ArticleINTED proceedings2015
EVALUATION RETREAT: A SENSIBLE METHOD FOR PROGRAM'S ASSESSMENT.
Article in INTED proceedings, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Areas of strength and opportunities for growth in translational science education and training: Results of a scoping review from the NCATS Education Branch.Clinical and translational science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe University of Puerto Rico (UPR), Medical Sciences Campus (MSC) post-doctoral Master of Science in Clinical and Translational Research (MSc) program aims to train Hispanic post-doctoral candidates to advance their careers and become successful clinical and translational researchers geared to help eliminate health disparities. Its curriculum highlights the use of technology and online resources to maximize time use of time and efforts. As part of the assessment efforts, the program's Evaluation Committee leads an annual activity, Evaluation Retreat (ER), to evaluate the program's curriculum, research component, and mentoring experience according to Scholars' perspective. Results are used by the Program Executive committee for further planning and improvement. This analysis presents the most relevant results from these activities. DESIGN
methodsData collection (from last 5 years), include quantitative (online surveys) and qualitative approaches (a group meeting with Scholars.) Questionnaires request Scholars to rate specific features of the program's research component, mentoring experience and curriculum. It also includes questions about the program in general (major strengths and challenges, and recommendations for improvement. During the group meeting, Scholars discuss these results and present consensus in a plenary session. Quantitative data are managed and analyzed using the statistical software SPSS. Qualitative data are examined using content analysis.
resultsScholars identified as program's strengths the networking opportunities (local and with U.S. experts), the diversity of peers and faculty, the faculty support, the technical and audiovisual support, the physical facilities and resources, the guest speakers and consultants, and the quality of the curriculum. Challenges vary as cohorts change, but time limitations and the need for technical/statistical support are always highlighted. Recommendations for improvement emphasize the need for a greater pool of experienced mentors, and more hands-on approaches to address particular skills such as, manuscript development, institutional and federal guidelines for proposal submission, and issues related to the research project management. DISCUSSION: Evaluation Retreats provide a valuable input to improve a program geared to develop competent clinical researchers. Findings evidence the program's commitment with providing the foundation for an enhanced mass of clinical researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26985449PMC4791064What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.