Dataset Information

Conducting COVID-19-Related Research in Jordan: Are We Ready?

ABSTRACT: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a public health emergency of international concern. This pandemic poses a challenge to research and scientific community. In this study, we developed and tested content reliability and content validity of a questionnaire designed for evaluating the readiness and willingness of researchers to participate in virology research in Jordan. The survey was hosted on an online platform, and the link was emailed. A total of 332 participants from universities across Jordan completed the survey. For factor analysis, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value (KMO) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity were conducted. Furthermore, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with parallel analysis and scree plots were conducted to evaluate the most suitable model for the data. The result of the EFA suggested a 5-factor model would fit the survey. Data showed that the lowest means were for researchers' readiness to conduct virology research and readiness for virology research with means of 2.07 and 2.95, respectively. Moreover, years of experience and speciality had a significant effect on the readiness and willingness of virology research in Jordan. In conclusion, readiness for research and researchers should be addressed and authorities should pay attention to these shortcomings in virology research.

SUBMITTER: Ikhmais B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8010288 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Conducting COVID-19-Related Research in Jordan: Are We Ready?

Ikhmais Balqis B Hammad Alaa M AM Al-Qerem Walid W Abusara Osama H OH Ling Jonathan J

Disaster medicine and public health preparedness 20201105 3

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a public health emergency of international concern. This pandemic poses a challenge to research and scientific community. In this study, we developed and tested content reliability and content validity of a questionnaire designed for evaluating the readiness and willingness of researchers to participate in virology research in Jordan. The survey was hosted on an online platform, and the link was emailed. A total of 332 participants from univers ...[more]

PMID: 33148372

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWith the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals have been forced to follow strict social isolation guidelines. While crucial to control the pandemic, isolation might have a significant impact on productivity and mental health. Especially for researchers working in healthcare, the current situation is complex. We therefore carried out a survey amongst researchers in the field of radiation oncology to gain insights on the impact of social isolation and working from home and to guide future work.Materials and methodsAn online survey was conducted between March 27th and April 5th, 2020. The first part contained 14 questions intended to capture an overview of the specific aspects related to research while in isolation. The second (optional) part of the questionnaire was the validated Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), a self-reported measure used to assess levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms.ResultsFrom 543 survey participants, 48.8% reported to work full-time from home. The impact on perceived productivity, with 71.2% of participants feeling less productive, caused 58% of participants to feel some level of guilt.Compared to normative data, relatively high levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms were recorded for the 335 participants who filled out the HADS questionnaire. Group comparisons found the presence of a supportive institutional program as the sole factor of statistical significance in both anxiety and depressive symptom levels. People having to work full-time on location showed higher depressive symptom levels than those working from home. Anxiety scores were negatively correlated with the number of research years.ConclusionResults of the survey showed there is a non-negligible impact on both productivity and mental health. As the radiation oncology research community was forced to work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, lessons can be learned to face future adverse situations but also to improve work-life balance in general.

Project description:BackgroundHealth services researchers within the Veterans Health Administration (VA) seek to improve the delivery of care to the Veteran population, whose medical needs often differ from the general population. The COVID-19 pandemic and restricted access to medical centers and offices forced VA researchers and staff to transition to remote work. This study aimed to characterize the work experience of health service researchers during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA REDCap survey developed from the management literature was distributed in July 2020 to 800 HSR&D researchers and staff affiliated with VA Centers of Innovation. We requested recipients to forward the survey to VA colleagues. Descriptive analyses and logistic regression modeling were conducted on multiple choice and Likert scaled items. Manifest content analysis was conducted on open-text responses.ResultsResponses were received from 473 researchers and staff from 37 VA Medical Centers. About half (48%; n = 228) of VA HSR&D researchers and staff who responded to the survey experienced some interference with their research due to the COVID-19 pandemic, yet 55% (n = 260) reported their programs of research did not slow or stop. Clinician investigators reported significantly greater odds of interference than non-clinician investigators and support staff. The most common barriers to working remotely were loss of face-to-face interactions with colleagues (56%; n = 263) and absence of daily routines (25%; n = 118). Strategies teams used to address COVID-19 related remote work challenges included videoconferencing (79%; n = 375), virtual get-togethers (48%; n = 225), altered timelines (42%; n = 199), daily email updates (30%; n = 143) and virtual team huddles (16%; n = 74). Pre-pandemic VA information technology structures along with systems created to support multidisciplinary research teams working across a national healthcare system maintained and enhanced staff engagement and well-being.ConclusionsThis study identifies how the VA structures and systems put in place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to support a dispersed workforce enabled the continuation of vital scientific research, staff engagement and well-being during a global pandemic. These findings can inform remote work policies and practices for researchers during the current and future crises.

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to assess the adherence to five transparency practices (data availability, code availability, protocol registration and conflicts of interest (COI), and funding disclosures) from open access Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related articles.MethodsWe searched and exported all open access COVID-19-related articles from PubMed-indexed journals in the Europe PubMed Central database published from January 2020 to June 9, 2022. With a validated and automated tool, we detected transparent practices of three paper types: research articles, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and reviews. Basic journal- and article-related information were retrieved from the database. We used R for the descriptive analyses.ResultsThe total number of articles was 258,678, of which we were able to retrieve full texts of 186,157 (72%) articles from the database Over half of the papers (55.7%, n = 103,732) were research articles, 10.9% (n = 20,229) were review articles, and less than one percent (n = 1,202) were RCTs. Approximately nine-tenths of articles (in all three paper types) had a statement to disclose COI. Funding disclosure (83.9%, confidence interval (CI): 81.7-85.8 95%) and protocol registration (53.5%, 95% CI: 50.7-56.3) were more frequent in RCTs than in reviews or research articles. Reviews shared data (2.5%, 95% CI: 2.3-2.8) and code (0.4%, 95% CI: 0.4-0.5) less frequently than RCTs or research articles. Articles published in 2022 had the highest adherence to all five transparency practices. Most of the reviews (62%) and research articles (58%) adhered to two transparency practices, whereas almost half of the RCTs (47%) adhered to three practices. There were journal- and publisher-related differences in all five practices, and articles that did not adhere to transparency practices were more likely published in lowest impact journals and were less likely cited.ConclusionWhile most articles were freely available and had a COI disclosure, adherence to other transparent practices was far from acceptable. A much stronger commitment to open science practices, particularly to protocol registration, data and code sharing, is needed from all stakeholders.

Project description:BackgroundSince the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, a large number of COVID-19-related papers have been published. However, concerns about the risk of expedited science have been raised. We aimed at reviewing and categorizing COVID-19-related medical research and to critically appraise peer-reviewed original articles.MethodsThe data sources were Pubmed, Cochrane COVID-19 register study, arXiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv, from 01/11/2019 to 01/05/2020. Peer-reviewed and preprints publications related to COVID-19 were included, written in English or Chinese. No limitations were placed on study design. Reviewers screened and categorized studies according to i) publication type, ii) country of publication, and iii) topics covered. Original articles were critically appraised using validated quality assessment tools.ResultsAmong the 11,452 publications identified, 10,516 met the inclusion criteria, among which 7468 (71.0%) were peer-reviewed articles. Among these, 4190 publications (56.1%) did not include any data or analytics (comprising expert opinion pieces). Overall, the most represented topics were infectious disease (n = 2326, 22.1%), epidemiology (n = 1802, 17.1%), and global health (n = 1602, 15.2%). The top five publishing countries were China (25.8%), United States (22.3%), United Kingdom (8.8%), Italy (8.1%) and India (3.4%). The dynamic of publication showed that the exponential growth of COVID-19 peer-reviewed articles was mainly driven by publications without original data (mean 261.5 articles ± 51.1 per week) as compared with original articles (mean of 69.3 ± 22.3 articles per week). Original articles including patient data accounted for 713 (9.5%) of peer-reviewed studies. A total of 576 original articles (80.8%) showed intermediate to high risk of bias. Last, except for simulation studies that mainly used large-scale open data, the median number of patients enrolled was of 102 (IQR = 37-337).ConclusionsSince the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data. Peer-reviewed original articles with data showed a high risk of bias and included a limited number of patients. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need to strike a balance between the velocity and quality of research, and to cautiously consider medical information and clinical applicability in a pressing, pandemic context. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/5zjyx/.

Dataset Information

Conducting COVID-19-Related Research in Jordan: Are We Ready?

Publications

Conducting COVID-19-Related Research in Jordan: Are We Ready?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets