The value of peer mentoring for the psychosocial wellbeing of junior doctors: a randomised controlled study

Goh, Shyan Lii

doi:10.5694/mja2.50163

Topics

To the Editor: I commend the Medical Journal of Australia for supporting high quality qualitative research with clear criteria for acceptance for publication1 on the background of increasing concerns these manuscripts are being rejected for reasons not based on the quality of the article submitted.2

Sydney, NSW

Correspondence: sgoh@hotmail.com

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Kitto SC, Chesters J, Grbich C. Quality in qualitative research. Med J Aust 2008; 188: 243–246. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2008/188/4/quality-qualitative-research
2. Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R, et al. An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research. BMJ 2016; 352: i563.
3. Chanchlani S, Chang D, Ong JSL, Anwar A. The value of peer mentoring for the psychosocial wellbeing of junior doctors: a randomised controlled study. Med J Aust 2018; 209: 401–405. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2018/209/9/value-peer-mentoring-psychosocial-wellbeing-junior-doctors-randomised-controlled;
4. Talley NJ. From the curious case of Patient K to TOP GEAR and Bond. Med J Aust 2018; 209: 468–471. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2018/209/11/curious-case-patient-k-top-gear-and-bond
5. O'Cathain A. A practical guide to using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.