Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: For 2 years, Tufts University has conducted biannual Cochrane Training Webinars. Participants are trained to write a protocol, conduct an interventional systematic review, and use relevant software. A team of facilitators underwent training to mentor these participants in small groups to fill out a title registration form in a research area of interest. Professors from three universities delivered lectures, and 106 participants have received the training, some of which are Master of Public Health (MPH) candidates who have since assisted the Tufts Cochrane Affiliate with World Health Organization (WHO)-funded systematic reviews.
Objectives:
1. To evaluate the efficacy of four Standard Author Training Webinars.
2. To highlight the strengths and weaknesses associated with online format, multi-day sessions, and small-group activities.
Methods: We developed a survey to investigate the program’s ability to translate knowledge in review authorship. We also invited participants to submit feedback on the online format and the quality of the lectures and small-group sessions, both in free response and on a five-point scale.
Results: Participants were most satisfied with the organization of the program (4.67±0.62), the handout materials (4.25±0.83), the opportunity to ask questions (4.58±0.95), and the content of the program (4.67±0.47). Participants also said they would have preferred for their mentors to be more active in guiding the project. However, they did note that they felt very comfortable asking questions and that this was a valuable aspect of the program. The biggest weakness reported was that participants expressed barriers to continuing with their review.
Conclusions: We concluded that the online format increased convenience and allowed for more international participation as well as student participation, increasing the accessibility of empirical research. However, due to the shorter nature of the training, students felt less able to continue the review process towards publication.
Patient, public, and/or healthcare consumer involvement: We hope to increase capacity for scientific research in all of our participants with no requirement of expertise. In doing so, we hope to decrease barriers to science for students from underrepresented groups, thereby increasing future medical bodies of evidence that will advance care for all.
Objectives:
1. To evaluate the efficacy of four Standard Author Training Webinars.
2. To highlight the strengths and weaknesses associated with online format, multi-day sessions, and small-group activities.
Methods: We developed a survey to investigate the program’s ability to translate knowledge in review authorship. We also invited participants to submit feedback on the online format and the quality of the lectures and small-group sessions, both in free response and on a five-point scale.
Results: Participants were most satisfied with the organization of the program (4.67±0.62), the handout materials (4.25±0.83), the opportunity to ask questions (4.58±0.95), and the content of the program (4.67±0.47). Participants also said they would have preferred for their mentors to be more active in guiding the project. However, they did note that they felt very comfortable asking questions and that this was a valuable aspect of the program. The biggest weakness reported was that participants expressed barriers to continuing with their review.
Conclusions: We concluded that the online format increased convenience and allowed for more international participation as well as student participation, increasing the accessibility of empirical research. However, due to the shorter nature of the training, students felt less able to continue the review process towards publication.
Patient, public, and/or healthcare consumer involvement: We hope to increase capacity for scientific research in all of our participants with no requirement of expertise. In doing so, we hope to decrease barriers to science for students from underrepresented groups, thereby increasing future medical bodies of evidence that will advance care for all.