ArticleQualitative report (Online)2017
Training Impact on Novice and Experienced Research Coordinators.
Article in Qualitative report (Online), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-assessed Competencies of Clinical Research Professionals and Recommendations for Further Education and Training.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2022Article
- Incorporating Competencies Related to Project Management into the Joint Taskforce Core Competency Framework for Clinical Research Professionals.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2022Article
- Advancing the Practice of CRCs: Why Professional Development Matters.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2018Article
- Clinical research coordinators' instructional preferences for competency content delivery.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Article
- Ensuring Representativeness in Competencies for Research Coordinators.Clinical researcher (Alexandria, Va.) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Competency-based training and professional development is critical to the clinical research enterprise. Understanding research coordinators' perspectives is important for establishing a common core curriculum. The purpose of this study was to describe participants' perspectives regarding the impact of online and classroom training sessions. 27 participants among three institutions, completed a two-day classroom training session. 10 novice and seven experienced research coordinators participated in focus group interviews. Grounded theory revealed similarities in novice and experienced coordinator themes including Identifying Preferences for Instruction and Changing Self Perceptions. Differences, seen in experienced participants, focused on personal change, in the theme of Re-Assessing Skills. Infrastructure and cultural issues were evident in their theme, Promoting Leadership and Advocacy. Novice participants recommended ways to improve training via their theme of Making Programmatic Improvements. Participants reported a clear preference for classroom learning. Training played an influential role in changing participants' self-perceptions by validating their experiences. The findings provided guidance for developing a standardized curriculum. Training must be carefully tailored to the needs of participants while considering audience needs based on work experience, how technology can be used and offering content that is most urgently needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29308457PMC5752151What 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.