A nicely written abstract. Although the conclusion that "nurses need to gain insight into issues that affect the women they care for, including access to and satisfaction with care, how preventive services are utilized, and specific health needs," better understanding of nurses will not alleviate the situation in a system that shuts out poor or immigrant patients.
An appropriate study design, and a nicely written abstract, but because this is a study that compares the efficacy of high-dollar hearing aid products, it would have been better if the journal had included information about the sponsoring institution, and/or conflict of interest statements.
I dislike these cutesy titles for scientific, peer-reviewed studies. The STREGA statement calls for titles to "indicate the study's design with a commonly used term." Few scientific writing professionals would suggest an attention-grabbing headline.
Despite the findings, I take issue with the authors' conclusion that "These findings suggest that support services should be made broadly available to all medical students, but should be targeted to the specific needs of male and female students." Instead, support services should be made broadly available to all medical students, but should be targeted to the specific needs of individuals. The study does not provide any evidence that a "girls" program should be put in place along with a "boy" program.
I applied for this grant on behalf of a program in a large state agency; however my application was not funded. The reviewer comments were sometimes insulting and not helpful in improving future applications. For example, even though I had indicated "new researcher" as one of the applicant categories, one of the reviewers write, "Who is this person? I've never heard of them."
论文