一日协议研讨会:加快初级和高级教师的 IRB 批准。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Cancer Education Pub Date : 2024-06-24 DOI:10.1007/s13187-024-02460-7
Geina M Iskander, Adriana Cavazos, Chinenye Lynette Ejezie, Victoria Cox, Hunter Cheng, Shelby Perez, Albert C Koong, Jonathan Nguyen, Joseph Herman, Sam Beddar, Zhongxing Liao, Debra Nana Yeboa
{"title":"一日协议研讨会:加快初级和高级教师的 IRB 批准。","authors":"Geina M Iskander, Adriana Cavazos, Chinenye Lynette Ejezie, Victoria Cox, Hunter Cheng, Shelby Perez, Albert C Koong, Jonathan Nguyen, Joseph Herman, Sam Beddar, Zhongxing Liao, Debra Nana Yeboa","doi":"10.1007/s13187-024-02460-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Delays in research protocol development may be a single factor that hinders the career progression of academic faculty. Structured educational guidance during this phase proves crucial in mitigating setbacks in Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and expediting trial implementation. To address this, the Protocol-in-a-Day (PIAD) workshop, a comprehensive 1-day event involving members from six critical facets of RO clinical trial implementation, was established, offering significant input to individual protocols. Efficacy and satisfaction of the PIAD workshop were assessed through a 5-question survey and the average time from submission to IRB initial approval. The normality of the data was analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk Test. Nonparametric data was analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test for significance. A total of 18 protocols that went through the PIAD workshop were activated. The mean time to IRB approval for protocols that went through PIAD was 39.8 days compared to 58.4 days for those that did not go through the PIAD workshop. Based on survey results, 100% of PIAD participants said the PIAD workshop was useful and 94% of participants stated that the PIAD workshop improved the overall quality of their protocol. Participant surveys further highlighted substantial improvements in trial quality, language, and statistical design and revealed that all participants found the workshop helpful. Therefore, both junior and senior faculty benefitted from this educational program during protocol development, as both groups demonstrated shorter times to IRB approval than non-participants. This acceleration not only fosters efficient trial implementation but also supports academic faculty in their career development.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protocol-in-a-Day Workshop: Expediting IRB Approval for Junior and Senior Faculty.\",\"authors\":\"Geina M Iskander, Adriana Cavazos, Chinenye Lynette Ejezie, Victoria Cox, Hunter Cheng, Shelby Perez, Albert C Koong, Jonathan Nguyen, Joseph Herman, Sam Beddar, Zhongxing Liao, Debra Nana Yeboa\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13187-024-02460-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Delays in research protocol development may be a single factor that hinders the career progression of academic faculty. Structured educational guidance during this phase proves crucial in mitigating setbacks in Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and expediting trial implementation. To address this, the Protocol-in-a-Day (PIAD) workshop, a comprehensive 1-day event involving members from six critical facets of RO clinical trial implementation, was established, offering significant input to individual protocols. Efficacy and satisfaction of the PIAD workshop were assessed through a 5-question survey and the average time from submission to IRB initial approval. The normality of the data was analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk Test. Nonparametric data was analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test for significance. A total of 18 protocols that went through the PIAD workshop were activated. The mean time to IRB approval for protocols that went through PIAD was 39.8 days compared to 58.4 days for those that did not go through the PIAD workshop. Based on survey results, 100% of PIAD participants said the PIAD workshop was useful and 94% of participants stated that the PIAD workshop improved the overall quality of their protocol. Participant surveys further highlighted substantial improvements in trial quality, language, and statistical design and revealed that all participants found the workshop helpful. Therefore, both junior and senior faculty benefitted from this educational program during protocol development, as both groups demonstrated shorter times to IRB approval than non-participants. This acceleration not only fosters efficient trial implementation but also supports academic faculty in their career development.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-024-02460-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-024-02460-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究方案制定的延误可能是阻碍学术教师职业发展的唯一因素。事实证明,在这一阶段提供有序的教育指导对于减少机构审查委员会(IRB)审批的挫折和加快试验实施至关重要。为解决这一问题,成立了 "一日一方案"(PIAD)研讨会,这是一项为期一天的综合性活动,涉及 RO 临床试验实施的六个关键方面,为各个方案提供了重要意见。通过 5 个问题的调查和从提交到 IRB 初步批准的平均时间来评估 PIAD 研讨班的效果和满意度。数据的正态性采用 Shapiro-Wilk 检验法进行分析。非参数数据采用 Mann-Whitney U 检验进行显著性分析。共有 18 项通过 PIAD 研讨班的方案被激活。通过 PIAD 培训班的研究方案获得 IRB 批准的平均时间为 39.8 天,而未通过 PIAD 培训班的研究方案获得 IRB 批准的平均时间为 58.4 天。根据调查结果,100% 的 PIAD 参与者表示 PIAD 研讨班很有用,94% 的参与者表示 PIAD 研讨班提高了其方案的整体质量。学员调查进一步强调了在试验质量、语言和统计设计方面的实质性改进,并显示所有学员都认为研讨会很有帮助。因此,在方案制定过程中,初级和高级教师都能从这一教育项目中受益,因为与未参加者相比,这两组人都能缩短获得 IRB 批准的时间。这种加速不仅能提高试验实施的效率,还能为学术教师的职业发展提供支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Protocol-in-a-Day Workshop: Expediting IRB Approval for Junior and Senior Faculty.

Delays in research protocol development may be a single factor that hinders the career progression of academic faculty. Structured educational guidance during this phase proves crucial in mitigating setbacks in Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and expediting trial implementation. To address this, the Protocol-in-a-Day (PIAD) workshop, a comprehensive 1-day event involving members from six critical facets of RO clinical trial implementation, was established, offering significant input to individual protocols. Efficacy and satisfaction of the PIAD workshop were assessed through a 5-question survey and the average time from submission to IRB initial approval. The normality of the data was analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk Test. Nonparametric data was analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test for significance. A total of 18 protocols that went through the PIAD workshop were activated. The mean time to IRB approval for protocols that went through PIAD was 39.8 days compared to 58.4 days for those that did not go through the PIAD workshop. Based on survey results, 100% of PIAD participants said the PIAD workshop was useful and 94% of participants stated that the PIAD workshop improved the overall quality of their protocol. Participant surveys further highlighted substantial improvements in trial quality, language, and statistical design and revealed that all participants found the workshop helpful. Therefore, both junior and senior faculty benefitted from this educational program during protocol development, as both groups demonstrated shorter times to IRB approval than non-participants. This acceleration not only fosters efficient trial implementation but also supports academic faculty in their career development.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer Education
Journal of Cancer Education 医学-医学:信息
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
122
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues. Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care. We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts. Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited. Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants. Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.
期刊最新文献
A Cancer Patient Navigation Training Program for Limited-Resource Settings: Results from 5 Years of Training. A National Survey of Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident Perspectives on Their Preparedness to Provide Care for Underserved Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies. Didactic Instruction's Impact on Medicolegal Quality of Radiation Oncology Resident Physician Documentation. Leveraging Multi-Sectoral Partnership for Colorectal Cancer Education and Screening in the African American Community: A Protocol and Preliminary Results. Experiences and Comfort of Young Cancer Patients Discussing Cannabis with Their Providers: Insights from a Survey at an NCI-Designated Cancer Center
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1