Which word-processor features medical writers rely on
In a survey of 88 medical writers published in 2018, the word-processor features used most regularly were keyboard shortcuts, find and replace and split screen. Review tools, styles, and captions and cross-references were the features most often called essential for any medical writer. Regulatory writers more often called captions, cross-references and field codes essential, and other writers ranked referencing features higher.
Who answered the survey
The survey was open to anyone with current or previous medical writing experience, and it ran online, mainly through LinkedIn, and at AMWA's 2015 annual conference. Eighty-eight surveys were completed in about a month. Nine respondents (10.2%) had under two years' experience, 26 (29.5%) two to five years, 11 (12.5%) six to ten and 42 (47.7%) more than ten, and 62 (70.5%) were regulatory writers. Regulatory writers were defined as those who write documents for submission to regulatory agencies, and nonregulatory writers as all others hired to write scientific or medical content. Sixty-nine respondents worked in North America (67 in the United States, just over half of them in the Northeast, and 2 in Canada), 10 in Europe (7 of them in the United Kingdom), 5 in India and 2 in New Zealand, and the location of 2 is unknown. Respondents could choose several answers to each question, so the shares for a question do not sum to 100, and they did not have to answer every question.
The features used most regularly
Asked which features they regularly use that most increase their efficiency, the 88 respondents put keyboard and click shortcuts first, whether built in, customised or for macros, used by 78 (88.6%); then find and replace, including wildcards, 66 (75.0%); split screen, 64 (72.7%); and AutoCorrect options, 54 (61.4%). Created or customised ribbons followed with 51 (58.0%), and format painter or a set default paste and macros, whether recorded, simple codes within Word or complex codes, were each used by between 43 and 46 respondents (48.9% to 52.3%). Customised ribbons are counted with the first four among the most regularly used features. Twenty-one respondents (24%) wrote in other features: review tools (13), among them tracked changes (8), document compare and comments; customised styles (5); the navigation pane (3); and view tools and EndNote within Word, each written in by at least two respondents. Tracked changes was the review tool cited most often.
The shortcuts most cited were the Control or Command key combinations for cut, copy and paste, and in the experience of the survey's two authors a colleague or student who has been shown them rarely goes back to the mouse for those functions. The share of writers who regularly used find and replace rose with years of experience. Split screen shows two parts of one document at once, and it might be used while working on a list of abbreviations or writing text from a table on another page. A greater share of respondents with two or more years' experience used split screen than of those with less, and one respondent began using it after watching another writer. The survey's abstract and conclusion state the reverse, that newer writers appeared to use split screen more.
Split screen was cited by 73% of respondents, and the side-by-side view of documents, which respondents also cited, serves a similar purpose, so in the authors' reading being able to see more than one section of information within a single document at once seems to be valued by a large share of respondents. Multiple monitors with an extended desktop accomplish the same thing.
The features called essential for any medical writer
Asked which features they had discovered as beginners and now consider essential for any medical writer, the 86 respondents to the question named review tools (comments, tracked changes and document comparison), 57 (66.3%); styles, including heading styles, 52 (60.5%); captions, cross-references and field codes, 42 (48.8%); formatting tools such as the pilcrow, page setup and types of page break, 40 (46.5%); and the table of contents with lists of tables and figures, 37 (43.0%). Headers and footers, including linking and unlinking, add-ins including templates, and footnotes, citations and bibliographies were each named by between 26 and 34 respondents (30.2% to 39.5%), and 9 (10.5%) wrote in other features. Review tools track updates and give a platform for feedback and for resolving issues in review cycles. Tracked changes let a team monitor editorial updates between document versions. Styles give formatting consistency, help navigation and contribute to submission readiness. Captions are used mainly for tables and figures, and cross-references within a document keep the numbering of endnotes and other electronic indicators.
Where regulatory and other writers differ
Regulatory writers called captions, cross-references and field codes essential more often than nonregulatory writers, 62% against 19%, and about 20% more regulatory writers named formatting tools and add-ins. In the authors' reading, this probably reflects the highly formatted, complex documents of large regulatory filings, which require field codes and similar features to create the electronic navigation tools used in reviewing submissions.
Referencing features ran the other way: leaving aside write-ins, footnotes, citations and bibliographies drew the fewest regulatory writers and the third-most nonregulatory writers. This may reflect the need for in-place referencing in work such as manuscripts and needs assessments. Regulatory writers do create reference lists, but they may build them with the cross-reference tool or a customised add-in template, or the list may belong to a section created by information scientists.