# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Enhancing home care nursing in the Netherlands: how can organisations facilitate the improvement of needs assessments in home care nursing? A focus group study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Background Home care nursing plays an essential role in the current and future societal challenges. In the Netherlands, home care nurses autonomously determine the type, cost and duration of nursing care at home. There are no guidelines for performing this needs assessment and organisations can implement the needs assessment according to their preferences. Recent research indicates variation in the assessed care of comparable patients. Also, there are various problems in the needs assessment process, mostly on organisational level. Organisations play a crucial role in the improvement of the needs assessment. However, it remains unclear how organizations address the challenges encountered during the needs assessment process and what specific difficulties they face. The aim of this study is to explore the challenges that organisations encounter in the process of the needs assessment and what approaches they handle to optimise the process of the needs assessment. Methods This study had a qualitative explorative design. Four focus group interviews were conducted with professionals including managers, policy- and quality officers, and home care nurses from different organisations who are involved in improvement processes regarding the needs assessment in Dutch home care organisations. The focus group interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. Results 38 participants from 22 different home care organisations participated in the study. Three main themes emerged: (1) Problems in the process of the needs assessment, (2) Best practices in organisations, and (3) Professionals’ improvement ideas. Organisations experience challenges especially due to a lack of a shared vision and different perspectives on the needs assessment. Many different approaches were seen between organisations that could influence practice variation, e.g. short-term assessments, intake routes or various roles and functions, such as senior home care nurses, ambassadors, or dual management. Conclusions To optimise the needs assessment process, a clear and shared vision is needed among all involved organisations, health care professional and health insurers. Furthermore, more scientific evidence on interventions and strategic approaches in home care nursing are essential to provide organisations with guidance in improvement processes towards a better needs assessment. Third, home care organisations, other health care professionals, and health insurers must collaborate to create a more uniform process of the needs assessment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Example of peer review report from journal and responses

# data[].attributes.subject
Example of peer review report from journal and responses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Although peer review is the fundamental process that strengthens the scientific method ( Lock, 1985; Rowland, 2002), it is hindered by several well-recognized issues that undermine its objectivity and impartiality ( Smith, 2006; Proctor et al., 2023; Candal-Pedreira et al., 2024). To help reduce potential conflicts or misunderstanding between reviewers and authors, members of the Conservation Physiology editorial team recently provided guidance on how reviewers can formulate comments that promote a more collaborative and collegial peer-review process ( Clements et al., 2025). Peer review is, however, a two-way process, and responding to it effectively not only increases the likelihood of publication success but also improves the quality of the resulting scientific reporting. Responding to peer review constructively is a challenging task for researchers at all career stages, from trainees to established researchers. Here, we present our perspectives and insights on how to most effectively respond to peer review, based on our experiences as editorial staff, editors and publishing researchers, as an extension of our recent advice on how to construct effective peer reviews ( Clements et al., 2025).

The limitations of the peer review process have been visited by numerous authors ( Smith, 2006; Candal-Pedreira et al., 2024) and generally focus upon reviewer misconduct and the responsibilities of reviewers and editors in safeguarding the integrity of the system ( Tennant and Ross-Hellauer, 2020; Cooke et al., 2024). In contrast, the roles and responsibilities of authors within the process receive far less attention, and are almost entirely unarticulated, aside from guidance dispersed through blogs and informal guidelines (e.g. guidelines from the British Ecological Society ( https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/BES-Peer-review-guide.pdf) and the Company of Biologists ( https://journals.biologists.com/bio/pages/reviewer-guide)) and a handful of published works (e.g. Noble, 2017; Cushman, 2023; Hidouri et al., 2024; Covvey et al., 2025). The reasons for manuscripts failing to achieve publication have been broadly examined across numerous fields (e.g. McCance, 1995; Wu et al., 2024), and typically focus on critical issues with experimental design, data presentation or analysis and appropriateness of inferences drawn ( McCance, 1995). Rarely is a poor or inadequate response to peer reviewers' reports advocated as a reason for rejection. Nonetheless, there is importance in addressing this part of the peer review process because the response to peer review acts as the interlocutor to the reviewer in the conversation underpinning the review process. The community of scientists contributing to and engaging with scientific publishing is made stronger, more collegial and more productive if miscommunication and conflict in this interaction are minimized.

Despite widespread recognition of the value and need for formal training in peer review ( Clements, 2020; Gerwing et al., 2021; Feinmann, 2024), such training is not mandatory and remains rare ( An et al., 2023; Buser et al., 2023; Willis et al., 2023; Stupacher, 2025). The goal of this editorial is to further promote a collaborative and collegial peer review process at Conservation Physiology, and beyond. To help achieve this goal, we provide personalized direction on how to respond to reviewer comments constructively, and how to manage diverging opinions between authors and reviewers productively. Although this editorial is written from the perspective of Conservation Physiology editors, the guidance to authors, which we hope will particularly benefit early-career researchers, is broadly applicable across scientific journals and disciplines.

Five tips for responding constructively to review

It is easy, in the position of a corresponding author, to feel as though the peer review process is a thinly veiled excuse to attack the work and the integrity of the research and the research team. Hopefully a well-considered and well-constructed review can mitigate this feeling. However, as a reviewer or editor, it can be equally destructive to the peer review relationship to have invested in providing a quality review only for it to be met with unconstructive, argumentative responses, or to be disregarded altogether. In this section, we briefly outline constructive approaches to receiving and responding to peer review comments and associated editorial decisions. In the text below, we provide five tips for crafting a constructive response to a reviewer comment. We consider the following reviewer comment and associated author response:

Reviewer comment: More sophisticated statistical analysis should be used as ANOVA is inadequate.

Response: The reviewer's comment is unjustified and lacks explanation; we disagree with the reviewer and have elected to keep the statistical analysis as is.

While author agreements with reviewer comments are, by nature, collegial, we specifically consider an example of a situation where authors disagree with and rebut a reviewer comment to show (below) that disagreements can still be communicated collegially.

Tip 1: pick your battles

Peer review is a collaborative process, and differences of opinion will arise (see Tip 2). As authors, it is easy to become defensive over our work because of the substantial effort required to get a manuscript published. Some suggestions by reviewers can, consequentially, be seen as fatuous, semantic or overly pedantic. In such cases, author responses can sometimes take an overly defensive tone and even include ad hominem critiques of the reviewer. In the example above, part of the response is unnecessarily argumentative and hostile in responding to the reviewer's suggestion, and can be toned back:

Revised response: We disagree with the reviewer and have elected to keep the statistical analysis as is.

[Note the removal of the first sentence in this Revised response].

While differing thoughts on a statistical approach may be worth refuting, reviewer suggestions are often easy to accommodate, and it is worth stepping back to ask whether the suggested change substantively compromises the meaning of the work, or whether accommodating the simple change is the best route forward. When a reviewer's suggestion is justified and can easily be addressed without escalating the disagreement, incorporating the change may provide the path of least resistance without altering the manuscript's message. This not only applies to minor suggestions but can also apply to more major suggestions, including statistical reanalysis as in our example above. Indeed, rather than rebutting, some authors may simply choose to employ a different statistical approach, as long as that statistical approach is valid, especially in the case where the altered analysis does not materially change the interpretation of the results. Ultimately, while authors can choose to refute or accept any reviewer comment, they should carefully consider whether reviewer suggestions are truly worth rebutting.

Tip 2: refute, do not refuse

Disagreement is a part of scientific discourse, and even the most accommodating peer review is likely to uncover some points of contention. Reviewers can also be 'wrong', and a large proportion of peer reviews contain 'incomplete, inaccurate or unsubstantiated critiques' ( Gerwing et al., 2020). In circumstances where such incorrect reviews are provided, reviewers can miss critical points that are clearly stated in the initial manuscript, or criticize broadly accepted methods of which the reviewers may be unaware ( Gerwing et al., 2020). Disagreeing with a peer review is perfectly acceptable, but it is essential that any point of contention be clearly and objectively argued and refuted, rather than simply ignored. If reviewers' opinions have been sought, then the de facto implication is that their opinions are valuable. After investing effort in crafting a careful peer review report, a reviewer may find it dispiriting or frustrating when the suggestions have been dismissed without justification by authors, or else when authors respond primarily by contesting the perspective rather than addressing the substance of the feedback. In the case where this suggestion is to be refuted, the authors might write:

Revised response: Based on the statistical design and the nature of our data, we feel that ANOVA is an appropriate statistical approach. As such, we have elected to keep the statistical analysis as is.

An even better response would provide a sound explanation for the authors' logic, which can often be enough to dispel the issue completely:

Revised response: Our experimental design includes three experimental treatment groups: Control, Exp1 and Exp2. The sample size within each group is fully balanced (n = 30) and each experimental group was independently replicated three times. Assessments of residual normality and homogenous variances indicated that our data did not violate these assumptions of ANOVA. Based on the statistical design and the nature of our data, we feel that ANOVA is an appropriate statistical approach. As such, we have elected to keep the statistical analysis as is.

Tip 3: seek clarification

Despite what might be hoped, some reviewer feedback is just downright obscure. In viewing peer review as an academic discourse, it is legitimate to seek clarification on some points, either through contacting the handling editor or by seeking clarification in a response. In our example, the reviewer may have some other reason for suggesting an alternative statistical approach that the authors may have missed. A collegial response to the reviewer would leave open the possibility of altering the analysis if there is a logical and procedural reason for doing so. Therein, the response to the reviewer may read:

Revised response: Our experimental design includes three experimental treatment groups: Control, Exp1 and Exp2. The sample size within each group is fully balanced ( n = 30) and each experimental group was independently replicated three times. Assessments of residual normality and homogenous variances indicated that our data did not violate these assumptions of ANOVA. Based on the statistical design and the nature of our data, we feel that ANOVA is an appropriate statistical approach. As such, we have elected to keep the statistical analysis as is. Notwithstanding, we are not sure why the reviewer feels ANOVA is inadequate and will happily consider other statistical approaches if a more detailed rationale could be provided.

Tip 4: courtesy costs nothing

Receiving overly critical comments from the infamous 'Reviewer 2' is such a common experience in the peer review process that it has become a scientific meme ( Peterson, 2020; Worsham et al., 2022; Covvey et al., 2025). In practice, the numerical label of this reviewer is irrelevant ( Covvey et al., 2025). What matters is the common perception and frequent experience of encountering a reviewer who is pedantic, strongly opinionated, or who simply misses the point of the manuscript they have been asked to evaluate. No matter how much effort a journal or its editorial board invests in guiding reviewers or fostering a constructive review culture, some inadequate or unconstructive reviews will slip through the cracks. At times, even good reviewers will have a bad day. And occasionally a reviewer may choose to remain involved after accepting an invitation, despite realizing upon reviewing the full manuscript that its scope extends beyond their expertise.

Whatever the circumstances that resulted in the perception that 'Reviewer 2' is obstructing the process, responding in kind is unproductive. At best, it might be worth asking the hard question of whether the manuscript is communicated as clearly as it could be. At worst, polite refutation is always the best policy. The reasons are twofold: firstly, if the manuscript is revised and goes back to the same reviewers, Reviewer 2 is not going to respond well to an aggressively worded rebuttal when they have taken time to review a manuscript (see Tips 1 and 2). Indeed, many authors start their response by expressing appreciation to the reviewers (even 'Reviewer 2') for taking the time to evaluate and comment on the manuscript, thereby establishing a collegial tone for the whole response letter. Secondly, the editors need to consider not just the well-being of the authors in the peer review process, but also that of the reviewers. A manuscript attached to an abusive response is likely to be rejected. Clearly, adopting a more conciliatory approach is likely to lead to a more favourable outcome:

Revised response: Thanks to the reviewer for this suggestion regarding statistics. Our experimental design includes three experimental treatment groups: Control, Exp1 and Exp2. The sample size within each group is fully balanced ( n = 30) and each experimental group was independently replicated three times. Assessments of residual normality and homogenous variances indicated that our data did not violate these assumptions of ANOVA. Based on the statistical design and the nature of our data, we feel that ANOVA is an appropriate statistical approach. As such, we have elected to keep the statistical analysis as is. Notwithstanding, we are not entirely sure why the reviewer feels ANOVA is inadequate and will happily consider other statistical approaches if a more detailed rationale could be provided. We have nonetheless included written rationale for why we chose ANOVA in the text of the manuscript.

Tip 5: structure your responses

Reference to specific line numbers where changes have been made is a valuable aspect of your response, but even greater value is gained by quoting the specific changes made, and providing a tracked-changes version of the manuscript, so that these alterations can be easily identified ( Cushman, 2023). For many journals, including Conservation Physiology, submission of a tracked-changes document is a required component of the revision process, but the value of that document is greatly enhanced when paired with a clear, well-structured document guiding reviewers and editors to the revisions. Given that the aim is to make it easy for reviewers and editors to identify the changes in the revised manuscript, we also advise that authors double-check that the line numbers referred to are correct prior to resubmitting the manuscript, and whether they refer to the tracked-changes or clean version of the manuscript. All too often, authors submit responses to reviewers and the line numbers are incorrect, resulting in confusion for editors and reviewers.

Revised response: Thanks to the reviewer for this suggestion regarding statistics. Our experimental design includes three experimental treatment groups: Control, Exp1 and Exp2. The sample size within each group is fully balanced ( n = 30), and each experimental group was independently replicated three times. Assessments of residual normality and homogenous variances indicated that our data did not violate these assumptions of ANOVA. Based on the statistical design and the nature of our data, we feel that ANOVA is an appropriate statistical approach. As such, we have elected to keep the statistical analysis as is. Notwithstanding, we are not entirely sure why the reviewer feels ANOVA is inadequate and will happily consider other statistical approaches if a more detailed rationale could be provided. We have nonetheless included written rationale for why we chose ANOVA in the text on Lines 100-105 of the clean version of the manuscript:

"Our experimental design included three experimental treatment groups: Control, Exp1 and Exp2. Since the sample size within each group was fully balanced (n = 30) and each experimental group was independently replicated three times. Since our data did not violate assumptions of residual normality and homoscedasticity, we analyzed the data using ANOVA."

Additional tricks for crafting a constructive response

Respond to all comments provided

In responding to peer review, it is important to remember that your revised manuscript will be assessed by the handling editor. It makes it easier and makes reviews quicker if every suggestion, comment and query is responded to clearly, even if the response is simply to accept the suggested change. The process moves more rapidly if reviewers and editors can clearly see that their advice has been carefully and thoughtfully received-even if some of the proposed changes are justifiably dismissed.

Be considerate of languages other than English

Science is typically communicated in English, and English is not everybody's first language ( Cushman, 2023). When considering peer review as an author, be considerate of whether the reviewer has misunderstood you because of such a language barrier (either theirs or your own). Try to clarify their point and place your response in that context. Try to be consistent with terminology; lexical flair has its place, but not if it leads to confusion in reporting scientific advances. Most importantly, never assume a reviewer is inexpert because of a linguistic disconnect ( Cushman, 2023). If a non-native English-speaking (or native English-speaking) reviewer is confused, that usually points towards opportunities to improve the clarity of your writing.

Try to remain positive and open-minded

We have alluded here, and in our previous work ( Clements et al., 2025), to the common feelings of negativity and inadequacy that can result from critical peer review ( Chrousos and Mentis, 2020; Covvey et al., 2025). That is not the purpose of peer review, no matter how extensive or critical the feedback may be. Approaching peer review from the perspective that most peer reviewers are trying to improve the work ( Covvey et al., 2025) is important for preserving your well-being, as well as maintaining the integrity of the process. The emerging pattern, when tracing the revisions of our example response here, is one of increasing recognition of the reviewer's efforts, greater engagement with the underlying reason for disagreement, and an open-minded willingness to accept the reviewer's suggestion if the rationale is more clearly explained. Even though, in our most refined example here, the author continues to refute the reviewer's point, changes are made to the manuscript that clearly articulate the validity of the original statistical approach. An open-minded approach, implicitly assuming that the reviewer is not wrong, but probably has misunderstood the rationale as explained in the original draft, has ultimately improved the communicative power of the manuscript and maintained a positive conversation between the author and the reviewer.

Sleep on it

Advice on how to respond to peer review often recommends drafting your response in two phases, with the first draft revised or even discarded entirely ( Noble, 2017). This initial draft serves as a space to vent frustration with any aspects of the feedback that seem unfair, and to deal with the disappointment of not having the manuscript accepted for publication. Taking some time to process this disappointment, and to allow the frustration to subside before approaching the response to your peer reviewers with as open a mindset as possible is advised ( Covvey et al., 2025). We agree with this advice and generally find that the most productive responses to peer review are written after a night of sleep, and consultation with the other authors of the manuscript.

Submit your revision on time, or request an extension from the editorial office

Typically, all decisions on manuscripts will contain a date by which the editor would like you to return your revised manuscript. This deadline allows publishers and editorial teams to maintain efficient workflows and reduce times to publication. Shorter turn-around times are also more efficient for editors and reviewers as there is less need for refamiliarization with the manuscript contents. That said, sometimes the feedback requires some substantial reworking, or even a new line of inquiry that would substantially strengthen the work, and revisions may take longer than expected. Being unable to meet a resubmission deadline is certainly understandable under these scenarios. If, at the time you receive a decision, you anticipate that the required revisions will be substantial, you may respond to the decision letter and ask for an extended timeframe. Should the scope of work expand during the revision process, or your time be taken up by unexpected obligations, simply notify the editorial office that you require extra time. It is unlikely that you will be refused the opportunity to resubmit your work later, but proactive communication ensures that all parties remain informed.

Contact the editor if things do not go well

The standards to which reviewers are expected to adhere by most journals, including Conservation Physiology, are publicly available and transparent to both reviewers and authors alike, and emphasize the need for reviewers to be rigorous but considerate. Nevertheless, despite the best efforts of the journal and its editorial team, suboptimal reviews do occur. Constructive feedback from authors helps the editorial team identify reviews that fall well outside the standards of the journal and recognize reviewers who repeatedly fail to meet expectations, especially reviews that are overly opinionated, contain discriminatory language or suggest unreasonable demands or quid pro quo arrangements. Notifying editors of such situations can reduce the likelihood of similar issues arising in the future. Such notification can be done by correspondence with the editor through the journal's submission system, or by including feedback in the cover letter of the revision. It is important to keep in mind that all aspects of constructive review discourse mentioned above still apply-editorial contact is not an opportunity to express frustration in an unconstructive or unprofessional manner. However, considering that research is undertaken by a community of peers, and that peer review is a self-correcting process to improve science, there is value in treating feedback as a two-way process when reviewers egregiously fail to uphold their responsibilities.

What should you do if you believe your manuscript was rejected unjustly?

When an editor rejects a paper without clear justification or with reasoning the authors believe is flawed, the most constructive step is to request clarification and succinctly point out the specific issues you believe were not fairly evaluated. A concise, evidence-based appeal to the editor can prompt reconsideration, ensuring that your manuscript receives proper scrutiny.

Closing remarks

In this editorial, we provide authors with practical guidance for responding to peer review in ways that may help to smooth the dialogue between authors, reviewers and editors. Many of these suggestions align with existing but newly emerging discussions ( Cushman, 2023; Covvey et al., 2025), suggesting that the role of authors in the peer review process has been under-recognized historically. While training in the peer review process is viewed as essential, it remains uncommon in science ( An et al., 2023; Buser et al., 2023; Willis et al., 2023; Stupacher, 2025). Guidance on how to respond to peer reviewers, especially for early-career scientists, appears to be even more ad hoc. Responding effectively to peer review not only streamlines the publication process but also helps safeguard the well-being of all participants in the process, including reviewers, editors and authors. We hope that this editorial is helpful for authors resubmitting their work to Conservation Physiology, and to other journals, promoting constructive engagement and strengthening the collective scientific endeavour.

References

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tips and tricks for addressing and responding to peer reviews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although peer review is the fundamental process that strengthens the scientific method (Lock, 1985; Rowland, 2002), it is hindered by several well-recogniz

# data[].attributes.headline
Research Training available from ESI Sept 2026-May 2027

# data[].attributes.subject
Research Training available from ESI Sept 2026-May 2027

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Upcoming Training & Webinars If you find the charge for places a barrier to attending: Please let us know as complimentary places can be made available in certain circumstances For example, eligibility: public, patients or carers not affiliated/supported by an organisation, unemployed and fully retired people with no paid work e.g.

# data[].attributes.headline
Prevalence of adverse childhood experience items: a systematic review and meta-analyses

# data[].attributes.subject
Prevalence of adverse childhood experience items: a systematic review and meta-analyses

# data[].attributes.headline
The Six Principles of Trauma-Informed Care

# data[].attributes.subject
The Six Principles of Trauma-Informed Care

# data[].attributes.headline
Felitti et al. 1998: Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults

# data[].attributes.subject
Felitti et al. 1998: Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults

# data[].attributes.body
The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study

# data[].attributes.headline
Creating Cultures of Trauma-Informed Care (CCTIC):

# data[].attributes.subject
Creating Cultures of Trauma-Informed Care (CCTIC):

# data[].attributes.body
A Self-Assessment and Planning Protocol

# data[].attributes.headline
Journal article: Landscape analysis towards data quality and utility labelling in the European Health Data Space

# data[].attributes.subject
Journal article: Landscape analysis towards data quality and utility labelling in the European Health Data Space

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Landscape analysis towards data quality and utility labelling in the European Health Data Space

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract. The European Health Data Space (EHDS) promotes health data sharing and secondary use across Europe. The QUANTUM project focuses on labelling data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Academic Phrasebank is a general resource for academic writers. It aims to provide you with examples of some of the phraseological 'nuts and bolts' of writing organised according to the main sections of a research paper or dissertation (see the top menu ). Other phrases are listed under the more general communicative functions of academic writing (see the menu on the left). The resource should be particularly useful for writers who need to report their research work. The phrases, and the headings under which they are listed, can be used simply to assist you in thinking about the content and organisation of your own writing, or the phrases can be incorporated into your writing where this is appropriate. In most cases, a certain amount of creativity and adaptation will be necessary when a phrase is used. The items in the Academic Phrasebank are mostly content neutral and generic in nature; in using them, therefore, you are not stealing other people's ideas and this does not constitute plagiarism. For some of the entries, specific content words have been included for illustrative purposes, and these should be substituted when the phrases are used. The resource was designed primarily for academic and scientific writers who are non-native speakers of English. However, native speaker writers may still find much of the material helpful. In fact, recent data suggest that the majority of users are native speakers of English. More about Academic Phrasebank.

This site was created by John Morley.

Academic Phrasebank is the Intellectual Property of the University of Manchester.

Copyright © 2023 The University of Manchester

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Academic Phrasebank is a general resource for academic writers. It aims to provide you with examples of some of the phraseological 'nuts and bolts' of writing organised according to the main sections of a research paper or dissertation (see the top menu ).

# data[].attributes.body
This new study in the Journal of Medical Internet Research shows that the HSE's national iCBT service is linked to real-world improvements in mental health outcomes and workplace productivity, with substantial estimated cost savings (over €29M annually across the study sample). This paper is the result of work Siobhán Harty led, and subsequently supervised, in her previous role at Amwell.

# data[].attributes.body
This new paper in Trends in Microbiology uses ideas from the field of Island Ecology to help explain why the microbes living in our bodies vary so much from person to person – a step toward better understanding how the microbiome shapes health. The paper is the result of a collaboration between Siobhán Harty and colleagues from previous roles.

# data[].attributes.headline
See this webinar, facilitated by ESI, on how to extract, analyse and present data in Scoping Reviews, by Dr Danielle Pollock:

# data[].attributes.subject
See this webinar, facilitated by ESI, on how to extract, analyse and present data in Scoping Reviews, by Dr Danielle Pollock:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to extract, analyze and present data in Scoping Reviews • Evidence Synthesis Ireland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How to extract, analyse and present data in scoping reviews can be challenging. This webinar explored where and how you should extract the data from multiple evidence sources, the best approach in analyzing your collected data-including how to manage qualitative data, and novel ways to present your findings. Dr Danielle Pollock is a Research Fellow […]

# data[].attributes.headline
Registration is now open for the PPI Summer School, UL: See link below for info and tickets

# data[].attributes.subject
Registration is now open for the PPI Summer School, UL: See link below for info and tickets

# data[].attributes.body
PPI training: 11th Public and Patient Involvement Summer School Tickets, Thursday 11 June-Friday 12 June  •  9-13:30 | Eventbrite

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11th Public and Patient Involvement Summer School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UL PPI Summer School offers people participatory space to network, learn & share innovative Public & Patient Involvement (PPI) in research

# data[].attributes.headline
May be of interest:  European Public Health Conference. Bilbao, Spain. 11 – 13 November 2026. Abstracts to be submitted by 1 May 2026. 

# data[].attributes.subject
May be of interest:  European Public Health Conference. Bilbao, Spain. 11 – 13 November 2026. Abstracts to be submitted by 1 May 2026. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Be visible at the virtual event 2021

Increase your visibility and make new contacts at the 14th EPH Conference. The event offers exceptional networking opportunities to raise your profile in the public health community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Increase your visibility and make new contacts at the 14th EPH Conference. The event offers exceptional networking opportunities to raise your profile in the public health community.

# data[].attributes.headline
ESI Summer School May 26th-28th: Info on Programme, Registration, Travel Bursary, Accommodation

# data[].attributes.subject
ESI Summer School May 26th-28th: Info on Programme, Registration, Travel Bursary, Accommodation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introduction to Evidence Synthesis: Summer School on Systematic Reviews and Beyond

# data[].attributes.headline
Pollock et al. 2023: Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews

# data[].attributes.subject
Pollock et al. 2023: Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pollock et al. 2023_Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews

# data[].attributes.headline
Tierney et al. 2026: Protocol for qualitative study

# data[].attributes.subject
Tierney et al. 2026: Protocol for qualitative study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tierney et al_2026_Implementing the PERCS System_Protocol for qualitative study

# data[].attributes.headline
ESI & Cochrane Ireland Newsletter containing news, resources, and webinars

# data[].attributes.subject
ESI & Cochrane Ireland Newsletter containing news, resources, and webinars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESI & Cochrane Ireland’s Newsletter - April 2025

# data[].attributes.headline
Upcoming Training & Webinars with Evidence Synthesis Ireland (February-October)

# data[].attributes.subject
Upcoming Training & Webinars with Evidence Synthesis Ireland (February-October)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Upcoming Training & Webinars Our training streams include qualitative evidence synthesis, scoping reviews and rapid reviews, Cochrane methodology, mixed methods and more. If you find the charge for places a barrier to attending: Please let us know as complimentary places can be made available in certain circumstances For example, eligibility: public, patients or carers not affiliated/supported by an organisation, unemployed and fully […]

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland Newsletter

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland Newsletter

# data[].attributes.body
The ESI & Cochrane Ireland Newsletter contains information on upcoming trainings, webinars, recent publications, and research news in the Irish context.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We only use cookies that are necessary to enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions. Clicking on ‘OK’ will set a cookie on your device to remember you read this message.For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page.

# data[].attributes.body
The Cochrane Newsletter is a great resource to keep up to date with upcoming trainings, courses, webinars, and other events relating to systematic reviews.

# data[].attributes.headline
Guidance for posters or oral presentations for academic conferences 

# data[].attributes.subject
Guidance for posters or oral presentations for academic conferences 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: Writing for Publication: Writing for Conferences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tips for writing articles, conference papers & posters

# data[].attributes.headline
Upcoming Training & Webinars with Evidence Synthesis Ireland

# data[].attributes.subject
Upcoming Training & Webinars with Evidence Synthesis Ireland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Upcoming Training & Webinars If you find the charge for places a barrier to attending: Please let us know as complimentary places can be made available in certain circumstances For example, eligibility: public, patients or carers not affiliated/supported by an organisation, unemployed and fully retired people with no paid work e.g.

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, December Newsletter: Future training and useful webinars

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, December Newsletter: Future training and useful webinars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESI & Cochrane Ireland’s Newsletter - December 2025

# data[].attributes.headline
Check out this link for the next QDATRAINING NVivo workshops

# data[].attributes.subject
Check out this link for the next QDATRAINING NVivo workshops

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

The next QDATRAINING NVivo workshops, open to all institutions, will take place in Dublin, Ireland AND ONLINE on the 18th & 19th of December 2025:

Venue: Grand Hotel Malahide - Dublin:

Day 1- Introduction to NVivo - setting up your qualitative database
Day 2 -NVivo Underway - analysing your data

Announcing a two day NVivo Training workshop inDublin AND ONLINE onthe 18th and 19th of December 2025. These workshops will be delivered by Ben Meehan. They come withfree and unlimited post training, one-to-one online support for each participant for the life of their first project using NVivo,including PhD projects. This personal support is delivered by means of a very user-friendly system, where the trainer logs on to your computer and works one-to-one with you as you incrementally apply the concepts and technologies taught in the workshop on your live data. Support session are run during the day, in the evenings and on Saturdays. You are not limited by duration or frequency of support sessions. You can have this tuition as often as you deem necessary to optimise your data and use NVivo to demonstrate rigour in your data analysis. The workshop also includes colour printed workbooks, electronic resources, lunch, and snacks.Click here to register for both daysor to register for one day, email your request to: support@qdatraining.com

If you are funded and do not wish to pay online, you can still reserve your place by arranging for an invoice to be sent to your funding organisation. Purchase orders or written confirmation from the funder are required for delegates requesting invoices. To arrange registration by this means, please send your request to this address: support@qdatraining.com
Windows and MAC versions welcome - these are laptop sessions, so it will be necessary to bring a laptop to the workshop. You can attend this event online if you so wish.
Course Outlines
Day 1 - Introduction to NVivo - designing and building your qualitative database Day 2 -NVivo Underway - analysing your data
Or scan this QR Code:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to content Announcing a two day NVivo Training workshop inDublin AND ONLINE onthe 18th and 19th of December 2025 . These workshops will be delivered by Ben Meehan. They come withfree and unlimited post training, one-to-one online support for each participant for the life of their first project using NVivo, including PhD projects.

# data[].attributes.headline
Congratulations to Tina Bedenik, Professor Kathleen Bennett, Barbara Foley, Fiona Geaney and Rachel Flynn on winning the Integrated Services Award at the HSE Library Open Access Awards 2025. HIQT academic collaboration with RCSI.

# data[].attributes.subject
Congratulations to Tina Bedenik, Professor Kathleen Bennett, Barbara Foley, Fiona Geaney and Rachel Flynn on winning the Integrated Services Award at the HSE Library Open Access Awards 2025. HIQT academic collaboration with RCSI.

# data[].attributes.body
Their study explores how patients, healthcare professionals, researchers and industry view consent, data ownership and public involvement in shaping Ireland’s health data future.

Read their paper, 'If it wasn’t for us, there would be no data: stakeholders’ perspectives on patient involvement in the use of health data in Ireland' here:

https://lnkd.in/e2eGMfse

# data[].attributes.headline
Congratulations to David Healy, Conor Foley and Lorna Sweeney on their recent academic publication with HRB Open Research. 'Exploring how health inequalities are conceptualised and measured in patient experience surveys in acute care: a protocol for a scoping review'. NCEP academic collaboration with University of Galway.

# data[].attributes.subject
Congratulations to David Healy, Conor Foley and Lorna Sweeney on their recent academic publication with HRB Open Research. 'Exploring how health inequalities are conceptualised and measured in patient experience surveys in acute care: a protocol for a scoping review'. NCEP academic collaboration with University of Galway.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HRB Open Research Article: Exploring how health inequalities are conceptualised and measured in patient experience surveys in acute care: a protocol for a scoping review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read the latest article version by David Healy, John P. Gilmore, Jenny King, Jenny McSharry, Oonagh Meade, Éidín Ní Shé, Lorna Sweeney, Conor Foley, Chris Noone, at HRB Open Research.

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence Synthesis Ireland Training Schedule for 2026

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence Synthesis Ireland Training Schedule for 2026

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESI & Cochrane Ireland’s Newsletter - November 2025

# data[].attributes.headline
Cochrane eNewsletter: some interesting webinars on evidence synthesis!

# data[].attributes.subject
Cochrane eNewsletter: some interesting webinars on evidence synthesis!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cochrane Supporters' eNews September 2025

# data[].attributes.headline
ESI Newsletter: Check out the Evidence Synthesis Webinar Schedule and Training Opportunities.

# data[].attributes.subject
ESI Newsletter: Check out the Evidence Synthesis Webinar Schedule and Training Opportunities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESI & Cochrane Ireland’s Newsletter - September 2025

# data[].attributes.body
May be used as an alternative to Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Semantic Scholar | AI-Powered Research Tool

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Semantic Scholar uses groundbreaking AI and engineering to understand the semantics of scientific literature to help Scholars discover relevant research.

# data[].attributes.headline
Academic paper published with Research Involvement and Engagement on July 28th. Cross-sectional qualitative study of key stakeholders’ perspectives on the patient’s role in the use of health data in Ireland. Academic collaboration with RCSI and HIQT. Author team: Tina Bedenik, Fiona Geaney, Barbara Foley, Rachel Flynn & Kathleen E. Bennett.

# data[].attributes.subject
Academic paper published with Research Involvement and Engagement on July 28th. Cross-sectional qualitative study of key stakeholders’ perspectives on the patient’s role in the use of health data in Ireland. Academic collaboration with RCSI and HIQT. Author team: Tina Bedenik, Fiona Geaney, Barbara Foley, Rachel Flynn & Kathleen E. Bennett.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If it wasn’t for us, there would be no data: stakeholders’ perspectives on patient involvement in the use of health data in Ireland - Research Involvement and Engagement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Legislative reform in Ireland and Europe, including the introduction of a Health Information Bill in Ireland and the European Health Data Space (EHDS) Regulation, promote strong governance of health data, including control over how health data is used for different purposes, such as individual care, research, planning and policy-making. The aim of this study was to explore key stakeholders’ perspectives on the role of patients in enabling inclusive and ethical use of health data for primary and secondary purposes in Ireland. This was a cross-sectional qualitative study with focus group design. Thirty-five participants were evenly distributed across five groups: Academics and Researchers; Data Controllers, Data Protection Officers and Ethics Experts; Patients and Public; Healthcare Professionals and the Industry Group. A semi-structured approach guided by a topic guide was used, and thematic data analysis was conducted. This study identified strong support for increased patient involvement. However, contradictions in participants’ views within and across groups were found particularly around patient control over health data and data ownership and embedding Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research. Most of the participants agreed that patient autonomy over health data is of ‘vital’ importance; yet they advocated for staged and delayed patient access. Similarly, the participants believed that PPI was required to drive the direction of research and funding allocation; however, patients’ lack of understanding of research areas was a challenge. Concerns were expressed around informed consent required for sharing of patient data, particularly with the industry, and around the timing of consent when patients are at their most vulnerable. Participants expressed strong support for increased patient involvement in the use of health data in Ireland; however, there were contrasting views in relation to data control and ownership, consent processes and PPI. These findings have implications for policy development in the implementation of the EHDS in Europe, and the establishment of the Health Data Access Body in Ireland. This study emphasises the importance of patient involvement to support successful implementation of new health information systems and data access infrastructure. New legal and regulatory frameworks are being introduced across Europe, including the European Health Data Space Regulation, which will make it easier to use and exchange electronic patient health records for care in the European Union. This regulation also promotes strong control over how health data is managed and used for different purposes, including health research. Data that is used for individual health care is referred to as primary use, and if it is used for other purposes, for example in research, it is referred to as secondary use. This study aims to explore the perspectives of key people on the role of patients in how their health data is used for primary and secondary purposes in Ireland. The study involved focus groups with academics and researchers; data and ethics experts; healthcare professionals; patients and public; and the industry. Focus groups involve meetings with participants with different backgrounds to discuss specific topics to help explore different perspectives. The findings suggested strong support for increased patient involvement in decisions around how their data is used, although views were inconsistent around who should have control over, or who owns health data, and how to incorporate Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research. This study emphasises the importance of increased patient involvement to support successful implementation of new health information systems and policies in all European Union (EU) Member States.

# data[].attributes.headline
May be of interest: The Annual CAO Conference. Bridging Gaps, Building Futures: Integrating Disability and Inclusion through Academic Health Science Partnerships. Fri, 3 Oct 2025 09:00 - 13:00 in Trinity College Dublin.

# data[].attributes.subject
May be of interest: The Annual CAO Conference. Bridging Gaps, Building Futures: Integrating Disability and Inclusion through Academic Health Science Partnerships. Fri, 3 Oct 2025 09:00 - 13:00 in Trinity College Dublin.

# data[].attributes.body
Bridging Gaps, Building Futures: Integrating Disability and

Inclusion through

Academic Health Science Partnerships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Integrating Disability & Inclusion through Academic Health Partnership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eventbrite - Chief Academic Officer Group presents Integrating Disability & Inclusion through Academic Health Partnership - Friday, 3 October 2025 at Examination Hall, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Dublin. Find event and ticket information.

# data[].attributes.headline
ESI Training & Webinar Schedule from September 2025 to February 2026

# data[].attributes.subject
ESI Training & Webinar Schedule from September 2025 to February 2026

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESI & Cochrane Ireland's Newsletter - July 2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This workshop will provide authors, at the beginning of the systematic review process, with an in-depth understanding of how reviews are planned and conducted. It offers an insight to the development of a protocol, introducing participants to methodology, search methods, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis.

# data[].attributes.body
Short presentation and feedback on the Annual PPI Summer School. I would also highly recommend attending next year for those interested in PPI. Slides with notes are also available in SharePoint in the Research Resources folder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PPI summer school 27-28 June 2025-update

# data[].attributes.headline
Online training for an introduction to systematic reviews with Evidence Synthesis Ireland in September

# data[].attributes.subject
Online training for an introduction to systematic reviews with Evidence Synthesis Ireland in September

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Upcoming Training & Webinars If you find the charge for places a barrier to attending: Please let us know as complimentary places can be made available in certain circumstances For example, eligibility: public, patients or carers not affiliated/supported by an organisation, unemployed and fully retired people with no paid work e.g.

# data[].attributes.body
QDA have some really useful tutorials on how to use NVivo - you can find them here NVivo Animated Tutorials – QDATRAINING

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NVivo Training, Consultancy & Support - Windows & MAC

# data[].attributes.body
Check where your journal of choice is ranked on Scimago.

# data[].attributes.headline
Some interesting training coming up with Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland - check out their newsletter here

# data[].attributes.subject
Some interesting training coming up with Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland - check out their newsletter here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESI & Cochrane Ireland’s Newsletter - June 2025

# data[].attributes.headline
How to write a successful research paper? Editor-led webinar on the principles and practices of writing a research paper suitable for peer review. Webinar on June 30th - may be of interest.

# data[].attributes.subject
How to write a successful research paper? Editor-led webinar on the principles and practices of writing a research paper suitable for peer review. Webinar on June 30th - may be of interest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nature Communications Seminar Series - Upcoming and published seminars · Cassyni

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seminars hosted by Nature Communications. Nature Communications is an open access, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in all areas of the biological, health, physical, chemical, Earth, social, mathematical, applied, and engineering sciences. Papers published by the journal aim to represent important advances of significance to specialists within each field.

# data[].attributes.body
Additional webinars and AI training available from Cochrane here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods in evidence synthesis: Learning Live webinar series

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to this series of Cochrane Learning Live webinars, all dedicated to the topic of Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods in evidence synthesis!

# data[].attributes.headline
European Implementation Collaborative (EIC) Working Groups Update

# data[].attributes.subject
European Implementation Collaborative (EIC) Working Groups Update

# data[].attributes.body
Some interesting training coming up with Evidence Synthesis Ireland including a Knowledge Translation Training Program and a webinar on the role of AI tools in developing search strategies and identifying evidence for systematic reviews.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Upcoming Training & Webinars Our training streams include qualitative evidence synthesis, scoping reviews and rapid reviews, Cochrane methodology, mixed methods and more. If you find the charge for places a barrier to attending: Please let us know as complimentary places can be made available in certain circumstances For example, eligibility: public, patients or carers not affiliated/supported by an organisation, unemployed and fully […]

# data[].attributes.body
Two staff from HIQT, Emma Burke and Joanne Fallon, will be attending.

# data[].attributes.body
Congratulations to Caroline Walsh, Catherine Waldron, Cathy Duggan and HSCS team on their recent scoping review protocol publication!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HRB Open Research Article: The characteristics of person-centred care in residential services for children and adults with disabilities: a scoping review protocol.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read the latest article version by Caroline Walsh, Cathy Duggan, Catherine Waldron, Elena Vaughan, Fiona Geaney, Marie Carrigan, Valerie Ferguson, Niamh O’Rourke, Rachel Flynn, at HRB Open Research.

# data[].attributes.headline
Systematic review on using Gen AI in evidence synthesis

# data[].attributes.subject
Systematic review on using Gen AI in evidence synthesis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Generative artificial intelligence use in evidence synthesis: A systematic review | Research Synthesis Methods | Cambridge Core

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Generative artificial intelligence use in evidence synthesis: A systematic review

# data[].attributes.body
Nature Masterclasses: Link to peer-review training with Springer Nature.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore the role of a peer reviewer and the foundations of a good peer review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How To Use EndNote (A Complete Beginner's Guide)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to use EndNote 20 in seven minutes: Windows

# data[].attributes.body
University of Limerick LibGuide on Endnote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: Referencing & Citation Tools: Introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Glucksman Library’s guide to referencing and using EndNote in the University of Limerick.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We train, support, and empower individuals and organizations in applying theory and evidence-informed change methods to improve outcomes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The University of Washington
Implementation Science
Resource Hub

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Implementation science seeks to address the critical question of how to efficiently and effectively deliver evidence-based interventions to those who need them, with greater speed, fidelity, quality,…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This online guide introduces the key terms, concepts and frameworks associated with implementation. Its primary purpose is to support any person, team or organisation introducing or seeking to sustain change whether they are policy makers, service providers, practitioners or researchers. This guide will be of value to anybody interested in implementation, no matter what sector or field they are working in.

# data[].attributes.headline
Congratulations Ella Tuohy and NCEP team! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Congratulations Ella Tuohy and NCEP team! 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Maternity care pathway and involvement in decision making: A mixed-methods study of women’s experiences in Ireland - PubMed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All maternity care pathways should strive to provide continuity of care to support women to make informed choices across all stages of their maternity care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: Systematic Reviews: Scoping reviews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LibGuides: Systematic Reviews: Scoping reviews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
King’s College London Libraries & Collections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: Searching for Systematic Reviews & Evidence Synthesis: AI tools in evidence synthesis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guide brings together information and guidance on effective searching for journal articles and grey literature for those undertaking a systematic review, scoping review or other evidence synthesis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The conference for Healthcare Ergonomics & Patient Safety
is taking place in Trinity College Dublin, Ireland from 18th - 20th June 2025.

Safer Better Healthcare By All For All

Registration

Please find registration fees and information below.

Single day attendance fees Low Income Country - €110
IEA Societies Member - €220

Student/ Patient Partner - €110

CPD hours awarded in accordance with the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland (NMBI) guidance

1 Day = 6.5 hrs/ 6.5 CPD Points

2 Days = 13 hours/ 13 CPD Points

3 Days = 19.5 hours/ 19.5 CPD Points

Further CPD accreditation details will follow in due course.

Join our mailing list for
the latest updates, news & more!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The conference for Healthcare Ergonomics & Patient Safety is taking place in Trinity College Dublin, Ireland from 18th - 20th June 2025. Safer Better Healthcare By All For All Please find registration fees and information below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Summer School 2025 • Evidence Synthesis Ireland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
FULL PROGRAMME HERE REGISTER HERE Join us for our Summer School at the University of Galway from May 20th to 22nd, 2025, for a hands-on three-day summer school on “Introduction to Evidence Synthesis.” This course is tailored for beginners and those looking to refresh their skills. While focusing on health, the methods taught apply in […]