We're just reviewing, you know, it was a series of seven hands-on workshops. We explored this project. We wanted to call it a scholarly work and walk through it. We eventually want to walk completely through it until we come to the completion of an IRB submission. And from an IRB submission, hopefully to an abstract, a poster, and a manuscript. That's where we're headed. The scholar session is going to get us to IRB, and if we need an IRB submission. And after that, we'll have individual sessions to go. So what do we do? Well, you know, the first step, we did the fun step, remember the whoopee cushions and all that. So we had some fun understanding, demystifying scholarly work. And the other sessions, we worked on your hypothesis. We helped you develop that, and we looked at that statement, not a question. We developed a introduction, and then from that three-line introduction, and then we developed three specific aims that this is how you're going to do your research. This is how you're going to proceed to prove or disprove your hypothesis. We went on to talk about your preliminary data, and that's some of your research and things that you've looked through on your report. We then took your specific aims and expanded those three specific aims into your material methods. And once you went through your material methods and we clinched that down, the last thing we're going to do today is work on a conclusion. So this should be relatively easy and a relatively simple night. Once we get that conclusion done, our next session, at the sixth session, we're going to bring someone in to speak to you about how, where to go, how do we do it, where are the websites, and introduce you to that. Then the seventh episode will be individual sessions, where I'll meet with you, with one of my fellows, and we will cut and paste and put things together so you have a submission, and there you go. We'll have it out. Then after that, we'll have sort of a bonus sessions, Mike and I calling them bonus sessions, where if you have questions, we'll meet with you personally and work it through. So at the end of the day, this will be out. So far from this, we have one IRB submission approved for asthma in a community-centered health center. And then we have another IRB approval for alpha-1 antitrypsin levels in patients with common variable immunodeficiency. So we're moving forward. Things are going really well. Anybody here change your hypothesis? Is your hypothesis about the same, still the same? Still the same, good. Of course, the reason why we would change our hypothesis is if we dug through and did preliminary data and found that, okay, maybe it could be a little bit better. Maybe we need to schmooze this a little bit to make it fit the literature so that our data, when we take our data and we come up with our stuff, that it actually fits a place in the literature and worthy of publication. So the last time we asked homework, and one piece of the homework was to put it all in one document. Why this is important? Because we did a lot of stuff. You can see a lot of people writing handwriting to put it on one document to organize it so that it can be read as one running thought and that you could see how it's moving. Now the pattern is it's a grant. It's essentially writing a grant. But writing through a grant really gives you the idea how your work's proceeding. And then once you get through that grant, you'll find that taking parts and pieces right out of that document and putting it onto the IRB application is simple. And the movement's pretty simple after that. We also asked you to do a little bit about conclusion. We'll talk about that today and help you write through that. Then again, the last scholar session will be individual groups. Pauline will schedule those. We have a whole week planned to bring you in. Go over it so that we are successful in completion. That becomes action. I want to remind you, if you haven't done your CITI training, please do your CITI training. Especially if you are consenting people, you need to have the CITI done. If you're the person doing consent, you should have the CITI done. But in any case, you should have the CITI done. So far, what we should have, which you should have available or which you've done already, is the introduction. And that's that short three-line sentence. Very specifically done, a little bit general statement, a middle statement, and then meet your hypothesis. And we should have your hypothesis. So it's a single sentence, a single statement, not a question. And then specific aims. You should have that done where you have three specific aims, a little paragraph with each specific aims telling you, okay, we're telling the reader, this is in general how I'll be completing this and proving my hypothesis. You should have a preliminary data. So that's your work, somebody else's work, or other things that you've observed to put the case together. That's a little bit. And then we should have material methods. And again, that's an expansion of your specific aims. Now, so the final component today is the conclusion. And we're going to review your stuff. I'm going to come walking around in a minute, and I'm just going to look at your individual stuff to see where we're at. And then we'll talk more about the conclusion. So let's review your stuff. You want to go ahead and read that hypothesis for me? The implementation of an annual research symposium at our training site has increased subsequent scholarly activity in podiatric participants. Okay, now your introduction, give me that. Number one, we got scholarly activity is a requirement of all CPME training programs. Number two, the literature suggests that educational initiatives to promote scholarly activity in other health care disciplines have been successful. Number three is I believe that podiatric residents participating in an annual research symposium will lead to a more successful academic career. Okay, the paragraph on these two things that are there. And then that'll be sort of your preliminary data saying, okay, this is some things here, there's some things here, but in the end, there's really nothing. Yeah, there's really nothing, but I want you to write that as preliminary data. Subject identifiers will be removed when exported from the secure database from statistical analysis. That's excellent. Study design. Go ahead. This is a retrospective study involving a patient ages 18 to 65 at a UH regional hospital. Great work so far. Everybody's got a good handle on this. It looks really good. So what I'd like to do is to start moving on a component of the conclusion. So with the conclusion, you know, this is patent, of course, and, you know, what I like to tell people is that, you know, throughout your whole process, you need to hold them by the nose and kick them in the ass. And you need to, in other words, you have to tell them, tell them again, tell them what you just told them, and make sure they know what you told them. So throughout this whole thing, you have to really go through every step and try to remind It sounds very simple, but it's a very necessary fact for a small piece of paper that needs to have a lot of impact and information and be convincing. So let's talk about the conclusions. This is the last part. If we got this all, we're really moving to sort of move on to submission. So it's really good. So it's similar to your introduction. It's about a paragraph or two, maybe a little longer. You make a one-sentence general statement. For example, that might be the same general statement you had in your introduction, your first line, but maybe just a little bit different. Maybe just a little bit. You don't want to repeat. You don't want to have it all the same. You just make it very similar. Your second sentence, you got to review your preliminary data, very quickly saying, hey, there's nothing out there that shows us anything that I'm hypothesizing or what I'm exploring. The third sentence might be your hypothesis. You repeat your hypothesis. Your fourth sentence, how you're going to do it, nail out your specific aims. And then fifth sentence, wrap it up. It can be anything. You can have less sentences, but you try to get the point that you're sort of reviewing your entire grant or your entire document in this little paragraph that gives them the final clue. So it's like when you get a referral, or you send out a referral, and you get a consult letter back, and how you kind of go through everything else they do. And you go down and say, and here's my summary, or here's what I want you to do. That sometimes is what they're looking for. They want that singular conclusion. We'll have Priya come up here and read a sample conclusion. Asthma is a costly and debilitating burden upon the American health care system. Several studies have shown the utility of oral corticosteroids and or inhaled corticosteroids upon discharge from a tertiary care center's ERs outside the United States to decrease asthma readmission rates. There have been no studies showing comparable rates of readmission in the United States community-based hospitals. We therefore prophesize that inhaled corticosteroids and oral corticosteroids combination therapy upon discharge from a United States community-based hospital would demonstrate similar readmission rates to tertiary care centers outside of the United States. Thank you, Priya. You see what she did? How she did it? She said, she actually gave you that one sentence general, you know, and then she actually went into, you know, here's a little bit about preliminary data. There's really no data out there that does this. And then she kind of concluded with the hypothesis. You can end that way. So, very short summary statement, you know, here's the problem. Here's some general information. Here is the data that's out there that really doesn't satisfy the question. Here's our hypothesis, and that's how we ended up. So, very straight and simple. Now, you have a conclusion? Can you bring that up? The results of the study should correspond with the initial hypothesis of 13 graduates who participated in research or scholarly activity. The scholars will have a more productive career in academic medicine. Previous studies conducted in other specialties in medicine have proven that residents who engage in scholarly activity are two to four times more likely to have a career in academic medicine or become faculty at a medical college. There are no studies in the field of podiatry that currently support this information. This study is landmark and should be considered the gold standard for scholarly activity in the field of podiatry. Podiatry, like other specialties, requires a very demanding residency schedule. However, during this residency, scholarly activity can advance the career of residents to academic medicine, faculty positions, teaching hospitals, and more advanced privileges at medical facilities. Very good. So, what I'd add is make sure we restate your hypothesis. We hypothesize. Restate your hypothesis so that at the very end or somewhere before that last line, a very well done. Very good. Thank you. All right. So, what I'm going to do is come around. I'm going to take a look and help you out a little bit more. Part of the kind of specifics, especially, you know, like population inclusion and exclusion criteria really doesn't apply to us. Right. Since we're using mannequins. Same with obtaining consent and protecting confidentiality. So I think that's easy enough to handle as far as study design, I think we have some of that. So the whole process is you're looking at doing a mannequin study? Right. No humans? Correct. Good. So what you're doing now, this is wonderful for a grant. This should be your writing it to LECOM for a LECOM grant. So what you've got right now in front of you is a great document. You have all this, and again, it's a grant document. We'll be expanding on this little by little, and we'll be cut and paste into an IRB, and then it'll be sent to IRB. There'll be some waiting time, and then once that's approved, then you can really start on your work. And then that's where it really becomes fun. That's the fun part, collecting the data, analyzing the data, moving through, and then hoping to shoot for an abstract that you can submit to a meeting, and then development. Hopefully they'll ask you to do a poster, developing of that poster, and then hopefully while you're developing a poster, you're also moving to write your paper, and we'll help you with that too because that's probably scholar three. We'll do that at another point, taking your work, moving it to an abstract, then moving it to a poster, and moving to a manuscript. So that'll be another session that we'll be able to walk you through, and that's exactly how all that works. So that being said, what I'd like you to do, this is your homework, and a little earlier because we can still work a little bit after that, but I want you to continue doing what you're doing. Again, place everything you have in one document. So if you have a champion, get that champion to get on the computer, start typing this up, and then rework the document. Rework any chance you have. Put it away for a day or two. Pick and pull it out. Reread it. Look at it. Make sure it's working, that it sounds like we want it to sound, that you're telling them what you told them. Tell them again, and tell them what you just told them. Make sure they know what you told them, and just walk right through that, and then we'll rework the document. We're almost there, guys. You're almost there. I mean, it really looks good. You're moving in the right direction. Now we just need to sort of schmooze it a little bit, pat it on the back, kick it in the butt, put it into the IRB. All right? Thank you.

scholarly research

IRB submissions

workshops

publishable work

research process