How to promote the sharing of RWS data in China's second-tier cities?

Abstract

e18719 Background: Real world studies(RWS) measure the actual effects of treatment, not the efficacy in trials, making conclusions from real world studies more extrapolative. Clinical SCI papers are primarily based on the exploration of real-world clinical practice. We investigated the status of SCI papers published by 500 front-line clinicians, hoping to find some effective ways to promote the sharing of clinical research results in the real world. Methods: From December 2021 to January 2022, 500 front-line clinicians in 26 cities completed a 20-question online survey. Results: All of respondents were attending physicians in second-tier cities, and 7% of respondents were Bachelors, 61.8% were Masters and 31.2% were Doctors. The survey indicated surprising 83.1% of the respondents had no experience in SCI paper publication. Those(56.0%) had trouble getting paper published. Among all the respondents, 29.6% did not know the grade and submission requirements of SCI journals, 27.1% have no idea how to operate it, 24.9% had insufficient knowledge of medical statistics, 7.8% were not clear about the research design requirements for papers submitted to SCI journals. The major reasons(88.2%) for the above situation was no opportunity to receive professional systematic training. In terms of expecting help, 63.2% of patients expected to receive systematic lectures from the SCI editorial board，and 25.1% expected their peers to share their experiences in turning RWS data to paper. Conclusions: The survey indicated the ability improvement of paper publication was helpful to promote the sharing of clinical research results in the real world, and further benefit more patients.