evaluation of competencies in scientific writing and attendees' satisfaction after two different types of training courses: scriu-b study

Conditions: Scientific Writing Training Course

Summary: 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.

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.

Eligibility criteria:
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.

Keywords: clinical trial design continuing medical education experimental design medical writing publishing personal satisfaction