We have a new co-chair!!! Say hello to Catherine Golics!

Hello New Investigators,

 

Thank you for electing me as your new co-chair for the ISOQOL New Investigators SIG. I am very much looking forward to my role and to working with Marc to continue the great work of the SIG so far.

 

A little bit about my background; I am from the UK and a pharmacist by training. I completed my PhD in 2013 which involved exploring and measuring the impact of illness on family members of patients. For the last two years I have been working as an Outcomes Researcher for ICON PRO (formerly Oxford Outcomes), a consultancy company.

 

I have attended four ISOQOL conferences over the past five years and have enjoyed being an active member of the New Investigator SIG, attending the academic and social events organised by the SIG and making some strong professional connections and friendships. At my first ISOQOL conference I travelled on my own and did not know anyone, so found that meeting a group of individuals at similar career stages to myself made the experience of my first conference a lot less intimidating and a lot more fun! During my time as co-chair I’d like to see a focus on first-time conference attendees and look forward to sharing my ideas around this at the upcoming ISOQOL conference in Berlin. In addition, I would like to develop the online blog to make it more interactive and easier for SIG members to keep in touch throughout the year. I have already begun to discuss the exciting upcoming events planned for the SIG with Marc and Katerina (who I will replace as co-chair in October) and encourage you to get in touch with any additional ideas of your own.

 

I look forward to meeting those of you who I have not yet met at the annual conference in Berlin.

 

Best wishes

 

Catherine

“HOW GOOD IS THIS STUDY?” – TIPS FOR NEW INVESTIGATORS TO ASSESS THE QUALITY OF A STUDY

One of the primary tasks of being a New Investigator is getting to know about the research done by others.
Most often, the only source of information available to us is the study report, or published article, provided
by the authors. Very often, when reading these interesting studies, we end up thinking: “is this a good study”? However, due to space restrictions, authors are often unable to provide all the necessary information. As such, this question is difficult to answer. Luckily, the recently published CONSORT extension for PROs and the widely used Cochrane Risk of Bias tool can provide us with some guidelines. In this article, we want
to use these two excellent guidelines to highlight some of the issues we consider to be important in order to assess the quality of the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of PRO research. Although these guidelines focus primarily on randomized controlled trails, we feel that the items may, to some extent, also be applicable to observational research. Below, you will find our item selection in question form.

Design:

Did the authors...
• ... provide a rationale for the
choice of the PRO instrument
used?

• ... provide or cite evidence of the
PRO instrument validity and reliability?
• ... provide information on the
generation of the randomized
sequence used?

• ... provide information on the
concealment of allocations prior
to assignment?

• ... report on the blinding of both
the participants and personnel,
as well as the outcome assessors?

• ... state the status of the PRO as
either a primary or secondary
outcome?

Conduct: Did the authors...
• ... provide the intended PRO data
collection schedule?

• ... report the mode of administration
of the PRO tool and the
methods of collecting data (e.g.
telephone, other)?

Analysis: Did the authors...
• ... conduct a power/sample size
calculation relevant to the PRO?

• ... explicitly state their statistical
approaches in dealing with missing
data?

• ... provide evidence of appropriate
statistical analysis and tests
of statistical significance?

• ... state how multiple comparisons
were addressed?

Reporting: Did the authors...
• ... report the extent of the data
missing?

• ... explain the reasons for missing
data?

• ... provide the magnitude of the
effect size for each statistically
significant PRO result?

• ... report the PRO outcomes in a
graphic format?

• ... describe study patients’ characteristics,
including baseline

PRO scores?
• ... explicitly discuss the limitations
of the PRO components of
the study?

• ... discuss generalizability issues
uniquely related to the PRO results?

• ... discuss the clinical significance
of the PRO findings?

We hope that the above mentioned items will prove helpful. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the requirements that need to be met in order for research to be labeled ‘robust’. As such, quality assessments remain, like most aspects of research, a subjective and selective process – and is therefore best done by at least two independent reviewers. A suggestion from us would be to join or perhaps even start a journal club. This way, you can discuss the research of others with your peers, practice your skills, and have a lot of fun at the same time!

New Investigators Scholarship oppurtunities

Student and New Investigator Scholarships

The ISOQOL Scholarship Program has been developed to increase the opportunity for members in the early stages of their careers and for members from developing countries to attend and present at the annual conference by providing funds to help defray the expenses associated with travel to the annual conference.

Travel scholarships provide access to the educational content of the annual conference, and also provide members the opportunity to meet with their peers and establish research contacts. Members who meet eligibility requirements can apply for both scholarships.

Eligible applicants must be current ISOQOL members, and either a current student or new investigator (within 5 years of completing terminal degree or medical residency.)

Application will be posted in February. 

Applications must be completed online by  Friday, 30 May, 2014.  Applications will be reviewed by the ISOQOL Scholarship Committee, led by Chair, Gloria Juarez, PhD (United States).  Decisions will be made in June. Scholarship funds will be provided following the conference.  Advance funds will not be available

Call for Reviewers - lets become more involved and be a part of the Scientific Program Committee!!

Call for Abstract Reviewers

Abstract reviewers serve a vital role in the scientific program planning by ensuring the quality of the educational content presented at the annual conference. Serving as an abstract reviewer provides an excellent way to support ISOQOL. Time commitment is low, but the impact is high.

ISOQOL is seeking abstract reviewers for the following presentation types:

Workshop Abstract Review:                7 February - 28 February, 2014
Symposium Abstract Review:             14 February - 7 March, 2014
Oral and Poster Abstract Review:       1 May - 23 May, 2014

Volunteers may choose which presentation types they would like to review - as many types as you would like. Abstract review is 100% electronic and all rankings will be submitted online.

Contact the ISOQOL Executive Office at info@isoqol.org for more information or to volunteer to serve.

NI SIG LinkedIN page

Dear New Investigators,

ISOQOL has provided us with a seperate LinkedIn page so we can get connected to our other fellow New Investigators.

The page's adress is

NI SIG LinkedIn Page

Katerina and I will post issues deemed relevant to New Investigators but we strongly encourage you to also post discussions, promotions, and general remarks!

So join the NI SIG LinkedIn page!!

Besgt wishes,

Katerina & Marc

TIPS ON HOW TO WRITE A GOOD ABSTRACT

There is an article on how to write a good abstract for the ISOQOL conference in Quality of Life Quartely - so go have a look!!

http://www.isoqol.org/membership/quality-of-life-quarterly

(Update 04.02.2014 - and here is the article)


As the deadline for the ISOQOL conference submissions is approaching, most of us are probably already thinking about our abstracts. The aim of the abstract is to describe your research in a limited number of words, while trying to create a clear picture of your design and results. Writing an abstract is one of the biggest challenges for researchers, especially for those in the earlier stages of their career.

The basic format of an abstract includes an Introduction, Methods, Results and Conclusions/Discussion section. The introduction covers the general topic, the key research question, and the gap in the literature this study aims to address. It should answer the question “why should I bother reading this abstract?”. When writing an abstract you want to build a story, where each sentence follows the previous one. Your introduction provides the “great idea”. 

The methods section is meant to explain how researchers answered their question. It is here that you describe your design and analyses. Unless the Methods of the study are complex or unusual, a few sentences can cover the basic information. 

The results section should mirror the methods section and clearly respond to the research question, as stated earlier. It is here that you present your main outcomes. Keep it light and don’t report too many statistical results. Make it attractive to readers.

Finally, in the Conclusions, results should be interpreted and implications should be discussed. Try to incorporate both the clinical and scientific value of your research. What do these findings mean and how are they going to change your research field? If written clearly, it will provide the answer to the question: “why should I bother reading this abstract?”.

Last, but definitely not least, the title. Especially for posters, the title is the first thing conference attendees read. Make it informative. If possible, try to incorporate the main results in you introduction, such as: “Design A shows that B increases C in patients with disease D”.

Below you will find a few tips that might prove useful when preparing an abstract. Good luck with the abstract submission process!
- First, review the official guidelines for the abstract (submission process).

- Go through your paper for which you are writing the abstract and identify the key sentences you want to use. This can be your first draft.

- In this first draft, don’t worry too much about word limit. Later on you can edit your abstract again
and again, going through every single sentence and word and questioning their necessity.

- Write small sentences and choose between the active or passive voice.

- You cannot write down everything, keep only the key information.

- Ask a colleague who is less familiar with your study to read the abstract.

- Always proofread for grammar/ punctuation. A sloppy abstract is usually perceived by reviewers as sloppy research.

- Authors whose native tongue is not English should have their abstract edited by a native English speaker before submitting.

- Have fun!

Best wishes,

Katerina and Marc.

TRICKS OF THE TRADE IN MIAMI 2013 – NEW INVESTIGATORS SIG EVENT

There is an article about the tricks of the trade meeting in Miami 2013 in Quality of Life Quartely - so go have a look!!

http://www.isoqol.org/membership/quality-of-life-quarterly

(Update 04.02.2014 - and here is the article)

Following its big success during the previous two annual conferences, the New Investigators event “Tricks of the Trade” was convened again this year, combined with the Mentor-Mentee reception. This year’s panel consisted of Prof. Donald Patrick, Prof. Karen Sousa, and the recipient of the 2012 Emerging Leader Award, Prof. Melanie Calvert, who were invited to talk about their own career development within QOL research; give advice to new investigators beginning to work in this field; and share their views about the future of QOL research.

Prof. Patrick told us that new investigators should start early on thinking about their career, and not be afraid to be flexible. It was often during times of change, and moving to a new place, that Prof. Patrick made his biggest advancements during his career. In addition, he urged new investigators to never stop writing and publish at least 4 manuscripts a year, of which at least two had to be good ones. A final remark was that to advance in this field, one should make sure to have a good spouse to get that much needed support. 

Next up was Prof. Karen Sousa, who indicated that doing research is like a journey. New investigators should actively think about their career trajectory and research path, and compare their current status with  future goals. To help facilitate these future goals, new investigators need to be confident, and not be afraid to talk to people and ask for advice. Furthermore, Prof. Sousa urged new investigators to practice their “elevator speech”, which should contain no more than 10 words. 

Last, but certainly not least, was the newly appointed professor of outcomes methodology, Melanie Calvert. Prof. Calvert told us that if constant meetings and different views hinder research progress, a new investigator should apply the JFDI method. In addition, new investigators need to make sure that they work with people they can learn from. New investigators should also learn to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Finally, when that hard work pays off, Prof. Calvert advises to make sure you actively celebrate that success with the team. 

Some major tricks that stood out were the following: First, all three professors agree that you have got to have a gimmick - you have to make sure that you are one of the very few that can do what you do. Second, find yourself a mentor who can help you with research and career issues. Lastly, make sure you don’t forget you own quality of life - research should first and foremost be fun!

Best wishes,

Katerina and Marc.