Scientific Writing Training CourseSCRIU-BNCT05798598
Evaluation of Competencies in Scientific Writing and Attendees' Satisfaction After Two Different Types of Training Courses: SCRIU-B Study
A study testing Scientific writing training course in people with Scientific Writing Training Course, run by Dr. Antoni Esteve Foundation at 1 site in Spain.
Trial summary
Scientific writing is one of the competencies required and requested by health professionals. There are several course formats designed for acquiring these competencies, although the improvement after taking part in these courses is not always demonstrated. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Scientific Writing Training Course
- What is being tested?
- Scientific writing training course
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 270 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSpain
- Study dates
- 5 Jul 2019to 31 Dec 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Participants of the Esteve Foundation training workshops
Who cannot join
- Students who do not accept to participate in the study at the time of enrolment for the training course.
- Students who attended/enrolled in a Esteve Foundation's scientific writing course (face-to-face or online) prior to the study.
- Students who enroll in another Esteve Foundation's scientific writing course during the duration of the study.
- Students who have enrolled in other courses on scientific writing 12 months prior to recruitment for this study or during the duration of this study.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Evaluation of the Acquisition of Competencies and Participants' Satisfaction After a Scientific Writing Course: Comparison of Face-to-face and Online Modalities Through a Non-randomized Open Clinical Trial (SCRIU-B Study)
Scientific writing is one of the competencies required and requested by health professionals. There are several course formats designed for acquiring these competencies, although the improvement after taking part in these courses is not always demonstrated. Through an open and non-randomized experimental design, the SCRIU-B study aims to evaluate the acquisition of competencies in scientific writing after specific training courses (face-to-face and online) as well as the satisfaction of the participants with these courses. A control group with participants from other training workshops not related to scientific writing is included. Through different questionnaires about knowledge, attitudes, and skills we will evaluate and compare the improvement of their scientific writing skills. The results of the study will allow us to assess the usefulness of these courses and improve their format and implementation.
Read the detailed description
Scientific writing and scientific publications are fundamental to the advancement of science in general. However many science degrees do not have specific writing courses. Several initiatives have attempted to improve scientific writing skills through face-to-face or online courses. However, few studies have analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of these training interventions. Our objective is to evaluate the short- and long-term skills in scientific writing and the level of satisfaction of a group of students after taking a scientific writing course, in two training modalities (face-to-face and online).
The study will assess the scientific writing skills of those attending the course "Cómo redactar un artículo científico" in face-to-face and online format during 2019 and 2022 through a non-randomized open trial type study with a comparison group. The study will use questionnaires to analyze the participants' satisfaction with the course, their knowledge about scientific writing, and their attitude and skills toward scientific writing (knowledge, attitudes, and skills). The satisfaction questionnaire will be provided immediately after the course. The scientific writing skills of the attendees will be compared with a control group. The study is estimated to analyze the results of 270 participants, 90 per group. This protocol has been reviewed and approved by an ethics committee.
The study will be carried out between 2019 and 2022 and participants will be recruited from 6 face-to-face and 4 online editions of the scientific writing course. We aim to analyze the real impact these seminars have on the scientific writing skills of their participants and demonstrate that face-to-face courses are more useful than online courses.
- Conditions
- Scientific Writing Training Course
- Being tested
- Scientific writing training course
- Keywords
- clinical trial design, continuing medical education, experimental design, medical writing, publishing, personal satisfaction
- Medical subject headings
- Personal Satisfaction
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Scientific writing training courseOther
Attendance to a training course on scientific writing. Attendees learn about the importance of scientific writing, structure and writing an original paper, how scientific publishing works, as well as how to interact with journal editors and reviewers.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| GIP - Face-to-face intervention group | Active comparator | Participants in the scientific writing face-to-face training course. Receives: Other: Scientific writing training course |
| GIO: Online intervention group | Active comparator | Participants in the scientific writing online training course. Receives: Other: Scientific writing training course |
| GIC: Control intervention group | No intervention | Participants in other face-to-face training courses not related to scientific writing. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Participants' satisfaction about the training course
Participants' satisfaction will be collected through a 14-item opinion questionnaire about the course with a Likert scale from 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum). These 14 items include: overall opinion of the course, usefulness of the materials, usefulness of the in-class exercises, teaching capacity of the lecturers, duration of the course, usefulness of the new knowledge acquired in their current job, etc. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items and overall scores will be compared between each of the 3 groups/arms of the study.
Measured: 2 to 62 days
Participants' knowledge about scientific writing
Participants' general knowledge about scientific writing will be analyzed through a multiple-choice 8-item test that each participant will have to answer three times throughout the study (before, after and 18 months after the intervention). The knowledge test includes specific questions about scientific style, authorship requirements, editorial policies and characteristics of an original scientific article, among others. Correct answers will score 1 point and incorrect answers will score 0 (zero) points. Increase or decrease in knowledge will be determined by the differences through time in the overall scores of the three groups/arms of the study, differences on overall scores by participant (whole test) and differences by item and participant (score differences of the same item through time of the same participant). Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items and overall scores will be compared between each of the 3 groups/arms of the study.
Measured: 20 months
Participants' attitudes towards scientific writing
Participants' opinion about their own capability towards scientific writing will be analyzed through a 5-item capability questionnaire with a Likert scale from 0 (minimum, not capable at all) to 10 (maximum, completely capable). The participants will state their opinion on their personal capability to write different types of scientific texts related to the publication of a scientific article such as scientific manuscripts for national and international audiences, abstracts, the presentation letter and the answers to the reviewers. Increase or decrease in capability will be determined by differences through time in the overall scores for each participant (whole test), overall score by group/arm and differences by item and participant through time. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items and overall scores will be compared between each of the 3 groups/arms of the study.
Measured: 20 months
Students' skills in scientific writing
Participants' skills in scientific writing will be analyzed by comparing the number and types of scientific publications and their authorship role in them before and 18 months after the intervention.
Measured: 20 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 Apr 2023
- Study start5 Jul 2019
- Primary completion31 Dec 2023 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2024 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Scientific Writing Training CourseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Model description
- Non-randomized trial type
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 270 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Dr. Antoni Esteve Foundation
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Institut Català d'Oncologia, University of Barcelona, Ciber de Enfermedades Respiratorias, University of Valencia, CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública, University of Alicante, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Felix Bosch, MD PhD, Study director, Director
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05798598
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- FDAE20220714
- Acronym
- SCRIU-B
- Status last verified
- Mar 2023
- First submitted
- 21 Sep 2022
- Last updated
- 4 Apr 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Seres E, Fernandez E, Garcia AM, Vives-Cases C, Bosch F. [Evaluation of competences in scientific writing after two different types of training courses: SCRIU-B study protocol]. Gac Sanit. 2022 Mar-Apr;36(2):188-192. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.12.036. Epub 2021 Apr 15. Spanish.
PubMed 33865630
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Apr 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evaluation of the Acquisition of Competencies and Participants' Satisfaction After a Scientific Writing Course: Comparison of Face-to-face and Online Modalities Through a Non-randomized Open Clinical Trial (SCRIU-B Study)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05798598
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SCRIU-B / FDAE20220714
- Conditions
- Scientific Writing Training Course
- Keywords
- clinical trial design, continuing medical education, experimental design, medical writing, publishing, personal satisfaction
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 270 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Dr. Antoni Esteve FoundationUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Institut Català d'Oncologia, University of Barcelona, Ciber de Enfermedades Respiratorias, University of Valencia, CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública, University of Alicante, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge
- Study start
- 5 Jul 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2023 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2024 (estimated)
- First posted
- 4 Apr 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Scientific writing is one of the competencies required and requested by health professionals. There are several course formats designed for acquiring these competencies, although the improvement after taking part in these courses is not always demonstrated. Through an open and non-randomized experimental design, the SCRIU-B study aims to evaluate the acquisition of competencies in scientific writing after specific training courses (face-to-face and online) as well as the satisfaction of the participants with these courses. A control group with participants from other training workshops not related to scientific writing is included. Through different questionnaires about knowledge, attitudes, and skills we will evaluate and compare the improvement of their scientific writing skills. The results of the study will allow us to assess the usefulness of these courses and improve their format and implementation.
Detailed description
Scientific writing and scientific publications are fundamental to the advancement of science in general. However many science degrees do not have specific writing courses. Several initiatives have attempted to improve scientific writing skills through face-to-face or online courses. However, few studies have analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of these training interventions. Our objective is to evaluate the short- and long-term skills in scientific writing and the level of satisfaction of a group of students after taking a scientific writing course, in two training modalities (face-to-face and online).
The study will assess the scientific writing skills of those attending the course "Cómo redactar un artículo científico" in face-to-face and online format during 2019 and 2022 through a non-randomized open trial type study with a comparison group. The study will use questionnaires to analyze the participants' satisfaction with the course, their knowledge about scientific writing, and their attitude and skills toward scientific writing (knowledge, attitudes, and skills). The satisfaction questionnaire will be provided immediately after the course. The scientific writing skills of the attendees will be compared with a control group. The study is estimated to analyze the results of 270 participants, 90 per group. This protocol has been reviewed and approved by an ethics committee.
The study will be carried out between 2019 and 2022 and participants will be recruited from 6 face-to-face and 4 online editions of the scientific writing course. We aim to analyze the real impact these seminars have on the scientific writing skills of their participants and demonstrate that face-to-face courses are more useful than online courses.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Non-randomized trial type
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| GIP - Face-to-face intervention group | Active comparator | Other: Scientific writing training courseParticipants in the scientific writing face-to-face training course. |
| GIO: Online intervention group | Active comparator | Other: Scientific writing training courseParticipants in the scientific writing online training course. |
| GIC: Control intervention group | No intervention | –Participants in other face-to-face training courses not related to scientific writing. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Participants of the Esteve Foundation training workshops
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Students who do not accept to participate in the study at the time of enrolment for the training course.
- Students who attended/enrolled in a Esteve Foundation's scientific writing course (face-to-face or online) prior to the study.
- Students who enroll in another Esteve Foundation's scientific writing course during the duration of the study.
- Students who have enrolled in other courses on scientific writing 12 months prior to recruitment for this study or during the duration of this study.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific writing training courseAttendance to a training course on scientific writing. Attendees learn about the importance of scientific writing, structure and writing an original paper, how scientific publishing works, as well as how to interact with journal editors and reviewers. | Other | GIO: Online intervention group, GIP - Face-to-face intervention group |
Primary outcome
Participants' satisfaction about the training course
Time frame: 2 to 62 days
Participants' satisfaction will be collected through a 14-item opinion questionnaire about the course with a Likert scale from 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum). These 14 items include: overall opinion of the course, usefulness of the materials, usefulness of the in-class exercises, teaching capacity of the lecturers, duration of the course, usefulness of the new knowledge acquired in their current job, etc. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items and overall scores will be compared between each of the 3 groups/arms of the study.
Participants' knowledge about scientific writing
Time frame: 20 months
Participants' general knowledge about scientific writing will be analyzed through a multiple-choice 8-item test that each participant will have to answer three times throughout the study (before, after and 18 months after the intervention). The knowledge test includes specific questions about scientific style, authorship requirements, editorial policies and characteristics of an original scientific article, among others. Correct answers will score 1 point and incorrect answers will score 0 (zero) points. Increase or decrease in knowledge will be determined by the differences through time in the overall scores of the three groups/arms of the study, differences on overall scores by participant (whole test) and differences by item and participant (score differences of the same item through time of the same participant). Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items and overall scores will be compared between each of the 3 groups/arms of the study.
Participants' attitudes towards scientific writing
Time frame: 20 months
Participants' opinion about their own capability towards scientific writing will be analyzed through a 5-item capability questionnaire with a Likert scale from 0 (minimum, not capable at all) to 10 (maximum, completely capable). The participants will state their opinion on their personal capability to write different types of scientific texts related to the publication of a scientific article such as scientific manuscripts for national and international audiences, abstracts, the presentation letter and the answers to the reviewers. Increase or decrease in capability will be determined by differences through time in the overall scores for each participant (whole test), overall score by group/arm and differences by item and participant through time. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items and overall scores will be compared between each of the 3 groups/arms of the study.
Students' skills in scientific writing
Time frame: 20 months
Participants' skills in scientific writing will be analyzed by comparing the number and types of scientific publications and their authorship role in them before and 18 months after the intervention.
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Apr 2023.
- Background: PubMed 33865630Seres E, Fernandez E, Garcia AM, Vives-Cases C, Bosch F. [Evaluation of competences in scientific writing after two different types of training courses: SCRIU-B study protocol]. Gac Sanit. 2022 Mar-Apr;36(2):188-192. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.12.036. Epub 2021 Apr 15. Spanish.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Felix Bosch, MD PhD study director
Director
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Scientific writing training course in people with Scientific Writing Training Course, run by Dr. Antoni Esteve Foundation at 1 site in Spain.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Apr 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Spain. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Participants' satisfaction about the training course (time frame: 2 to 62 days). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05798598, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Apr 2023.