Search

This study aims to investigate the knowledge and attitudes of participants and potential participants in clinical trials toward electronic informed consent. We conducted a survey-based cross-sectional study in Hunan Province, China in March 2021. A total of 547 respondents were included in this study. All questions in an 8-item survey section assessing participants' knowledge of electronic informed consent received correct answers from at least 70% of participants. In terms of attitude scores, most participants (86.3%) believed that electronic informed consent is more convenient than the paper-based version, and more than half (51.2%) believed that electronic informed consent could completely replace the paper-based version. Responses indicated that common concerns about electronic informed consent were its security and confidentiality, legal benefits, and implications for rights protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate predictors of the use of anti-plagiarism detection tools (APTs) in higher education institutions. Methods: An online survey based on the theory of planned behavior was sent to members of science faculties in Jordan. Multivariate Logistic regression was conducted to determine predictors of previous use of APTs, and multivariate linear regression to predict future intentions. Results: A total of 173 faculty members completed the survey, with 78.13% indicating previous APTs use. Turnitin® (43%) and Ithenticate® (32.8%) were the most commonly used APTs. These tools were mainly used to evaluate papers before sending them to journals (65.5%) and to detect plagiarism in theses/dissertations (50.4%). Predictors of previous use were academic rank (p = 0.02) and perceived understanding of APT use (p = 0.043). Intentions for future use were predicted by attitudes (p < 0.001) and perceived behavioral control (p = 0.036). Conclusion: The theory of planned behavior successfully predicted intentions to use APTs. The use of APTs should be encouraged to all faculty members and students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research integrity has obtained much attention in research communities, but also in the general public. To improve research integrity is difficult as it involves complex systems of knowledge, attitudes, and practices. The objective of this study is to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of cohorts of PhD candidates at one faculty (of medicine) over time and compare this to finished PhDs of the same cohorts. Material and method: Researchers (n = 186) awarded the degree PhD at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 were invited to answer a questionnaire about knowledge, attitudes and actions related to scientific dishonesty. 94 responded (50.5%). The results were compared with results among first-year PhD candidates who responded to the same questionnaire during 2010–20 (n = 536) and to those who finished PhDs in 2016 (n = 86). Results: For the years 2010–2020 1.1% of the PhD candidates report to have engaged in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 0.9% report to have presented results in a misleading way. 2.3% report that they know of persons at their department who have engaged in FFP the last 12 months. In total 1.5% report to have experienced pressure to engage in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 2.1% report to have experienced pressure to present results in a misleading way. On average 12.8% report to have been exposed to unethical pressure concerning inclusion or ordering of authors during the last 12 months, and 28.8% report to have knowledge about their department's written policies about research integrity. While some attitudes improve over the years, attitudes in general are not much changed from 2010–2020. None of the PhDs that received a PhD from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 reported to have engaged in FFT or having experienced pressure to do so.1.1% experienced pressure to present results in other misleading ways, while 26.6% of respondents had experienced unethical pressure in relation to authorship during the course of the PhD fellowship. 4.3% knew about someone at their department who had presented results in a misleading manner. Some attitudes were not in line with traditional conceptions of research integrity, but most agreed that their research environment displayed research integrity. Conclusion: This long-term follow up study shows that few PhD-candidates report to engage in severe scientific misconduct, that they experience little pressure to do so, and with some exceptions, attitudes in in line with good research integrity. However, pressure in relation to authorship is relatively common. There is some improvement in research integrity from PhD candidates to recently finished PhDs, but in general research integrity is stable over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biobank participants are often unaware of possible uses of their genetic and health information, despite explicit descriptions of those uses in consent forms. To explore why this misunderstanding persists, we conducted semi-structured interviews and knowledge tests with 22 participants who had recently enrolled in a research biobank. Results indicated that participants lacked understanding of privacy and data-sharing topics but were mostly unconcerned about associated risks. Participants described their answers on the knowledge test as largely driven by their trust in the healthcare system, not by a close reading of the information presented to them. This finding may help explain the difficulties in increasing participant understanding of privacy-related topics, even when such information is clearly presented in biobank consent forms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]