ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Implementing a Responsible Conduct of Research Curriculum for an Undergraduate Summer Clinical Research Program in Quantitative Sciences.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesInstilling the principles of ethical and responsible medical research is critical for educating the next generation of clinical researchers. We developed a responsible conduct of research (RCR) workshop and associated curriculum for undergraduate trainees in a quantitative clinical research program.
methodsTopics in this 7-module RCR workshop are relevant to undergraduate trainees in quantitative fields, many of whom are learning about these concepts for the first time. These topics include: (1) research collaboration and mentoring, (2) human subjects and privacy, (3) rigor, reproducibility, and responsibility in data analysis, (4) data safety, security, and sharing, (5) responsible authorship, peer reviews, and conflicts of interest, (6) research misconduct and whistleblowing, and (7) social responsibility and contemporary ethical issues. The workshop adopts an active learning approach and is intended to encourage peer-to-peer learning through a critical review of case studies and contemporary media reports. Workshop materials and discussions are designed to address experiences relevant to undergraduate trainees. For example, for the discussion on human subject protection, trainees are asked to review their own university's policies for engaging students as research subjects. Student perceived knowledge and understanding of research ethics were obtained from pre- and post-workshop surveys, with responses ranging from 1 (low level of understanding) to 5 (high level of understanding).
resultsSurvey responses from 38 trainees across 4 years demonstrated marked increase in perceived knowledge and understanding of research ethics, from 64% in pre- to 96% in post-workshop responses with scores of 3 and up. Trainees noted the effectiveness of the active learning format of the workshop and relevance of the topics on their own research projects.
conclusionIntentional instruction is vital to help trainees discern between good and bad science in research. The presented RCR curriculum can be adapted by other programs designed for trainees engaged in medical research and education.
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.