ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2018
Clinical research coordinators' instructional preferences for competency content delivery.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A framework for upskilling the clinical trial site: Learnings from a clinical trial coordinator workforce capability building pilot program.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Enhancing the clinical research workforce: a collaborative approach with human resources.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Awareness of Clinical Research Coordinators Toward Ethics and Protection of Clinical Trial Patients.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023Article
- Perceived barriers to assessing understanding and appreciation of informed consent in clinical trials: A mixed-method study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Perceived professional competence of clinical research coordinators.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- Assessing clinical investigators' perceptions of relevance and competency of clinical trials skills: An international AIDS Malignancy Consortium (AMC) study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionA lack of standardized clinical research coordinator (CRC) training programs requires determining appropriate approaches for content delivery. The purpose of this study was to assess CRCs preferred training delivery methods related to the 8 designated Joint Task Force Clinical Trial Competency domains.
methodsRepeated measures analysis of variance and split-plot analysis of variance were adopted to compare the group means among 5 training delivery methods by 8 competency content domains and to examine whether demographic variables caused different preference patterns on the training delivery methods.
resultsParticipants reported a preference for online video; mentoring/coaching was the least preferred. Significant training delivery method preferences were reported for 3 content domains: participant safety considerations, medicines development and regulation, and clinical trials operations. DISCUSSION: Observed statistical differences in the training delivery methods by the content domains provides guidance for program development. Ensuring that standardized educational training is aligned with the needs of adult learners may help ensure that CRCs are appropriately prepared for the workforce.
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.