Evaluation of the capacity of Pediatricians in Nigeria to conduct of research: A nationwide Survey.

Ughasoro, M. D.; Jalo, I.; Okolo, A. N.; Adejiyugbe, E.; Murktah, M.; Omogbarare, A.; Onankpa, B.; Ibeziako, N. S.; Ubesie, A.; Nwaneri, D.; Ezechukwu, C.; Oguche, S.; Paediatric Association of Nigeria Research Committee,

doi:10.1101/348128

bioRxiv · 10.1101/348128

Evaluation of the capacity of Pediatricians in Nigeria to conduct of research: A nationwide Survey.

Ughasoro, M. D.·Jalo, I.·Okolo, A. N.·Adejiyugbe, E.·Murktah, M.·Omogbarare, A.·Onankpa, B.·Ibeziako, N. S.·Ubesie, A.·Nwaneri, D.·Ezechukwu, C.·Oguche, S.·Paediatric Association of Nigeria Research Committee,

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BackgroundQuality health care service delivery to children and adolescents is enhanced by continuous research into the health challenges of this subpopulation led by paediatricians with tremendous capacity to investigate and proffer solutions to the myriads of childhood illnesses. Understanding the health issues therefore is the foundation for implementation of viable interventions that assure optimum service delivery. In view of this background, the Paediatric Association of Nigeria (PAN) directed that research into childrens health challenges in Nigeria should be brought to the front burner in the country. Pursuant to this laudable goal this study was conceived to evaluate the research capacity and capability of paediatricians in Nigeria and the institutions they represent. In view of above needs, this study aimed at evaluating the research capacities and challenges among paediatricians.\n\nMethodsThe survey used a cross-sectional nationwide design to enroll paediatricians into the study. The study was a combination of both online and face-to-face survey using questionnaire developed from Research Capacity Assessment Framework. Information on previous research work, challenges encountered, existing capacity and utilization of research outcome were obtained. The SPSS version 20 was used for data entry and analysis. For qualitative variables, similar responses were grouped under thematic heading.\n\nResultsThe response rates for online (via email survey, group-administered in a conference and individual face-to-face (at workshops) were 32 (3.2%), 75 (13.6%) and 15 (60%) respectively. The majority, 87(85.5%) of the participants had conducted prevalence studies, compared to 9 (8.8%) that had done experimental studies. Those who have ever received grant funding for their studies were 21 (19.4%), while the proportion whose research outcome had informed policy update and practice were policy 20 (18.2%). More than 55% of the participants had challenges on some of the seven aspects of research: research topic, proposal, funding, fieldwork, analysis, utilizing findings and collaboration. Less than 40% of the participants had received training on some of the tested 14 research capacity areas except for the area of ethics where 78 (70.9%) reported having received training. For 51 (46.4%) this ethics training included the Good Clinical Practice Guidelines.\n\nConclusionNigerian Academic Paediatricians need to be stimulated to develop interest in research by building their presently low research capacity if future paediatric practice is to be driven significantly by evidence.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and education Preprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Ughasoro, M. D., Jalo, I., Okolo, A. N., Adejiyugbe, E., Murktah, M., Omogbarare, A., Onankpa, B., Ibeziako, N. S., Ubesie, A., Nwaneri, D., Ezechukwu, C., Oguche, S., Paediatric Association of Nigeria Research Committee,. 2018-06-15. Evaluation of the capacity of Pediatricians in Nigeria to conduct of research: A nationwide Survey.. https://doi.org/10.1101/348128

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2026

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2026

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗