Global Curriculum in Research Literacy for the Surgical Oncologist
The ability to provide optimal care to cancer patients depends on awareness of current evidence-based practices emanating from research or involvement in research where circumstances permit. The significant global variations in cancer-related research activity and its correlation to cancer-specific outcomes may have an influence on the care provided to cancer patients and their outcomes. The aim of this project is to develop a global curriculum in research literacy for the surgical oncologist.
Materials and Methods
The leadership of the Society of Surgical Oncology and European Society of Surgical Oncology convened a global curriculum committee to develop a global curriculum in research literacy for the Surgical Oncologist.
A global curriculum in research literacy is developed to incorporate the required domains considered to be essential to interpret the published research or become involved in research activity where circumstances permit. The purpose of this curriculum is to promote research literacy for the surgical oncologist, wherever they are based. It does not mandate direct research participation which may not be feasible due to restrictions within the local health-care delivery environment, socio-economic priorities and the educational environment of the individual institution where they work.
A global curriculum in research literacy is proposed which may promote research literacy or encourage involvement in research activity where circumstances permit. It is hoped that this will enhance cancer-related research activity, promote awareness of optimal evidence-based practices and improve outcomes for cancer patients globally.
The authors have no conflicts to disclose.
- 1.Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: the basics of evidence based medicine. 3rd Revised ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2006.Google Scholar
- 5.Hunnisett A. BMJ research methods and reporting: reporting research. BMJ and BPP Publishers; 2016.Google Scholar
- 8.Petrie A, Sabin C. Medical statistics at a glance. 3rd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013.Google Scholar
- 10.Shahzad A. Translational medicine: tools and techniques. 1st ed. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2015.Google Scholar
- 11.Jalali M. Saldanha FYL, Jalali M. Basic science methods for clinical researchers. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2017.Google Scholar
- 12.Cross J. Impact factors – the basics. The e-resources management handbook. UKSG. https://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/19-Cross-H76M463XL884HK78.pdf.
- 13.Brembs B, Button K, Munafò M. Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7(291):1–12.Google Scholar
- 14.Emanuel EJ. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
- 15.Sales BD, Folkman S. Ethics in research with human participants. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; 2000.Google Scholar
- 19.Krugman S. The Willowbrook hepatitis studies revisited: ethical aspects. Rev Infect Dis. 1986;8(1):157–62.Google Scholar
- 23.United States. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report : ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda, MD: The Commission; 1978.Google Scholar
- 24.National Science Foundation. The common rule for the protection of human subjects. 45 CFR Part 690: Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects.Google Scholar
- 25.Guidelines on good publication practice. The COPE report 2003. Committee on publication ethics (COPE).Google Scholar