ArticleCureus2023
Awareness and Perception About Research Ethics and Misconduct Among the Teaching Staff of Health Colleges, Jazan University, Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite adopting biomedical research ethics rules, regulations, and statements, unethical behavior is pervasive and frequently reported. This study assessed the perception and awareness of research Ethics and Misconduct among the Teaching Staff of Health Colleges at Jazan University, southwest Saudi Arabia. PURPOSE: This research aimed to assess the awareness and perception of research ethics and misconduct among the teaching staff of the health colleges at Jazan University in southwest Saudi Arabia.
methodsObservational cross-sectional study targeted 424 faculty members randomly chosen from health-related colleges at Jazan University. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data using a web-based survey.
resultsThe overall level of knowledge about medical ethics indicated that more than half of respondents (57.8%) had a good level of knowledge, 23.4% had a fair level of knowledge, and only 18.4% had poor knowledge. The Saudi National Committee on Bioethics was only known by 49.5% of the study participants. In addition, just 48.3% of respondents knew Saudi Arabia's national standards of ethics and principles for conducting scientific research. The knowledge of research ethics was found to be significantly (P<0.05) higher in participants with higher academic positions, such as professors, MD degree holders, and participants with more extensive work experience. About 48.2% reported that the severity of penalties for scientific misconduct would highly affect scientific integrity, and 74.3% found that their understanding of rules and procedures related to scientific misconduct has a very high effect on scientific integrity. Poor knowledge of research ethics is typically associated with an individual's academic job title, as "lecturer" showed a lower level of knowledge in comparison to other job titles. Even though about 50% of participants in the study had a good understanding of research ethics, it's crucial to ensure that all faculty members have a universal understanding. Therefore, it's essential to implement an appropriate research ethics training program.
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.