Research Question, Study Design and Continuous Research Education and Training Exercises (CREATE) Program.

The clinical research project starts with identifying the optimal research question, one that is ethical, impactful, feasible, scientifically sound, novel, relevant, and interesting. The project continues with the design of the study to answer the research question. Such design should be consistent with ethical and methodological principles, and make optimal use of resources in order to have the best chances of identifying a meaningful answer to the research question. Physicians and other healthcare providers are optimally positioned to identify meaningful research questions the answer to which could make significant impact on healthcare delivery. The typical medical education curriculum, however, lacks solid training in clinical research. We propose CREATE (Continuous Research Education And Training Exercises) as a peer- and group-based, interactive, analytical, customized, and accrediting program with didactic, training, mentoring, administrative, and professional support to enhance clinical research knowledge and skills among healthcare professionals, promote the generation of original research projects, increase the chances of their successful completion and potential for meaningful impact. The key features of the program are successive intra- and inter-group discussions and confrontational thematic challenges among participating peers aimed at capitalizing on the groups' collective knowledge, experience and skills, and combined intellectual processing capabilities to optimize choice of research project elements and stakeholder decision-making.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.

BACKGROUND: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

Patient beliefs and behaviors about genomic risk for type 2 diabetes: Implications for prevention

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2015.Type 2 diabetes is a major health burden in the United States, and population trends suggest this burden will increase. High interest in, and increased availability of, testing for genetic risk of type 2 diabetes presents a new opportunity for reducing type 2 diabetes risk for many patients; however, to date, there is little evidence that genetic testing positively affects type 2 diabetes prevention. Genetic information may not fit patients illness representations, which may reduce the chances of risk-reducing behavior changes. The present study aimed to examine illness representations in a clinical sample who are at risk for type 2 diabetes and interested in genetic testing. The authors used the Common Sense Model to analyze survey responses of 409 patients with type 2 diabetes risk factors. Patients were interested in genetic testing for type 2 diabetes risk and believed in its importance. Most patients believed that genetic factors are important to developing type 2 diabetes (67%), that diet and exercise are effective in preventing type 2 diabetes (95%), and that lifestyle changes are more effective than drugs (86%). Belief in genetic causality was not related to poorer self-reported health behaviors. These results suggest that patients interest in genetic testing for type 2 diabetes might produce a teachable moment that clinicians can use to counsel behavior change.