mfom protocol review

41
March, 2012 FOM assessors 1 MFOM protocol review Katherine Venables Chief Examiner (Research Methods) Faculty of Occupational Medicine

Upload: others

Post on 26-Apr-2022

4 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: MFOM protocol review

March, 2012 FOM assessors 1

MFOM protocol review

Katherine Venables

Chief Examiner

(Research Methods)

Faculty of Occupational Medicine

Page 2: MFOM protocol review

Processes

March, 2012 FOM assessors 2

Page 3: MFOM protocol review

March, 2012 FOM assessors 3

Dissertations: process reminder

• Supervisor =educational supervisor, or other(s)

• Protocol and Form M2 (standard dissertations)

• FOM obtains two independent advisory reviews – Rapid feedback; formative, not summative

• Final submission and Form M3

• FOM obtains a joint assessment by two assessors – Accept

– Minor revisions

– Major revisions & reassessment

– Reject

• In difficult cases – Additional assessors, vivas

– Appeals process

Page 4: MFOM protocol review

March, 2012 FOM assessors 4

Supervision checklist for

standard dissertations • Educational supervisor

• Project supervisor (if different)

• Any contributors to the project (eg statistician, hygienist, data manager, technician, other)

• Confirmation of adequate resources for project (by educational supervisor’s signature) – Library and library support

– Data management/IT support

– Statistical support

– Other technical support

– Assistance in obtaining ethical approval

– Other permissions (eg to use a database, mail a questionnaires, access data etc)

– Training necessary for the candidate to complete the project

– Any necessary project expenses (eg mailing)

– Any other resources needed to complete the project

Page 5: MFOM protocol review

March, 2012 FOM assessors 5

Preparations in year 1 • Read FOM web links

• Choose general topic

• Begin literature review and reference management

• Agree academic supervision: by educational supervisor, MSc supervisor, other academic supervisor

• What additional advice or collaboration is needed? (eg statistical advice, occupational hygiene)

• Consider attending relevant course(s)

• Refine topic and specific objectives of research during discussions with supervisor

• Submit for ethics approval, if required

• Obtain other permission(s) required (eg to use data or facilities belonging to employer)

• Agree outline timetable with educational supervisor

• Apply for any funding or resources needed

Page 6: MFOM protocol review

March, 2012 FOM assessors 6

Protocols for standard dissertations

• 1,000 words limit

• Aims

• Background (context, justification)

• Study design

• Methods for data collection

• Outline of statistical methods (if any), including any power calculations

• Ethical issues (if any)

• Resources required (eg access to data, training, advice, collaboration, consumables, travel)

• Likely areas of policy or practice where work will lead to recommendations

Page 7: MFOM protocol review

March, 2012 FOM assessors 7

Protocol review proforma

• Scope

• Relevance

• Question

• Study design

• Methods of data collection

• Presentation of results and approaches to statistical analysis

• Ethical issues

• Permissions and resources

• Feasibility

• Major revisions

• Resources

• Other suggestions

Page 8: MFOM protocol review

What is the question?

March, 2012 FOM assessors 8

Page 9: MFOM protocol review

What is the question?

• Engage the trainee’s imagination

• Relevant to the training organisation

• Is the “question” a question, or a design/

method? eg:

– “Study how the pass-rate of (a test of a work

competency) changes with age”

– Should older workers’ competency be

assessed more frequently than that of young

workers? Competency to do what task, and

to prevent what adverse outcome?

March, 2012 FOM assessors 9

Page 10: MFOM protocol review

FOM assessors March, 2012 10

Page 11: MFOM protocol review

How will you set about

answering the question?

March, 2012 FOM assessors 11

Page 12: MFOM protocol review

Ways of answering questions • Literature review ± meta-analysis

• Observational study

– Survey of current practice and expert opinion

– Epidemiological study

• Longitudinal

• Cross-sectional

• Case-control

– Qualitative study

• Intervention/evaluation study ± economic

evaluation

– Experimental

– Non-experimental

• Clinical audit March, 2012 FOM assessors 12

Page 13: MFOM protocol review

Should older workers’ competency be assessed

more frequently than that of young workers?

Examples

• Intervene (ie assess them more frequently) and evaluate

the outcome

• Literature review ± theoretical simulations

• Follow-up of a work cohort as it ages

• Survey of variation by age in current workforce

• Comparison of age distribution in cases of competency

“failure” and controls

• Survey of SOM members

• Qualitative interviews eg of managers, experts, workers

March, 2012 FOM assessors 13

Page 14: MFOM protocol review

How will you cover the basic

FOM research competencies?

Which competencies will your

dissertation cover?

March, 2012 FOM assessors 14

Page 15: MFOM protocol review

Basic experimental design

Study

group

Treatment

group

Untreated

group

(controls)

Double-blind follow-up & observations

Ra

nd

om

allo

ca

tio

n

Co

mp

ari

so

n +

te

st

March, 2012 FOM assessors 15

Page 16: MFOM protocol review

Strengths of experimental design

• Random allocation into sub-groups

• Inclusion of untreated control subjects

• Double-blind observation

March, 2012 FOM assessors 16

Page 17: MFOM protocol review

Basic longitudinal design

Target

population

Exposed

group

Comparison

group

Selection & survival

Se

lectio

n &

su

rviv

al

Co

mp

ari

so

n +

te

st

March, 2012 FOM assessors 17

Page 18: MFOM protocol review

Basic epidemiological design

Target

population

Exposed

group

Comparison

group

Selection & survival

Se

lectio

n &

su

rviv

al

Co

mp

ari

so

n +

te

st

X-section March, 2012 FOM assessors 18

Page 19: MFOM protocol review

Selection and survival

• Selection into a job

– Workplace factors

– Worker factors

• “Survival” in a job

– Workplace factors

– Worker factors

• Selection into a study

– Availability of records

– Participation

• organisations

• Individuals

– Selection criteria

• inclusion

• exclusion

March, 2012 FOM assessors 19

Page 20: MFOM protocol review

FOM assessors

Longitudinal and case-control

designs

Exposed

group

Unexposed

comparison

group

Cases

Non-cases

Cases

Non-cases

Case Non-

case

Exp+ a b

Exp- c d

March, 2012 20

Page 21: MFOM protocol review

FOM assessors

Longitudinal vs case-control design

• Longitudinal – how common is the disease

of interest amongst the exposed, relative

to unexposed?

• Case-control – how common is the

exposure amongst cases with disease,

relative to non-cases?

March, 2012 21

Page 22: MFOM protocol review

What do you know about

your topic?

March, 2012 FOM assessors 22

Page 23: MFOM protocol review

Is there an accepted

study design or method?

• http://osh.cochrane.org/

• http://www.bmj.com/

– eg How to read a paper

– eg Clinical management

guidelines

• http://www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk/

• http://www.nice.org.uk/

• www.mrc.ac.uk/complexinter

ventionsguidance

March, 2012 FOM assessors 23

Page 24: MFOM protocol review

Networking for niche topics

• FOM database of MFOM abstracts

• Special interest groups

– eg ANHOPs

– eg ALAMA

• Industry/employer groups

• SOM, FOM, RSM meetings

March, 2012 FOM assessors 24

Page 25: MFOM protocol review

What data will you collect?

March, 2012 FOM assessors 25

Page 26: MFOM protocol review

FOM assessors

Types of variable

• Determinant

– eg exposure, OH intervention

• Outcome

– eg disease, sickness absence

• Modifying variables, including confounders

– eg age, sex, smoking

March, 2012 26

Page 27: MFOM protocol review

FOM assessors

Measurement of variables

• Time relations?

• Natural format/scale of the variable

• Definitions

– Concrete, unambiguous

• Independent data collection

• Information quality

– Valid, repeatable

• Procedures

– Acceptable, safe, practicable

March, 2012 27

Page 28: MFOM protocol review

MSc Radiation Biology 16.11.09

Occupational exposure indices

• Body burden eg kidney cadmium

• Measured personal exposure eg radiation film badges

• Area measurements eg asbestos fibre counts

• Modelled/estimated exposure

• Job-exposure matrices

• Ordinal scales of exposure

• Categories eg job titles

• Duration of job

• Ever/never worked in industry

Page 29: MFOM protocol review

FOM assessors

Validity and repeatability of chosen index

March, 2012 29

Page 30: MFOM protocol review

FOM assessors

Validity and repeatability of

chosen index

• Validity: does the index measure what it is

supposed to measure?

– eg criterion validity – compared with the “gold

standard”

– eg consensus validity

• Repeatability: does it give similar findings

on different occasions?

March, 2012 30

Page 31: MFOM protocol review

FOM assessors

X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X X X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

March, 2012 31

Page 32: MFOM protocol review

FOM assessors

Minimising unwanted variation

• Subject

– Design study to minimise sources of variation eg do tests at same time of day

• Instrument

– Same instrument, calibration, adjustment

– Use average of repeated tests

• Observer

– Eliminate where possible, simple instructions, training

March, 2012 32

Page 33: MFOM protocol review

Planning and organisation?

March, 2012 FOM assessors 33

Page 34: MFOM protocol review

Speculate about the likely

study findings

• Implications of range of likely findings

• Skeleton tables and figures

• Headings & sub-headings (IMRAD)

– What did I do?

– How did I do it?

– What does it mean?

March, 2012 FOM assessors 34

Page 35: MFOM protocol review

It is never too early to think

about document presentation

• Word limit – 10,000 words

• Referencing software

• Indexing

• Pagination

• Appearance of tables and figures

• Photographs

• English style, grammar, spelling

March, 2012 FOM assessors 35

Page 36: MFOM protocol review

March, 2012 FOM assessors 36

Timetabling

• Preparations

• Outline protocol FOM

• Data collection and analysis

• Drafting

• Final drafting

• Assessment by FOM

• Revision, resubmission

Page 37: MFOM protocol review

FOM assessors 37

Page 38: MFOM protocol review

Reserve slides

March, 2012 FOM assessors 38

Page 39: MFOM protocol review

March, 2012 FOM assessors 39

FOM research competencies:

knowledge Be able to understand:

• How to design a research study.

• How to use appropriate statistical methods.

• The principles of research ethics.

• How to write a scientific paper.

• Sources of research funding.

• The principles and application of epidemiological methods in research and in problem solving

• The application of medical statistics and the interpretation of statistical analysis methods in scientific research.

• Computer based systems for data collection and analysis.

• Ethical considerations in research.

Page 40: MFOM protocol review

March, 2012 FOM assessors 40

FOM research competencies: skills • Be able to define a problem in terms of needs for an evidence base.

• Be able to undertake systematic literature search.

• Be able to undertake a systematic and critical appraisal and review of scientific literature.

• Be able to produce an evidence based digest of the literature.

• Be able to frame questions to be answered by a research project.

• Be able to develop protocols and methods for research.

• Be able to execute an appropriate study design.

• Plan data collection for simple surveys including sample selection and methods of recording and storing data.

• Be able to use databases.

• Be able to accurately analyse data statistically.

• Have good written and verbal presentation skills.

• Present investigation and results in the format of a research based report.

• Be able to write a scientific paper for peer-reviewed publication.

Page 41: MFOM protocol review

March, 2012 FOM assessors 41

FOM research competencies:

attitudes • Demonstrate curiosity and a critical spirit of enquiry, and

where appropriate a critical attitude towards current practice.

• Acceptance of the need for critical review and for research so as to found a solid base for good practice.

• Ensure patient confidentiality.

• Demonstrate knowledge of the importance of ethical approval and patient consent for clinical research.

• Respect individual confidentiality when presenting data.

• Disposition to cooperation and liaison with statisticians and other research colleagues.