Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
About a year ago the BMJ’s editors were invited by seventy six senior academics from 11 countries, “ to reconsider their editorial policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority.“ (1)
Despite gathering an impressive number of supporting responses to their cause (2), that plea for a reconsideration of the value of qualitative research, seems to have gone largely unheeded.
Coulter’s editorial detailed the OECD health ministers’ recent determination to move away from a reliance on mortality rates and clinical indicators which give “ ..only a partial view of the value of health care,” to assessments of what people really feel about their health care, “ ..it’s impact on their well being and their ability to play an active role in society.” (2)
Expecting the BMJ to change to a more qualitative- friendly, research content may be akin to turning a rudderless battleship, or tug boat, onto a different course, but surely Coulter and the OECD make a strong case for open-mindedness in this respect ?
Re: Measuring what matters to patients - qualitatively as well as quantitatively ?
About a year ago the BMJ’s editors were invited by seventy six senior academics from 11 countries, “ to reconsider their editorial policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority.“ (1)
Despite gathering an impressive number of supporting responses to their cause (2), that plea for a reconsideration of the value of qualitative research, seems to have gone largely unheeded.
Coulter’s editorial detailed the OECD health ministers’ recent determination to move away from a reliance on mortality rates and clinical indicators which give “ ..only a partial view of the value of health care,” to assessments of what people really feel about their health care, “ ..it’s impact on their well being and their ability to play an active role in society.” (2)
Expecting the BMJ to change to a more qualitative- friendly, research content may be akin to turning a rudderless battleship, or tug boat, onto a different course, but surely Coulter and the OECD make a strong case for open-mindedness in this respect ?
1 http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i563
2 http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i563/rapid-responses
Competing interests: No competing interests