ArticleJAMIA open2026
Assessment of real-world evidence research competencies in federated research networks: a maternal health fellowship program evaluation.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Significance: Generating real-world evidence (RWE) approaches across federated evidence networks based on real-world data requires learning new methodological skills. However, standardized frameworks for defining and assessing competencies for large-scale RWE research remain limited. This study aims to develop an assessment framework for RWE studies and evaluate the competencies of RWE research professionals. Methods: We adapted the Joint Task Force (JTF) Core Competency Framework for RWE research using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model. Through iterative expert review, 4 new domains were created, including Ethics and Governance, Protocol Development, Study Operations, and Data Analysis and Informatics, and 4 original JTF domains were adapted. Participants completed pre- and post-training self-assessments on a 10-point scale. Paired Results: Seventeen participants from academic, data, and clinical roles completed the assessment. Mean self-reported competency scores increased by 2.5 points across the 8 competency domains, with statistically significant changes observed in all domains. The largest gain was observed in Leadership and Professionalism (mean increase 3.66; 95% CI, 2.69-4.62). Discussion: The RWE research competency assessment tool captured changes in self-reported skill proficiency, perceived readiness to conduct RWE studies, and methodological knowledge gaps. These findings suggest the potential to identify competency gaps, tailor educational interventions, and inform quality benchmarks for RWE research training programs. Conclusion: This study developed and evaluated a competency assessment framework specifically designed for RWE research using standardized healthcare data, providing a tool for training program evaluation and workforce development support.
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.