Skip to main content

Languages

An environmental scan for training programs in medical writing and publishing and a systematic review of their effectiveness

Date and Location

Session: 

O2.02.1

Date

Saturday 21 September 2013 - 13:30 - 15:00

Location

Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author

James Galipeau

Contact person

James Galipeau
Abstract text
Background: Approximately $100 billion is lost to "waste" in biomedical research globally, annually, mainly due to the poor quality of published research. In response, there has been an upsurge in interest regarding the scientific process of writing, editing, peer reviewing, and publishing (i.e., Journalology). However, little research has taken stock of Journalology training opportunities or related evaluations of their effectiveness. Objectives: To create a database of training opportunities in Journalology and conduct a systematic review to investigate whether training in medical writing and publishing effectively improves educational outcomes. Methods: A focus group and environmental scan were conducted to uncover resources for a training database. Subsequently, a systematic review was conducted, involving forward-searching using SCOPUS and conducting searches of pre-MEDLINE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC and PsycINFO databases. Systematic Review- Population: Those centrally or peripherally involved in medical writing and publishing (e.g., authors, editors, peer reviewers). Intervention: Evaluations of training in any specialty or subspecialty of medical writing and publishing targeted at the designated population(s). Comparators: 1) before and after administration of training, 2) between two or more training opportunities, or 3) between training and any other intervention(s) or no intervention. Outcome(s): Any measure of effectiveness of training, including: measures of knowledge, intention to change behavior, measures of excellence in Journalology training domains, however reported. Since this review is largely exploratory, other meaningful outcomes were included as well. Study design(s): Comparative studies evaluating at least one training opportunity of interest. Results: The preliminary results of this review will be presented. Conclusions: The results of this research will provide authors, editors, peer reviewers, and other potential trainees with a database of training opportunities in medical writing and publishing, as well as evidence of their effectiveness. Acknowledgements: Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The funder has no role in the research and publication.