Emerging Scholars

Emerging Scholars who are academics or first aid educators beginning or in the early stage of their career (less than three years or five publications), are warmly welcomed to engage with the IJFAE in several ways. These include:

  • Becoming a peer reviewer
  • Volunteering as an abstract translator
  • Submitting articles for publication.

We offer an extra layer of support to encourage emerging scholars to gain experience in writing for publication and for developing their research skills. Our Editorial Team can provide you with:

  • Specific guidance on expectations for a manuscript
  • Initial feedback on a paper or concept
  • Feedback on an initial manuscript draft before submission

Emerging Scholars can include undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, junior faculty members (1-3 years of teaching experience), and first aid providers who are actively engaged in scholarly activities such as conducting research, publishing papers, presenting at conferences, and contributing to their community (local, national, international or disciplinary) from a first aid and first aid education perspective.

Emerging scholars may submit manuscripts across any of our article types. Some paper types can be particularly helpful to support initial consideration of literature and developing an understanding of the evidence available as well as critical thinking skills. The two paper types below (CATs and CAPs) are recommended for scholars, including those preparing to undertake original research, such as surveys or observational studies.

If you are not connected to an academic institution and have no access to an academic library, you can access many scholarly articles through Google Scholar and other open access catalogues. Often you can search for an article online and find free versions of it through sites like ResearchGate.

Critical Appraisal Topic (CAT) manuscripts

CATs are concise manuscripts offering a condensed overview of existing evidence about a specific inquiry. Like systematic reviews, CATs synthesize the most pertinent findings from a body of literature, albeit with a narrower focus aimed at addressing distinct clinical/educational queries to provide recommendations, especially in scenarios where evidence is still evolving or limited. CATs serve as valuable tools for first aid providers committed to evidence-based practice.

Typically, CATs identify three to five high-quality studies in response to a specific and narrow search. Emerging scholars are advised to seek support on how to do this effectively from supervisors, colleagues, or published works. Should the search yield more than five studies pertinent to the clinical question, a systematic review/meta-analysis is a more appropriate avenue for investigation.

The primary objective of a CAT is to identify the most accessible yet robust and up-to-date evidence available to practitioners and subject it to rigorous critical appraisal in line with established standards of evidence-based practice. This may be a predecessor to a larger study.

A checklist for CATS can be found here (Table II, page 445): Dawes, M. (2005). Critically appraised topics and evidence-based medicine journals. Singapore Medical Journal, 46(9), 442.

Another similar version can be found here (page 28): https://cebma.org/assets/Uploads/CEBMa-CAT-Guidelines.pdf

The SORT tool is suggested to help with the strength of recommendation: Ebell, M. H., Siwek, J., Weiss, B. D., Woolf, S. H., Susman, J., Ewigman, B., & Bowman, M. (2004). Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 17(1), 59-67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14971837/ (click on ‘view pdf’ to access the whole article)

Structure:

  • Structured abstract
  • Main manuscript (3000 words max) to include:
    • Purpose of study
    • Scenario: background, need for, and relevance of the study concerning the Chain of Survival Behaviors 
    • Focused question using PICOST format:
      • Population, eg patient, learner, educator
      • Intervention: first aid or education provided
      • Comparison: Alternative intervention or no intervention
      • Outcome(s): Such as recovery time or learning outcome
      • Study Type: Specifies the study design or type of evidence sought.
      • Timeframe: studies are included from a specified time & rationale
    • Search strategy
      • Describe the process used to search for and include evidence to answer the focused clinical question. Include databases, search terms, and search limits
      • Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Describe the criteria for selection and the processes through which studies were selected for inclusion for further analysis. Recommend providing the inclusion and exclusion in a table format aligned with the PICOST.
    • Evidence of Quality Assessment: Describe the quality assessment scale used to appraise the quality of the evidence in the included studies.
    • Summary of Search and Key Findings: In narrative form, describe your search results.
    • Results of Quality Assessment from Best Available Evidence: Describe the sources of evidence used, including the reasons the studies were selected (i.e., level of evidence, strengths, and weaknesses related to internal validity issues) and quality assessment scale results. Resource: Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2011) definitions for the level of evidence (https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/).
    • Summary of Best Evidence: A tabularcomparative summary of included studies. The table headings/rows should include citation, study design, participants/subjects, inclusion/exclusion criteria, intervention, outcome measures, results, level of evidence, quality assessment score, bias, and contribution to the CAT question. The latter should be the CAT author’s rating of how the study answers the focused question. A numerical score should be used to rate the contribution to answering the question based on results and quality, such that 1 is no contribution, 3 is an inconclusive contribution, and 5 is a conclusive contribution.
    • Recommendation: Describe the recommendation emerging from your study that answers your study question using the appraised evidence. Provide the strength of recommendation based on the collective findings of the CAT by taking into account the individual studies’ level of evidence and the number, consistency, and coherence of the evidence as a whole.

SORT is recommended as a resource for this section: Authors should use the following text and insert the appropriate grade: “Collectively, the body of evidence included to answer the clinical question aligns with the strength of recommendation of [insert: A, B, C, following Strength of recommendation taxonomy].”

  • Implications for First Aid Practice, First Aid Education, and Future Research. Include a discussion based on the information provided from the appraisal of current literature. We encourage the conversation to focus on how the evidence:
    • Prevents emergencies and prepares providers for emergencies large and small.
    • Allows for early recognition of acute illness or injury.
    • Provides for the provision of help, directly or by accessing Emergency Medical Services.
    • Supports recovery by the individual or through a health system.
  • Acknowledgments: (if applicable)
  • Conflict of interest: (if applicable)

Critical Appraisal Papers (CAPs)

A Critical Appraisal Paper is a concise summary or analysis of a single research study or paper. Unlike CATs, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses which synthesize multiple studies on a particular topic, a CAP focuses on evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of a single piece of research literature related to first aid and first aid education. The goal is to assess the credibility, validity, and relevance of the study's findings and to determine its overall contribution to the existing body of knowledge in the field.

CAPs are valuable for helping researchers and practitioners evaluate the quality of individual studies and understand their implications for clinical practice or further research. They provide a structured framework for assessing the strengths and limitations of a study, helping readers make informed judgments about its reliability and applicability to real-world scenarios.

Structure:

  • Structured abstract
    • Main manuscript (3000 words max) to include:
      • Introduction: purpose, brief background of the question and why you chose the topic for research, why it’s important, and why you chose this method of study
  • Focused question in PICO format:
      • Population, eg patient, learner, educator
      • Intervention: first aid or education provided
      • Comparison: Alternative intervention or no intervention
      • Outcome(s): Such as recovery time or learning outcome
    • Summary of key evidence
      • Study Design. Standard notation is used to summarize the study design.
      • Sample. Report of the number of participants (N), subject characteristics (eg, gender, age, ethnicity, other identifying features), and if inclusion or exclusion criteria were met.
      • Procedure. A brief explanation of the procedure that highlights the key processes of the research investigation.
      • Outcome Measures. The outcome measures (ie., dependent variables) are identified along with the frequency of collection.
      • Results. A synopsis of the research findings to conclude the summary of key evidence, the author will present a brief write-up of distinguishing results.
  • Critical appraisal
    • Internal Validity. Describe the components of the research design permitting reasonable interpretation of the resultant data. Useful to highlight features of a research investigation that are considered a “strength” to the results produced, as well as components that may create a “threat” to the validity of the results.
    • External Validity. Describe the degree (strength and threats) to which the results from a sample group can be generalized to a larger population. 
    • Statistical Validity. Describe the degree (strength and threats) to which a statistical procedure is appropriately used to draw valid conclusions about the relationship of the variables.
  • Level of evidence. Describe the sources of evidence used, including the reasons the studies were selected (i.e., level of evidence, strengths, and weaknesses related to internal validity issues) and quality assessment scale results. We encourage use of the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (2011) definitions for the level of evidence (https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/).
  • Application (what is the impact of this study on your population, how will you use this information, and why is it important? This should be several well-thought-out paragraphs on the application of the concepts).
  • Implications for First Aid Practice, First Aid Education, and Future Research. Include a discussion based on the information provided from the appraisal of current literature. We encourage the conversation to focus on how the evidence:
  • Prevents and prepares providers for emergencies large and small.
  • Allows for early recognition of acute illness or injury.
  • Provides for the provision of help, directly or by accessing Emergency Medical Services.
  • Supports recovery by the individual or through a health system.
  • Acknowledgments: (if applicable)
  • Conflict of interest: (if applicable)