.70253/KREP8856 

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this World EBHC Day Blog, as well as any errors or omissions, are the sole responsibility of the author and do not represent the views of the World EBHC Day Steering Committee, Official Partners or Sponsors; nor does it imply endorsement by the aforementioned parties.