Dataset Information

The Badges Program: A Self-Directed Learning Guide for Residents for Conducting Research and a Successful Peer-Reviewed Publication.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The Badges Program is a self-directed supplement to a program's research curriculum. This step-by-step resource helps medical residents to understand the resources needed to conduct their own research project and fulfill the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements for scholarly activity.

Methods

The curriculum is completed over varying amounts of time depending on the intricacy of scholastic activities. Simple case reports may take as little as 1-2 weeks whereas months to years may be required if residents are completing more intricate and elaborate projects. Associated materials include a guide organized by topic followed by sequentially completed task assignments demonstrating the user has gained a basic understanding of the corresponding objective. Upon completing a task, the user obtains its educational badge, a virtual certificate of completion the program can then track with a simple checklist for progress. Several supplementary online articles review core concepts or provide examples and web-based tutorials for becoming proficient with using reference software. No faculty training is necessary. Residents go through the steps necessary to perform research so as to gain familiarity with the process.

Results

Qualitative feedback obtained by informally surveying residents who have completed the Badges Program has been very positive, with residents reporting that the guide was easy to follow and the knowledge gained will help tremendously with future projects.

Discussion

We hope that with feedback, this resource will be expanded and refined so every resident will be able to use the Badges Program regardless of previous skills, experience, and publications.

SUBMITTER: Onishi K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6464421 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Badges Program: A Self-Directed Learning Guide for Residents for Conducting Research and a Successful Peer-Reviewed Publication.

Onishi Kentaro K Karimi Danielle Perret DP Hata Justin J Newcomb Robert R Cramer Steven C SC Sharp Kelli K Reinkensmeyer David D Adcock Elise M EM

MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources 20160826

<h4>Introduction</h4>The Badges Program is a self-directed supplement to a program's research curriculum. This step-by-step resource helps medical residents to understand the resources needed to conduct their own research project and fulfill the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements for scholarly activity.<h4>Methods</h4>The curriculum is completed over varying amounts of time depending on the intricacy of scholastic activities. Simple case reports may take as little ...[more]

PMID: 31008221

Similar Datasets

Project description:If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one's field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0-7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4]) of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%). Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling) compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive). When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90]) and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]). Publication typically occurred within 2-3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training in psychology. Efforts to improve the quality and "publishability" of doctoral dissertation research could benefit psychological science on multiple fronts.

Project description:Selective publication and reporting in individual papers compromise the scientific record, but are meta-analyses as compromised as their constituent studies? We systematically sampled 63 meta-analyses (each comprising at least 40 studies) in PLoS One, top medical journals, top psychology journals, and Metalab, an online, open-data database of developmental psychology meta-analyses. We empirically estimated publication bias in each, including only the peer-reviewed studies. Across all meta-analyses, we estimated that "statistically significant" results in the expected direction were only 1.17 times more likely to be published than "nonsignificant" results or those in the unexpected direction (95% CI: [0.93, 1.47]), with a confidence interval substantially overlapping the null. Comparable estimates were 0.83 for meta-analyses in PLoS One, 1.02 for top medical journals, 1.54 for top psychology journals, and 4.70 for Metalab. The severity of publication bias did differ across individual meta-analyses; in a small minority (10%; 95% CI: [2%, 21%]), publication bias appeared to favor "significant" results in the expected direction by more than threefold. We estimated that for 89% of meta-analyses, the amount of publication bias that would be required to attenuate the point estimate to the null exceeded the amount of publication bias estimated to be actually present in the vast majority of meta-analyses from the relevant scientific discipline (exceeding the 95th percentile of publication bias). Study-level measures ("statistical significance" with a point estimate in the expected direction and point estimate size) did not indicate more publication bias in higher-tier versus lower-tier journals, nor in the earliest studies published on a topic versus later studies. Overall, we conclude that the mere act of performing a meta-analysis with a large number of studies (at least 40) and that includes non-headline results may largely mitigate publication bias in meta-analyses, suggesting optimism about the validity of meta-analytic results.

Project description:Chronic pain is common among older adults and is associated with adverse physical and psychological outcomes. Given the burden of pain and limited healthcare resources, devising innovative and cost-effective ways of managing chronic pain is of high priority. The aim of this paper is to explore the experiences and perceptions of peer volunteers (PVs) in a peer-led pain management program among nursing home residents in Hong Kong. Forty-six PVs were recruited and trained to lead a pain management program (PAP). The PAP consisted of one 1 hour session per week for 12 weeks. It included 20 min of physical exercises performed under the supervision of PVs, followed by 30 min of pain management education, including information on pain situations, the impacts of pain, the use of drugs and non-drug strategies for pain management, demonstrations, and return demonstrations of various non-drug pain management techniques. Quantitative data were collected from questionnaires (demographics, pain situation, and pain knowledge) for all PVs. Qualitative data (PVs' experiences in leading the PAP, their perceived benefits, barriers encountered, and recommendations for improving the PAP) were collected at week 12 (upon completion of the PAP). Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences and content analysis for qualitative data. A total of 46 PVs were recruited (34 females, 74%), with a mean ± SD age of 61.0 ± 5.1 years. Thirty-one of them reported having chronic pain. Before the training, their self-rated pain knowledge was 40.0 ± 20.5 (maximum 100 points) while their actual pain knowledge score was 86.1 ± 10.6 (maximum 100 points). The PVs reported an improvement in their knowledge and skills after leading PAPs. No PVs reported having received any negative comments about their role in leading the PAP but mentioned that they had received feedback on how to improve the program. This study provides further evidence that peer-led pain management programs are feasible and can lead to positive experiences for the PVs. Peer support models are coming into wide use because they show promise in helping patients to manage chronic conditions. Peer volunteers will become important resources in elderly care. The barriers that were identified may lead to improvements in the design and planning of future PAPs.

Dataset Information

The Badges Program: A Self-Directed Learning Guide for Residents for Conducting Research and a Successful Peer-Reviewed Publication.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

The Badges Program: A Self-Directed Learning Guide for Residents for Conducting Research and a Successful Peer-Reviewed Publication.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets