Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study.

Preventive measures Qualitative study RI education RI training practices Virtue-related training

Journal

BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 05 2021
Historique:
received: 27 01 2021
accepted: 21 05 2021
entrez: 29 5 2021
pubmed: 30 5 2021
medline: 7 8 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Even though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented. In this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders' perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art. A total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system. This research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Even though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented.
METHODS
In this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders' perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art.
RESULTS
A total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system.
CONCLUSIONS
This research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34049556
doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00637-z
pii: 10.1186/s12910-021-00637-z
pmc: PMC8161563
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

67

Subventions

Organisme : Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
ID : N 787580

Références

Sci Eng Ethics. 2001 Jul;7(4):541-58
pubmed: 11697010
J Med Ethics. 2010 Oct;36(10):614-9
pubmed: 20797979
J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):108-16
pubmed: 25574258
Account Res. 2011 Mar;18(2):71-5
pubmed: 21390871
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Jun;26(3):1287-1313
pubmed: 31587149
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017 Feb;12(1):33-44
pubmed: 28220725
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1097-8
pubmed: 23540852
Sci Eng Ethics. 2008 Sep;14(3):323-36
pubmed: 18615274
Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Sep;19(3):685-701
pubmed: 22740035
Account Res. 2020 May;27(4):195-211
pubmed: 32122167
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Feb;24(1):227-249
pubmed: 28299561
PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124
pubmed: 16060722
Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Dec;23(6):1719-1754
pubmed: 28150177
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Oct;21(5):1181-96
pubmed: 25344843
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jan 27;27(1):5
pubmed: 33502635
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Jun;25(3):899-910
pubmed: 29397552
Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):870-5
pubmed: 17726394
Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):846-52
pubmed: 17726389
J Clin Transl Sci. 2017 Jan 13;1(1):8-15
pubmed: 31660210
Account Res. 2009 Jul;16(4):218-28
pubmed: 20183162
Sci Eng Ethics. 2003 Apr;9(2):273-90
pubmed: 12774659
Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2016 Apr;37(4):290-302
pubmed: 26776451
Nature. 2016 May 25;533(7604):452-4
pubmed: 27225100
J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):93-5
pubmed: 25574254
Am J Bioeth. 2002 Fall;2(4):38-49
pubmed: 12762924
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Apr;21(2):461-9
pubmed: 24760542
Science. 2013 Jun 21;340(6139):1403
pubmed: 23788782
Ethics Behav. 2017;27(5):351-384
pubmed: 30740008
Sci Eng Ethics. 2001 Jul;7(4):471-82
pubmed: 11697003
Account Res. 2018;25(6):311-339
pubmed: 29954230
Sci Eng Ethics. 2001 Jul;7(4):455-68
pubmed: 11697001
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2020 Oct 16;75(9):1996-2007
pubmed: 31131848
Nature. 2008 Jun 19;453(7198):980-2
pubmed: 18563131
Account Res. 2012;19(6):329-43
pubmed: 23074991
Sci Eng Ethics. 2011 Jun;17(2):289-97
pubmed: 20213534
Sci Eng Ethics. 2010 Mar;16(1):185-200
pubmed: 20155404
Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Feb;23(1):243-262
pubmed: 26818458
Science. 2013 May 3;340(6132):552-3
pubmed: 23641099
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Aug;24(4):1023-1034
pubmed: 29855866
Bull Math Biol. 2018 Dec;80(12):3071-3080
pubmed: 30194523
Sci Eng Ethics. 2001 Jul;7(4):525-37; discussion 538-40
pubmed: 11697009
Nature. 2013 Mar 28;495(7442):449
pubmed: 23538818
Science. 2008 Nov 21;322(5905):1186
pubmed: 19023060
Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):876-8
pubmed: 17726396

Auteurs

Daniel Pizzolato (D)

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. daniel.pizzolato@kuleuven.be.

Kris Dierickx (K)

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH