Search

To date, very little research on L2 peer review of L2 essay composition has focused on the issue of whether the choice of L1 or L2 use in the peer review process facilitates or hinders students' transmission and reception of productive commentary on their essay drafts. This study was designed to ascertain the impact of language choice in written peer review sessions on both the types of commentary made and essay authors' propensity to incorporate peer commentary into subsequent drafts. Data was collected from essay assignments in an English writing course at an English-medium university in Japan using written peer reviews conducted in both Japanese and English in a cross-balanced design. The data were analyzed to measure the impact of the language used on the number and types of comments made, as well as to ascertain the relative impact of peer commentary on the subsequent revisions. The study found sizeable differences according to the language a peer review was conducted in, suggesting that L2 written peer reviews may be more beneficial at identifying/rectifying paragraph-level and structural issues, whereas L1 peer review was slightly better for correcting rhetorical and logical issues.

Aim: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may be vulnerable to changes in healthcare management, safety standards and protocols that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials & methods: The REthink Access to Care & Treatment (REACT) survey assessed USA-based patient perspectives on COVID-19-related impacts to their MBC treatment experience between 27 April 2021 and 17 August 2021. Results: Participants (n = 341; 98.5% females, mean age 50.8 years) reported that overall oncology treatment quality was maintained during the pandemic. Delayed/canceled diagnostic imaging was reported by 44.9% of participants while telemedicine uptake was high among participants (80%). Conclusion: Overall, MBC care was minimally affected by the pandemic, possibly due to the expanded use of telemedicine, informing MBC management for future public health emergencies. Plain Language Summary The COVID-19 pandemic has forced healthcare providers to change the way that healthcare is delivered. These changes could particularly affect people with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), an advanced stage of cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. The authors of this study used a web-based survey to ask 341 volunteers with MBC how the pandemic has affected their cancer treatment. The authors found that people with MBC thought that the quality of their care stayed the same during the pandemic. Most people (80%) surveyed were able to use telemedicine, the remote delivery of care by phone or computer, to replace in-person visits to their doctor. However, almost half of people surveyed reported delays or cancellation of their diagnostic imaging appointments. Overall, this study shows that the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect peoples' opinions of their MBC care. Increased use of telemedicine may have contributed to the lack of disruption in care. These findings will help guide MBC care during future public health emergencies. Tweetable abstract A survey of patient perspectives on their care for metastatic breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic has shown consistent quality of care. Care delivery adaptations such as telemedicine may be key to maintaining cancer care quality during future public health emergencies. Substantial changes in healthcare management, safety standards and protocols occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are particularly at risk of pandemic-related negative consequences due to the need for clinical visits, multimodal therapies, potential immunosuppression and compromised support services. This cross-sectional study used a two-part REthink Access to Care & Treatment (REACT) survey to assess the perspective of patients with MBC on the effects of COVID-19 with regards to their MBC treatment experience. Data from 341 validated participants (98.5% females; mean age 50.8 years) revealed that patient-reported overall quality of oncology treatment remained about the same during the pandemic. Telemedicine uptake was high among participants (80%); replacement of in-person visits with telemedicine was the most reported change to regular clinical checkups and mental health visits due to the pandemic. However, 44.9% of participants reported that diagnostic imaging appointments were either delayed or canceled. During the pandemic, 48.1% of participants reported disease progression. Overall, participants perceived that the management and treatment of their MBC were minimally disrupted by the pandemic, likely due in part to the utilization of telemedicine. While these findings can inform MBC management decisions during future public health crises, future studies should solicit perceptions of care from more diverse patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]