Pushing the Boundaries for Evidenced-Based Practice: Can Online Training Enhance Andrology Research Capacity Worldwide? An Exploration of the Barriers and Enablers - The Global Andrology Forum.

IF 4 3区 医学 Q1 ANDROLOGY
World Journal of Mens Health Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-09 DOI:10.5534/wjmh.230084
Walid El Ansari, Mohamed Arafa, Rupin Shah, Ahmed Harraz, Ahmed Shokeir, Wael Zohdy, Missy Savira, Ashok Agarwal
{"title":"Pushing the Boundaries for Evidenced-Based Practice: Can Online Training Enhance Andrology Research Capacity Worldwide? An Exploration of the Barriers and Enablers - The Global Andrology Forum.","authors":"Walid El Ansari, Mohamed Arafa, Rupin Shah, Ahmed Harraz, Ahmed Shokeir, Wael Zohdy, Missy Savira, Ashok Agarwal","doi":"10.5534/wjmh.230084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This is the first study to design and assess a research capacity building (RCB) specifically tailored for clinical and non-clinical andrology practitioners worldwide. We appraised: 1) the barriers and enablers to research among these practitioners; 2) attendees' satisfaction with the webinar; and 3) research knowledge acquisition as a result of the webinar (before/after quiz).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A online RCB webinar was designed, comprising two presentations in research design and systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA). An online survey using validated published questionnaires assessed the three above-stated objectives. Paired t-test compared the means of the pre- and post-webinar scores. Subgroup analysis was performed on the participants' professional background, sex, and number of years in practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 237 participants attended the webinar, of which 184 completed the survey and are included in the current analysis. Male participants were about double the females and 60.9% were from Asian countries. The most common research enablers were to publish scientific papers (14.8%) and to develop research (14.7%) or new skills (12.7%). The most common barriers were the lack of training in research (12.4%), training in research software (11.8%), and time for research (11.8%). Satisfaction with the webinar was considerably high (86.3%-88.4%) for the different features of the webinar. Compared to the pre-webinar knowledge level, there were significant improvements in participants' research knowledge acquisition after the webinar in terms of the total score for the quiz (13.7±4.31 <i>vs.</i> 21.5±4.7), as well as the scores for the study design (7.12±2.37 <i>vs.</i> 11.5±2.69) and SR/MA sessions (6.63±2.63 <i>vs.</i> 9.93±2.49) (p<0.001 for each).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clinical and non-clinical andrology webinar attendees recognized the importance of research and exhibited a range of research skills, knowledge and experience. There were significant improvements in the participants' knowledge and understanding of the components of scientific research. We propose an RCB model that can be implemented and further modeled by organizations with similar academic research goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":54261,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Mens Health","volume":" ","pages":"394-407"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10949034/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Mens Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.230084","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANDROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This is the first study to design and assess a research capacity building (RCB) specifically tailored for clinical and non-clinical andrology practitioners worldwide. We appraised: 1) the barriers and enablers to research among these practitioners; 2) attendees' satisfaction with the webinar; and 3) research knowledge acquisition as a result of the webinar (before/after quiz).

Materials and methods: A online RCB webinar was designed, comprising two presentations in research design and systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA). An online survey using validated published questionnaires assessed the three above-stated objectives. Paired t-test compared the means of the pre- and post-webinar scores. Subgroup analysis was performed on the participants' professional background, sex, and number of years in practice.

Results: A total of 237 participants attended the webinar, of which 184 completed the survey and are included in the current analysis. Male participants were about double the females and 60.9% were from Asian countries. The most common research enablers were to publish scientific papers (14.8%) and to develop research (14.7%) or new skills (12.7%). The most common barriers were the lack of training in research (12.4%), training in research software (11.8%), and time for research (11.8%). Satisfaction with the webinar was considerably high (86.3%-88.4%) for the different features of the webinar. Compared to the pre-webinar knowledge level, there were significant improvements in participants' research knowledge acquisition after the webinar in terms of the total score for the quiz (13.7±4.31 vs. 21.5±4.7), as well as the scores for the study design (7.12±2.37 vs. 11.5±2.69) and SR/MA sessions (6.63±2.63 vs. 9.93±2.49) (p<0.001 for each).

Conclusions: Clinical and non-clinical andrology webinar attendees recognized the importance of research and exhibited a range of research skills, knowledge and experience. There were significant improvements in the participants' knowledge and understanding of the components of scientific research. We propose an RCB model that can be implemented and further modeled by organizations with similar academic research goals.

推动循证实践:在线培训能否提高全球的 Andrology 研究能力?对障碍和推动因素的探讨 - 全球 Andrology 论坛。
目的:这是第一项专门为全球临床和非临床泌尿学从业人员设计和评估研究能力建设(RCB)的研究。我们对以下几个方面进行了评估:1)这些从业人员开展研究的障碍和有利因素;2)参加者对网络研讨会的满意度;3)通过网络研讨会获得的研究知识(前后测验):设计了一个在线 RCB 网络研讨会,其中包括两个关于研究设计和系统综述/元分析 (SR/MA) 的演讲。在线调查使用已公布的有效问卷对上述三个目标进行评估。通过配对 t 检验比较了研讨会前后的平均得分。对参与者的专业背景、性别和从业年限进行了分组分析:共有 237 人参加了网络研讨会,其中 184 人完成了调查,并纳入了本次分析。男性参与者约为女性参与者的两倍,60.9%来自亚洲国家。最常见的研究促进因素是发表科学论文(14.8%)和发展研究(14.7%)或新技能(12.7%)。最常见的障碍是缺乏研究培训(12.4%)、研究软件培训(11.8%)和研究时间(11.8%)。对网络研讨会不同功能的满意度相当高(86.3%-88.4%)。与网络研讨会前的知识水平相比,参加者在网络研讨会后的研究知识掌握程度有了显著提高,包括测验总分(13.7±4.31 vs. 21.5±4.7)、研究设计(7.12±2.37 vs. 11.5±2.69)和SR/MA环节(6.63±2.63 vs. 9.93±2.49)(p结论:临床和非临床泌尿外科网络研讨会与会者认识到了研究的重要性,并展示了一系列研究技能、知识和经验。参与者对科学研究组成部分的认识和理解有了明显提高。我们提出了一种 RCB 模式,具有类似学术研究目标的组织可以实施并进一步推广该模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Journal of Mens Health
World Journal of Mens Health Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
2.10%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信