Dataset Information

Experience and awareness of research integrity among Japanese physicians: a nationwide cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To explore the awareness and practice of clinical research integrity among Japanese physicians.

Design

A nationwide cross-sectional study conducted in March 2020.

Setting

All hospitals in Japan.

Participants

Physicians aged <65 years who work at hospitals participated in clinical research over the past 5 years. The sample was stratified according to geographical location and subspecialty, and 1100 physicians were proportionally selected.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Knowledge and awareness of research integrity.

Results

Among the 1100 participants, 587 (53%) had the experience of being the first author, 299 (27%) had been co-authors only and 214 (19%) had no authorship. A total of 1021 (93%) had experienced learning research integrity, and 555 (54%) became aware of research integrity. The experience of learning about research integrity was highest among those with first authorship (95%) and lowest among those without authorship (89%) (p=0.003). The majority of participants learnt about research integrity for passive reasons such as it being 'required by the institution' (57%) or it being 'required to obtain approval of institutional review board (IRB)' (30%). Potentially inappropriate research behaviours were observed in participants, with 11% indulging in copying and pasting for writing the paper, 11% for gifted authorship and 5.8% for the omission of IRB approval. Factors significantly associated with copying and pasting were being below 40 years old (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.05 to 3.26), being the first presenter (OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.57) or having passive reasons for learning research integrity (OR: 2.96; 95% CI: 1.57 to 5.59). Furthermore, gifted authorship was significantly associated with being a co-author only (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.87) and having passive reasons for learning about research integrity (OR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.12).

Conclusions

Most physicians conducting clinical research have learnt about research integrity, but potentially inappropriate research behaviours are associated with passive reasons for learning.

SUBMITTER: Nishimura R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8506862 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly used to treat acid-related disorders. Their appropriate use depends on the correct indications from the clinician. Owing to the high incidence of use and misuse, PPIs have been identified as an essential pharmacological class for developing deprescribing recommendations. Therefore, assessing physicians' knowledge and practice regarding PPI usage is critical for paving the way toward targeted recommendations and efforts. Objective: This study aimed to assess Syrian physicians' perceptions of proton pump inhibitors adverse effects, their benefit in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) prophylaxis, and how these perceptions are related to PPI prescription practice. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed using a web-based questionnaire distributed among Syrian physicians in internal medicine between 28 November and 23 December 2022. The questionnaire assessed perceptions and experiences of PPIs, concerns about specific adverse effects, and their effectiveness for UGIB prophylaxis, in addition to the different scenarios used to determine the best practice for appropriate treatment to manage minimal, mild, moderate, and high-risk UGIB patients. Results: A total of 473 participants completed the questionnaire, with median age ±SD was (28.46 ± 4.58), and most participants (83.3%) were residents. Approximately half of the participants (45.5%) agreed that discussion assistance was provided to continue or terminate PPIs properly. Only 8.9% were very familiar with published evidence of PPI adverse effects. Bone weakening and vitamin B12 deficiency were the most frequently reported side effects (81.8% and 79.7%, respectively). However, dementia (0.4%) and mortality (1.9%) were the least reported adverse effects. More than half of the participants (64%) perceived using PPIs to prevent upper GI bleeding. Non-trainee physicians were less knowledgeable about appropriate GERD management than resident physicians (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The study showed a gap between Syrian physicians' perceptions and practices regarding PPI use, which necessitates spreading awareness of updated guidelines for PPI usage and their side effects.

Project description:ObjectiveIn many countries an increase in the number of women in medicine is accompanied by gender inequality in various aspects of professional practice. Women in medical workforce usually earn less than their male counterparts. The aim of this study was to describe the gender wage difference and analyse the associated factors in relation to Brazil's physicians.Participants2400 physicians.SettingNationwide, cross-sectional study conducted in 2014.MethodsData were collected via a telephone enquiry. Sociodemographic and work characteristics were considered factors, and monthly wages (only the monthly earnings based on a medical profession) were considered as the primary outcome. A hierarchical multiple regression model was used to study the factors related to wage differences between male and female physicians. The adjustment of different models was verified by indicators of residual deviance and the Akaike information criterion. Analysis of variance was used to verify the equality hypothesis subsequently among the different models.ResultsThe probability of men receiving the highest monthly wage range is higher than women for all factors. Almost 80% of women are concentrated in the three lowest wage categories, while 51% of men are in the three highest categories. Among physicians working between 20 and 40 hours a week, only 2.7% of women reported receiving >US$10 762 per month, compared with 13% of men. After adjustment for work characteristics in the hierarchical multiple regression model, the gender variable estimations (ß) remained, with no significant modifications. The final effect of this full model suggests that the probability of men receiving the highest salary level (≥US$10 762) is 17.1%, and for women it is 4.1%. Results indicate that a significant gender wage difference exists in Brazil.ConclusionThe inequality between sexes persisted even after adjusting for working factors such as weekly workload, number of weekly on-call shifts, physician office work, length of practice and specialisation.

Project description:Background: Although annual influenza vaccination is recommended for healthcare providers (HCPs), vaccination rate among HCPs in India is generally low. This cross-sectional survey was conducted to evaluate physicians' awareness, attitude, and current practices toward influenza vaccination in high-risk groups in India. Methods: The survey was performed in June-July 2020, wherein consulting physicians, pulmonologists, diabetologists, obstetricians/gynecologists, or cardiologists across 14 cities completed a 39-item questionnaire consisting of 3 sections, one each on awareness, attitude, and practice patterns. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the study results. Statistical analysis was performed for comparison of subgroups by physician specialty, city of practice (metro/non-metro), and zone of practice (north/south/east/west). Level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: In all, 780 physicians completed the survey. Of these, 3.97, 53.08, and 42.95% had high, medium, and low level of awareness about influenza/influenza vaccination, respectively. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) between-group differences were found by physician specialty and zone of practice. In terms of attitude toward vaccination of high-risk group subjects, only 0.9% physicians were "extremely concerned," while the majority (92.56%) were "quite concerned" and 6.54% were a "little concerned," with no reported significant differences between different subgroups. With regard to practice patterns, 82.82% of physicians offered influenza vaccines to their patients, 32.69% vaccinated 10-25% of patients per month, and 38.85% required and offered the vaccine to their office staff. Physicians' reasons for not prescribing influenza vaccines to patients included fear of side effects (16.54%), cost (15.64%), lack of awareness about availability (15.38%), absence of belief that it is beneficial (14.36%), history of side effects (13.46%), and patients' fear of needles (11.28%). Conclusion: These findings suggest the need to implement educational strategies among physicians to enhance their awareness about influenza vaccination and improve their attitudes and current practices toward influenza vaccination especially in high-risk groups in India.