Group Feedback
What went well in the meeting?
How did you like reading an MMWR versus a more traditional manuscript?
What could be done differently for future meetings?
How did you like reading an MMWR versus a more traditional manuscript?
What could be done differently for future meetings?
What went extremely well in the meeting was participation. As a co-moderator, one of things I hope for is strong engagement and a lively discussion. We were able to tie in many topics from health equity to epidemiological methods, to this article.
This was my first time doing a deep dive into an MMWR article. There were a few stark differences from this type of reading to a traditional manuscript. For instance, There was not a clear-cut introduction and methods sections. Majority of the article consisted of results and discussion. This may be the stylistic format of MMWR, or a consequence of the novelty of COVID-19 (the topic of the article). Nonetheless, I believe it was a pretty easy read and contained many of the aspects of the STROBE checklist.
Finally, this may be specific to our group, but we definitely needed more time! Our meeting went 30 minutes over, but we also did not begin at the top of the hour as expected. Overall, this session went well and I look forward to other journal clubs throughout the fellowship!
I think I see the benefit to using both report formats (MMWR and traditional manuscripts) in these types of discussions. This MMWR didn't use super complex methodology, but the relevance of the piece made it really interesting to create dialogue around.
I really loved our conversation! I think four people was the perfect number, especially in the virtual setting. We all expressed an interest in continuing to hold these journal clubs together. I also appreciated the chance to informally meet with the other fellows!