BACKGROUND Good clinical practice(GCP)is put in place to protect human participants in clinical trials as well as to ensure the quality of research.Non-adherence to these guidelines can produce research that may not m...BACKGROUND Good clinical practice(GCP)is put in place to protect human participants in clinical trials as well as to ensure the quality of research.Non-adherence to these guidelines can produce research that may not meet the standards set by the scientific community.Therefore,it must be ensured that researchers are wellversed in the GCP.But not much is known about the knowledge and practices of the GCP in the medical colleges of North India.AIM To assess the knowledge and practices of researchers about GCP and analyze these with respect to the demographics of participants.METHODS This is a cross-sectional study.A self-structured questionnaire about GCP,after expert validations,was circulated among researchers,at a tertiary healthcare institute,All India Institute of Medical Sciences(AIIMS),Rishikesh.A total of 59 individuals,who were selected by universal sampling,participated in the study.All healthcare workers who have been investigators of Institutional Ethics Committee-approved research projects,except residents and faculty,and are still a part of the institute have been included in the study.The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of AIIMS,Rishikesh.We used descriptive analysis and the Chi-squared test to analyze data.P value<0.05 was considered significant.RESULTS Out of 59 participants,only 11(18.6%)were certified for GCP.Most of the participants(64.4%)had“Average”knowledge,33.9%had“Good”knowledge and 1.7%had“Poor”knowledge.Only 49%of participants had satisfactory practices related to GCP.There was a significant difference in the knowledge based on the current academic position for the items assessing knowledge of institutional review board(P=0.010),confidentiality&privacy(P=0.011),and participant safety&adverse events(P<0.001).There was also a significant difference in knowledge of research misconduct(P=0.024)and participant safety&adverse events(P=0.011)based on certification of GCP.There was a notable difference in the practices related to recruitment&retention on the basis of current academic position(P<0.001)and certification of GCP(P=0.023).We also observed a considerable difference between the knowledge and practices of GCP among the participants(P=0.013).CONCLUSION Participants have basic knowledge of GCP but show a lack thereof in certain domains of GCP.This can be addressed by holding training sessions focusing on these particular domains.展开更多
This article is based on two presentations held at Chinese medicine conference in Rothenburg （2013）, Germany and at the 19th Anniversary of Korean Institute of Oriental Medicine （KIOM） International Symposium of C...This article is based on two presentations held at Chinese medicine conference in Rothenburg （2013）, Germany and at the 19th Anniversary of Korean Institute of Oriental Medicine （KIOM） International Symposium of Current Research Trends in Traditional Medicine - Pattern of Identification （2013）. In designing clinical studies, it is a research question that leads to appropriate study design. However, they are mostly diagnostic procedures and techniques that are the key points to reflect the application of systems and methods in all forms of medicine - traditional East Asian medicine （TEAM） is no exception. The challenges within TEAM based on research reflect in different systems of medicine/theories such as traditional Japanese acupuncture, traditional Korean acupuncture and traditional Chinese acupuncture. This diversitv of medical svstems and methods applied in East Asia seems to have beenfruitful within the different countries and traditional medicines have found their places within the respective countries health systems. The existing diversity, from a clinician＇s point of view, may be viewed as a treasure when dealing with patients in the ＇real world＇. On the other hand, this diversity seems to challenge the scientific mind worldwide, esoeciallv when it comes to research. Hence. there is a and between clinical practice and research.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND Good clinical practice(GCP)is put in place to protect human participants in clinical trials as well as to ensure the quality of research.Non-adherence to these guidelines can produce research that may not meet the standards set by the scientific community.Therefore,it must be ensured that researchers are wellversed in the GCP.But not much is known about the knowledge and practices of the GCP in the medical colleges of North India.AIM To assess the knowledge and practices of researchers about GCP and analyze these with respect to the demographics of participants.METHODS This is a cross-sectional study.A self-structured questionnaire about GCP,after expert validations,was circulated among researchers,at a tertiary healthcare institute,All India Institute of Medical Sciences(AIIMS),Rishikesh.A total of 59 individuals,who were selected by universal sampling,participated in the study.All healthcare workers who have been investigators of Institutional Ethics Committee-approved research projects,except residents and faculty,and are still a part of the institute have been included in the study.The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of AIIMS,Rishikesh.We used descriptive analysis and the Chi-squared test to analyze data.P value<0.05 was considered significant.RESULTS Out of 59 participants,only 11(18.6%)were certified for GCP.Most of the participants(64.4%)had“Average”knowledge,33.9%had“Good”knowledge and 1.7%had“Poor”knowledge.Only 49%of participants had satisfactory practices related to GCP.There was a significant difference in the knowledge based on the current academic position for the items assessing knowledge of institutional review board(P=0.010),confidentiality&privacy(P=0.011),and participant safety&adverse events(P<0.001).There was also a significant difference in knowledge of research misconduct(P=0.024)and participant safety&adverse events(P=0.011)based on certification of GCP.There was a notable difference in the practices related to recruitment&retention on the basis of current academic position(P<0.001)and certification of GCP(P=0.023).We also observed a considerable difference between the knowledge and practices of GCP among the participants(P=0.013).CONCLUSION Participants have basic knowledge of GCP but show a lack thereof in certain domains of GCP.This can be addressed by holding training sessions focusing on these particular domains.
文摘This article is based on two presentations held at Chinese medicine conference in Rothenburg （2013）, Germany and at the 19th Anniversary of Korean Institute of Oriental Medicine （KIOM） International Symposium of Current Research Trends in Traditional Medicine - Pattern of Identification （2013）. In designing clinical studies, it is a research question that leads to appropriate study design. However, they are mostly diagnostic procedures and techniques that are the key points to reflect the application of systems and methods in all forms of medicine - traditional East Asian medicine （TEAM） is no exception. The challenges within TEAM based on research reflect in different systems of medicine/theories such as traditional Japanese acupuncture, traditional Korean acupuncture and traditional Chinese acupuncture. This diversitv of medical svstems and methods applied in East Asia seems to have beenfruitful within the different countries and traditional medicines have found their places within the respective countries health systems. The existing diversity, from a clinician＇s point of view, may be viewed as a treasure when dealing with patients in the ＇real world＇. On the other hand, this diversity seems to challenge the scientific mind worldwide, esoeciallv when it comes to research. Hence. there is a and between clinical practice and research.
