Building research capacity in Botswana: a randomized trial comparing training methodologies in the Botswana ethics training initiative
Building research capacity in Botswana: a randomized trial comparing training methodologies in the Botswana ethics training initiative
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1472-6920-13-14
复制
发表时间：
2013-02-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Merz, Jon F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barchi, Francis H.;Kasimatis-Singleton, Megan;Merz, Jon F.
背景：关于研究伦理方面的能力建设项目在多大程度上培养受训者将伦理推理技能应用于研究的设计、实施或审查，几乎没有经验数据可用。2010年在博茨瓦纳进行了一项随机对照试验，以评估使用电子邮件增加面对面研讨会的基于病例的干预的有效性。方法：大学教职员工、IRB/REC现有成员和未来成员参加了为期一学期的研究伦理培训计划。参与者参加了两个为期两天的研讨会，并被随机分配到试验的两个在线分支中的一个。这两个部门的学员都完成了合作机构培训倡议的在线国际模块。在研讨会期间，干预ARM参与者还会收到每周一次的电子邮件，让他们分析设定的问题；通过电子邮件交换答复和个性化的教职员工反馈。在每次研讨会开始时进行评估道德知识的测试。后测包括一个额外的部分，参与者被要求从一系列多项选择回答中找出五个案例研究中突出的伦理问题。结果：在参加第一次研讨会的71名参与者(36名对照，35名干预)中，41名(57.7%)参加了第二次研讨会(19名对照，22名干预)。在干预组中，19名(54.3%)参与者完全完成，8名(22.9%)部分完成所有六周病例。测验后平均得分(30.3/40)高于测验前(2 8.0/40)，且个体测验前后得分高度相关(r=0.65，p<；0.0001)。小组作业本身对测试分数没有影响(p>；0.84)，但在控制前测分数的情况下，完成所有指定案例的干预组受试者在后测中平均多回答3.2%的问题(p=0.003)。结论：基于案例的干预措施的完成提高了受访者的考试成绩，完成所有六个电子邮件案例的受试者的得分比未能完成这项任务的受试者和对照组的受试者高出约10%。只有提示性证据表明，密集的案件工作改善了道德问题的识别，尽管由于高辍学率，评估这一结果的能力有限。
Background: Little empirical data are available on the extent to which capacity-building programs in research ethics prepare trainees to apply ethical reasoning skills to the design, conduct, or review of research. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in Botswana in 2010 to assess the effectiveness of a case-based intervention using email to augment in-person seminars.Methods: University faculty and current and prospective IRB/REC members took part in a semester-long training program in research ethics. Participants attended two 2-day seminars and were assigned at random to one of two on-line arms of the trial. Participants in both arms completed on-line international modules from the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. Between seminars, intervention-arm participants were also emailed a weekly case to analyze in response to set questions; responses and individualized faculty feedback were exchanged via email. Tests assessing ethics knowledge were administered at the start of each seminar. The post-test included an additional section in which participants were asked to identify the ethical issues highlighted in five case studies from a list of multiple-choice responses. Results were analyzed using regression and ANOVA.Results: Of the 71 participants (36 control, 35 intervention) enrolled at the first seminar, 41 (57.7%) attended the second seminar (19 control, 22 intervention). In the intervention arm, 19 (54.3%) participants fully completed and 8 (22.9%) partially completed all six weekly cases. The mean score was higher on the post-test (30.3/40) than on the pre-test (28.0/40), and individual post-and pre-test scores were highly correlated (r = 0.65, p < 0.0001). Group assignment alone did not have an effect on test scores (p > 0.84), but intervention-arm subjects who completed all assigned cases answered an average of 3.2 more questions correctly on the post-test than others, controlling for pre-test scores (p = 0.003).Conclusions: Completion of the case-based intervention improved respondents' test scores, with those who completed all six email cases scoring roughly 10% better than those who failed to complete this task and those in the control arm. There was only suggestive evidence that intensive case work improved ethical issue identification, although there was limited ability to assess this outcome due to a high drop-out rate.