Research-oriented series: a portal into the culture of biomedical research for junior medical students at Alfaisal University in Saudi Arabia.

Student contributions to research have been shown to effectively reflect on their communication and critical thinking skills. Short-term research courses offer opportunities for medical students to advance their research experience in subsequent high-demanding long-term research opportunities. The purpose of the present study was to describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of a research-oriented series (ROS) on undergraduate students at Alfaisal University in Saudi Arabia. The ROS was designed to comprise eight sessions. Each session addressed core principles and the practice of research concepts and was based on theoretical morning sessions supplemented by afternoon practical sessions delivered by experienced senior medical students and faculty members. Students were assessed comprehensively by the end of the ROS. The series was conducted twice, and 35 students were involved each time. A total of 70 enrolled students (35 men and 35 women) with grade point averages of >3.5 and <3.5 were asked to fill out an anonymous, online, self-administered questionnaire assessing their perception of knowledge, skills, and confidence after attending the ROS and evaluating their senior peers. Ninety percent of the medical students responded to the online survey and rated the ROS highly in improving their research knowledge, skills, and confidence. Male students reported significant gains compared with their female peers (P<0.05). Grade point averages did not play a role in student gains after attending the ROS. Qualitative responses were in support of three recurring themes favoring the unique learning environment in the ROS. In conclusion, the ROS offers a short-term systematic approach to fundamental steps and concepts of biomedical research.

Challenges to Online Medical Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted all aspects of our lives, including education and the economy, as we know it. Governments have issued stay-at-home directives, and as a result, colleges and universities have been shut down across the world. Hence, online classes have become a key component in the continuity of education. The present study aimed to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on online education at the College of Medicine (COM) of Alfaisal University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Between March and April 2020, we emailed a survey to 1,289 students and faculty members of the COM. We obtained 208 responses (16.1%); 54.8% of the respondents were females, and 66.8% were medical students; 14.9% were master's students, and 18.3% were faculty. Among the respondents, 41.8% reported having little or no online teaching/learning experience before the pandemic, and 62.5% preferred blending online and face-to-face instruction. The reported challenges to online medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic included issues related to communication (59%), student assessment (57.5%), use of technology tools (56.5%), online experience (55%), pandemic-related anxiety or stress (48%), time management (35%), and technophobia (17%). Despite these challenges, most of the respondents (70.7%) believed that the COVID-19 pandemic has boosted their confidence in the effectiveness of online medical education. Consequently, 76% of participants intended to integrate the online expertise garnered during the pandemic into their practice. In short, the modern study demonstrated a largely positive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on online medical education.

Eligibility of Medical Students to Serve as Principal Investigator: An Evidence-based Approach.

Determining the eligibility of principal investigators (PIs) is a challenging task, especially at an academic institution. The prevailing practice within the academic community is not to grant PI status to students. There is a lack of studies that have investigated students' eligibility to serve as PI. This study aimed to explore the faculty and students' perceptions of the PI eligibility of medical students. A secondary objective was to assist the university in developing an evidence-based PI eligibility policy. To achieve the study aims, the investigators developed and validated a survey that targeted both faculty and students of Alfaisal University, College of Medicine (COM). In total, 53 faculty (four were administrators), and 135 medical students responded. The response rates were approximately 50% and 12% for faculty and students, respectively. Of the faculty, 62% reported that medical students are not PI eligible without the supervision of a faculty member. Of the students, 77% reported that they were not qualified to serve as PI. The results of the current study support the practice at most universities of not allowing medical students to serve as PI.

Evaluation of a University's Institutional Review Board Based on Campus Feedback: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Introduction Maintaining research ethics within a university and monitoring the campus Institutional Review Board (IRB) are essential responsibilities not to be taken lightly. IRBs occasionally need to be reviewed to see that they, as well as researchers, are adhering to rules and regulations on ethics through their submission and review procedures. Since there are no established measures for assessing IRB quality, it is unclear how to determine whether IRBs are achieving their intended aims. This study used the feedback and input of campus members at a newly-established, private, non-profit university within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to evaluate their campus IRB. Methods Following the university's IRB approval, and in close collaboration with the Saudi National Committee of Bioethics (NCBE), this cross-sectional study was conducted from February through May of 2019. Self-administered surveys were sent out via university emails to faculty and students at Alfaisal University in Riyadh of Saudi Arabia. The questions in the surveys included inquiries on participants' demographics, their familiarity with campus IRB research ethics, their satisfaction with IRB procedures, the challenges encountered during the IRB submission and review process, the effectiveness of a recent IRB-coordinated research ethics campaign, and any suggestions for IRB improvement. Surveys were sent to faculty members and students at five colleges on campus. Results Of the campus members who were sent surveys, 8% responded (175). Of those who responded, 29.7% had submitted at least one research proposal for IRB review during the past three years (2016-2019), and more than half of this group were satisfied with the IRB submission and review procedures. For those who had submitted at least one research proposal, respondents reported the more usual challenges that researchers tend to encounter, such as time-consuming and tedious IRB review processes and ambiguous IRB guidelines and regulations. The less typical IRB challenges that were reported, and that are unique to academia, include the IRB tendency to deny undergraduate student requests to serve as principal investigators of their research projects. Concerning IRB efforts to educate and train campus members on research ethics, only 26.3% of the participants were aware of the recently performed research ethics campaign, and 7.6% of the participants attended the end-of-campaign workshop. Of those who attended the workshop, 76.9% reported that the campaign and workshop effectively met their expectations. Conclusions  This study revealed several issues encountered by university faculty and students seeking campus IRB approval for their research projects. The main academia-specific challenge was over whether undergraduate students could serve as PIs for research projects, and a universal one was that they find the IRB process to be very time-consuming and tedious, which is a situation that has already been relayed in several other articles on IRB issues. About two-thirds of respondents reported a lack of familiarity with the topic of research ethics. This challenge makes it clear that information on research ethics is not effectively reaching enough campus members in the busy environment of academia.