ArticleSpinal cord2026
Evaluating the reach, effectiveness, and maintenance of an online spinal cord injury research advocacy course to train research partners.
Article in Spinal cord, 2026. 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
STUDY
designThree-wave prospective.
objectivesExamine the impact of the North American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium's Spinal Cord Injury Research Advocacy Course (SCI-RAC) using the RE-AIM framework.
settingNorth America.
methodsThe RE-AIM domains for reach, effectiveness, and maintenance were assessed. Reach measures included participant enrollment (number and representativeness) and course completion. Primary effectiveness measures included changes in knowledge of the spinal cord injury (SCI) research process and perceived capacity to advocate/partner in research. Satisfaction and learning experiences were secondary effectiveness measures. Participant enrollment, perceived capacity to advocate/partner, and five satisfaction and learning experiences questions on overall knowledge and application were repeated as maintenance measures.
resultsOf the 248 participants who completed the pre-survey, 20% (n = 50) and 9% (n = 22) completed the course (and the post-survey) and 6-month surveys, respectively. Most participants who completed SCI-RAC were white (67%) and of high socioeconomic status (30%). No associations were found between demographics, perceived capacity to partner, and course completion. Significant improvements were observed in participants' knowledge of the SCI research process (Glass' delta= 0.50, p < 0.001) and perceived capacity to partner (e.g., capability: Glass' delta=0.59, p < 0.001). Participants reported high levels of satisfaction and positive learning experiences.
conclusionsSCI-RAC showed initial improvements in course participants' knowledge and perceived capacity to partner, and participants were satisfied with the course. Findings suggest that NASCIC may want to review their recruitment strategies to reach more equity-owed groups and consider offering SCI-RAC alongside interventions that connect researchers and research users to continue improving the practice of SCI research partnerships.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41577819What 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.