RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer or Questioning (LGBTQ) community has always faced discrimination across the globe. Due to a lack of information in medical curricula and no training or sensitization of doctors towards their health needs, there are numerous health disparities faced by this community. Negative attitudes and inadequate knowledge may also cause students to feel hesitant to treat patients in the community. The present study thus aims to evaluate the attitudes and knowledge of medical students and interns towards LGBTQ+. METHODOLOGY: The present study is a cross-sectional observational study where a self-administered questionnaire was shared with the medical students of India via an online platform. The collected data was then analyzed using Microsoft Excel STATA version 14.0 (StataCorp LLC, Texas, USA). RESULTS: A total of 790 responses were analyzed. 67.2% of respondents had an overall positive attitude, with students under the age of 20, female students, and medical students being more likely to have a positive attitude towards the community. 60.7% of the respondents had satisfactory knowledge, with interns being more likely to have more knowledge than students. The respondents with better knowledge were more likely to have a positive attitude. CONCLUSION: The study participants had satisfactory knowledge, and the majority had a positive attitude towards the LGBTQ+ community. However, to clear misconceptions regarding the LGBTQ+ community, the medical curriculum must be updated to include more information and provide proper training and sensitization in order to ensure optimum healthcare for all, regardless of sexual orientation and identity.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Good clinical practice (GCP) is put in place to protect human participants in clinical trials as well as to ensure the quality of research. Non-adherence to these guidelines can produce research that may not meet the standards set by the scientific community. Therefore, it must be ensured that researchers are well-versed in the GCP. But not much is known about the knowledge and practices of the GCP in the medical colleges of North India. AIM: To assess the knowledge and practices of researchers about GCP and analyze these with respect to the demographics of participants. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. A self-structured questionnaire about GCP, after expert validations, was circulated among researchers, at a tertiary healthcare institute, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh. A total of 59 individuals, who were selected by universal sampling, participated in the study. All healthcare workers who have been investigators of Institutional Ethics Committee-approved research projects, except residents and faculty, and are still a part of the institute have been included in the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of AIIMS, Rishikesh. We used descriptive analysis and the Chi-squared test to analyze data. P value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Out of 59 participants, only 11 (18.6%) were certified for GCP. Most of the participants (64.4%) had "Average" knowledge, 33.9% had "Good" knowledge and 1.7% had "Poor" knowledge. Only 49% of participants had satisfactory practices related to GCP. There was a significant difference in the knowledge based on the current academic position for the items assessing knowledge of institutional review board (P = 0.010), confidentiality & privacy (P = 0.011), and participant safety & adverse events (P < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in knowledge of research misconduct (P = 0.024) and participant safety & adverse events (P = 0.011) based on certification of GCP. There was a notable difference in the practices related to recruitment & retention on the basis of current academic position (P < 0.001) and certification of GCP (P = 0.023). We also observed a considerable difference between the knowledge and practices of GCP among the participants (P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Participants have basic knowledge of GCP but show a lack thereof in certain domains of GCP. This can be addressed by holding training sessions focusing on these particular domains.
