Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38384926›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024

Updating and evaluating a research best practices training course for social and behavioral research professionals.

Elias Samuels, Mary R Janevic, Alexandra E Harper, Angela K Lyden, Gina M Jay, Ellen Champagne, Susan L Murphy

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Identifying Strategies for Strengthening Behavioral and Social Science Research Study Conduct.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elias SamuelsMichigan Institute of Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6725-3382
Mary R JanevicDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Alexandra E HarperDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Angela K LydenMichigan Institute of Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Gina M JayDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Ellen ChampagneMichigan Institute of Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Susan L MurphyMichigan Institute of Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7924-0012
University of Michigan · USMichigan Department of Health and Human Services · US

Funding

Training Promotoras/Community Health Workers using Culturally and Linguistically-Appropriate Research Best PracticesU01TR003409 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI AGUILAR-GAXIOLA, SERGIO A., COTTLER, LINDA B. · 2020 to 2023
$2.7M
NCATS NIH HHS U01 TR003409
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The clinical and translational research workforce involved in social and behavioral research (SBR) needs to keep pace with clinical research guidance and regulations. Updated information and a new module on community and stakeholder engagement were added to an existing SBR training course. This article presents evaluation findings of the updated course for the Social and Behavioral Workforce. Methods and Materials: Participants working across one university were recruited. Course completers were sent an online survey to evaluate the training. Some participants were invited to join in a focus group to discuss the application of the training to their work. We performed descriptive statistics and conducted a qualitative analysis on focus group data. Results: There were 99 participants from diverse backgrounds who completed the survey. Most reported the training was relevant to their work or that of the study teams they worked with. Almost half (46%) indicated they would work differently after participating. Respondents with community or stakeholder engaged research experience vs. those without were more likely to report that the new module was relevant to study teams they worked with ( Conclusion: The updated course was rated highly, particularly by those whose work was related to the new course content. This course provides an up-to-date resource for the training and development for the Social and Behavioral Workforce.

Indexed as

clinical and translational researchcommunity and stakeholder engagementmixed methodsprogram evaluationSocial and behavioral research

Identifiers

PMID38384926
PMCPMC10877512
OpenAlexW4390267758

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.