暂无摘要。

Introduction Medical science must be based on sound and scientific evidence and requires continuous research. Engaging in research allows students and faculty to explore new frontiers, question existing paradigms, and discover innovative solutions to medical challenges. As a specialty, community medicine plays a pivotal role in addressing public health issues. However, the engagement of community medicine residents in biomedical research remains suboptimal, which may impede the generation of evidence-based practices tailored to the Indian context. This study was conducted to find the interest and engagement of community medicine residents, and factors influencing their interest in biomedical research. Methods An online survey was conducted among community medicine residents of Uttar Pradesh, from February to April 2024, using Google Forms having a semi-structured, pretested questionnaire. Results One hundred and ninety-six residents participated in the study, where females (52.6%; 103/196) outnumbered males (47.4%; 93/196). The majority of participants were third-year residents (40.8%). Most participants seemed interested in biomedical research (83.2%) and thought that Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) helps conduct research projects (75%). Around half had previous experience in research projects, with cross-sectional studies being the most common (75.9%) study design. Enhancing research skills and a desire to contribute to medical knowledge emerged as primary motivators. On the other hand, the lack of time due to being overburdened with academic and educational activities was seen as the most common barrier to conducting research. Conclusions The majority of participants were found interested in research activities. The opportunity to improve research skills, desire to serve the medical fraternity, and a positive impact on resumes were the leading motivating factors for conducting research. Difficulty in sparing time, little knowledge, and poor support from mentors were found as important barriers.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical research increases and use of heterogeneous instruments reflects how well diverse traits are captured by a medical specialty. In order to reflect the heterogeneity of current PROM use in ophthalmology, we reviewed the available literature.
METHODS: The medical literature database Web of Science was searched for the most cited articles in clinical ophthalmology. Titles, abstracts and full text articles were reviewed for the use of PROMs and a list of the 100 most cited articles using PROMs was obtained and stratified by year of publication.
RESULTS: A total of 1,996 articles were screened. Seventy-seven out of the 100 articles identified included one PROM, and the average number of instruments was 1.5 ± 1.1. The most widely used PROMs were the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (33%), the Ocular Surface Disease Index (14%) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (13%). A simulation analysis suggested that the distribution of PROM use in ophthalmology study did not significantly differ from a power law distribution. Twenty-two percent and fifteen percent of articles did not reference and did not specify the PROM used, respectively. This rate decreased in the more recently published articles (p = 0.041).
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the heterogeneity of PROMs applied in ophthalmology studies is low. The selection of PROMs for clinical studies should be done carefully, depending on the research goal.

BACKGROUND: Despite the central role of mixed methods in health research, studies evaluating online methods training in the health sciences are nonexistent. The focused goal was to evaluate online training by comparing the self-rated skills of scholars who experienced an in-person retreat to scholars in an online retreat in specific domains of mixed methods research for the health sciences from 2015-2023.
METHODS: The authors administered a scholar Mixed Methods Skills Self-Assessment instrument based on an educational competency scale that included domains on: \"research questions,\" \"design/approach,\" \"sampling,\" \"analysis,\" and \"dissemination\" to participants of the Mixed Methods Research Training Program for the Health Sciences (MMRTP). Self-ratings on confidence on domains were compared before and after retreat participation within cohorts who attended in person (n = 73) or online (n = 57) as well as comparing across in-person to online cohorts. Responses to open-ended questions about experiences with the retreat were analyzed.
RESULTS: Scholars in an interactive program to improve mixed methods skills reported significantly increased confidence in ability to define or explain concepts and in ability to apply the concepts to practical problems, whether the program was attended in-person or synchronously online. Scholars in the online retreat had self-rated skill improvements as good or better than scholars who participated in person. With the possible exception of networking, scholars found the online format was associated with advantages such as accessibility and reduced burden of travel and finding childcare. No differences in difficulty of learning concepts was described.
CONCLUSIONS: Keeping in mind that the retreat is only one component of the MMRTP, this study provides evidence that mixed methods training online was associated with the same increases in self-rated skills as persons attending online and can be a key component to increasing the capacity for mixed methods research in the health sciences.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the publication rate for orthopaedic trauma resident research projects that receive grant funding and the long-term academic involvement of the grant recipients.
METHODS:
METHODS: Retrospective.
METHODS: Publically available records for resident research grant recipients.
UNASSIGNED: Resident research grants on orthopaedic trauma topics from Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), AO North America (AONA), and Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation from 2000 to 2022.
UNASSIGNED: Subsequent related publications, grant size, time to publication, sustained academic involvement of the residents as measured by academic position, total number of publications, and h-index.
RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-seven orthopaedic trauma grants (OTA 117, AONA 225, and OREF 55) were identified. A total of 38% (151) of grants resulted in a publication with no significant difference between agencies (P = 0.94). The average amount awarded was $9,843, with no correlation to publication (P = 0.63). The mean time to publication was 3.57 ± 2.33 years. The time to publication for AONA was significantly longer than for OTA (4.14 vs. 2.83 years, P = 0.004). There was no difference in total publications, h-index, or NIH grants between grant recipients from different agencies. More OTA grant recipients held an academic position compared with AONA grant recipients (63% vs. 43%, P = 0.003). Grant awardees with initial publication success were 1.7 times as likely to have a future academic appointment (P = 0.014) and had 1.9 times the number of publications than those without (P = 0.001). Awardees with an h-index in the top quartile were significantly more likely to have published than those with an h-index in the bottom quartile (P = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of orthopaedic trauma-related resident research grants resulted in a publication with comparable rates across agencies. Grant size did not predict publication success. Publication success was a positive predictor of continued academic involvement. Most publications occurred within 5 years, suggesting that these grants may be most helpful in career development if awarded during the first 1-2 years of a 5-year orthopaedic residency program.

暂无摘要。