ArticleJMIR medical education2025
Effectiveness of a Fully Online Scientific Research Works Peer Support Group Model for Research Capacity Building Through Conducting Systematic Reviews Among Health Care Professionals: Retrospective Cohort Studies.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Research capacity building (RCB) among health care professionals remains limited, particularly for those working outside academic institutions. Japan is experiencing a decline in original clinical research due to insufficient RCB infrastructure. Our previous hospital-based workshops were effective but faced geographical and sustainability constraints. We developed a fully online Scientific Research Works Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG) model that addresses geographical and time-bound constraints and establishes a sustainable economic model. Mentees use online materials, receive support from mentors via a communication platform after formulating their research question, and transition into mentors upon publication. Objective: We evaluated whether our model's theoretical benefits translated into actual program effectiveness in RCB among health care professionals. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of health care professionals who participated in the SRWS-PSG program between September 2019 and January 2025. Mentees progressed through a structured modular curriculum covering systematic review methodology, from protocol development to manuscript preparation, with personalized mentoring support. We evaluated manuscript submission, program discontinuation, promotion to a mentor status, and mentor response time. We collected data from program records and chat logs. Manuscript submission was defined as mentor-confirmed submission of a systematic review manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal. Program discontinuation referred to formal withdrawal before manuscript submission. Mentor promotion was defined as acceptance of an invitation to serve as a junior mentor after manuscript submission. Mentor response time was the elapsed time from a mentee's question in the chat to the first reply by an assigned mentor. Results: Of 85 mentees analyzed, 31 (36.5%) held academic degrees (PhD or MPH), and 68 (80%) were medical doctors. During a median follow-up of 10 months, 51 (60%) submitted manuscripts and 46 (90%) became mentors. Ten mentees (12%) discontinued the program. The median mentor response time was 0.8 hours, with 90% responding within 24 hours. Conclusions: A majority of participants of SRWS-PSG submitted manuscripts. This fully online RCB program might address geographical barriers and provides an adaptable approach for RCB across diverse health care contexts.
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.