109906
论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
- 3.4 Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)
- 3.2 Clin Epidemiol
- 2.6 Cancer Manag Res
- 2.9 Infect Drug Resist
- 3.7 Clin Interv Aging
- 5.1 Drug Des Dev Ther
- 3.1 Int J Chronic Obstr
- 6.6 Int J Nanomed
- 2.6 Int J Women's Health
- 2.9 Neuropsych Dis Treat
- 2.8 OncoTargets Ther
- 2.0 Patient Prefer Adher
- 2.2 Ther Clin Risk Manag
- 2.5 J Pain Res
- 3.0 Diabet Metab Synd Ob
- 3.2 Psychol Res Behav Ma
- 3.4 Nat Sci Sleep
- 1.8 Pharmgenomics Pers Med
- 2.0 Risk Manag Healthc Policy
- 4.1 J Inflamm Res
- 2.0 Int J Gen Med
- 3.4 J Hepatocell Carcinoma
- 3.0 J Asthma Allergy
- 2.2 Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol
- 2.4 J Multidiscip Healthc
已发表论文
超越普遍不足：医务人员研究诚信意识及培训偏好中的结构性失衡
Authors Zhao M , Huang R, Guo J , Wang J
Received 30 September 2025
Accepted for publication 12 November 2025
Published 20 November 2025 Volume 2025:16 Pages 2157—2166
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S566565
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 4
Editor who approved publication: Professor Balakrishnan Nair
Min Zhao,1 Rui Huang,2 Jinmin Guo,3 Jia Wang2
1Pediatrics Department, The 960th Hospital of PLA, Jinan, Shandong, People’s Republic of China; 2Scientific Research Office, The 960th Hospital of PLA, Jinan, Shandong, People’s Republic of China; 3Clinical Pharmacy Department, The 960th Hospital of PLA, Jinan, Shandong, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Jia Wang, Scientific Research Office, The 960th Hospital of PLA, No. 25 Shifan Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan, Shandong, 250031, People’s Republic of China, Email wangjia_960@163.com
Purpose: Research integrity is a critical component of medical education and ethical research practice. However, evidence suggests that medical professionals often demonstrate inadequate awareness of its core principles. This study examines the awareness of research integrity and corresponding training preferences among medical staff at a large tertiary hospital, with implications for continuing medical education curriculum development.
Methods: A cross–sectional survey of 517 physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and technicians measured knowledge of guidelines, perceptions of misconduct consequences, and training preferences. The instrument validity and reliability were confirmed (I–CVI: 0.857– 1.000; S–CVI/Ave: ≥ 0.976; Cronbach’s α: 0.881– 0.937). Data analysis employed descriptive statistics, correlation, and multivariate regression.
Results: Overall awareness was limited (median awareness rate: 31.1– 32.7%), with significant structural disparities: higher familiarity with publication–related norms such as duplicate submission (score: 1594) and authorship (1567), but poorer understanding of research ethics (1486) and institutional policies (1506). Training demand was modest (median demand rate: 13.0%), with highest preference for applied topics including statistical application (1203) and ethics regulations (1215). Case–based and online formats were most desired. Research ability (evaluation), which depends on research experience, was an independent factor influencing both awareness (β = 0.462– 0.473, p < 0.001) and training demand (β = 0.411, p < 0.001).
Conclusion: This study identifies a clear structural imbalance in research integrity awareness among medical staff: technical proficiency in research methods is not matched by foundational ethical reasoning. Moreover, staff preferences for training are diverse, favoring tiered, digital, and case based formats. To address this gap, an integrated, innovative, and layered educational approach is needed–one that blends ethics with methodological training through scenario driven modules and flexible online platforms. Such a model will enhance continuing professional development in academic integrity, provide evidence for institutional ethics policies, and contribute to global efforts to strengthen research governance in medical practice.
Keywords: research integrity, medical staff, awareness survey, training needs, influencing factors
1Pediatrics Department, The 960th Hospital of PLA, Jinan, Shandong, People’s Republic of China; 2Scientific Research Office, The 960th Hospital of PLA, Jinan, Shandong, People’s Republic of China; 3Clinical Pharmacy Department, The 960th Hospital of PLA, Jinan, Shandong, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Jia Wang, Scientific Research Office, The 960th Hospital of PLA, No. 25 Shifan Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan, Shandong, 250031, People’s Republic of China, Email wangjia_960@163.com
Purpose: Research integrity is a critical component of medical education and ethical research practice. However, evidence suggests that medical professionals often demonstrate inadequate awareness of its core principles. This study examines the awareness of research integrity and corresponding training preferences among medical staff at a large tertiary hospital, with implications for continuing medical education curriculum development.
Methods: A cross–sectional survey of 517 physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and technicians measured knowledge of guidelines, perceptions of misconduct consequences, and training preferences. The instrument validity and reliability were confirmed (I–CVI: 0.857– 1.000; S–CVI/Ave: ≥ 0.976; Cronbach’s α: 0.881– 0.937). Data analysis employed descriptive statistics, correlation, and multivariate regression.
Results: Overall awareness was limited (median awareness rate: 31.1– 32.7%), with significant structural disparities: higher familiarity with publication–related norms such as duplicate submission (score: 1594) and authorship (1567), but poorer understanding of research ethics (1486) and institutional policies (1506). Training demand was modest (median demand rate: 13.0%), with highest preference for applied topics including statistical application (1203) and ethics regulations (1215). Case–based and online formats were most desired. Research ability (evaluation), which depends on research experience, was an independent factor influencing both awareness (β = 0.462– 0.473, p < 0.001) and training demand (β = 0.411, p < 0.001).
Conclusion: This study identifies a clear structural imbalance in research integrity awareness among medical staff: technical proficiency in research methods is not matched by foundational ethical reasoning. Moreover, staff preferences for training are diverse, favoring tiered, digital, and case based formats. To address this gap, an integrated, innovative, and layered educational approach is needed–one that blends ethics with methodological training through scenario driven modules and flexible online platforms. Such a model will enhance continuing professional development in academic integrity, provide evidence for institutional ethics policies, and contribute to global efforts to strengthen research governance in medical practice.
Keywords: research integrity, medical staff, awareness survey, training needs, influencing factors