Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32316962›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2020

The understanding of research ethics at health sciences schools in Jordan: a cross-sectional study.

Nafez Abu Tarboush, Zaid Alkayed, Karem H Alzoubi, Wael K Al-Delaimy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Impacts of Responsible Conduct of Research Education on the Career and Practice of Graduating Fellows.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Research Ethics among Researchers in Nepal.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Nafez Abu TarboushDepartment of Biochemistry and Physiology, School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan. natarboush@ju.edu.jo.
Zaid AlkayedInternal Medicine Unit, Psychiatry Division, Jordan University Hospital, Amman, Jordan.
Karem H AlzoubiDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Wael K Al-DelaimyDepartment of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Jordan Hospital · JOJordan University of Science and Technology · JOUniversity of California, San Diego · USUniversity of Jordan · JO

Funding

The Research Ethics Education Program in JordanR25TW010026 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI AL-DELAIMY, WAEL K · 2015 to 2025
$2.5M
FIC NIH HHS 5R25TW010026-02FIC NIH HHS R25 TW010026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch ethics is required for high-quality research that positively influences society. There is limited understanding of research ethics in Middle Eastern countries including Jordan. Here, we aim to investigate the level of understanding of research ethics principles among health sciences faculty members in Jordan.

methodsThis is a cross sectional study where faculty members from the University of Jordan were surveyed for their knowledge and, attitude of research ethics principles. The study was conducted in the period between July 2016 to July 2017 using a customized-design questionnaire involving demographic data and participants' contributions toward research, and assessment of participants' knowledge, belief and attitude towards research ethics. Different question-formats have been used including multiple-choice, yes or no, and a four point Likert-type questions. Obtained responses were tabulated according to gender, academic-rank, and knowledge about research ethics principles.

resultsThe study had a response rate of 51%. Among the 137 participants of this study, most (96%) were involved in human and animal research, yet, only 2/3 had prior training in research ethics. Moreover, 91% believed that investigators should have training in research ethics and 87% believed that there should be a mandatory postgraduate course on that. The average correct scores for correct understanding of researchers towards research ethics was 62%. Yet, there were some misconceptions about the major ethical principles as only 43% identified them correctly. Additionally, the role of research ethics committees was not well understood by most of the respondents.

conclusionsAlthough there is acceptable knowledge about research ethics, discrepancies in understanding in research ethics principles seems to exist. There is a large support for further training in responsible conduct of research by faculty in health sciences in Jordan. Thus, such training should be required by universities to address this knowledge gap in order to improve research quality and its impact on society.

Indexed as

Allied Health OccupationsEthics, ResearchAdultAuthorshipConflict of InterestCross-Sectional StudiesEthics Committees, ResearchFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansJordanMaleMiddle AgedOwnershipSurveys and QuestionnairesAuthorshipAwarenessConflict of interestEthical principlesInformed consentOwnershipResearch ethics committees

Identifiers

PMID32316962
PMCPMC7175529
OpenAlexW3017326659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.