ArticleAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges2018
The Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program: Description and Preliminary Outcomes.
Article in Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of a Novel Responsible Conduct of Research Training Program and Learning Transfer Intervention on Ethical and Professional Decision-Making Skills.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Trial
- Leadership, management, and team practices in research labs: Development and validation of two new measures.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- Seeking help as a strategy for ethical and professional decision-making in research: Perspectives of researchers from East Asia and the United States.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- Ethical, regulatory, and practical barriers to COVID-19 research: A stakeholder-informed inventory of concerns.PloS one · 2022Article
- Navigating Complex, Ethical Problems in Professional Life: a Guide to Teaching SMART Strategies for Decision-Making.Journal of academic ethics · 2021Article
- Teaching Research Ethics to Pharmacists: The Practice of Participatory Learning.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Leading the people and leading the work: Practical considerations for ethical research.Translational issues in psychological science · 2020Article
- Perceptions of Work-Related Stress and Ethical Misconduct Amongst Non-tenured Researchers in Italy.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Professional decision-making in medicine: Development of a new measure and preliminary evidence of validity.PloS one · 2020Article
- What Explains Associations of Researchers' Nation of Origin and Scores on a Measure of Professional Decision-Making? Exploring Key Variables and Interpretation of Scores.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Article
- Design, implementation, and evaluation of PINDAR, a novel short program on GCP for academic medical center principal investigators conducting human subject research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Violations of rules and regulations in research can cause significant problems for human participants, animal subjects, data integrity, institutions, and investigators. The Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program (PI Program) provides remediation training that addresses the root causes of violations of rules and regulations in research. Through assessments, a three-day workshop, and follow-up coaching calls, the PI Program teaches evidence-based decision-making strategies designed to help researchers to compensate for bias, uncertainty, and work-related stress, and foster the skills needed to oversee research projects in today's complex regulatory environments. Across its first three years (2013-2015), the program trained 39 researchers from 24 different institutions in the United States. Participant evaluations of the program's faculty and workshop content were highly positive (4.7-4.8 and 4.5-4.6, respectively, on a 5-point scale). Preliminary program outcome assessment using validated measures of professional decision making and cognitive distortions in a pre- and postworkshop design indicated significant improvements. A follow-up survey of participants found statistically significant increases in a variety of target behaviors, including training research staff members to foster compliance and research quality, using standard operating procedures to support compliance and research integrity, performing self-audits of research operations, reducing job stressors, actively overseeing the work of the research team, and seeking help when experiencing uncertainty. Assessment of the PI Program was conducted with modest sample sizes, yet evaluation, outcome assessment, and self-reported survey data provided statistically significant evidence of effectiveness in achieving program goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.