Evaluation of Competencies in Scientific Writing and Attendees' Satisfaction After Two Different Types of Training Courses: SCRIU-B Study (SCRIU-B)

Evaluation of the Acquisition of Competencies and Participants' Satisfaction After a Scientific Writing Course: Comparison of Face-to-face and Online Modalities Through a Non-randomized Open Clinical Trial (SCRIU-B Study)

Scientific writing is one of the competencies required and requested by health professionals. There are several course formats designed for acquiring these competencies, although the improvement after taking part in these courses is not always demonstrated. Through an open and non-randomized experimental design, the SCRIU-B study aims to evaluate the acquisition of competencies in scientific writing after specific training courses (face-to-face and online) as well as the satisfaction of the participants with these courses. A control group with participants from other training workshops not related to scientific writing is included. Through different questionnaires about knowledge, attitudes, and skills we will evaluate and compare the improvement of their scientific writing skills. The results of the study will allow us to assess the usefulness of these courses and improve their format and implementation.

Study Overview

• Status: Enrolling by invitation
• Conditions: Scientific Writing Training Course
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Scientific writing training course

Detailed Description

Scientific writing and scientific publications are fundamental to the advancement of science in general. However many science degrees do not have specific writing courses. Several initiatives have attempted to improve scientific writing skills through face-to-face or online courses. However, few studies have analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of these training interventions. Our objective is to evaluate the short- and long-term skills in scientific writing and the level of satisfaction of a group of students after taking a scientific writing course, in two training modalities (face-to-face and online).

The study will assess the scientific writing skills of those attending the course "Cómo redactar un artículo científico" in face-to-face and online format during 2019 and 2022 through a non-randomized open trial type study with a comparison group. The study will use questionnaires to analyze the participants' satisfaction with the course, their knowledge about scientific writing, and their attitude and skills toward scientific writing (knowledge, attitudes, and skills). The satisfaction questionnaire will be provided immediately after the course. The scientific writing skills of the attendees will be compared with a control group. The study is estimated to analyze the results of 270 participants, 90 per group. This protocol has been reviewed and approved by an ethics committee.

The study will be carried out between 2019 and 2022 and participants will be recruited from 6 face-to-face and 4 online editions of the scientific writing course. We aim to analyze the real impact these seminars have on the scientific writing skills of their participants and demonstrate that face-to-face courses are more useful than online courses.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Anticipated): 270
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Spain
  • Barcelona, Spain, 08038
    • Dr. Antoni Esteve Foundation

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Participants of the Esteve Foundation training workshops

Exclusion Criteria:

• Students who do not accept to participate in the study at the time of enrolment for the training course.
• Students who attended/enrolled in a Esteve Foundation's scientific writing course (face-to-face or online) prior to the study.
• Students who enroll in another Esteve Foundation's scientific writing course during the duration of the study.
• Students who have enrolled in other courses on scientific writing 12 months prior to recruitment for this study or during the duration of this study.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Other
• Allocation: Non-Randomized
• Interventional Model: Factorial Assignment
• Masking: None (Open Label)

Number of Arms

3

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: GIP - Face-to-face intervention group; Participants in the scientific writing face-to-face training course.	Other: Scientific writing training course; Attendance to a training course on scientific writing. Attendees learn about the importance of scientific writing, structure and writing an original paper, how scientific publishing works, as well as how to interact with journal editors and reviewers.
Active Comparator: GIO: Online intervention group; Participants in the scientific writing online training course.	Other: Scientific writing training course; Attendance to a training course on scientific writing. Attendees learn about the importance of scientific writing, structure and writing an original paper, how scientific publishing works, as well as how to interact with journal editors and reviewers.
No Intervention: GIC: Control intervention group; Participants in other face-to-face training courses not related to scientific writing.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Participants' satisfaction about the training course	Participants' satisfaction will be collected through a 14-item opinion questionnaire about the course with a Likert scale from 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum). These 14 items include: overall opinion of the course, usefulness of the materials, usefulness of the in-class exercises, teaching capacity of the lecturers, duration of the course, usefulness of the new knowledge acquired in their current job, etc. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items and overall scores will be compared between each of the 3 groups/arms of the study.	2 to 62 days
Participants' knowledge about scientific writing	Participants' general knowledge about scientific writing will be analyzed through a multiple-choice 8-item test that each participant will have to answer three times throughout the study (before, after and 18 months after the intervention). The knowledge test includes specific questions about scientific style, authorship requirements, editorial policies and characteristics of an original scientific article, among others. Correct answers will score 1 point and incorrect answers will score 0 (zero) points. Increase or decrease in knowledge will be determined by the differences through time in the overall scores of the three groups/arms of the study, differences on overall scores by participant (whole test) and differences by item and participant (score differences of the same item through time of the same participant). Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items and overall scores will be compared between each of the 3 groups/arms of the study.	20 months
Participants' attitudes towards scientific writing	Participants' opinion about their own capability towards scientific writing will be analyzed through a 5-item capability questionnaire with a Likert scale from 0 (minimum, not capable at all) to 10 (maximum, completely capable). The participants will state their opinion on their personal capability to write different types of scientific texts related to the publication of a scientific article such as scientific manuscripts for national and international audiences, abstracts, the presentation letter and the answers to the reviewers. Increase or decrease in capability will be determined by differences through time in the overall scores for each participant (whole test), overall score by group/arm and differences by item and participant through time. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items and overall scores will be compared between each of the 3 groups/arms of the study.	20 months
Students' skills in scientific writing	Participants' skills in scientific writing will be analyzed by comparing the number and types of scientific publications and their authorship role in them before and 18 months after the intervention.	20 months

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Dr. Antoni Esteve Foundation
• Collaborators: Institut Català d'Oncologia; Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge; University of Valencia; University of Barcelona; University of Alicante; Ciber de Enfermedades Respiratorias; CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública
• Investigators: Study Director: Felix Bosch, MD PhD, Director

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Seres E, Fernandez E, Garcia AM, Vives-Cases C, Bosch F. [Evaluation of competences in scientific writing after two different types of training courses: SCRIU-B study protocol]. Gac Sanit. 2022 Mar-Apr;36(2):188-192. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.12.036. Epub 2021 Apr 15. Spanish.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): July 5, 2019
• Primary Completion (Anticipated): December 31, 2023
• Study Completion (Anticipated): December 31, 2024

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: September 21, 2022
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 22, 2023
• First Posted (Actual): April 4, 2023

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): April 4, 2023
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 22, 2023
• Last Verified: March 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: experimental design; continuing medical education; clinical trial design; medical writing; publishing; personal satisfaction
• Other Study ID Numbers: FDAE20220714

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No