Psycho-oncology
The meeting starts with the members being given an update on the progress of the grant submission titled ‘Open Door 21’. The grant was submitted as an initial submission and did very well on review but did not do very well to get funding. Because of this, it was submitted again as a new submission. However, the current draft being discussed in the meeting is a resubmission of the second submission. According to the summary statement sent to the members, the impact score for the current submission was 36 while its percentile score was 27, which are not terrible scores. The reviewer (Surgeon) felt that the project was heading in the wrong direction. However, they concluded that it was still worth resubmitting. The members were also sent the response page. This is the page where the author of an article/grant can respond to reviewers’ comments. From the reviewers’ comments, the general theme that could be noticed was that the reviewers felt that the extension to cancer was not innovative. Open Door 21 would be able to connect older adult patients who screened positive for cancer mental health services. Open Door 21 would be a brief intervention that would help identify the patients’ needs and goals for treatment and connect them to the appropriate personnel. Another major concern by the reviewers was regarding the qualitative and quantitative analysis. For the qualitative analysis, questions were raised over the data collection techniques as well as the small sample size used. In the case of quantitative analysis, the reviewers’ primary critique was that they felt as if it was underpowered. However, the author of Open Door 21 defended the project by saying that the project felt underpowered because it did not need a lot of money.