Dataset Information

Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Writing plays a central role in the communication of scientific ideas and is therefore a key aspect in researcher education, ultimately determining the success and long-term sustainability of their careers. Despite the growing popularity of e-learning, we are not aware of any existing study comparing on-line vs. traditional classroom-based methods for teaching scientific writing.

Methods

Forty eight participants from a medical, nursing and physiotherapy background from US and Brazil were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 24 per group): An on-line writing workshop group (on-line group), in which participants used virtual communication, google docs and standard writing templates, and a standard writing guidance training (standard group) where participants received standard instruction without the aid of virtual communication and writing templates. Two outcomes, manuscript quality was assessed using the scores obtained in Six subgroup analysis scale as the primary outcome measure, and satisfaction scores with Likert scale were evaluated. To control for observer variability, inter-observer reliability was assessed using Fleiss's kappa. A post-hoc analysis comparing rates of communication between mentors and participants was performed. Nonparametric tests were used to assess intervention efficacy.

Results

Excellent inter-observer reliability among three reviewers was found, with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) agreement = 0.931882 and ICC consistency = 0.932485. On-line group had better overall manuscript quality (p = 0.0017, SSQSavg score 75.3 +/- 14.21, ranging from 37 to 94) compared to the standard group (47.27 +/- 14.64, ranging from 20 to 72). Participant satisfaction was higher in the on-line group (4.3 +/- 0.73) compared to the standard group (3.09 +/- 1.11) (p = 0.001). The standard group also had fewer communication events compared to the on-line group (0.91 +/- 0.81 vs. 2.05 +/- 1.23; p = 0.0219).

Conclusion

Our protocol for on-line scientific writing instruction is better than standard face-to-face instruction in terms of writing quality and student satisfaction. Future studies should evaluate the protocol efficacy in larger longitudinal cohorts involving participants from different languages.

SUBMITTER: Phadtare A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2701428 | biostudies-literature | 2009 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction.

Phadtare Amruta A Bahmani Anu A Shah Anand A Pietrobon Ricardo R

BMC medical education 20090527

<h4>Background</h4>Writing plays a central role in the communication of scientific ideas and is therefore a key aspect in researcher education, ultimately determining the success and long-term sustainability of their careers. Despite the growing popularity of e-learning, we are not aware of any existing study comparing on-line vs. traditional classroom-based methods for teaching scientific writing.<h4>Methods</h4>Forty eight participants from a medical, nursing and physiotherapy background from ...[more]

PMID: 19473511

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe role of eHealth programs to support patients through surgical pathways, including total hip arthroplasty (THA), is rapidly growing and offers the potential to improve patient engagement, self-care, and outcomes.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to compare the effects of an eHealth program (intervention) versus standard care for pre- and postoperative education on patient outcomes for primary THA.MethodsA prospective parallel randomized controlled trial with two arms (standard care and standard care plus access to the eHealth education program) was conducted. Participants included those who underwent THA. Outcome measures were collected preadmission, at 6 weeks, and at 3 and 6 months after surgery. The primary outcome was the Hip Dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Secondary outcomes were a 5-level 5-dimension quality of life measure and the self-efficacy for managing chronic disease scale. Demographic and clinical characteristics were also collected. A satisfaction survey was completed by all participants 6 weeks after surgery, and those in the intervention arm completed an additional survey specific to the eHealth program.ResultsA total of 99 patients were recruited: 50 in the eHealth program (intervention) and 49 in standard care (control). Clinical improvements were demonstrated in both groups across all time points. Per-protocol analysis demonstrated no differences between the groups for all outcome measures across all time points. Participants in the eHealth program reported that the program was accessible, that they felt comfortable using it, and that the information was helpful.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that the eHealth program, in addition to standard care, had no additional benefit to THA recovery compared with standard care alone. The study found that the eHealth program was highly valued by participants, and it supported the preoperative preparation, recovery, and postoperative rehabilitation of participants.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12617001433392; http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373657.

Project description:BackgroundImproving the effectiveness and efficiency of research informed consent is a high priority. Some express concern about longer, more complex, written consent forms creating barriers to participant understanding. A recent meta-analysis concluded that randomized comparisons were needed.MethodsWe conducted a cluster-randomized non-inferiority comparison of a standard versus concise consent form within a multinational trial studying the timing of starting antiretroviral therapy in HIV+ adults (START). Interested sites were randomized to standard or concise consent forms for all individuals signing START consent. Participants completed a survey measuring comprehension of study information and satisfaction with the consent process. Site personnel reported usual site consent practices. The primary outcome was comprehension of the purpose of randomization (pre-specified 7.5% non-inferiority margin).Results77 sites (2429 participants) were randomly allocated to use standard consent and 77 sites (2000 participants) concise consent, for an evaluable cohort of 4229. Site and participant characteristics were similar for the two groups. The concise consent was non-inferior to the standard consent on comprehension of randomization (80.2% versus 82%, site adjusted difference: 0.75% (95% CI -3.8%, +5.2%)); and the two groups did not differ significantly on total comprehension score, satisfaction, or voluntariness (p>0.1). Certain independent factors, such as education, influenced comprehension and satisfaction but not differences between consent groups.ConclusionsAn easier to read, more concise consent form neither hindered nor improved comprehension of study information nor satisfaction with the consent process among a large number of participants. This supports continued efforts to make consent forms more efficient.Trial registrationInformed consent substudy was registered as part of START study in clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00867048, and EudraCT # 2008-006439-12.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Indigenous people in the United States are at high risk for diabetes. Psychosocial stressors like historical trauma may impede success in diabetes prevention programs. METHODS:A comparative effectiveness trial compared a culturally tailored diabetes prevention program (standard group) with an enhanced one that addressed psychosocial stressors (enhanced group) in 2015 to 2017. Participants were 207 Indigenous adults with a body mass index (BMI) of ?30 and one additional criterion of metabolic syndrome, and were randomized to the standard or enhanced group. Both groups received a culturally tailored behavioral diabetes prevention program. Strategies to address psychosocial stressors were provided to the enhanced group only. Change in BMI over 12?months was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included change in quality of life, and clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial measures at 6 and 12?months. RESULTS:The two groups did not significantly differ in BMI change at 12?months. The two groups also did not differ in any secondary outcomes at 6 or 12?months, with the exception of unhealthy food consumption; the standard group reported a larger mean decrease (95% CI) in consumption of unhealthy food compared with the enhanced group (-?4.6 [-?6.8, -?2.5] vs. -0.7 [-?2.9, 1.4], p?=?0.01). At 6?months, significant improvements in weight and the physical component of the quality of life measure were observed for both groups compared with their baseline level. Compared with baseline, at 12?months, the standard group showed significant improvement in BMI (mean [95% CI], -?0.5 [-?1.0, -?0.1]) and the enhanced group showed significant improvement in the physical component of the quality of life (2.9 [0.7, 5.2]). CONCLUSIONS:Adding strategies to address psychosocial barriers to a culturally tailored diabetes prevention program was not successful for improving weight loss among urban Indigenous adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION:(if applicable): NCT02266576. Registered October 17, 2014 on clinicaltrials.gov. The trial was prospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets