Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal- article publication

In this conversation, Kevin K. Kumashiro shares his reflections on challenges to publishing anti-oppressive research in educational journals. He then invites eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals - William F. Pinar, Elizabeth Graue, Carl A. Grant, Maenette K. P. Benham, Ronald H. Heck, James Joseph Scheurich, Allan Luke, and Carmen Luke - to critique and expand on his analysis. Kumashiro begins the conversation by describing his own experiences submitting manuscripts to educational research journals and receiving comments by anonymous reviewers and journal editors. He suggests three ways to rethink the collaborative potential of the peer-review process: as constructive, as multilensed, and as situated. The eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals then critique and expand Kumashiro's analysis. Kumashiro concludes the conversation with additional reflections on barriers and contradictions involved in advancing anti-oppressive educational research in educational journals. Copyright © by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Audit of selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in rural general practice

Aim: To identify the demographics and risk factors in a selected patient population prescribed non-selective and cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX- 2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Method: A structured clinical self-audit form was distributed in January to March 2001 to 155 interested general practitioners (GPs) in rural Queensland. Results: Seventy one GPs participated in the audit and contributed 1417 patient records - 790 patients had received nonselective NSAIDs and 627 had received COX-2 inhibitors (celecoxib or rofecoxib). Patients who received COX-2 inhibitors were significantly older, more likely to have clinically important concomitant illness, and more likely to be taking medication known to interact with NSAIDs. They were also twice as likely to have two or more risk factors for adverse effects. The most common reasons for switching from an NSAID to a COX-2 inhibitor were reported to be a previous side effect from an NSAID (primarily related to gastrointestinal effects) or the doctor's perception of the superior efficacy of COX-2 inhibitor therapy. Conclusions: This study has shown that COX-2 inhibitors were used in a distinctly different patient population compared to non-selective NSAIDs. There were significant variations in the demographics and number of risk factors - for example, cardiovascular and renal - between the two identified populations. These differences may be due to doctors selecting COX-2 inhibitors for patients at high risk of gastrointestinal complications. However, the prescribing pattern may also be partly due to misconceptions about the relative safety and efficacy of COX-2 inhibitor drugs.

Motivations and perceived influences on rural and urban general practitioners when prescribing conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or COX-2 inhibitors

Background and objective: Prescribers in rural and remote locations perceive that there are different influences on their prescribing compared with those experienced by urban prescribers. The aim of this study was to compare the motivations and perceived influences on general practitioners (GPs) when prescribing COX-2 inhibitors rather than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) between rural and urban-based GPs in Queensland, Australia. Methods: A questionnaire was administered to two geographically distinct groups of GPs, one urban (n = 67) and one rural (n = 67), investigating the reasons that the GP would prescribe a COX-2 inhibitor rather than a conventional NSAID or vice versa and also focusing on patients requesting a prescription for a COX-2 inhibitor. Results and discussion: A 51% response rate (n = 68) was achieved. The difference between the rural and the urban GPs was that the urban GPs were more likely to perceive that they were influenced to prescribe COX-2 inhibitors by their patients' knowledge of these new (at the time) drugs. GPs in both the rural and urban areas perceived the COX-2 selective inhibitors to be safer than conventional NSAIDs, and that there was little difference in terms of efficacy between the two drug classes. However, GPs from both of the study areas stated that conventional NSAIDs were preferred over COX-2 selective inhibitors, primarily due to their expense, if their patients were not at risk for developing a GI bleed. Conclusion: The motivations and perceived influences to prescribe a COX-2 inhibitor in rural and in urban areas of Queensland, Australia were very similar. Almost all surveyed GPs in rural and urban areas had patients request a prescription, or enquire about the COX-2 inhibitors. Urban GPs were more likely to feel pressured to prescribe a COX-2 inhibitor than their rural counterparts, agreeing with other research which found that patient pressure to prescribe appears to be greater in urban general practice.