ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2021
A qualitative evaluation of an operational research course for acute care trainees in Kigali, Rwanda.
Article in The Pan African medical journal, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionthe blended SORT-IT model uses a combination of online modules and teleconferences with local and international mentors to teach operational research. We modified SORT-IT to create the Acute Care Operational Research (ACOR) course directed to anesthesiology residents in Kigali, Rwanda. This course takes students from an initial research idea through submitting a paper for publication. Our viewpoint on entering this study was that ACOR participants would have adequate resources to complete the course, but be hampered by cultural unfamiliarity with the blended teaching approach.
methodswe conducted a qualitative analysis of the experiences of all those who participated in the ACOR course to understand obstacles and improve future course iterations. Six anesthesiology residents participated in the first iteration of the course, with 4 local mentors and 2 secondary mentors, one of whom was based at the University of Virginia, with a total of 12 participants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all participants and mentors, which were independently coded for topics by two reviewers.
resultsthere was a 50% publication rate for those enrolled in the course and an expected 100% acceptance rate for those who completed the course. Some reported benefits to the course included improved research knowledge, societal improvements, and knowledge exchange. Some reported obstacles to successful course completion included time limitations, background knowledge, and communication. Of note, only 4 out of 12 participants recognized cultural barriers.
conclusionalthough successful in the sense that all participants completed their research project, ACOR did not fully solve the main issues hindering research training. Our results show that research training in low-resource settings needs a continuing and formal focus on the factors that hinder participants´ success: mentorship and time.
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.