Full text rendered from the published PDF. The PDF is the version of record; if the two differ, the PDF governs. Figures and tables are available in the PDF version only in this issue.
Background Clinical research is an integral part of medical and surgical residency programmes, as well as medical school.
Aim This study aimed to investigate attitudes toward, the experience of, and perceived barriers to, conducting clinical research in the medical and surgical fields in Saudi Arabia. We also aimed to explore attitudes toward article processing charges and submission fees.
Methods A cross-sectional study conducted in Saudi Arabia during the months of May-June 2021. The inclusion criteria were trainees in various medical and surgical specialities.
Results The majority of participants conducted at least one research project, representing 92.5% (n=185); of those, 77.3% (n=143) had already published their research. While 33.5% (n=67) of participants felt comfortable designing, leading and critically appraising articles, only 17.3% (n=34) were comfortable using statistical software. Barriers to clinical research include lack of personal interest, lack of interest on the part of programme directors/mentors, inadequate support from mentors/assistants, being overwhelmed with educational activities and examinations, lack of reward and/or motivation, and difficulties obtaining an appropriate sample.
Conclusion This article provides new insight into the knowledge of, and attitude toward, clinical research among Saudi Arabian trainees, and discusses the implications thereof and the future direction of clinical research in Saudi Arabia.
In recent years, research has become an essential component of several medical and surgical training specialities. With the overall aim of drawing appropriate scientific conclusions, research activities foster critical thinking and lifelong learning. Thus, health research training is an essential aspect of medical school, residency training programmes and fellowships.
As part of their training programmes, Saudi Arabian trainees have recently been mandated by the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties to conduct at least one research project before graduation; however, only 58% have complied with this mandatory requirement [1]. Although one study noted a favourable attitude toward research [2], several barriers emerged, including lack of research training/ curriculum, inadequate facilities, insufficient time, work-related stress, and a lack of supervisors [3]. Two of those factors – the lack of supervisors and the lack of a research curriculum in the training programme – were emphasised [1]. Still, the literature lacks
The purpose of this study was to investigate attitudes toward, the experience of, and perceived barriers to, conducting clinical research in Saudi Arabian medical and surgical training programmes. Moreover, we were unable to establish from the literature what constitutes “fair” article processing charges and submission fees from the trainees’ perspective. Therefore, we aimed to explore attitudes toward article processing charges and submission fees.
This is a cross-sectional study carried out in Saudi Arabia during the months of May-June 2021. The inclusion criteria were trainees in various medical and surgical specialities. The data were collected via a structured survey, using an online survey tool; the survey was developed by the authors and distributed via social media. The first part consists of questions about demographics; participation in research; and familiarity with the journal submission process, data analysis and statistical software such as SPSS or STATA. Part Two is concerned with barriers to conducting clinical research, while Part Three inquires about fees for article submission and what constitutes a fair amount to pay. We excluded those whose survey response was incomplete.
Demographic The total number of participants was 200; the participants’ demographics are illustrated in Table 1.
Design, submission and publishing The majority of the trainees conducted at least one research project, representing 92.5% (n=185); of those, 77.3% (n=143) had already published their research. Almost two thirds submitted their research to the journal independently, representing 70.8% (n=131). However, the percentage of those who feel comfortable designing, leading or critically appraising articles was only 33.5% (n=67) of all participants, and only 17.3% (n=34) were capable of conducting data analysis using statistical software such as SPSS or STATA.
The majority of participants conducted cross-sectional studies – 47% (n=94); followed by case reports – 15.5% (n=31); and cohort studies – 15.5% (n=31). Review articles were written by 9.5% (n=19), while case-control and clinical trials each comprised only 6% (n=12). Case series were reported by only one participant – 0.5% (n=1).
In this study, most participants conducted at least one research project. This percentage is higher than previously reported [1], indicating more research engagement. Interestingly, descriptive studies were the leading research design, of which cross-sectional and case-report studies were the most common. Furthermore, we noted that only one-third of participants were comfortable designing and leading studies. This raises the question as to whether other experimental designs were perceived as challenging from a knowledge deficiency point of view or due to lack of supportive infrastructure; those two factors were indeed reported as barriers to conducting research. The predictors for uncomfortableness in designing, leading or critically appraising a study include variables related to the trainees themselves and those related to the training programmes. The former include lack of personal interest, being
Our study also provides insight into what is perceived as fair with regard to article processing charges and publication fees in general. Charges vary significantly between journals and between countries. The average amount paid to journals was $2 732, with a range between $1 620 and $3 662 [10], [11]. This amount is considered unreasonable among our trainees; the majority believed $500 to be an acceptable upper limit. Volunteer bias might have overestimated the result of this analysis. A further large-scale analysis is needed to confirm or refute our findings.
This article provides new insight into the knowledge of, and attitude toward, clinical research among Saudi Arabian trainees. We noted an improvement in the percentage of those conducting research, although the knowledge of study design, analysis and publishing is still far from acceptable. More effort should therefore be directed toward clinical research training during residency, with an emphasis on more experimental studies.
[2] Al-Arifi MN. Attitudes of pharmacy students towards scientific research and academic career in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharm J. 2019 May;27(4):517-520. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2019.01.015. Epub 2019 Jan 17. PMID: 31061620; PMCID: PMC6488809.
[4] Ul Haq I, Ur Rehman S, Al-Kadri HM, Farooq RK. Research Productivity in the Health Sciences in Saudi Arabia: 2008-2017. Ann Saudi Med. 2020 Mar-Apr;40(2):147-154. doi: 10.5144/0256- 4947.2020.147. Epub 2020 Apr 2. PMID: 32241169; PMCID: PMC7118236.
[5] Jahan S, Al-Saigul AM. Primary health care research in Saudi Arabia: A quantitative analysis. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2017 Apr-Jun;11(2):9-15. PMID: 28539857; PM- CID: PMC5426411.
[10] Al-Hilali SM, Al-Kahtani E, Zaman B, Khandekar R, Al- Shahri A, Edward DP. Attitudes of Saudi Arabian Undergraduate Medical Students towards Health Research. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2016 Feb;16(1):e68-73. doi: 10.18295/squmj.2016.16.01.012. Epub 2016 Feb 2. PMID: 26909216; PMCID: PMC4746046.