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

Study Overview
=================
Brief 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.

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.

Official Title
-----------------
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)

Conditions
-----------------
Scientific Writing Training Course

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: Scientific writing training course


Participation Criteria
=================
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.

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Other
Allocation: Non-Randomized
Intervention Model: Factorial Assignment
Interventional Model Description: Non-randomized trial type
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Active Comparator: GIP - Face-to-face intervention group<br>Participants in the scientific writing face-to-face training course. | Other: Scientific writing training course<br>* 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.<br>|
| Active Comparator: GIO: Online intervention group<br>Participants in the scientific writing online training course. | Other: Scientific writing training course<br>* 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.<br>|
| No Intervention: GIC: Control intervention group<br>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 | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
clinical trial design, continuing medical education, experimental design, medical writing, publishing, personal satisfaction