ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Developing a Delphi-Consensus Evaluation Framework for Clinical Research Training: A Chinese Model With Global Implications.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Effective clinical research training is crucial for advancing medical science and improving patient care. However, current evaluation systems in China often focus on theoretical knowledge, neglecting practical skills and innovation. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive evaluation framework for clinical research training programs using the Delphi consensus method. Method: A 2-round Delphi method was employed, involving healthcare professionals and educators from top tertiary hospitals and leading academic institutions in China. The first round included 15 participants, and the second round included 19 participants. The evaluation framework was based on the Kirkpatrick model, covering Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results dimensions. Indicators were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale, with consensus defined as a mean significance score ≥3.50 and a coefficient of variation ≤0.25. Results: In the first round, 9 indicators were excluded and 5 added. In the second round, 26 indicators met consensus criteria. Key indicators included "Relevance of training content" (mean = 4.89, CoV = 0.06), "Degree of knowledge mastery" (mean = 4.58, CoV = 0.13), and "Impact on career development" (mean = 4.53, CoV = 0.15). Other significant indicators were "Timeliness of training information" (mean = 4.84, CoV = 0.08) and "Success rate of applying for scientific research funds" (mean = 4.05, CoV = 0.21). Discussion: This study developed a comprehensive evaluation framework for clinical research training in China, emphasizing the importance of relevant training content, strong learning outcomes, and long-term professional impact. This framework provides a robust tool to assess and enhance clinical research training programs, ultimately contributing to improved healthcare and medical research. Future work should focus on validating this framework through empirical studies and refining it based on ongoing feedback.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.