某医科大学科研人员睡眠质量及其相关影响因素分析

目的: 了解医学科研人员睡眠质量与心理健康的关系以及影响因素. 方法: 采用匹兹堡睡眠质量指数(PSQI)调查表,症状自评量表(SCL-90)及一般情况调查表对某医科大学152名医学科研人员进行调查. 结果: ① 以PSQI总分≥8作为判断睡眠质量问题的标准,有9.7%的医学科研人员有睡眠质量问题,主要表现为日间功能障碍(48.3%)、睡眠质量较差(19.3%)、入睡时间延长(16.0%)和睡眠时间减少(10.6%);② 性别、学历对医学科研人员的睡眠质量以及心理健康的影响不大;③ 影响医学科研人员睡眠质量的主要因素为心理健康状况,相关分析表明PSQI总分与SCL-90总均分间存在相关性(r=0.329),多元逐步回归分析表明影响睡眠质量的心理症状因子主要为偏执和躯体化因子;④ 不同睡眠质量者的心理健康状况存在显著差异(P<0.05).两两比较发现,睡眠质量越好,心理健康状况也越好(P<0.05);⑤ 临床医学科研人员的抑郁和精神病性两项因子分高于基础医学科研人员(P<0.05);⑥ 对科研工作进展满意者睡眠质量以及心理健康状况均好于不满意者(P<0.01). 结论: 医学科研人员睡眠质量存在问题.心理健康状况是影响睡眠质量的主要因素,且两者相互作用,互为因果,科研工作进展满意与否是睡眠质量和心理健康的影响因素之一.     

对学术造假现象的反思

从科学职业的专门化、社会活动中的马太效应、科研奖励机制及职称评审机制、科研人员自身职业道德几个方面分析了某些科研人员造假的原因,从而提出遏制造假现象应是一个系统工程.     

Experiences of knowledge translation among researchers in transfusion medicine: Findings from an international survey study

Background

Translation of research knowledge is critical to ensure transfusion medicine policies and practices reflect current evidence and so effectively support the health of blood donors and recipients, as well as ensuring ongoing blood supply. The aim of this study was to investigate the barriers and facilitators of knowledge translation (KT) among transfusion medicine researchers and determine what KT supports are needed.

Study Design and Methods

An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was distributed by emailing corresponding authors of papers in four major blood journals, emailing grant recipients in the area of transfusion medicine, posting on social media, and through an international blood operator network.

Results

The final sample included 105 researchers. Participants had a positive orientation toward KT, with few perceiving KT as not relevant to their research or beneficial for their careers. However, many reported facing difficulties practicing KT due to time constraints, competing priorities, or lack of funds or resources. Fostering relationships with stakeholders was seen as a key facilitator of KT but a number of researchers expressed difficulties engaging and communicating with them. Collaboration opportunities, protected time for KT, and access to KT resources were some of the supports researchers felt were required to help their KT efforts.

Conclusion

To minimize the knowledge to practice gap in transfusion medicine and ensure findings from research lead to improved outcomes, organizations need to support researchers in their KT efforts and facilitate interactions between researchers and research end-users.     

brief report: Burnout Among Early Career Clinical Investigators

Burnout is a pervasive problem among clinicians. However, little is known about burnout among early career clinical investigators, who must balance clinical responsibilities with challenges related to research. We aimed to determine the prevalence of and demographic associations with burnout in a cohort of early career clinical investigators.A cross‐sectional questionnaire was administered to 179 trainees at the University of Pittsburgh Institute for Clinical Research Education in 2007–2008. We used chi‐square analyses and Fisher’s exact test to determine whether associations between demographic characteristics and burnout were significant. Of the participants, 29 (16%) reported feeling burned out. Burnout was more prevalent among those over 35 years of age relative to their younger counterparts (29% vs. 13%, p= 0.01) and among females relative to males (22% vs. 10%, p= 0.03). With regard to race and ethnicity, burnout was most common among underrepresented minorities (30%) followed by Caucasians (18%) and Asians (3%); these differences were significant (p= 0.02). Considering the early career status of these research trainees, rates of burnout were concerning. Certain demographic subgroups—including older trainees, females, and underrepresented minorities—had particularly high rates of burnout and may benefit from interventions that provide them with skills needed to sustain successful clinical research careers. Clin Trans Sci 2010; Volume 3: 186–188     

微波辐射对作业人员外周血T淋巴细胞亚群的影响

目的探索长期低剂量高功率微波辐射对作业人员免疫功能的影响。方法对38名某研究所雷达科研人员(接触组)和39名非微波作业人员(对照组)进行外周血白细胞计数和淋巴细胞百分率,以及T淋巴细胞亚群CD3+、CD4+、CD8+和CD4+/CD8+比值的测定。结果与对照组相比,接触组白细胞计数和淋巴细胞百分比均降低,但差异不显著:接触组CD3+、CD4+、CD8+均升高,CD4+/CD8+比值降低,差异显著;接触组≤10 a组的T淋巴细胞亚群的变化差异不显著,接触组>10 a组CD3+、CD4+、CD8+及CD4+/CD8+比值均升高,且CD3+升高差异显著。接触组和对照组组内工龄≤10 a和>10 a间T淋巴细胞亚群的差异不显著。结论长期低剂量高功率微波辐射能明显导致人体免疫功能紊乱,但未表现出累积效应。应当采取有效的职业防护。     

How to get started with a systematic review in epidemiology: an introductory guide for early career researchers

Background

Systematic review is a powerful research tool which aims to identify and synthesize all evidence relevant to a research question. The approach taken is much like that used in a scientific experiment, with high priority given to the transparency and reproducibility of the methods used and to handling all evidence in a consistent manner.Early career researchers may find themselves in a position where they decide to undertake a systematic review, for example it may form part or all of a PhD thesis. Those with no prior experience of systematic review may need considerable support and direction getting started with such a project. Here we set out in simple terms how to get started with a systematic review.

Discussion

Advice is given on matters such as developing a review protocol, searching using databases and other methods, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and data synthesis including meta-analysis. Signposts to further information and useful resources are also given.

Conclusion

A well-conducted systematic review benefits the scientific field by providing a summary of existing evidence and highlighting unanswered questions. For the individual, undertaking a systematic review is also a great opportunity to improve skills in critical appraisal and in synthesising evidence.     

Community‐Based Participatory Research Skills and Training Needs in a Sample of Academic Researchers from a Clinical and Translational Science Center in the Northeast

Purpose: To determine the community‐based participatory research (CBPR) training interests and needs of researchers interested in CBPR to inform efforts to build infrastructure for conducting community‐engaged research. Method: A 20‐item survey was completed by 127 academic health researchers at Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health, and Harvard affiliated hospitals. Results: Slightly more than half of the participants reported current or prior experience with CBPR (58 %). Across all levels of academic involvement, approximately half of the participants with CBPR experience reported lacking skills in research methods and dissemination, with even fewer reporting skills in training of community partners. Regardless of prior CBPR experience, about half of the respondents reported having training needs in funding, partnership development, evaluation, and dissemination of CBPR projects. Among those with CBPR experience, more than one‐third of the participants wanted a mentor in CBPR; however only 19 % were willing to act as a mentor. Conclusions: Despite having experience with CBPR, many respondents did not have the comprehensive package of CBPR skills, reporting a need for training in a variety of CBPR skill sets. Further, the apparent mismatch between the need for mentors and availability in this sample suggests an important area for development. Clin Trans Sci 2012; Volume #: 1–5