Publication of research presented at STFM and NAPCRG conferences

Exploring how national educational organizations can promote educational research amongst members: a survey-based study

BACKGROUND

Engagement of academic faculty in research remains low. While barriers to research have been explored, there are no data on how national organizations can help overcome these barriers. Our study explored faculty satisfaction and motivational drivers for engagement with research opportunities offered by the Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics (COMSEP), an organization of pediatric medical educators, and characterize strategies perceived by faculty to promote the use of these opportunities.

METHODS

In 2021, 5 survey questions were administered to faculty members of COMSEP to explore satisfaction with COMSEP's research offerings, the perceived value of educational research, and the facilitators, barriers and potential opportunities for COMSEP to promote research. Clark's Commitment and Necessary Effort model on motivation served as the theoretical framework for our study, which explores motivation, self-efficacy and contextual factors influencing an individual's pursuit of goals. Chi-square analysis and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test were used to compare categorical and scaled variables among groups who did and did not avail of COMSEP's research offerings.

RESULTS

90 (25%) of 360 recipients responded. 61% expressed satisfaction with COMSEP's research offerings. 68% indicated research was an expectation of their academic appointment, that education was their primary research focus (74%) and that they did not have other research opportunities that met their needs (58%). Of respondents, 75.7% of females had submitted a proposal compared to 60% of non-responders who were females. The comparison by gender was not statistically significant. Exploration by academic rank revealed that 35% of instructor/assistant professors had submitted a proposal compared to 65% of associate professors/professors (p =.05). Barriers leading to non-submission to any of the offerings included having too much other work, lack of enjoyment in writing and inability to find mentors. Respondents endorsed the importance of several strategies to promote engagement in research-skill building opportunities, personalized consultations and increased funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Faculty educators value the importance of educational research and recognize that research opportunities offered by COMSEP address an unmet need, but express ambivalence in the enjoyment of writing (reflecting their mood), and endorse structural barriers, that are amenable to change, affecting their personal agency.

Factores asociados y tasa de publicación de los trabajos presentados en las ediciones del Congreso Científico Nacional de la Sociedad Científica Médico Estudiantil Peruana. 2010-2014

Introducción. El Congreso Científico Nacional (CCN) es un evento anual realizado en Perú y en el que estudiantes de medicina de todo el país presentan sus trabajos de investigación. Objetivos. Determinar la tasa de publicación y los factores asociados a la publicación en revistas científicas indexadas de los trabajos de investigación presentados a las ediciones del CCN realizadas entre 2010-2014 y describir las características de los trabajos publicados. Materiales y métodos. Estudio retrospectivo en el que se revisaron 407 resúmenes de trabajos de investigación. Se consideró una ventana de tiempo de publicación de 6 años (a partir de la presentación). Se realizó un análisis bivariado para evaluar las diferencias entre las variables categóricas y numéricas con las pruebas chi-cuadrado y U de Mann-Whitney, respectivamente. Además, se realizó un análisis multivariado mediante modelos de regresión de Poisson (uno crudo y uno ajustado), calculando valores de riesgo relativo (RR) con sus respectivos intervalos de confianza al 95% (IC95%) para determinar los factores asociados con la publicación de los trabajos. Se consideró un nivel de significancia de p<0.05. Resultados. La tasa y la mediana de tiempo de publicación fueron 23.83% (IC95%: 19.93%-28.23%) y 14 meses (RIC: 5-23), respectivamente. En el análisis bivariado, el año de presentación y el número de asesores se asociaron con la publicación de los trabajos (p=0.020 y p=0.007). En el análisis multivariado, se encontró que los trabajos con un asesor o aquellos con dos o más asesores tuvieron una probabilidad de publicación 2.19 y 2.61 veces mayor que los que no tenían asesor (RR: 2.19; IC95%: 1.10-4.36 y RR: 2.61; IC95%: 1.28-5.33, respectivamente). Conclusiones. La cuarta parte de los trabajos se publicaron en una revista científica y la participación de un asesor o más incrementó significativamente la probabilidad de publicación.

Personal Manuscript Acceptance Rates: Metrics for Self-assessment in Scholarship

Introduction

There is no established baseline for how frequently clinical researchers personally encounter manuscript rejection, making it difficult for faculty to put their own evolving experience in context. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of obtaining personal acceptance per submission (APS) and acceptance per manuscript (APM) rates for individual faculty members.

Methods

We performed a cross-section survey pilot study of clinical faculty members of two departments (family medicine and pediatrics), in one academic health center in the academic year 2017-2018. The survey asked participants to report the number of attempted submissions required per journal article they have had accepted in the prior 2 years as well as any submissions that did not lead to publication.

Results

Sixty-eight of 136 eligible faculty (50%) completed the questionnaire. Academic clinicians in the sample eventually published 80% of the manuscripts submitted, with 39% of papers rejected per submission attempt. Associate professors had the highest APS (0.71) and APM (0.88).

Conclusions

In this pilot, we demonstrated the feasibility of retrospectively collecting data that could identify baseline manuscript acceptance rates and were able to generate department averages and rank specific averages for manuscript acceptance and rejection. We confirmed that rejection is common among academic clinicians. The APS and APM can be used by academic clinicians to track their own progress from day one of their publishing careers as a method of self-assessment, rather than having to wait for citations to accumulate.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Combining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries may be underrepresented in the scientific literature. After the considerable work involved in adding in the more than 300 additional studies found by the February 2016 searches, we chose not to update the search again because additional searches are unlikely to change these overall conclusions in any important way.

Publication of Abstracts Presented at an International Healthcare Simulation Conference

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to determine the publication rate for abstracts presented at the International Meeting for Simulation in Healthcare (IMSH) and the time between abstract presentation and publication. We also aimed to describe the study features influencing subsequent publication and the relationship between these features and journal impact factors (IFs).

METHODS

All types of accepted abstracts from the 2012 and 2013 IMSH were reviewed. We extracted the following data from each abstract in duplicate: presentation format, subject, type of scholarship, research method, study design, outcome measure, number of institutions in authorship group, and number of study sites. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched (January 1, 2012 to August 1, 2016) using the names of the first, second, and last author for comparison with abstracts. Journal of publication and IF were recorded. Data were summarized with descriptive statistics. Bivariate and multivariate analysis was performed to explore the association between publication status and other variables.

RESULTS

Of 541 abstracts, 22% (119/541) were published with a median time to publication of 16 months (interquartile range = 8.525), ranging from 0 to 43 months. The study characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of publication were the following: research-type abstract, quantitative studies, randomized trials, studies with patient or healthcare-related outcomes, multiple institutions represented in authorship group, and multicenter studies. Studies with multiple institutions in authorship group and multicenter studies were published in higher IF journals (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate of 22% for abstracts presented at IMSH is low, indicative of the relatively new nature of simulation-based research in healthcare.

Full journal publication of abstracts presented at the Nordic Congress of General Practice in 2009 and 2011

OBJECTIVE

To determine the overall publication rates for abstracts presented at two consecutive Nordic Congresses of General Practice and to evaluate determinants for these publication rates.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar were searched for relevant publications from 1 January 2009 up until 31 August 2014.

METHODS

Abstracts accepted for oral or poster presentation were identified from the original congress booklets from the Nordic Congresses of General Practice in 2009 and 2011. Based on PubMed and Google Scholar searches, we subsequently identified full journal publications within a 36-month follow-up from both congresses. In cases of doubt, the first author was contacted directly.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Full journal publication within 36 months after the congress.

RESULTS

A total of 200 abstracts were analyzed. Of these, 85 (42.5%) were identified with a full publication within 36 months after the congress. More abstracts from the 2011 congress were published compared to the 2009 congress odds ratio (OR) 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.10; 3.50). Abstracts accepted for oral presentation were more often published OR 1.94, 95% CI (1.08; 3.50) than accepted poster abstracts. In the multivariate analysis, a university affiliation for both first and last author increased the probability for publication OR 4.23, 95% CI (1.71; 10.42), as well as more than two authors. An optimal number, based on the highest OR, seems to be 3-4 authors with OR 2.43, 95% CI (1.07; 5.54). Qualitative studies were published at the same frequency as quantitative studies OR 1.36, 95% CI (0.57; 3.24).

CONCLUSION

Less than half of the abstracts accepted for oral or poster presentation at two consecutive Nordic Congresses of General Practice were published as full text articles within 36 months. Key points Congress abstracts accepted for Nordic Congress of General Practice are not indexed in international search databases. Less than half of the abstracts accepted for oral or poster presentation at two consecutive Nordic Congresses of General Practice were published as full text articles within 36 months. Future congress committees could address this aspect in order to increase the visibility of and accessibility to research within the field of general practice.

From Poster Presentation to Publication: National Congress of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this study were as follows: 1) to determine publication rate, time to publication, and study design of poster presentations accepted at the National Congress of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (NCCAP) and converted to publication and the degree of first author in a published article and journal index and 2) to investigate the relationship of these data with each other.

METHODS

The poster presentations of four congresses organized between 2005 and 2008 were investigated separately. The presentations were screened by taking into account the title and the first and second author in English and Turkish languages via PubMed and Google Academic databases. Published studies, time between presentation and publishing date, study design, degree of first author, and journal index of these studies were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifty-four (25.2%) of 214 poster presentations were published in international and national peer-reviewed journals. Of the published articles, 74.1% (n=40) were research type and 61.1% (n=33) were found in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) peer-reviewed journals. The first author in 42.6% (n=23) of published articles were assistant professors. The average time between presentation and publishing date was 30.72±18.89 months. Statistical differences were not determined between publication rate and study design; between time to publication and study type/study design, degree of first author, and journal index; and between journal index and study design and degree of first author (p>0.05). It was found that research articles were published significantly more by teaching staff than experts and other researchers (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with literature data, it was found that the time to publication was longer while the publication rate was similar for poster presentations in our congresses. Based on these results, it is important to create necessary conditions and encourage the researchers to publish the poster presentations presented in NCCAP.

A nationwide postal survey on the perception of Malaysian public healthcare providers on family medicine specialists' (PERMFAMS) clinical performance, professional attitudes and research visibility

Perception of healthcare providers who worked with family medicine specialists (FMSs) could translate into the effectiveness of primary healthcare delivery in daily practices. This study examined perceptions of public healthcare providers/professionals (PHCPs) on FMSs at public health clinics throughout Malaysia. This was a cross-sectional study in 2012-2013 using postal method targeting PHCPs from three categories of health facilities, namely health clinics, health offices and hospitals. A structured questionnaire was developed to assess PHCP's perception of FMS's clinical competency, safety practice, ethical and professional values, and research involvement. It consists of 37 items with Likert scale of strongly disagree (a score of 1) to strongly agree (a score of 5). Interaction and independent effect of the independent variables were tested and adjusted means score were reported. The participants' response rate was 58.0% (780/1345) with almost equal proportion from each of the three public healthcare facilities. There were more positive perceptions than negative among the PHCPs. FMSs were perceived to provide effective and safe treatment to their patients equally disregards of patient's social background. However, there were some concerns of FMSs not doing home visits, not seeing walk-in patients, had long appointment time, not active in scientific research, writing and publication. There were significant differences in perception based on a respondent's health care facility (p < 0.0001) and frequency of encounter (p < 0.0001). PHCPs had overall positive perceptions on FMSs across all the domains investigated. PHCPs from different health care facilities and frequency of encounter with FMSs had different perception. Practicing FMSs could improve on the critical service areas that were perceived to be important but lacking. FMSs might need further support in conducting research and writing for publication.

Full-text publication of abstracts in emergency medicine in Denmark

Introduction

Abstracts presented at medical conferences or scientific meetings should ideally be published as full-text articles in peer-reviewed journals after initial presentation and feedback regardless of the findings. The aim of this survey was to determine the publication rate of papers presented at the Danish Emergency Medicine Conferences in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Methods

Abstracts presented at the conferences were identified and authors contacted to obtain publication information. A further search was conducted using relevant databases.

Results

Publication rates for the 2009 and 2010 were approximately 30% (25–31.6%). The publication rate for the 2011 conference was 14.5% within 18 months with an additional 9% under review prior to publication.

Discussion

When comparing full-text publication rates from DEMC to previous international studies in EM Danish EM research community has similar publication rates. However, other more established specialties have higher publication levels. Knowledge of reasons for non-publication could lead to efforts to promote publication like funding; the possibility of discussion between authors and editors at conferences; “publication mentors”; and/or research courses provided by the Danish Society of Emergency Medicine.