2491: Parental concerns about child participation in s reflect a need to move beyond traditional notions of trust and race

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The objective of this study was to identify factors influencing parental willingness of adolescent participation in clinical trials. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We applied community engaged research principles to conduct a theory-based, cross-sectional study of parental willingness. Parents (N=307) were given a survey from November 2014 to April 2015. Factors influencing parental willingness were identified using binary logistic regression. SPSS version 22.0 was used to perform analyses, and

Évaluation d’un programme de recherche canadien pour les résidents en anesthésiologie par rapport aux normes nationales à l’aide d’un modèle logique : une étude d’amélioration de la qualité

Background: Canadian specialty training programs are expected to deliver curriculum content and assess competencies related to the CanMEDS Scholar role. We evaluated our residency research program and benchmarked it against national norms for quality improvement purposes. Methods: In 2021, we reviewed departmental curriculum documents and surveyed current and recently graduated residents.  We applied a logic model framework to assess if our program’s inputs, activities, and outputs addressed the relevant CanMeds Scholar competencies.  We then descriptively benchmarked our results against a 2021 environmental scan of Canadian anesthesiology resident research programs. Results: Local program content was successfully mapped to competencies.  The local survey response rate was 40/55 (73%).  In benchmarking, our program excelled in providing milestone-related assessments, research funding, administrative, supervisory, and methodologic support, and requiring a literature review, proposal presentation, and local abstract submission as output.  Acceptable activities to meet research requirements vary greatly among programs.  Balancing competing clinical and research responsibilities was a frequently reported challenge.   Conclusions: The logic model framework was easily applied and demonstrated our program benchmarked well against national norms.  National level dialogue is needed to develop specific, consistent scholar role activities and competency assessments to bridge the gap between expected outcome standards and education practice.Contexte : Les programmes de spécialité canadiens doivent proposer un contenu de formation en lien avec le rôle CanMEDS d’érudit et évaluer les compétences qui s’y attachent. Nous avons évalué notre programme de résidence en recherche par rapport aux normes nationales en la matière à des fins d’amélioration de la qualité. Méthodes : En 2021, nous avons examiné les documents du programme d’études du département et interrogé des résidents et des médecins récemment diplômés. Nous avons utilisé un modèle logique pour déterminer si les intrants, les activités et les extrants de notre programme couvraient adéquatement les compétences pertinentes liées au rôle CanMeds d’érudit. Nous avons ensuite comparé de façon descriptive nos résultats à une analyse du milieu des programmes de résidence canadiens en recherche en anesthésiologie effectuée la même année. Résultats : Nous avons établi une correspondance entre le contenu du programme local et les compétences. Le taux de réponse à l’enquête était de 40/55 (73 %). D’après l’analyse comparative, notre programme se démarque par l’offre d’évaluations d’étape, de fonds de recherche, de soutien administratif, de supervision, d’orientation méthodologique, et, en ce qui concerne les extrants, par l’exigence d’une analyse documentaire, de la présentation d’une proposition et de la soumission d’un résumé à l’université. Les activités admissibles pour répondre aux exigences de la recherche varient considérablement d’un programme à l’autre. De nombreux répondants ont signalé la difficulté de concilier les responsabilités cliniques et de recherche. Conclusions : L’application du modèle logique a été aisée et elle a permis de montrer que notre programme respecte les normes nationales. Un dialogue au niveau national est nécessaire pour définir de manière précise et cohérente les activités et les évaluations des compétences en lien avec le rôle d’érudit afin de combler le fossé entre les normes quant aux résultats attendus et les pratiques des programmes

Feasibility study to examine discrepancy rates in prespecified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to The BMJ

OBJECTIVES: Adding, omitting or changing prespecified outcomes can result in bias because it increases the potential for unacknowledged or post hoc revisions of the planned analyses. Journals have adopted initiatives such as requiring the prospective registration of trials and the submission of study protocols to promote the transparency of reporting in clinical trials. The main objective of this feasibility study was to document the frequency and types of outcome discrepancy between prespecified outcomes in the protocol and reported outcomes in trials submitted to The BMJ.METHODS: A review of all 3156 articles submitted to The BMJ between 1 September 2013 and 30 June 2014. Trial registry entries, protocols and trial reports of randomised controlled trials published by The BMJ and a random sample of those rejected were reviewed. Editorial, peer reviewer comments and author responses were also examined to ascertain any reasons for discrepancies.RESULTS: In the study period, The BMJ received 311 trial manuscripts, 21 of which were subsequently published by the journal. In trials published by The BMJ, 27% (89/333) of the prespecified outcomes in the protocol were not reported in the submitted paper and 11% (31/275) of reported outcomes were not prespecified. In the sample of 21 trials rejected by The BMJ, 19% (63/335) of prespecified outcomes went unreported and 14% (45/317) of reported outcomes were not prespecified. None of the reasons provided by published authors were suggestive of outcome reporting bias as the reasons were unrelated to the results.CONCLUSIONS: Mandating the prospective registration of a trial and requesting that a protocol be uploaded when submitting a trial article to a journal has the potential to promote transparency and safeguard the evidence base against outcome reporting biases as a result of outcome discrepancies. Further guidance is needed with regard to documenting reasons for outcome discrepancies.</p

Engagement of Community Stakeholders to Develop a Framework to Guide Research Dissemination to Communities

Background: Dissemination of research findings to past study participants and the community-at-large is important. Yet, a standardized process for research dissemination is needed to report results to the community. Objective: We developed a framework and strategies to guide community-academic partnerships in community-targeted, dissemination efforts. Methods: From 2017 to 2019, a community-academic partnership was formed in Nashville, Tennessee, and iteratively developed a framework and strategies for research dissemination using cognitive interviews. A deductive, constant comparative analysis was conducted on interview responses to examine framework and strategy content. Feedback was used to finalize the framework and strategies for the evaluation. Using existing data, the framework\u27s utility was evaluated in seven town hall meetings (n = 117). Bivariate analyses determined its effect on community members’ trust and willingness to participate in research using pre- and post-surveys. Evaluation results were used to finalize the framework. Results: The Community-Engaged Research Dissemination (CERD) framework has two phases. Phase one is a preliminary planning phase with two steps, and phase two is the four-step dissemination process. There are five standards to be upheld conducting these phases. We provide competencies for each component. Three feasible, culturally adapted strategies were developed as exemplars to disseminate research findings. Using pre- and post-surveys for intervention evaluation, there was a significant difference in trust in medical research and researchers (P = .006) and willingness to participate in research (P = .013). Discussion and Conclusion: The CERD framework can potentially standardize the process and compare the effect of dissemination efforts on the community\u27s trust and willingness to participate in research