Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: Improved training for translational scientists is important to help address the waste of resources and irreproducibility of research outcomes in current translational medicine. However, there are a lack of training programs that cover the full range of knowledge and skills translational scientists need to develop, and many translational research training programs struggle to develop competency frameworks and assessment tools. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) have been successfully implemented to link competencies with everyday practice in training health care professionals but have not yet been developed for research training. The purpose of the current study was to develop EPAs for translational scientists that could be used for their training and assessment and help increase the transparency and reproducibility of research outcomes and methods by providing best practices for translational research.
Method: In 2019, a modified Delphi technique, preceded by a focus group held in 2018 using a nominal group technique, was used to reach consensus on EPA titles and content among an international panel of 22 translational experts. Mean, standard deviation, and level of agreement were calculated after each round. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement.
Results: Consensus was reached on 89% of the items after the first round and 100% after the second round. The final list of EPAs consists of 17 EPAs divided over 7 sections.
Conclusions: The concept of EPAs is new to the field of research training. The 17 EPA titles and their descriptions developed in this study may be used as a framework for improved training for translational scientists with the ultimate goal to contribute to closing the gap between bench and bedside, reducing resource waste in science, and increasing the reproducibility of research outcomes.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004130 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!