Evaluation of Competencies in Scientific Writing and Attendees' Satisfaction After Two Different … (NCT05798598) | Clinical Trial Compass
UnknownNot Applicable
Evaluation of Competencies in Scientific Writing and Attendees' Satisfaction After Two Different Types of Training Courses: SCRIU-B Study
Spain270 participantsStarted 2019-07-05
Plain-language 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. 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.
Who can participate
Age range
18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Inclusion Criteria:
* Participants of the Esteve Foundation training workshops
Exclusion Criteria:
* 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.
Questions worth asking your doctor
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
1Based on my diagnosis and history, is this trial worth exploring for me — or is there a standard treatment we should try first?
2What does this trial's phase tell us about how much is already known about its safety and benefit?
3What would taking part actually involve for me — visits, tests, time, and travel?
4What are the known and possible risks or side effects I should weigh, and how would they be monitored?
5If this trial isn't the right fit, what other options or trials would you suggest I look into?
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
Questions for the trial coordinator
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
1What does taking part actually involve week to week — how many visits, where, and how long does each one take?
2What costs are covered by the study, and what might I have to pay for myself, including travel, parking, or time off work?
3What happens during screening, and what happens if the study team confirms I don't meet the criteria after those tests?
4Who pays for the scans, blood work, and other tests the trial requires — the study, my insurance, or me?
5How will being in the trial affect my regular care, and will my own doctor stay informed and involved?
6Can I leave the trial at any point if I change my mind, and what would happen to my care if I do?
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
What they're measuring
1
Participants' satisfaction about the training course
Timeframe: 2 to 62 days
2
Participants' knowledge about scientific writing
Timeframe: 20 months
3
Participants' attitudes towards scientific writing