Sample size calculations…they are the bane of my existence! Technically it should be so easy. Choose the alpha, the power, punch in some other relevant numbers to determine effect size and waza! A number is spit out that is the number I need to recruit! However, I find that the actual process isn’t that easy, particularly when you are doing research using paradigms that haven’t been tested before (or in your area with your specified outcome) and when choosing the clinically important difference as the guide to effect size isn’t an option.

One of the things that I have found very helpful has been to use the program called GPower which you can download for free here: http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/ There is also a paper guiding how to use this program which is a bit technical but helpful.¹

What I like about this program is that is allows you to choose which statistical test you will be using (i.e. F test, t test, exact test, etc…) and also the specific type of that test (i.e. paired t-test, MANOVA, repeated measures within, etc..). Then it guides you through the information that you need to input in order to calculate the needed sample size. This also includes a side bar that allows you to calculate the effect size (what I think is the hardest part) by filling in the appropriate boxes. This has been a real help for me when I have to calculate the sample size I need for analyses that I am not quite clear on as it forces me to find the relevant information. Last, the program provides you with a print copy (similar to SPSS syntax) that you can save so that you actually remember how you got the sample size that you did!

GPower also allows you to perform different types of power analyses – for example, a priori analyses like I described above where the aim to determine the sample size. It also provides the opportunity to do posthoc power analyses when you know the effect size, alpha, and sample size. There are other options as well, but I can handily confess that I’ve never used these!

Regardless, I thought that I would share this resource with people in case you find yourself also wanting to bang your head against the wall when attempting power calculations!

References:

1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioural, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods  2007;39:175-191.

Today’s very special guest post is from Luke Parkitny. Luke is an PhD student at NeuRA (Neuroscience Research Australia) who is just starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel – in a good way as he will submit his thesis in August!

The average scientist isn’t just a white-coat who understands why a door sign stating “staph only” might be funny! And “doing science” isn’t just about testing important questions, although some of us might have naively thought that to be the case. After just over 3 years of chipping away at my PhD I have concluded that science is just about one thing: dancing.

Dancing? But isn’t “doing science” about discovering cool stuff? Sort of. The basic work of science appears to lie somewhere between its grand ideal of bravely going where no one has gone before and the day-to-day practicalities of survival: on the one hand, we get to ask the great questions, and on the other, most of us will live from grant to grant, constantly forced to justify our existence. The dance is what it takes to combine these successfully.

As a researcher I recognise that I occupy a very privileged position in which I actually get paid to scratch my itches. You see, working in clinical practice I often had little questions pop up – the what ifs? the how is thats? and the why on earth is thises? And perhaps a little obsessiveness about needing to answer these questions ultimately helped me to decide to pursue a career in research. However answering questions takes time and money; thus doing science also involves a lot of marketing! This means publishing, presenting, and more publishing. Of course, as you quickly find out, we’re not just talking about scribbling something down for Uncle Bob’s Journal of Bloodletting. No, part of learning to do science involves learning to navigate through the litany of peer-reviewed journals that are lined up in a rigid hierarchical order like an army on parade (marketing of science 101). You quickly find out that getting one of your papers past the watchful eyes of the journal editors and reviewers of top journals can be like poor little Bilbo Baggins getting the ring into the fires of Mordor. The journey is fraught with peril but the rewards are great. Where you publish your research helps to determine the perceived quality of your work.

But the dance isn’t just about dancing – it’s also about dancing in the right direction: your research and your career have to show a trajectory. This may be a tangible concept if you are studying ballistics, but for the rest of us this approximately magical concept translates to flaunting a “definite interest”. In fact, I really only understood the importance of this while recently applying for my first fellowships. In short, showing a career trajectory is about knowing where you are going and being able to make it so bleedingly obvious to everyone else that a one eyed canary with half its cerebrum missing could discern your career path in true-to-life 3D form. And, if you think about it, this does make sense. As you develop from a pre-embryonic PhD student, to a fledgling early career researcher, and finally into the fearsome hawk that is a principal research fellow, you learn how to do science. The people who decide whether to support you with funding just want to know if you’re up to the task.

So science is as much about the questions as it is about making sure that your work is important: to you (otherwise why ask the questions?) and to others (otherwise where do you get the money?). There are some things about the process that I think might prevent scientists from tackling brave, risky but potentially very fruitful projects (guaranteed positive results are easier to sell than potential bombs). However, I also think that that the idea of having to justify your work is a good one; it probably just needs some refining (don’t ask me how to achieve this as this line of research is not part of my career trajectory). I definitely think that we should have to make people excited about our work but I also think that we need to be allowed to be adventurous. From what I’ve seen, one can have more of the latter if one has the gift of the gab. For now, I’m off to dance that-a-way. Bazinga!

This week we have a special post from a guest writer – Suzanne Merkus – who is a PhD Fellow from the International Research Institute of Stavanger in Norway and the EMGO Institute at the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam. Suzanne is a long-time fan of The ICECReam and we are long time fans of her research topic – taking holidays!

When I started my PhD I thought I had hit the jackpot of PhD topics: doing research on holidays, free time, recreational time, or whatever you want to call that time of the day, week or year when you are not at work! Perfect! Everything I learned in my PhD, I was convinced, I would put into practice! Research shows that it is essential for your health to take breaks, weekends off, and holidays. You know, the kind where you get to relax and detach from work, not the kind that adds to your stress levels like holidays where you renovate your house or the ones spent with the in-laws. And no, no matter how exotic the destination, conferences are not considered a holiday.

So, that would be easy, all I needed to do was plan in regular time off including long weekends and holidays! Easy, right?! Wrong! Unfortunately, those deadlines don’t just disappear and those exams really need studying for. Additionally, I kinda got attached to my PhD: it was my baby, that I’d seen grow from the start and I needed it to succeed, so I started spending time on it during the evenings, weekends and holidays. I couldn’t detach from it, I started to feel guilty too when I didn’t spend time on it. And the more I read about the bad effects of working long hours on your (and my) health, the more I got stressed.

Research shows that there is ‘good stress’ (phew!), the kind that makes you work hard for a week to submit that research paper. But if that same stress lasts too long (over weeks or years), your stress hormone levels remain elevated, and your body and brain can’t cope with it anymore. You can suffer from sleep loss, and get tired and cranky. Your boyfriend or girlfriend starts to notice it: “it feels like we are doing a PhD, not just you”. Continue to work without taking a relaxing break, and it could lead to exhaustion, and finally burn out. In the long run, it also increases the risk for heart disease/heart attack.(1,2,3) Wow, wait, what had I been doing the past 4 years?!

In short, I burnt out. Kinda ironic, isn’t it? And I’m not willing to wait around to see whether that heart attack is waiting for me in 20-30 years. My PhD got a new depth of importance and I take it seriously now. I take every weekend off, and every evening too! I say ‘no’ more often,  and I don’t feel guilty. And best of all, I enjoy my PhD and life in general much more! So take a break, unwind, relax, and don’t feel guilty about it. It really is good for you, and the people around you too

References:

1. Kivimaki et al. 2006. Is Incomplete Recovery From Work a Risk Marker of Cardiovascular Death? Prospective Evidence From Industrial Employees. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68: 402-407.

2. Kivimaki et al. 2011. Using additional information on working hours to predict coronary heart disease: a cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 154: 457-463.

3. van Amelsvoort et al. 2003. Need for recovery after work and the subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease in a working population. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60: 183-187

…from Tasha

So last week I had a completely useless week work-wise. I got lots of little things done and had some big life events (I’m an Australian citizen now!!) but I really didn’t complete what I thought I would. The ironic thing is that last week I had finally felt like I had caught up on things and so I had a week where I could give focussed effort to 1 or 2 projects. I was so excited!! And yet, I literally got nothing done. So either I require the constant stress of imminent deadlines to get work done (which is entirely feasible) or the amount of work I did the week prior to ‘catch up’ burned me out and I needed the break.

I’m tempted to say the latter actually…not only to excuse my lack of productivity but also because I think it is an important point. I think that as researchers and students in research, we often beat ourselves up for not getting things done in a specific period of time. Some of this self-pressure is reasonable, because research can be this vague universe with a lack of specified deadlines. However, some of this self-pressure and guilt can be really detrimental to our future productivity. In the research on pain, it is commonly shown that your past memory of a painful experience can influence how you perceive (and respond to) future events. Specifically, you may perceive a painful event as even more painful or you might perceive a normally non-painful event as actually being painful.

What if this same thing happens to our productivity? What if, when we beat ourselves up for not getting things done, we actually cause ourselves to perceive our work the following week as insurmountable?? Or does it cause us to perceive what we normally would consider an easy task to now be incredibly difficult? Or perhaps our affective response of guilt over a slack week undermines our confidence in our own ability to get any job done?

The reason I say this, is that after a really slack week, I find I get a ridiculous amount of work done the following week. And it’s not a result of stress/pressure/guilt/pulling all-nighters (unless of course the deadline is that week!). Rather, I find I feel motivated and rejuvenated and ready to tackle a problem.

So my message today is to give yourself a break and don’t just think that a slack week is always a lack of motivation or discipline on your part…you may just be re-charging. Perhaps a good reason to make sure we take our holidays every year!!

…from Zoe

From what I can tell most people sign up to do a PhD with little to no knowledge of what the ‘job’ entails. I too was one of those souls that ventured down the PhD path and despite watching colleagues seemingly breeze through the 3 to 4 years, it was only through my own experience that I have come to realise the amount of hard work, sweat and tears that goes on unannounced in the background. I have recently popped out the other end of the time warp and I guess you could say I have been reminiscing about my PhD journey of late and thinking about what I would perhaps do differently next time (not that I am planning on doing a second PhD just yet). If used wisely, hindsight is a very valuable tool and I have compiled my top 10 tips to getting though…. I hope you find one or two of them to be helpful and while these are some of the things I have learned along the way please feel free to post a tip or two based on your experiences (no matter what stage you are at it might save someone else going through the same heart ache)!

1. Supervisors; your supervisors are your guiding lights throughout the PhD. They are the ones who have been there and done that and survived the process before you, in essence they know what you are going through albeit their recollection of the process may be a little fuzzy. Establishing a regular meeting time with your supervisor(s) early in your PhD is crucial to staying on track. It is a time where you can plan your PhD, receive feedback on your work, ask questions, seek clarification and at times answer to someone else where you have spent the last fortnight. Sure the truth hurts sometimes and what you hear dints your pride but at the end of the day it is in your best interest to stay on track, ensure that issues are nipped in the bud and progress is continually being made!
2. TIME OUT – in moments of stress and mania I would find myself pulling late nights, early mornings, eating at my desk and dreaming (or rather nightmare-ing) about my PhD and the work that I still had to complete. During these more stressful times, family, friends and exercise were wrongly forced into the backseat. In order to function at your best you really need focussed work time to be balanced with quality down time, a laugh and a good sleep. Lose this balance and unfortunately your work does suffer and the stressful spiral intensifies. However, allowing yourself to have a genuine break, regular exercise and good night sleep will see you wake refreshed and ready for another productive day.
3. Referencing programs such as Endnote and Mendeley. While these may be a little time consuming in the beginning they will without a doubt save you a lot of precious time in the future. These programs are life savers when it comes to re-formatting a manuscript or keeping a large number of citations neat, tidy and in the correct order.
4. Realise research is a team sport, very rarely are you ever sailing solo! While it is true that the thesis is yours and/or you may be the lead author on a manuscript it is important to realise that you are a part of a research team getting a project done. For me this realisation came a little later in the piece however once I did realise this I was less anxious at holding onto things and trying to make them perfect rather I did what I had to do then sought feedback from the other members of the team. This takes me to point 5….
5. Don’t waste precious time trying to make the first draft of your work perfect. Holding onto your work be it a manuscript, protocol, introduction (whatever) for too long is actually counterproductive. You will progress more quickly if you can keep the paper moving. Work to a timeframe that you have set with your supervisors and/or co-authors e.g. draft protocol (skeleton) in 2 weeks, protocol finalised in 3 weeks, systematic literature search completed in 4 weeks etc. This will give everyone time to comment on the methodologies and your work while more importantly ensuring that you are making progress. This links nicely into point 6….
6. Goal setting… you hear about it all the time and you know it is important, but do you really do it? Setting yourself short term goals (e.g. a list of jobs for today or the week) will help to keep you motivated and making positive progress towards your long term goals (e.g. completing a project or writing your thesis). However in saying that I never mastered the skill of setting myself realistic goals for the day as everything seemed to take me longer to complete and jobs would be shifted to tomorrow’s list. I overcame this problem by having a master “to do list” then at the end of each day I would write down what I had actually done or achieved that day…. by making a note of the small step(s) I took each day I was able to realise that I was being productive and eventually I was able to cross items off the master to do list (which was always satisfying)!
7. Create a dossier of PDF’s that are relevant to your work. From the very start I would suggest that you save articles in the one spot, using a common naming system for articles (e.g. author_journal_year). I unfortunately went about the process of saving articles which I used for one particular manuscript and when it came time to use the article for another manuscript I would find myself having to sift through a number of folders and the process usually ended with me having to search the library site and download the article again (not a time efficient process).
8. Forms and documents…ahh when was that form due? When you are in the final year of your PhD I would strongly recommend that you contact your university and find out what forms/documents need to be completed prior to you submitting your thesis and when they need to be completed by. For example, at the University I attended you need to submit an “Intention to submit form” three months prior to submission as this is the amount of time that it can take for the University to find suitable examiners for your thesis. In addition check what forms (if any) your supervisor needs to sign at the time you submit your thesis for examination. Knowing about all of this ahead of time will save you from some last minute stress attacks!
9. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Take the time to have a look at the thesis of students who have gone before you and use their thesis as a guide for the information to include in the mandatory sections as well as the overall style and layout.
10. Time flies when you are having fun (and working hard)… the four years do really fly by and it will be over before you know it. Persistence is the key, revel in the opportunity to learn as much as you can while challenging yourself in a reasonably controlled environment. Enjoy the PhD process and don’t forget to celebrate every win (no matter how big or small) and push through every challenge with the support of your family, supervisors, friends and colleagues.

…from Chris

I should start by reiterating Nick’s apology. I haven’t held up my end of the bargain for the ICECReam team with my week and a bit late post. Sorry guys!!

Recently, I moved into a different line of research and last week my new boss sent me to a conference to get some insight into my new field. Having just overcome the post PhD blues, it was nice to feast on a herd of new knowledge, presentation styles and research concepts without having to plough through a stack of papers in a dark corner of a library. As a bonus, the ocean view from the main auditorium was amazing and so was the food provided (unfortunately the coffee didn’t meet my expectations…pitiful). While these features on their own set the scene for a congenial conference there was something else that resulted in a dramatically different experience for me at this conference, compared to previous conferences I have attended.

Usually the pessimist in me excels at conferences. I find it easy to pick holes in research rather than highlight positives aspects. Clearly, the research environment requires a critical view of all work that is conducted, particularly in its dissemination. However, at this recent conference I suddenly became aware that I take my criticism of research too far at a conference. I realised it was limiting what I could take away from a conference, professionally and socially.

It could have been the ocean view, food, novelty of the situation, or a combination of them all that assisted the sudden realisation of my over-criticism. Regardless of the origin, it came to me like a song I wrote, and I’d like to reveal a couple of truths about it. Disturbingly, I found my over-criticism was amplified mainly by researchers who I didn’t know personally; regardless of the overall quality of the research. For instance, when I realised a simple methodological flaw I dwelled on it rather than accepting the flaw as a limitation and moving on as I would for my own or a colleagues’ work. In some cases I rejected the entire study based on an insignificant limitation. I also noticed a sort of ignorance that inhibited me wanting to make sense of what others were trying to communicate in their presentation. If I didn’t understand or disagreed based on my interpretation I just disregarded it. The funny thing is that when I realised what I was doing I discovered I wasn’t the only one in the room focused on finding flaws in everyone else’s research. This was highlighted at questions time when every  ‘question’, camouflaged by flattery (e.g. “that was a wonderful presentation but I wonder….”), involved some type of critique; usually focused on a flaw that the person seemed to have the answer to – we’ve all heard those comments.

I started to wonder how many people in academic research are so biased about finding bias and if it’s just a silly conference thing where egos come to butt heads. I don’t want to hypothesis about why this could be or if it is the case but I guess the issue touches on the competitive nature of research (that Steve previously wrote about).

Thankfully, after the first day of the conference I had a dramatic shift in my mind set. I looked for positives and tried to put limitations into perspective. I explored what people were trying to communicate. I considered that what I thought they meant wasn’t necessarily what they meant. I sort clarification as if I knew nothing (it probably helped that I really didn’t know anything). In the end, I found that I got a lot more out of my attendance. Not just in terms of listening to speakers and learning about what they were saying. I was more social at break time and I interacted more with other delegates. I found speaking to presenters easy and I think they enjoyed speaking to me.

I’m actually quite disappointed in myself that I hadn’t realised my flawed thinking before now. But I guess that’s better than not realising.

Chris (2013). Snap out of it! theicecream.org

…from Nick

First off, I must apologise to any avid readers out there for the lack of posting over the last few weeks. It has been my turn to write a post for a while now but forces beyond my control have prevented it. These forces came in the form of all-too-familiar obstacles – technical issues, over-work problems, and motivational concerns. Ok, maybe not all of these are beyond my control, but I feel like I have been professionally stretched and pushed and squeezed over the last few months. I’m not talking about my regular visits to the exotic massage therapist, but about realising just how much flexibility is needed in my professional life as a researcher.

As some of you may know, a few months ago I landed a new research position in Germany. This obviously involved a big change both personally and professionally. While I have enjoyed the challenge of a new culture and language, I found a bigger challenge in having to deal with having a totally new research focus in a different field. I had previously spent most of my research life at a clinical level, thinking about things like low back pain, diagnosis, and primary care. Now I’ve found myself working at a population level – on epidemiology and public health. My new colleagues are involved with large scale surveillance projects, disease registries, and multi-disciplinary (with anthropologists and geographers and biologists) programs. What I realised on my first day is that while I have a pretty good working knowledge on my previous topics, I knew next to nothing about research in this new field. It reminded me of first starting out on my PhD and being faced with the sheer number of scientific articles I was supposed to read (and wondering whether my new boss had made a big mistake!).

Along with a new topic, joining a new research group is a tricky thing. We all know that researchers are often a little quirky and hard to connect with. Try being the weird Australian guy in a group of German statisticians! Finding common (research or otherwise) interests can be as difficult as finding Vegemite in a foreign country. Aside from the social aspects though, it seems that every research group in the world has their own way of doing the same thing. I have been in three different research groups in my career and have (so far) had to use three different reference management programs and three different statistics programs.

On top of everything else a little disaster struck. Don’t ask me what I did to deserve it, but within a two week period I managed to break the key to my bicycle lock, destroy my laptop with a water bottle AND lose both my notebook (full of Nobel Prize winning ideas) and work diary! Trust me when I say this is not an experience you want to go through at the best of times. Losing all of my programs and notes and appointments left me with the feeling of being naked and lost in the forest after a big conference dinner.

So, for better or worse, I was left with an opportunity to re-evaluate both what I researched and how I did it. I felt like I needed to approach this new position from square one, much like the very first day of my PhD but with a little extra “know-how”. I always imagined being flexible was a key attribute in research and for once I was glad not to be a specialist, or “the guy who does XX research in YY way”. After my personal re-evaluation and fresh start, I came up with the following pointers for research flexibility. I hope these may be of interest to someone who finds they are taking on a new position or a new topic:

• After endless reading of articles in my new field I realised how much I knew (and didn’t know) about the basics of research. A solid understanding of methodology and statistics will allow you to be much more flexible than being an expert on a specific disease or process. All research follows similar basic principles and realising this was a “light bulb” moment for me.
• Be ready to let go of your research ideas if they don’t fit the situation. Or at least be ready to re-align them with the interests of your group. A research group is a lot like a sports team, you need to play together to score goals.
• With new colleagues or a new institute, look for common research interests. Finding the person(s) who are working closest to your area of interest is worth the trouble. Failing that, show interest in other people’s work. Researchers tend to make friends with anyone who has read one of their papers.
• Be enthusiastic about your new opportunity! Sometimes a change is as good as a holiday, sometimes it is even better.
• When it comes to computer programs, use what you are comfortable with but keep your eyes open for something better. This includes statistics programs, reference management programs, and digital music players. Finding the right one could increase efficiency whereas the wrong one could cost hours of frustration and despair.
• …and finally, have an electronic backup of your files on the internet. This will limit the consequences if things do get stolen/lost/water damaged. It is the year 2013, there is no excuse.

From Steve

Following the theme from Teresa’s recent post, I too have a bit of a love-hate relationship with Systematic Reviews. But one of the small pleasures I take from the interminable task of screening thousands and thousands of titles is finding those weird and bizarre studies. Ones that either; a) I wish I’d thought of, b) I wish I’d worked on, or c) raised some questions regarding what the hell is going on. A common theme is that all of the titles left me wanting to know more (or sometimes less).

 In celebration of a review I am currently working on, and the New Year, I though I’d present the top 13 weird/awesome/scary article titles I’ve identified so far, along with just one of the many questions they left me with. So, in the spirit of entertainment, perhaps inspiration and in no particular order;

• An unusual case of double death Archiv fur Kriminologie (2003) 211(3-4): 81-89.
  • Does this mean there really is reincarnation?
• Trampolines in New Zealand: a decade of injuries.” British Journal of Sports Medicine 28(4): 234-38.
  • Is the problem trampolines or New Zealanders?
• Sausage asphyxia. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2001 55(10): 723-24.
  • Worth it?
• Exploding head syndrome. Headache 2001 41(6): 602-03.
  • Does this really happen?
• Diseases of the spine in South American mummies. Neurosurgery 2001 48(1): 208-13.
  • Should you still recommend paracetamol and advice to stay active?
• The man who mistook his patient for a chair: a speculation regarding sitting mechanical treatment of lower back pain. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies 1998 2(2): 88-100.
  • Is this the man you want treating your back pain?
• Roller coaster headaches revisited. Surgical Neurology 2003 60(5): 398-401.
  • They’ve been visited previously?
• Aircrew ejections in the Republic of Bulgaria, 1953-93.” Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine 1996 67(4): 364-68.
  • Is there a more specialised niche research field than this?
• Elevator surfing: a deadly new form of joyriding. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1992 37(2): 640-45.
  • Do elevators float?
• The benign and malignant forms of orgasmic cephalalgia. Sexual aspects of headaches. Madison, CT, International Universities Press, Inc: 75-77. 1992.
  • Is this the worst STD there is?
• Use of butter and cheese in 10 European countries: a case of contrasting educational differences. European Journal of Public Health 2003 13(2): 124-32.
  • I love cheese (obviously more of a statement than a question).
• Curling iron-related injuries presenting to U.S. emergency departments. Academic Emergency Medicine 2001 8(4): 395-97.
  • Are they just doing it the wrong way?
• Mammalian bite injuries to the head and neck region. Journal of the College of Physicians & Surgeons – Pakistan 2005 15(8): 485-88.
• • Shouldn’t this be preventable?

From Tasha

I’m guessing that not many of our readers are that into ice hockey (don’t get me started about calling it ice hockey…). However, this year the National Hockey League owners and players could not reach a deal. Aka billionaires fight millionaires for more money while Canadians suffer without hockey. And unfortunately, this was the first time in 3 years my husband and I have been home for Christmas with the potential opportunity to watch live hockey. ARGH! (although update – deal has been made and hockey will resume although petition is going for empty stadiums to teach them a lesson…) What I miss most about hockey though is that thrilling, last minute pressure to score a goal as the clock ticks down and your team is trailing (which sadly my team is quite good at!). But interestingly enough, I’m getting that same feeling of the time ticking down as I madly try to score a figurative goal.

You see, I’m in Canada working on a collaborative research project here with a colleague (actually my previous Master’s supervisor)…but here’s the kicker. I only have 8 weeks…of which 1 week was Christmas…of which now only 3.5 weeks remain. And I still need to collect the majority of the data I planned to collect!

Now here’s the real kick in the pants…I planned ahead. We started talking about this project in February when I applied for the travel award. We continued sporadically chatting over the year and this culminated in putting the ethics through prior to me arriving. However, then when I arrived and started piloting everything…that is when the madness began! Suffice to say, various versions of the protocol have now been piloted on 5 people with what is, at least, a clear way forward and an ethics amendment submitted. But now as I wait I feel the time ticking and the pressure to score that last minute goal!

So I’ve compiled my list of things to not freak out about when you have a tight schedule on a project and/or things to keep in mind (mainly to also make myself feel better):

1. Take your time with the piloting stage. There is nothing worse than haphazardly piloting a protocol only to realize later that you get very different results when you actually do everything properly.

2. Don’t worry or beat yourself up when the piloting stage is taking ages. It may feel like you are not making progress, but you are.

3. Keep your project hovering in the back of your mind – little thoughts about it here and there often result in a big step forward.

4. Take a break from it for a couple of day (if possible). My way forward came over Christmas break when I had finally relaxed.

5. Believe. You can do it! You can do it! You can do it!

6. Strategize as you go. Perhaps you cannot get the whole sample collected, but decide what type of recruitment will get you the farthest (ie, collect all data from one group vs half of the data from both groups).

7. Always remember the rule of pi. However long you think something will take, multiply it by 3.14 and that will be the actual amount of time it takes. Keep this in mind for future planning!

I think that’s all I have, but here’s hoping the last minute goal is on its way!

You can get in touch with Teresa and the Cochrane Back Pain Group on their facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CochraneBackReviewGroup?fref=ts

It has been two years now since I completed my Doctoral degree, and looking back, my biggest challenge as a graduate student was to write a review paper on any topic in the field of Health Psychology.  This review paper was a program requirement, but I wanted to do more than simply satisfy this requirement.  I wanted to write a paper that would make a meaningful contribution to the field of Health Psychology, allow me to define my own program of research, and ultimately, get published in a high-impact journal.  As you might imagine, I was feeling the pressure before I even had a topic.

I knew that choosing the “right” topic was key to producing an important review.  So, every time I came up with an idea, I quickly rejected it as being not good enough.  After two months of this my supervisor urged me to return to my original idea (and I have since learned that first ideas are usually best!).  Once I had a topic and a rough model with many boxes and arrows, there was nothing to prevent me from plunging in.  I planned to finish the bulk of the writing in the fall of 2008 at my parents’ home in Nova Scotia.

My actual timeline:
Fall of 2008 – I retreated to the peace, quiet and isolation of the South Shore of Nova Scotia to dedicate myself to writing.  This might sound like a good idea, but it certainly didn’t work for me.  I had way too much time on my hands.  I just could not find a way to begin.  Every time I opened up my laptop to start writing I immediately felt the need to take a nap.

Summer 2009 – There was a heat wave in Vancouver, which meant that I wanted to spend all of my time at the Kitsilano pool, but I was STILL struggling to complete a draft.  The departmental deadline was quickly approaching, and so the pressure was on.  I eventually got focused by cutting myself off from friends, Facebook, and the “Twilight Trilogy.”

Winter 2010 – My supervisor and I submitted a revised version of the review to a journal for publication. It was an 80-page beast with more than 60 included studies.

Fall 2012 – After three rounds of major revisions and the deletion of 20 pages of text, the article was accepted for publication in our journal of choice.  Success!

Yes, it took me four years to write the review and finalize it for publication.  Over this period of time one of my friends got married, had a baby, finished a post doc, became a registered psychologist, and secured a faculty position!  I really have no excuse for this, especially since I had a supportive supervisor who did his best to keep me on track.  I think the challenge was that I didn’t have a roadmap.  I had grown accustomed to writing empirical papers that have a sort of formula, whereas this review was more akin to writing a novel (at least that’s the way it felt!), and I got stuck over and over again.

In my current role as Managing Editor of the Cochrane Back Review Group, I often send out nagging emails to authors who are behind schedule on their reviews or updates.  However, I do this with total understanding of the types of obstacles that can arise, whether they are methodological or motivational in nature!  I also understand what it’s like to contend with peer review comments – it can be most disheartening to edit the same sections over and over.  When it comes to unwieldy projects, I guess the only thing to do is keep pushing through, as these are the projects that tend to have the biggest payoff in the end.