Effectiveness of a Fully Online Scientific Research Works Peer Support Group Model for Research Capacity Building Through Conducting Systematic Reviews Among Health Care Professionals: Retrospective Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research capacity building (RCB) among health care professionals remains limited, particularly for those working outside academic institutions. Japan is experiencing a decline in original clinical research due to insufficient RCB infrastructure. Our previous hospital-based workshops were effective but faced geographical and sustainability constraints. We developed a fully online Scientific Research Works Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG) model that addresses geographical and time-bound constraints and establishes a sustainable economic model. Mentees use online materials, receive support from mentors via a communication platform after formulating their research question, and transition into mentors upon publication. Objective: We evaluated whether our model's theoretical benefits translated into actual program effectiveness in RCB among health care professionals. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of health care professionals who participated in the SRWS-PSG program between September 2019 and January 2025. Mentees progressed through a structured modular curriculum covering systematic review methodology, from protocol development to manuscript preparation, with personalized mentoring support. We evaluated manuscript submission, program discontinuation, promotion to a mentor status, and mentor response time. We collected data from program records and chat logs. Manuscript submission was defined as mentor-confirmed submission of a systematic review manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal. Program discontinuation referred to formal withdrawal before manuscript submission. Mentor promotion was defined as acceptance of an invitation to serve as a junior mentor after manuscript submission. Mentor response time was the elapsed time from a mentee's question in the chat to the first reply by an assigned mentor. Results: Of 85 mentees analyzed, 31 (36.5%) held academic degrees (PhD or MPH), and 68 (80%) were medical doctors. During a median follow-up of 10 months, 51 (60%) submitted manuscripts and 46 (90%) became mentors. Ten mentees (12%) discontinued the program. The median mentor response time was 0.8 hours, with 90% responding within 24 hours. Conclusions: A majority of participants of SRWS-PSG submitted manuscripts. This fully online RCB program might address geographical barriers and provides an adaptable approach for RCB across diverse health care contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.374 | 0.584 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".