Measurement and analysis of change in research scholars' knowledge and attitudes toward statistics after PhD coursework.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of statistics is highly important for research scholars, as they are expected to submit a thesis based on original research as part of a PhD program. As statistics play a major role in the analysis and interpretation of scientific data, intensive training at the beginning of a PhD programme is essential. PhD coursework is mandatory in universities and higher education institutes in India. This study aimed to compare the scores of knowledge in statistics and attitudes towards statistics among the research scholars of an institute of medical higher education in South India at different time points of their PhD (i.e., before, soon after and 2-3 years after the coursework) to determine whether intensive training programs such as PhD coursework can change their knowledge or attitudes toward statistics. METHODS: One hundred and thirty research scholars who had completed PhD coursework in the last three years were invited by e-mail to be part of the study. Knowledge and attitudes toward statistics before and soon after the coursework were already assessed as part of the coursework module. Knowledge and attitudes towards statistics 2-3 years after the coursework were assessed using Google forms. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was also sought. RESULTS: Knowledge and attitude scores improved significantly subsequent to the coursework (i.e., soon after, percentage of change: 77%, 43% respectively). However, there was significant reduction in knowledge and attitude scores 2-3 years after coursework compared to the scores soon after coursework; knowledge and attitude scores have decreased by 10%, 37% respectively. CONCLUSION: The study concluded that the coursework program was beneficial for improving research scholars' knowledge and attitudes toward statistics. A refresher program 2-3 years after the coursework would greatly benefit the research scholars. Statistics educators must be empathetic to understanding scholars' anxiety and attitudes toward statistics and its influence on learning outcomes.

How researchers can translate health evidence into books for children.

The health promotion literature that considers how scientific evidence can be effectively communicated tends to focus on evaluating the effectiveness of communication materials. This has resulted in a knowledge gap regarding effective knowledge translation processes. This study explores the process, reasoning and practices for developing books for children that incorporate evidence-based information to aid understanding of scientific evidence about health and environmental or natural disasters. This study is informed by a systematic review of the literature combined with responses to an email interview with authors of books for children. Nine published studies were included in the systematic review. Twenty-two authors responded to the email survey (25% response rate, following 86 invitations). We report seven key findings to guide the development of health-promoting books for children: (i) understand the needs and expectations of the audience, (ii) articulate the topic and research evidence, (iii) assemble a team with a mix of content knowledge and creative expertise, (iv) format should be chosen to suit the user group and guided by the creative team, (v) early testing with children and their support system is crucial, (vi) develop a dissemination strategy to reach the user group and (vii) engage in reflexivity through evaluation of effectiveness of messaging. The current investigation can guide the process, reasoning and practice of developing books for children that incorporate evidence about health and environmental disasters.

Shapeshifters: Global South scholars and their tensions in border-crossing to Global North journals.

INTRODUCTION: Global South researchers struggle to publish in Global North journals, including journals dedicated to research on health professions education (HPE). As a consequence, Western perspectives and values dominate the international academic landscape of HPE. This study sought to understand Global South researchers' motivations and experiences of publishing in Global North journals. METHODS: This study used a hermeneutic phenomenological perspective. Unstructured interviews were conducted with 11 authors from 6 Global South countries. Interview transcripts were analysed through a process of familiarisation, identifying significant statements, formulating meanings, clustering themes, developing exhaustive descriptions, producing a fundamental structure and seeking verification. RESULTS: Participants described being motivated by local institutional expectations, to improve reputation, to meet Global North perceptions of quality and to draw attention to their Global South context. Participants described experiences where their work was deemed irrelevant to Global North audiences, they were unable to interpret rejections and had learnt to play the publishing game by attending to both local and global imperatives. These motivations and experiences revealed several practical, academic and transformational tensions that Global South authors faced. CONCLUSION: The tensions and negotiations encountered by Global South authors who publish in HPE journals reflect a 'border consciousness' whereby authors must shift consciousness, or become 'shapeshifters', inhabiting two or more worlds as they cross borders between the Global South and Global North conventions. There is an added burden and risk in performing this shapeshifting, as Global South authors stand astride the borders of two worlds without belonging fully to either.

Person-organization fit and job burnout of researchers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Heterogeneity in eleven countries.

To manage the negative impact of job burnout for the researchers, especially during COVID-19 pandemic, is not easy. Thus, it is essential for educational institutions to provide them with the support they need to improve the person-organization (P-O) fit. Drawing upon the data from the Nature's Global Survey initiated in 2021, this paper analyzed 2,424 effective samples from eleven countries in the world to investigate how P-O fit impacts researchers' job burnout in different countries and their career stages during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings show that both organizational support and P-O fit have significantly assisted researchers in all career stages to reduce job burnout. Moreover, P-O fit has a greater inhibitory effect on job burnout than organizational support. However, when resources are relatively scarce in some developing countries, it is more important to provide organizational support for researchers. Therefore, in order to improve the efficiency of organizational support and reduce researchers' job burnout, those aspects which are less fit but helpful should be increased appropriately. Moreover, it implies that it would be significant to emphasize the differentiated and career-stage-sensitive resources and support to researchers in different countries in the post-pandemic era to improve researchers' well-being and organizational performance.

Who to engage in HIV vaccine trial benefit-sharing negotiations? An empirical proposition of a framework.

BACKGROUND: A morally sound framework for benefit-sharing is crucial to minimize research exploitation for research conducted in developing countries. However, in practice, it remains uncertain which stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process regarding benefit-sharing and what the implications might be. Therefore the study aimed to empirically propose a framework for benefit-sharing negotiations in research by taking HIV vaccine trials as a case. METHODS: The study was conducted in Tanzania using a case study design and qualitative approaches. Data were collected using in-depth interviews (IDI) and focus group discussions (FGD). A total of 37 study participants were selected purposively comprising institutional review board (IRB) members, researchers, community advisory board (CAB) members, a policymaker, and HIV/AIDS advocates. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis approaches were deployed to analyze collected data with the aid of MAXQDA version 20.4.0 software. RESULTS: The findings indicate a triangular relationship between the research community, researched community and intermediaries. However, the relationship ought to take into consideration the timing of negotiations, the level of understanding between parties and the phase of the clinical trial. The proposed framework operationalize partnership interactions in community-based participatory research. CONCLUSION: In the context of this study, the suggested framework incorporates the research community, the community being researched, and intermediary parties. The framework would guarantee well-informed and inclusive decision-making regarding benefit-sharing in HIV vaccine trials and other health-related research conducted in resource-limited settings.

Assessing the impact of Canadian primary care research and researchers: Citation analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the citation impact and characteristics of Canadian primary care researchers and research publications. DESIGN: Citation analysis. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 266 established Canadian primary care researchers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 50 most cited primary care researchers in Canada were identified by analyzing data from the Scopus database. Various parameters, including the number of publications and citations, research themes, Scopus h index, content analysis, journal impact factors, and field-weighted citation impact for their publications, were assessed. Information about the characteristics of these researchers was collected using the Google search engine. RESULTS: On average, the 50 most cited primary care researchers produced 51.1 first-author publications (range 13 to 249) and were cited 1864.32 times (range 796 to 9081) over 29 years. Twenty-seven publications were cited more than 500 times. More than half of the researchers were men (60%). Most were clinician scientists (86%) with a primary academic appointment in family medicine (86%) and were affiliated with 5 universities (74%). Career duration was moderately associated with the number of first-author publications (0.35; P=.013). Most research focused on family practice, while some addressed health and health care issues (eg, continuing professional education, pharmaceutical policy). CONCLUSION: Canada is home to a cadre of primary care researchers who are highly cited in the medical literature, suggesting that their work is of high quality and relevance. Building on this foundation, further investments in primary care research could accelerate needed improvements in Canadian primary care policy and practice.

Career trajectories of MD-PhD physician scientists: The loss of women investigators.

Advances in biomedical research require a robust physician scientist workforce. Despite being equally successful at securing early career awards from the NIH as men, women MD-PhD physician scientists are less likely to serve as principal investigators on mid- and later careers awards. Here, we discuss the causes of gender disparities in academic medicine, the implications of losing highly trained women physician scientists, and the institutional and systemic changes needed to sustain this pool of talented investigators.

Assessing the Efficacy of ChatGPT Versus Human Researchers in Identifying Relevant Studies on mHealth Interventions for Improving Medication Adherence in Patients With Ischemic Stroke When Conducting Systematic Reviews: Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT by OpenAI emerged as a potential tool for researchers, aiding in various aspects of research. One such application was the identification of relevant studies in systematic reviews. However, a comprehensive comparison of the efficacy of relevant study identification between human researchers and ChatGPT has not been conducted. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the efficacy of ChatGPT and human researchers in identifying relevant studies on medication adherence improvement using mobile health interventions in patients with ischemic stroke during systematic reviews. METHODS: This study used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Four electronic databases, including CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE, were searched to identify articles published from inception until 2023 using search terms based on MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms generated by human researchers versus ChatGPT. The authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full text of the studies identified through separate searches conducted by human researchers and ChatGPT. The comparison encompassed several aspects, including the ability to retrieve relevant studies, accuracy, efficiency, limitations, and challenges associated with each method. RESULTS: A total of 6 articles identified through search terms generated by human researchers were included in the final analysis, of which 4 (67%) reported improvements in medication adherence after the intervention. However, 33% (2/6) of the included studies did not clearly state whether medication adherence improved after the intervention. A total of 10 studies were included based on search terms generated by ChatGPT, of which 6 (60%) overlapped with studies identified by human researchers. Regarding the impact of mobile health interventions on medication adherence, most included studies (8/10, 80%) based on search terms generated by ChatGPT reported improvements in medication adherence after the intervention. However, 20% (2/10) of the studies did not clearly state whether medication adherence improved after the intervention. The precision in accurately identifying relevant studies was higher in human researchers (0.86) than in ChatGPT (0.77). This is consistent with the percentage of relevance, where human researchers (9.8%) demonstrated a higher percentage of relevance than ChatGPT (3%). However, when considering the time required for both humans and ChatGPT to identify relevant studies, ChatGPT substantially outperformed human researchers as it took less time to identify relevant studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative analysis highlighted the strengths and limitations of both approaches. Ultimately, the choice between human researchers and ChatGPT depends on the specific requirements and objectives of each review, but the collaborative synergy of both approaches holds the potential to advance evidence-based research and decision-making in the health care field.

Expanding research impact through engaging the maker community and collaborating with digital content creators.

This paper proposes a method for increasing the impact of academic research by providing materials for public use, thus engaging the maker community, and by collaborating with internet content creators to extend the reach. We propose a framework for engagement and report a multi-year study that evaluates short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes, with a second effort to demonstrate repeatability of the short-term outcomes. In the first study, we posted forty-one 3D printable compliant mechanisms on public repositories and collaborated with physicist and content creator Derek Muller (Veritasium YouTube channel). Outputs and outcomes from this interaction were measured over 3 years. The framework was exercised again with four new 3D printable mechanisms in collaboration with engineer and STEM influencer Mark Rober. The proposed methods aim to help researchers extend the reach of their work to broader audiences, including professional engineers, hardware designers, educators, students, researchers, and hobbyists. This work demonstrates promising impacts of the framework, including (1) extending public awareness of research findings to broader audiences by engaging the maker community and collaborating with content creators, (2) accelerating the pace of innovation and further hardware-based research through public application of research findings, (3) fostering a culture of open-source design and collaboration among other researchers, engineers, educators, and makers, and (4) increasing utilization of peer-reviewed published content. These outreach practices can be valuable tools for researchers to increase impact of and excitement for their research.

Medical researchers' perceptions regarding research evaluation: a web-based survey in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: Japanese medical academia continues to depend on quantitative indicators, contrary to the general trend in research evaluation. To understand this situation better and facilitate discussion, this study aimed to examine how Japanese medical researchers perceive quantitative indicators and qualitative factors of research evaluation and their differences by the researchers' characteristics. DESIGN: We employed a web-based cross-sectional survey and distributed the self-administered questionnaire to academic society members via the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences. PARTICIPANTS: We received 3139 valid responses representing Japanese medical researchers in any medical research field (basic, clinical and social medicine). OUTCOMES: The subjective importance of quantitative indicators and qualitative factors in evaluating researchers (eg, the journal impact factor (IF) or the originality of the research topic) was assessed on a four-point scale, with 1 indicating 'especially important' and 4 indicating 'not important'. The attitude towards various opinions in quantitative and qualitative research evaluation (eg, the possibility of research misconduct or susceptibility to unconscious bias) was also evaluated on a four-point scale, ranging from 1, 'strongly agree', to 4, 'completely disagree'. RESULTS: Notably, 67.4% of the medical researchers, particularly men, younger and basic medicine researchers, responded that the journal IF was important in researcher evaluation. Most researchers (88.8%) agreed that some important studies do not get properly evaluated in research evaluation using quantitative indicators. The respondents perceived quantitative indicators as possibly leading to misconduct, especially in basic medicine (strongly agree-basic, 22.7%; clinical, 11.7%; and social, 16.1%). According to the research fields, researchers consider different qualitative factors, such as the originality of the research topic (especially important-basic, 46.2%; social, 39.1%; and clinical, 32.0%) and the contribution to solving clinical and social problems (especially important-basic, 30.4%; clinical, 41.0%; and social, 52.0%), as important. Older researchers tended to believe that qualitative research evaluation was unaffected by unconscious bias. CONCLUSION: Despite recommendations from the Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto to de-emphasise quantitative indicators, this study found that Japanese medical researchers have actually tended to prioritise the journal IF and other quantitative indicators based on English-language publications in their research evaluation. Therefore, constantly reviewing the research evaluation methods while respecting the viewpoints of researchers from different research fields, generations and genders is crucial.

Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to open science: An international, cross-sectional survey.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Open science (OS) aims to make the dissemination of knowledge and the research process transparent and accessible to everyone. With the increasing popularity of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), our goal was to explore what are CAIM researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to OS. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey of researchers who published in journals listed in Scopus containing the words "complementary", "alternative", or "integrative" medicine in their names. We emailed 6040 researchers our purpose-built electronic survey after extracting their email address from one of their publications in our sample of journals. We questioned their familiarity with different OS concepts, along with their experiences and challenges engaging in these practices over the last 12 months. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 392 researchers (6.5% response rate, 97.1% completion rate). Most respondents were CAIM researchers familiar with the overall concept of OS, indicated by those actively publishing open access (OA) (n = 244, 76.0%), registering a study protocol (n = 148, 48.0%), and using reporting guidelines (n = 181, 59.0%) in the past 12 months. Preprinting, sharing raw data, and sharing study materials were less popular. A lack of funding was reported as the greatest barrier to publishing OA by most respondents (n = 252, 79.0%), and that additional funding is the most significant incentive in applying more OS practices to their research (n = 229,72.2%). With respect to preprinting barriers, 36.3% (n = 110) participants believed there are potential harms in sharing non-peer-reviewed work and 37.0% (n = 112) feared preprinting would reduce the likelihood of their manuscript being accepted by a journal. Respondents were also concerned about intellectual property control regarding sharing data (n = 94, 31.7%) and research study materials (n = 80, 28.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Although many participants were familiar with and practiced aspects of OS, many reported facing barriers relating to lack of funding to enable OS and perceived risks of revealing research ideas and data prior to publication. Future research should monitor the adoption and implementation of OS interventions in CAIM.