Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 604–616 | Cite as

Global Curriculum in Research Literacy for the Surgical Oncologist

  • C. Are
  • U. Yanala
  • G. Malhotra
  • B. Hall
  • L. Smith
  • L. Wyld
  • C. Cummings
  • C. Lecoq
  • R. A. Audisio
  • R. S. Berman
Health Services Research and Global Oncology

Abstract

Background

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Notes

Disclosure

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: the basics of evidence based medicine. 3rd Revised ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Torgerson DJ, Torgerson CJ. Designing randomized trials in health, education and the social sciences: an introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, McCulloch P. When are randomized trials unnecessary? Picking signals from noise. BMJ. 2007;334:349.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doren EL, Miranda RN, Selber JC, Garvey PB, Liu J, Medeiros LJ, Butler CE, Clemens MW. U.S. epidemiology of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(5):1042–50.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003282.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hunnisett A. BMJ research methods and reporting: reporting research. BMJ and BPP Publishers; 2016.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman D, Heneghan C, Diener MK. IDEAL framework for surgical Innovation 1: the idea and development stages. BMJ. 2013;346:f3012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petrie A, Sabin C. Medical statistics at a glance. 3rd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahn R, Woodbridge A, Abraham A, Saba S, Korenstein D, Madden E, Boscardin WJ, Keyhani S. Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2017;356:6770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shahzad A. Translational medicine: tools and techniques. 1st ed. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jalali M. Saldanha FYL, Jalali M. Basic science methods for clinical researchers. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  12. 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. 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. 14.
    Emanuel EJ. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sales BD, Folkman S. Ethics in research with human participants. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cutter L. Walter reed, yellow fever, and informed consent. Mil Med. 2016;181(1):90–1.  https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00430.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Katz J. The nuremberg code and the nuremberg trial. A reappraisal. JAMA. 1996;276(20):1662–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nuremberg Military Tribunal. The nuremberg code. JAMA. 1996;276(20):1691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krugman S. The Willowbrook hepatitis studies revisited: ethical aspects. Rev Infect Dis. 1986;8(1):157–62.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cobb WM. The Tuskegee syphilis study. J Natl Med Assoc. 1973;65(4):345–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    World Medical Association. World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Henry K. Beecher, ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1966;274:1354–60  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM196606162742405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 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. 25.
    Guidelines on good publication practice. The COPE report 2003. Committee on publication ethics (COPE).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Are C, Caniglia A, Malik M et al. Variations in training of surgical oncologists: proposal for a global curriculum. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:1769–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Are C, Berman RS, Wyld L, et al. Global curriculum in surgical oncology. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:1782–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. Published by Springer Nature. All rights reserved. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Are
    • 1
  • U. Yanala
    • 1
  • G. Malhotra
    • 1
  • B. Hall
    • 1
  • L. Smith
    • 2
  • L. Wyld
    • 3
  • C. Cummings
    • 4
  • C. Lecoq
    • 5
  • R. A. Audisio
    • 6
  • R. S. Berman
    • 7
  1. 1.Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics, College of Public HealthUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA
  3. 3.University of Sheffield, Jasmine Centre, Doncaster Royal InfirmarySheffieldUnited Kingdom
  4. 4.Society of Surgical OncologyRosemontUSA
  5. 5.European Society of Surgical Oncology BrusselsBelgium
  6. 6.St Helens Teaching HospitalUniversity of LiverpoolSt HelensUnited Kingdom
  7. 7.Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of SurgeryNew York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations