I’m on the Writers’ Rough Drafts Podcast!

Writers’ Rough Drafts is a podcast hosted by Elisa Doucette, Founder and Executive Editor of Craft Your Content; a business that aims to do the unthinkable – make writing a less lonely process. They offer group courses, as well as one-to-one support on writing and editing projects from website copy to novels. The Craft Your Content website is also a wonderful resource in itself. As a frequent visitor to the Craft Your Content website, and an avid listener of the Writers’ Rough Drafts podcast, I jumped at the chance to talk all things writing and creativity when Elisa approached me a few months ago.

Listen to our podcast episode here.

Elisa’s incredibly flattering introduction:

Heidi Gardner is a scientist, researcher, blogger, entrepreneur, and activist. While her “full-time gig” is as a research fellow at the Health Services Research Unit at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, after receiving her bachelor’s degree in pharmacology and her doctorate in participant recruitment, she has a lot more going on besides her fascination and love affair with science and improving participant trial experience.

This year, Heidi embarked on an international odyssey as a Winston Churchill Memorial Trust fellow—visiting art installations, chatting to professors and female scientists, and reading tomes upon tomes worth of articles and literature in North America, Europe, and Asia—to find interesting and unique ways that people share scientific research and results so it is more accessible to, and engaging for, the general public. A regular blogger herself, she updates her site with posts not only about her work and pursuits, but also her life as a woman in science and as a human on planet Earth. Which is part of her “side hustle,” an Etsy store and ecommerce brand called “Science on a Postcard,” a fun project that helps to see science in a new light.


From the show notes:

What You’ll Learn About Writing:

  • Why you need confidence to break writing rules
  • The importance of finding gatekeepers and peers who are “on your team”
  • How blogs can serve as a great place for a “brain dump”
  • Why we should tap into our creativity and retrain our brain to think more creatively, even if you think you’re a “noncreative” person
  • How you should find specific sources, information, and experiences to share that no one has written about before
  • Why not only being creative but being able to explain parts of that creativity to others often bring you more collaboration and readers
  • How we, as writers, can try to write more humanly and less pretentiously no matter what industry we’re in

Mentioned in This Episode (Links and Resources!):

So, I Finished My Thesis

I haven’t posted anything on this blog for what feels like a very long time – in actual fact, it’s been about 4 or 5 weeks. In those 4 or 5 weeks I finished and submitted my PhD thesis.

*Pause for dramatic effect.*

I KNOW.

I actually did it, I got comments back from my Supervisors about a week before my submission deadline, and they were minimal. I was incredibly relieved, because by that point I’d mentally checked out. I made the changes over the course of about an hour, checked formatting etc, and then sent it to print.

I’d like to introduce my newborn baby, born 3 days ahead of her due date on Tuesday 26th June, and comprising of 61,622 words spread over 250 pages; welcome to the world ‘Making clinical trials more efficient: consolidating, communicating and improving knowledge of participant recruitment interventions’.

Mother and baby are both doing well – I suspect baby better than Mother at this point.

Really though, I am exhausted. I took a week off after submission and spent time reintroducing myself to my family, my boyfriend, and the idea of having a social life (and books, I have read lots of books). I went to Aviemore for the weekend and spent time clambering about in the Cairngorms and trying to convince aforementioned boyfriend that introducing a baby reindeer into our life would be a really good idea (I did not win this argument and I am still living sadly in a pet-free home). After that though, I felt really unproductive and like I was wasting time (that goes to show how alien relaxation felt), so I relaunched my Etsy shop with a whole bunch of new products.

I’m now back at work. I was lucky enough to secure a job as a Research Assistant based with my PhD Supervisors so don’t have to worry too much about money and that whole being unemployed thing (hoorah!). My brain still doesn’t feel like it’s functioning at full capacity, and I am ridiculously tired all the time, but I’m getting there. I rejoined the gym and yesterday I missed the England match (yes, the World Cup has absolutely sucked me in – it’s coming home etc etc) in favour of returning to my weekly hot yoga class for the first time in about 3 months. I’m getting back to blogging, so you can expect more frequent content over the coming weeks, and I’ve managed to work in some freelance writing too. Life feels a bit more normal.

Actually, now I think about it, it sort of feels like the process of writing my thesis didn’t really happen; time went by so quickly that it’s a weird blur in my mind. The only real evidence I have that it happened is a bunch of blog posts tracking my progress, the thesis itself, and the addition of a significant amount of baby weight.

Thesis Update – T-Minus 3 Weeks

I just realised that I missed my ‘T-Minus 1 Month’ post, so I’m quickly putting together this T-Minus 3 Weeks version so that you can see where I’m up to with my thesis writing.

In my last update post I set some aims:

  • Literature review – STOP MESSING ABOUT AND WRITE THE BLOODY THING!
  • Systematic review – Slot into final thesis structure.
  • Qualitative study – Address comments and slot into final thesis structure.
  • User-testing study – Address comments and slot into final thesis structure.
  • Thesis introduction – Get a first draft written for the beginning of May.
  • Thesis conclusions – Get a first draft written for the middle of May.

I want an entire working thesis draft by the end of May – that’ll give me a month before hand-in to ready through it a million times, tweak things, ensure I haven’t repeated myself a million times, and then make sure that the formatting and referencing is correct.”

Spoiler alert – it’s now Sunday 10th June and I do not have a full draft. I am very nearly there, but certain bits of editing and writing have taken longer than I thought they would.

Anyway, where am I at?

Current word count: 63,966 (that’s the entire document, appendices etc included)
Current page count: 247

Introduction

I’m almost there! Just need to rewrite my thesis-rationale section and this bit is officially off my to do list (for now).

Literature review

DONE. It’s done! Weirdly enough, once I’d gotten over the ridiculous amount of procrastination I did to avoid writing this chapter, it wasn’t so bad. Once I’d got comments back from my supervisors, I actually enjoyed the editing part. Weird.

Systematic review

DONE! This chapter has been written, edited and written a bit more. It is complete.

 

Qualitative study

NOT DONE. I got comments back from my supervisors a few weeks ago so I need to go through and edit, refine etc etc. This is the chapter that I’m most dreading – it’s a black hole of imposter syndrome and whenever I go back to it I feel like I’m not good enough. Time to get rid of that feeling and get it done!

User testing study

DONE! This chapter has been written, edited and written a bit more. It is complete (for now).

 

Aims for the next week or so

Looking at that, I don’t actually have that much to do at all. It’s totally doable in the next week or so. Time to knuckle down..

  • Thesis rationale – By the time I leave the office today, I’m going to re-write my ‘Thesis rationale’ paragraph, that will mean that the entire thesis introduction section is complete to a standard that I’m happy with.
  • Systematic review in context – This is a sort of short bonus chapter that comes after my Systematic Review, and provides information on the other reviews that sit alongside mine. I need to write this. I already have bits of text in various documents so I don’t anticipate this taking a huge amount of time, I’m going to try to get this section done on Monday.
  • Qualitative study – This chapter needs a whole lot of editing, which I think will take me 3 or 4 days to complete. I plan on doing this Tuesday-Thursday/Friday.
  • Thesis conclusions – Each of my results chapters have their own conclusion sections, so this chapter is about bringing everything together and making recommendations for future work. I have a tonne of ideas for this chapter because I’ve discussed the contents of it with my supervisors a few times already, so I’m hoping that means it won’t take me too long to translate those ideas from my head on to the page. I plan on doing this Friday-Sunday.

I’m then going to try and print out a full version of my thesis (oh my god!) on Sunday afternoon, so that I can go through it on Sunday evening and Monday and ensure that I haven’t missed anything obvious. Tuesday 19th I plan on sending my thesis to my supervisors for one final look over, and then I’ll have time to make any final edits, tweaks etc before I submit on Friday 29th.

Thesis Writing Full Time #3: No Pressure, No Work

This is a super quick check-in so that I can look back at the poor choices I have made with regards to time allocation when I’m stress-crying in the middle of June.

I’m at the point of thesis writing now where I really, really need someone to shout at me and force me to write. See my last thesis update post to see just how brilliant I’ve become at procrastination…
I’ve always been someone that works to a deadline, and if there is no pressure to get things done then I tend to leave work until the last minute. Saying that, I always get the work done – I’ve never missed a deadline – it just makes period of time closest to the deadline unnecessarily stressful.

This week instead of doing all of the thesis writing, I’ve done a million other things; so not entirely unproductive. I’ve been doing some work for Soapbox Science’s first event in Aberdeen, organising training and scouting out suppliers for various things  – finding a joiner to make 4 wooden soapboxes to very specific measurements and a limited budget is not the easiest of tasks. I also gave a talk about blogging for the University of Aberdeen’s Qualitative Research Network, and I’ve been doing some serious travel research for my Winston Churchill Memorial Fellowship (I know, it’s a tough life..).

Over the next few weeks I’m going to take part in some #remoteretreats. I think that will help me to focus. In the grand scheme of things I don’t actually have a huge amount of work left to do; the majority of the words are written, it’s about improving them and making sure all of the loose ends are tied up now.

Credit: Anna Borges / Buzzfeed

Academic Blogging – Why and How?

This afternoon I gave a talk about academic blogging for the University of Aberdeen’s Qualitative Research Network. I promised I’d share the slides from the session, so here they are (blogging about blogging.. #meta)

Links to the various people/blogs/resources that I referenced during the talk:

My Twitter: www.twitter.com/heidirgardner
The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust: www.wcmt.org.uk
Soph Arthur: www.twitter.com/sophtalkssci / www.sophtalksscience.wordpress.com
Rebecca Hall: www.twitter.com/RebeccaJHall13 / www.biologybex.wordpress.com
Andrea H.: www.twitter.com/phd_fashionista / www.phdfashionista.com
Alex Fitzpatrick: www.twitter.com/ArchaeologyFitz / www.animalarchaeology.com
Nicola: www.twitter.com/fresh_science / www.freshscience-nicola.blogspot.co.uk/
That Biologist: www.twitter.com/thatbiologist / www.thatbiologist.wordpress.com
Michelle: www.twitter.com/Silli_Scientist / www.alloksci.com
Scientific Beauty: www.twitter.com/sciencebeaut / www.thescientificbeauty.com
Arts & Humanities Research Council’s North West Consortium Doctoral Training Partnership blog: www.nwcdtpblog.wordpress.com
Research the Headlines (The contributors to Research the Headlines are all current or former members of the Royal Society of Edinburgh‘s Young Academy of Scotland): www.researchtheheadlines.org
Students 4 Best Evidence: www.students4bestevidence.net
Let’s Talk Academia: www.letstalkacademia.blogspot.com
Goop (please, please only use this as a guide for what not to do with blogging – keep your integrity and blog about topics with evidence behind them!): www.goop.com
Jade Eggs for Your Yoni: www.goop.com/wellness/sexual-health/better-sex-jade-eggs-for-your-yoni
Dr Jen Gunter: www.drjengunter.wordpress.com
Dear Gwyneth Paltrow, I’m a GYN and your vaginal jade eggs are a bad idea: www.drjengunter.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/dear-gwyneth-paltrow-im-a-gyn-and-your-vaginal-jade-eggs-are-a-bad-idea
12 (More) Reasons to Start a Jade Egg Practice: www.goop.com/wellness/sexual-health/12-more-reasons-to-start-a-jade-egg-practice
If Gwyneth Paltrow is so effing tired maybe she shouldn’t put jade eggs in her vagina: www.drjengunter.wordpress.com/2017/03/09/if-gwyneth-paltrow-is-so-effing-tired-maybe-she-shouldnt-put-jade-eggs-in-her-vagina
Gwyneth Paltrow and GOOP still want you to put a jade egg in your vagina. It’s still a bad idea.: www.drjengunter.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/gwyneth-paltrows-jade-eggs-again
Do Story: How to Tell Your Story So the World Listens: www.amazon.co.uk/Do-Story-World-Listens-Books/dp/1907974059
Science Blogging: The Essential Guide: www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Blogging-Essential-Christie-Wilcox/dp/0300197551
Don’t be SUCH a Scientist: www.amazon.co.uk/Dont-Be-Such-Scientist-Substance/dp/1597265632
(I also reviewed this book – take a look here)
Information is Beautiful: www.amazon.co.uk/Information-Beautiful-David-McCandless/dp/0007294662 / www.informationisbeautiful.net
Knowledge is Beautiful: www.amazon.co.uk/Knowledge-Beautiful-David-McCandless/dp/0007427921
The Conversation: www.theconversation.com
Mona Chalabi: www.twitter.com/MonaChalabi / www.instagram.com/monachalabi

Thesis Update – T-Minus 3 Months

I’m now 3 months away from handing in my thesis. 3 months sounds a lot friendlier than 12/13 weeks, so I’ve going with that. I’m coming strangely close to the end of the PhD process, and to be honest I am feeling a bit sad about the whole thing. This PhD has been brilliant – even the bits that have been tedious or boring, I’ve enjoyed because I’ve found a subject I’m passionate about. It will be very, very strange to have this thesis done and handed in, but I’m lucky in that I’ve managed to secure a short term contract that will keep me working with the wonderful team at HSRU until the end of 2018 at least. That’s a big weight off my shoulders, and means that my thesis needs to be done! Anyway, here’s an update with 3 months to go; I wrote a blog post with 6 months to go and said “there’s work to be done but I think it’s doable!” – that’s where I’m still sitting now, I know that I can get this done and handed in on time, I just need to really knuckle down for the next 3 months.

So, how far have I got?

Literature Review

In my last update post, I aimed to:

  • Sort out the categories of papers into more manageable subsections, and work them into a sensible order. Get at least 3,000 words written.

I’ve sorted the categories of papers into various folders that will help me to write sections of the literature review, and they are in some sort of sensible order. Confession time – I have not written 3,000 words. To be honest, I have done absolutely everything in my power to avoid writing this literature review; my flat is spotless, there is no dirty laundry at all, I’ve seen all the films that I’m interested in that are currently showing at the cinema, and I’ve found complete strangers to puppy-sit for on Borrow my Doggy (if you don’t know what this is and you really like dogs, I suggest you go and sign up asap) – proof below.

There’s also an unfinished 3,000 piece jigsaw puzzle taking over my living room floor. Seriously, the jigsaw thing isn’t a joke. It’s been there for over a week now.

ANYWAY. This week I’m locking myself in my office at home, and I’m getting a first draft of this literature review written. I am done messing around, avoiding it and finding literally anything else in the world to do instead – this thing is getting done this week – pinky promise.

Now, moving on to a more positive part of thesis progression..

Systematic Review

Last time I checked in, my systematic review was sitting at 33,496 words, and it had gone to my primary supervisor for comments. The comments were pretty limited, which I was pleasantly surprised about. The majority of the comments were related to changing the presentation of the results section to cut down words and make the chapter as a whole flow more easily. I made those changes and the chapter is pretty much done – it’s now 25,387 words which I’m much happier with.

I’ll have a final read through it when I put all of the thesis chapters together to ensure there’s no repetition in the introduction/background sections etc, but for now, it’s off my to do list (hoorah!).

Qualitative Study

I’m pretty happy with where I’m at with this – I handed in a first draft and got comments back from both of my PhD supervisors with lots of brilliant pointers of how to build on what I’ve already got, expand my points and set my findings in context with the wider literature. Next steps are to go through these comments and make improvements etc. I feel pretty confident with that though, which is nice; I had a meeting with my supervisors to talk through changes etc and they were really helpful so it’s just a matter of me making time to do it, and getting on with it.

Currently, it’s sitting at 15,610 words and it will undoubtedly grow by another thousand of two by the time it’s finished.

User-testing Study

In my last update I mentioned that the qualitative document that I had then, needed to be split up into 2 separate chapters – I’ve now done this, and I have a ‘qualitative study’ chapter, and a ‘user-testing study’ chapter. I used the writing retreat that I went on at the beginning of March to work exclusively on this user-testing chapter, and I made some really good progress. I handed in a first draft to my supervisors in the middle of March, and already have comments back to work on (side note: having supervisors that actually engage with my work and want to help me develop my skills is the absolute best thing; if you’re looking for PhDs at the moment, please, please make supervisor choice a priority – it makes a huge difference to your experience).

This chapter is currently sitting at 8,384 words, and I expect it to increase to ~9,500 words or so once I’ve gone through and addressed comments etc.

Aims for the next 2 months
  • Literature review – STOP MESSING ABOUT AND WRITE THE BLOODY THING!
  • Systematic review – Slot into final thesis structure.
  • Qualitative study – Address comments and slot into final thesis structure.
  • User-testing study – Address comments and slot into final thesis structure.
  • Thesis introduction – Get a first draft written for the beginning of May.
  • Thesis conclusions – Get a first draft written for the middle of May.

I want an entire working thesis draft by the end of May – that’ll give me a month before hand-in to ready through it a million times, tweak things, ensure I haven’t repeated myself a million times, and then make sure that the formatting and referencing is correct. Phew. This is all getting, very, very real.

Thesis Writing Full Time #2: Creating Structure

I’ve now been thesis writing pretty much full time for about 7 weeks. I’ve still been dipping in and out of work for other projects, leading the organisation of a new local branch of Soapbox Science (our speakers have just been announced – see the brilliant lineup we’ve secured for Aberdeen here!), designing new products for Science On A Postcard, and flitting about at Buckingham Palace.. so it’s not all been thesis-based. Anyway, I feel like I’ve finally got into a routine so thought I’d share that – hopefully it’ll be useful for those of you also writing up and struggling to find your groove.

I said in my last ‘thesis writing full time’ post, that the most productive times for me were between 3 and 6pm, and after dinner until I go to bed. As it turns out, that estimation was wildly wrong, and I just happened to be most productive during those times because I forced myself to focus during those times (that said, I am writing this blog post at ten past 9 on a Wednesday night, so many the night owl thing has some truth to it..). I’ve now found a much better routine, and it involves just getting on with work no matter what time it is. Sounds simple, right? Wrong. This structure thing takes time and dedication, and it’s actually quite difficult to force yourself out of bed an hour earlier just because you ‘should’.
I went on my first writing retreat last December and thought it was brilliant, so brilliant that my parents gifted me another one for Christmas, but it was the second one that I went on (March), that really forced the need to create structure into my brain.

As I said in a blog post about that first writing retreat, Rowena Murray’s retreats rely on a set structure made up of writing blocks, non-negotiable break times, and a distinct lack of distractions (the health app on my iPhone genuinely thought I’d been asleep for 3 days because my phone hadn’t moved from my bag during the entire retreat). During my first retreat I thought I’d got a lot done, but knowing what was ahead of me meant that I prepared much more effectively for the second, and I finished a thesis chapter a week in advance of the deadline (I know, shocking!).

This writing retreat structure is brilliant, it forces productivity, and in the words of Rowena herself, it forces ‘self-efficacy’. So, how have I managed to translate this seemingly magical structure into real life? I’ve been using the Forest App to force myself to focus (I see the irony of needing an app to reduce my ability to be distracted by technology, but it works for me), and I’ve been blocking out writing slots (an hour or an hour and a half depending on how much I want to achieve), and then.. just getting on with it. That’s been great, but it’s easy to find something to creep in and take that time away from me.

Enter, the wonderful Lucy Hinnie. I met Lucy at the March writing retreat where we bonded over a shared love of the fact that Rowena Murray was actually making us more productive, baked goods at break times, and RuPaul’s Drag Race (do not judge us, that show is a cultural masterpiece and I will hear nothing against Mama Ru).
Anyway, she’s continued to be fabulous from afar, and today she ran the first #remoteretreat via Twitter. This took the same structure as Rowena’s retreats, and judging by the response online, it was bloody brilliant. I didn’t manage to make this one, but Lucy is forcing our productivity again next Wednesday (28th March), so I wanted to draw attention to it.
I’ll be joining next week’s #remoteretreat but will need to skip out for an afternoon meeting – join us at 9.15am (GMT) to set goals, and then get writing!

Publication Explainer: The PRioRiTy Study

Today I had a new publication come out – hoorah! Told you that all the effort I put towards my 2017 goals would pay off eventually 🙂 This is the second in my ‘Publication Explainer’ series, and there are at least another 2 that I already need to write, read the first one here. As I said in that post, these explainers are a place for me to answer 3 of the most common questions I’ve been asked by the people around me (usually my boyfriend, friends, or colleagues that haven’t been involved with the project).

This post focusses on the paper below: Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study. Read the full paper here.

Why prioritise research questions about recruitment to trials?

Research around recruitment strategies for randomised trials is super important – though it is the premise of my entire PhD project so I would say that. Recruitment to trials is difficult, and many trials (estimates differ but average around the 45-50% mark) fail to recruit enough participants to hit their targets. Targets are not just numbers plucked from thin air, they’re based on detailed calculations performed by trained Statisticians – target figures are designed to enable researchers and trialists to see real differences in the various arms of trials. If we don’t hit target, then results of the research could be vulnerable to something called a type 2 error – which is most simply explained by the image below; it’s a false negative, meaning that we could be telling people that an intervention is effective when it isn’t, or that it isn’t effective when it is.

Clearly, recruitment is as area that requires research, but because there is so much work to be done, we are at risk of being a bit everywhere (just to be clear, ‘being a bit everywhere’ is not the technical term for this…) when it comes to focussing and making substantial progress with improving the way we do research. Going through a formal prioritisation process for the squillions of research questions that surround the process of recruitment, will enable researchers to coordinate the research that they’re doing, plan more effectively, and work together to ensure that we are answering the questions that are most important to the various stakeholder groups involved.

How did the prioritisation process work?

The process of prioritisation that enabled this project to go ahead was a development with the James Lind Alliance – the JLA works with clinicians, patients and carers ensure that all voices are heard, and that prioritisation of research questions reflects the requirements of all of these groups. The James Lind Alliance works on the premise that:

  • addressing uncertainties about the effects of a treatment should become accepted as a routine part of clinical practice
  • patients, carers and clinicians should work together to agree which, among those uncertainties, matter most and deserve priority attention.

The prioritisation process begins with getting partners involved with the PRioRiTy project – this isn’t a project that can be done by one person!The stakeholders involved with this priority setting partnership were:

  • Members of the public who had been invited to participate in a randomised trial or participated in Trial Steering Committees (TSCs). They could be an individual or representing a patient organisation;
  • Front line clinical and research staff who were or had been involved in recruitment to randomised trials (e.g. postdoctoral researchers, clinicians, nurses, midwives, allied health professionals);
  • People who had established expertise in designing, conducting, analysing and reporting randomised trials (e.g. Principal Investigators/Chief Investigators);
  • People who are familiar with the trial methodology research landscape (e.g. funders, programme managers, network coordinators).

Once relevant stakeholders were identified, an initial survey with just 5 questions (below in Table 1 which is taken from the original paper) was developed and distributed to the stakeholders involved.

Responses were collated, organised, coded and analysed in order to generate a full list of research questions. This was a massive part of the work; 1,880 questions came from the 790 respondents to the initial survey. The figure below shows the process of whittling down this huge pile of questions to a manageable – and useful – top 20.

As you can see, this was an iterative process involving lots of people, views, questions – and work! I’ll just make it clear here – I was involved in a small part of this process, and the team working on the project was large; as I said before, with projects like this it’s important to involve people from lots of different backgrounds and with various levels/areas of expertise. The team was led by Prof Declan Devane and Dr Patricia Healy, both from NUI Galway, they kept the rest of us on track!

What next?

In terms of next steps for the team involved in the PRioRiTy project, it’s really important that we work to disseminate our results; after all, if no ones knows what the final list of prioritised questions is, then there was really no point in doing the project. So – with that in mind, here’s the final top 10!

To give these questions some context I wanted to talk through a few of them to go through my thoughts on what types of research may be required to answer them, and why they’re important.I’ll stick to the top 3 for this part:

Understanding how randomised trials can become part of routine care is, unsurprisingly, the top question from this entire project. Knowing how we can use clinical care pathways to ensure that patients are given the opportunity to take part in trials is a hugely important part of normalising trial recruitment, and spreading awareness of trials more generally. There is a tonne of research to be done in this area, and in my opinion, this question will need a diverse range of research angles and methods in order to answer it in a variety of ways.

This question is interesting – what information should trialists be giving to members of the public that are being invited to take part in trials? That seems like something we should have evidence for, but in actual fact we are working from hunches, experiences, and anecdote. I think this question will rightfully fuel a lot of research projects over the coming years, we need to be looking at what information potential participants want, as well as what they need form an ethical/regulatory stand point – at the moment I get the impression that we’re being driven by ethics committees and regulators, and we’re often putting in a lot of information that participants don’t want/need/find useful, because we feel it’s better to give them everything, rather than risk missing something out. I suspect that if we reduce the amount of information we provide, the understanding of that information would increase because participants are able to focus on specific pieces of information more effectively. I say that because I know that if I get a huge leaflet, I’m much more likely to avoid the entire thing because it looks overwhelming, or I don’t think I have time to get through all the information in front of me.

This question is one that I’ve been asked, and I myself have asked, numerous times over the course of my PhD. Public engagement and patient involvement are both areas of academic life that are getting increased focus; we know that involving patients and members of the public in our research can strengthen it, make the work we’re doing more relevant to the people that we’re doing it for, but could this involvement impact on recruitment rates too? I’m not sure, but I’m really interested to see the results of a few projects that are linked to this question that are currently ongoing – the PIRRIST study led by Dr Joanna Crocker is one I’ll be keeping an eye out for. The PIRRIST protocol was presented as a poster at a conference I went to in 2015, that information is published here if you’re interested in learning more.

Something to note

The appendix of the paper contains a full version of the table below, this provides details on the evidence that we already have available to us to help answer each of the top 10 questions. The top 3, which I’ve discussed above, have no evidence available – which really drives home the importance of a formal prioritisation process in highlighting where the gaps are in research evidence.

There is certainly a lot more work to be done on how we recruit participants into randomised trials – which is good for me as I want to stay in this field of research after my PhD, and hopefully get some of these questions answered over the course of my career!

Thesis Writing Full Time #1: Finding My Feet

On January 30th I finished data collection for my PhD (AHHH!), on January 31st I then submitted the final report for the grant that funded the bulk of my PhD research, and since then I’ve been thesis writing full time. Honestly, I was really excited to get to this stage, and it hasn’t gone quite as expected – so I thought I’d write a blog post both to remind myself that I am less than a week in and still finding my feet with it, and to try and shed some light on the process for those that are thesis writing too (or soon will be).

The Good Bits

I’ll start with the good – I’ll ease you in gently.. Doing this thing full time means that I can sit down and really focus on what I’ve done. Before doing this, there was a lot less paper in my life, but I also didn’t have a realistic overview of how much I’ve achieved in the last 2 and a half years. I’ve collected a tonne of data, and I’ve learned to analyse and interpret it so that it might actually be useful for people in the trials community! Hoorah for learning stuff!

Thesis writing full time also means I can work when and where you want to. For me this has been brilliant because I can ensure that I’m the most productive that I can be. Before, I had brilliant intentions of getting up, showered and at my desk for 8am every day, but that just hasn’t happened. The most productive times of the day for me are 3pm until 6pm, and then after dinner until I go to bed (which can be super late). Before 3pm I do a lot of ‘pottering’ – basically, stuff that needs doing but that isn’t actually writing. Reading, finding the right references, putting together draft zeros for different chapters, all interspersed with various life admin and chores. At the weekend I’m pretty good around noon until 4pm, and because I’m able to choose when I work and when I take breaks, the whole working at the weekend thing is working out pretty well. I don’t feel like I’m going to burn out, and I’m getting through the writing at a decent pace.

I’ve also turned my office into a little thesis-writing cave, which has been so brilliant. Firstly, it gave me a kick to sort my desk space out, and secondly (most importantly) me working from home has given my other half a kick to sort out his half of the office too – I hate clutter and can’t work when there’s too much stuff around to distract me.

The desk space – yes that it a bear shaped pencil case, yes that is a dog shaped tape measure, and yes they are tiny wooden desk pets – I’m not allowed a dog and these were a hilarious replacement that arrived in the form of a Christmas gift from my parents. I am 26 and until I’m allowed a dog, this is what my desk space will continue to look like.
The Bad Bits

Ok, now on to the bad. I’ve been having a super wobbly mental health week. I always work best under pressure – i.e. juggling a million things and working from a packed To Do list, but working on the thesis entirely (I do still have some other projects running but for now my input is minimal) has alleviated all of that busy energy and self-imposed pressure, and my brain hasn’t coped very well with this new found freedom. It’s weird.

On the bright side though, the past week has already taught me a lot the coping strategies I need to implement (more on those in a later blog post). Ultimately I think that this little wobble has been a useful learning experience for me (re-reading this for typos and oh my god, have I turned into an academic now?! – ‘no failures, just learnings’), like I said it’s helping me to develop my own coping strategies, and it’ll make sure that I’m more resilient when I’m in a job where I don’t have the luxury of working from home at weird hours.

It still feels a bit weird to say that I’m writing my thesis; it doesn’t feel like I’ve been doing my PhD long enough for it to be that time yet – so, so weird. Anyway, I have a chapter of qualitative research to write, so I’ll leave this one here.
I’ll be posting a few blogs posts as I go through this process, but if there’s a big gap between postings just assume I’m sat at my desk, typing away with a hot water bottle on my knee.

Publication Explainer: Routinely Collected Data for Randomized Trials: Promises, Barriers, and Implications

This week I had a new publication come out – hoorah! Told you that all the effort I put towards my 2017 goals would pay off eventually. In another post later on in the year I’ll explain what my experiences have been like as a co-author on a publication, as well as what it’s like to be a first author, but today I want to use this post as a starting point for a new series on my blog. I’ll add to this ‘Publication Explainer’ series whenever I have a new publication out, and these posts will be a place for me to answer 3 of the most common questions I’ve been asked by people around me (here I mean colleagues that haven’t worked in this field, other scientists, non-scientists.. basically anyone who doesn’t work in the same research area as I do).

What is routinely collected data?

When we’re taking about health, routinely collected data (RCD) refers to data that has been collected during routine practice – basically, the stuff that your doctor adds to your medical record. This could be height, weight, blood type, blood pressure, blood levels, drug dosages, symptom frequency… the list goes on. As technology improves, RCD can also refer to things like number of steps, time spent sitting down, time spent standing etc – the sorts of things that a fitness tracker collects.

Why should we use routinely collected data in trials?

Routinely collected data could enable us to do trials better; whether that means more cheaply, with reduced patient burden, with less work for the trial team, more quickly, more environmentally friendly.. whatever ‘better’ means. This area of research is of particular interest to me because I’m trying to solve the problem of poor recruitment to trials. Recruiting volunteers to take part in trials is difficult, and if we can somehow design trials that are integrated into existing care pathways so that patients don’t have additional clinic visits to go to, then problems with recruitment could be solved much more quickly. In theory, we could design a trial that is fully integrated into routine care – meaning that when you visit your doctor and they collect data from you, that data can go straight to the trial team without the need for the patient to come in to the clinic on a separate occasion, which is what usually happens in trials.
This has been done before, the most well-known trial being the Salford Lung Study. This pioneering study involved over 2,800 consenting patients, supported by 80 GP practices and 130 pharmacies in Salford and the surrounding Greater Manchester area. You can read more about it here.

Ease isn’t the only reason to use RCD in trials. There is a huge field of research into what we call ‘pragmatic trials’.

Every trial sits somewhere on a spectrum from ‘explanatory’ to ‘pragmatic’. ‘Explanatory’ being used to describe trials that aim to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention (a drug, a device, a type of surgery, or a lifestyle intervention like an exercise or diet change) in a well-defined and controlled setting. ‘Pragmatic’ being used to describe trials that aim to test the effectiveness of an intervention in routine practice – i.e. some people might not take their tablets as directed, they’ll likely skip an exercise every now and again, they might forget to pick prescriptions up or get their doses mixed up – these trials reflect real life. The more pragmatic a trial is, the more likely that the results of that trial will then translate into the real world if/when the intervention is rolled out for public use. Using routinely collected data could help to ensure that trials are more pragmatic.

Why aren’t we already using routinely collected data in trials?

The idea of using routinely collected data in trials sounds perfect, right? Patients won’t have to go to clinic visits, trials will recruit more easily, therefore they’ll be completed faster and more cheaply, trials will be more pragmatic – why aren’t we already using RCD in trials?

If only it were that simple! Just because data are collected, doesn’t mean that researchers are able to access it, never mind access it in a useful format at the time that they need it. There are lots of concerns about using RCD in trials as standard, but these issues are likely to be overcome at some point in the future (as for time, that’s the big unknown – it could be 50 years, could be longer!). This is an exciting field of research, and one that I’ll be keeping a close eye on over the next few years.

BioMedCentral as a publishing group is open-access meaning that their publications are not hidden behind paywalls, if you’d like to read the full paper you can find it here.

I also wanted to flag up a blog post that Lars and Kim wrote to go along with the publication, essentially it’s a more condensed, relaxed and easy to understand version of the paper – you can read that here.