Dataset Information

Intervention to Promote Responsible Conduct of Research Mentoring.

ABSTRACT: Although much of the focus on responsible conduct in research has been defined by courses or online training, it is generally understood that this is less important than what happens in the research environment. On the assumption that providing faculty with tools and resources to address the ethical dimensions of the practice of research would be useful, a new workshop was convened ten times across seven academic institutions and at the annual meeting of a professional society. Workshops were attended by 91 faculty, 71 (78% response rate) of whom completed evaluations strongly supportive of the value of the workshop. Surveys of trainees identified by the faculty allowed for invitations to complete an online survey before and 6 months after the workshops, respectively resulting in response rates of 43 and 51%. Faculty and trainees were highly supportive of the feasibility, relevance, and effectiveness of the implementation by the faculty of one or more of the five strategies featured in the workshop. However, surprisingly over 70% of the trainees reported use of one or more of those strategies prior to faculty participation in the workshops. In sum, the workshops for faculty were successful, and the proposed strategies were deemed of value, but it is likely that the faculty voluntarily choosing to participate in these workshops were perhaps not surprisingly faculty who are already engaging in some of these strategies. This model is likely a useful adjunct to encouraging a culture of ethics, but it is not by itself sufficient to do so.

SUBMITTER: Kalichman MW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5726945 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intervention to Promote Responsible Conduct of Research Mentoring.

Kalichman Michael W MW Plemmons Dena K DK

Science and engineering ethics 20170612 2

Although much of the focus on responsible conduct in research has been defined by courses or online training, it is generally understood that this is less important than what happens in the research environment. On the assumption that providing faculty with tools and resources to address the ethical dimensions of the practice of research would be useful, a new workshop was convened ten times across seven academic institutions and at the annual meeting of a professional society. Workshops were at ...[more]

PMID: 28608033

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate how strongly Australian university codes of research conduct endorse responsible research practices.MethodsCodes of research conduct from 25 Australian universities active in health and medical research were obtained from public websites, and audited against 19 questions to assess how strongly they (1) defined research integrity, research quality, and research misconduct, (2) required research to be approved by an appropriate ethics committee, (3) endorsed 9 responsible research practices, and (4) discouraged 5 questionable research practices.ResultsOverall, a median of 10 (IQR 9 to 12) of 19 practices covered in the questions were mentioned, weakly endorsed, or strongly endorsed. Five to 8 of 9 responsible research practices were mentioned, weakly, or strongly endorsed, and 3 questionable research practices were discouraged. Results are stratified by Group of Eight (n = 8) and other (n = 17) universities. Specifically, (1) 6 (75%) Group of Eight and 11 (65%) other codes of research conduct defined research integrity, 4 (50%) and 8 (47%) defined research quality, and 7 (88%) and 16 (94%) defined research misconduct. (2) All codes required ethics approval for human and animal research. (3) All codes required conflicts of interest to be declared, but there was variability in how strongly other research practices were endorsed. The most commonly endorsed practices were ensuring researcher training in research integrity [8 (100%) and 16 (94%)] and making study data publicly available [6 (75%) and 12 (71%)]. The least commonly endorsed practices were making analysis code publicly available [0 (0%) and 0 (0%)] and registering analysis protocols [0 (0%) and 1 (6%)]. (4) Most codes discouraged fabricating data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], selectively deleting or modifying data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], and selective reporting of results [3 (38%) and 15 (88%)]. No codes discouraged p-hacking or hypothesising after results are known.ConclusionsResponsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct. Our findings may not be generalisable to smaller universities, or those not active in health and medical research.

Project description:BackgroundMentoring is frequently suggested as an intervention to address gender inequalities in the workplace.ObjectivesTo systematically review evidence published since a definitive review in 2006 on the effectiveness of mentoring interventions aimed at achieving gender equality in academic medicine.DesignSystematic Review, using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication as a template for data extraction and synthesis.SampleStudies were included if they described a specific mentoring intervention in a medical school or analogous academic healthcare organisation and included results from an evaluation of the intervention.Eligibility criteriaMentoring was defined as (1) a formally organised intervention entailing a supportive relationship between a mentor, defined as a more senior/experienced person and a mentee defined as a more junior/inexperienced person; (2) mentoring intervention involved academic career support (3) the mentoring relationship was outside line management or supervision of performance and was defined by contact over an extended period of time.OutcomesThe impact of mentoring was usually reported at the level of individual participants, for example, satisfaction and well-being or self-reported career progression. We sought evidence of impact on gender equality via reports of organisation-level effectiveness, of promotion or retention, pay and academic performance of female staff.ResultsWe identified 32 publications: 8 review articles, 20 primary observational studies and 4 randomised controlled trials. A further 19 discussed mentoring in relation to gender but did not meet our eligibility criteria. The terminology used, and the structures and processes reported as constituting mentoring, varied greatly. We identified that mentoring is popular with many who receive it; however, we found no robust evidence of effectiveness in reducing gender inequalities. Primary research used weak evaluation designs.ConclusionsMentoring is a complex intervention. Future evaluations should adopt standardised approaches used in applied health research to the design and evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Promoting Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a major strategy of the "Science with and for Society" work program of the European Union's Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. RRI aims to achieve a better alignment of research and innovation with the values, needs, and expectations of society. The RRI strategy includes the "keys" of public engagement, open access, gender, ethics, and science education. The Structural Transformation to Attain Responsible BIOSciences (STARBIOS2) project promotes RRI in 6 European research institutions and universities from Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Poland, and the United Kingdom, in partnership with a further 6 institutions from Brazil, Denmark, Italy, South Africa, Sweden, and the United States. OBJECTIVE:The project aims to attain RRI structural change in 6 European institutions by implementing action plans (APs) and developing APs for 3 non-European institutions active in the field of biosciences; use the implementation of APs as a learning process with a view to developing a set of guidelines on the implementation of RRI; and develop a sustainable model for RRI in biosciences. METHODS:The project comprises interrelated research and implementation designed to achieve the aforementioned specific objectives. The project is organized into 6 core work packages and 5 supporting work packages. The core work packages deal with the implementation of institutional APs in 6 European institutions based on the structural change activation model. The supporting work packages include technical assistance, learning process on RRI-oriented structural change, monitoring and assessment, communication and dissemination, and project management. RESULTS:The project is funded by Horizon 2020 and will run for 4 years (May 2016-April 2020). As of June 2018, the initial phase has been completed. The participating institutions have developed and approved APs and commenced their implementation. An observation tool has been launched by the Technical Assistance Team to collect information from the implementation of APs; the Evaluation & Assessment team has started monitoring the advancement of the project. As part of the communication and dissemination strategy, a project website, a Facebook page, and a Twitter account have been launched and are updated periodically. The International Scientific Advisory Committee has been formed to advise on the reporting and dissemination of the project's results. CONCLUSIONS:In the short term, we anticipate that the project will have a considerable impact on the organizational processes and structures, improving the RRI uptake in the participating institutions. In the medium term, we expect to make RRI-oriented organizational change scalable across Europe by developing guidelines on RRI implementation and an RRI model in biosciences. In the long term, we expect that the project would help increase the ability of research institutions to make discoveries and innovations in better alignment with societal needs and values. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/11745.

Project description:The VA Cooperative Studies Program's (CSP) Network of Dedicated Enrollment Sites (NODES) is a consortium of nine VA medical centers (VAMCs) with teams (nodes) dedicated to enhance performance, compliance, and management of CSP multi-site clinical trials. The West Haven CSP Coordinating Center (WH-CSPCC), study coordinating center for CSP #577, Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) trial, and NODES piloted a "site mentoring" (hub-and-spoke) model. In this model, a node site would work one-on-one with a low enrolling CONFIRM site to identify and overcome barriers to recruitment. The aim was to determine the impact of a research site mentoring model on study recruitment and examine site-level characteristics that facilitate or impede it.Sites in the mentorship pilot had an average improvement of 5?±?4 participants randomized per month (min -2.6; max 11.6; SD 4.3). Four of ten sites (40%) demonstrated continuous improvement in the average number of randomized participants per month after the pilot intervention and at three-month follow-up (post-intervention), as compared to the five-month period preceding the intervention. An additional two sites (20%) demonstrated improvement in the average number of randomized participants per month after the pilot intervention, and sustained that level of improvement at three-month follow-up (post-intervention). Additionally, six of ten sites (60%) demonstrated an increased number of participants screened for eligibility immediately following the intervention and at three-month follow-up (post-intervention). Only one site showed a decreased monthly average of randomized participants shortly after the intervention and through the three-month follow-up period.The site mentoring model was successful in improving recruitment at low enrolling CONFIRM sites. An additional feasibility assessment is needed to determine if this mentoring model will be effective with other CSP trials.

Dataset Information

Intervention to Promote Responsible Conduct of Research Mentoring.

Publications

Intervention to Promote Responsible Conduct of Research Mentoring.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets