The value of peer mentoring for the psychosocial wellbeing of junior doctors: a randomised controlled study

In reply: We thank Goh for the correspondence regarding the risks of qualitative research, as well as highlighting new and useful references1,2 that will be a great resource to qualitative researchers.

Our approach using solely qualitative data,3 following the recommendations from the Medical Journal of Australia,4 in a randomised controlled trial framework aimed to minimise bias and provide a control group. This approach is still considered uncommon in qualitative research. Most qualitative data incorporated into quantitative randomised controlled trials have methodological shortcomings, are poorly integrated and are rarely used (1%) in the assessment of outcomes.2,5 In agreement with Goh, mixed methodology could strengthen future approaches to similar research questions if incorporated appropriately.

The description in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618000455268) simply expanded on the concept of psychosocial wellbeing. Anxiety and depression were specific facets of psychosocial wellbeing that were explored through the interviews. The interviewers’ background psychiatric experience was omitted from the original manuscript due to editorial requirements. We accept that job satisfaction should have been specifically mentioned in this registry.

Goh's scepticism of how data saturation sample size was reached in our study is refuted in current recommendations, whereby it is suggested that data collection does not need to continue until a preconceived sample size is reached;1 researchers may be at risk of wasting resources by continuing. In agreement with Saunders and colleagues,1 saturation is at risk of ambiguous interpretation; however, our study clearly stated our saturation aims and data collection ceased at redundancy, as per current methodology recommendations.

Interviews are a well established form of qualitative research methodology,4 and the questions published in our online appendix successfully initiated dialogue with respondents on perceived satisfaction and impact of the mentoring program. The aim of the study, which was to assess the value of a peer mentoring program on new junior doctors, was met and has led to the implementation of similar programs locally and nationally (data unpublished).

The MJA are to be commended for promoting contemporary research methodologies alongside maintaining the spotlight on the needs of junior doctors.