ArticlePloS one2024
First-year evaluation of a campus-wide, cross-disciplinary scholarly writing development program supported by a center for biomedical research excellence (COBRE).
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScholarly publications are important indicators of research productivity and investigator development in Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBREs). However, no information is available to describe implementation and evaluation of writing development programs within COBREs. Therefore, this paper aimed to evaluate the first year of a campus-wide COBRE-supported writing program.
methodsA convergent parallel mixed-methods design (QUAN + QUAL) was used. All writing program participants were invited to complete post-participation surveys, and a subgroup was selected using purposive sampling to complete individual semi-structured interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize survey data, and qualitative content analysis was employed to analyze interview data. Self-determination theory served as the theoretical framework by which themes were developed and interpreted.
resultsProfessional staff, post-doctoral fellows, and faculty from all academic ranks (n = 29) participated in the writing program during its first year. Survey respondents (n = 18, response rate 62%) rated social support (89%), group accountability (89%), hearing group members' writing goals (78%), receiving group advice (67%), and setting a weekly writing schedule (56%) as beneficial program components. Participants rated program benefits such as breaking away from other responsibilities, staying on task with writing goals, and receiving social support as most beneficial. During interviews, participants (n = 14) described five major themes related to the benefits received: 1) belonging to a community of writers; 2) managing writing-related emotions; 3) improved productivity; 4) establishing helpful writing habits; and 5) improved motivation for scholarly writing.
conclusionsThis first-year programmatic evaluation demonstrates the writing program's effectiveness as a campus-level development resource supported by a research center. Both survey and interview data affirmed that participants perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness were supported through participation in the writing program. Participants placed particular emphasis on the writing program's successful development of a community of scholarly writers.
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.