World J Mens Health.  2024 Apr;42(2):394-407. 10.5534/wjmh.230084.

Pushing the Boundaries for Evidenced-Based Practice: Can Online Training Enhance Andrology Research Capacity Worldwide? An Exploration of the Barriers and Enablers - The Global Andrology Forum

• Ansari WE
• Arafa M
• Shah R
• Harraz A
• Shokeir A
• Zohdy W
• Savira M
• Agarwal A
• Global Andrology Forum

• KMID: 2554405
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.230084

Abstract

Purpose
This is the first study to design and assess a research capacity building (RCB) specifically tailored for clinical and non-clinical andrology practitioners worldwide. We appraised: 1) the barriers and enablers to research among these practitioners; 2) attendees’ satisfaction with the webinar; and 3) research knowledge acquisition as a result of the webinar (before/after quiz).
Materials and Methods
A online RCB webinar was designed, comprising two presentations in research design and systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA). An online survey using validated published questionnaires assessed the three above-stated objectives. Paired t-test compared the means of the pre- and post-webinar scores. Subgroup analysis was performed on the participants’ professional background, sex, and number of years in practice.
Results
A total of 237 participants attended the webinar, of which 184 completed the survey and are included in the current analysis. Male participants were about double the females and 60.9% were from Asian countries. The most common research enablers were to publish scientific papers (14.8%) and to develop research (14.7%) or new skills (12.7%). The most common barriers were the lack of training in research (12.4%), training in research software (11.8%), and time for research (11.8%). Satisfaction with the webinar was considerably high (86.3%–88.4%) for the different features of the webinar. Compared to the pre-webinar knowledge level, there were significant improvements in participants’ research knowledge acquisition after the webinar in terms of the total score for the quiz (13.7±4.31 vs. 21.5±4.7), as well as the scores for the study design (7.12±2.37 vs. 11.5±2.69) and SR/MA sessions (6.63±2.63 vs. 9.93±2.49) (p<0.001 for each).
Conclusions
Clinical and non-clinical andrology webinar attendees recognized the importance of research and exhibited a range of research skills, knowledge and experience. There were significant improvements in the participants’ knowledge and understanding of the components of scientific research. We propose an RCB model that can be implemented and further modeled by organizations with similar academic research goals.

Keyword

Andrology; Capacity building; Research activities; Scholarly publishing; Surveys and questionnaires; Workforce