Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/741488

Healthcare professionals and students awareness of Chagas disease: design and validation of ChaLKS (Chagas Level of Knowledge Scale)

Navarro, M.·Ramos-Rincon, J. M.·Mira-Solves, J. J.·Ramos-Sesma, V.·Torrus-Tendero, D.·Llenas-Garcia, J.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BackgroundThere are few studies evaluating awareness of Chagas disease among healthcare professionals attending migrants from Latin America or working in Chagas-endemic areas. The objective of this study was to design and validate instruments for assessing knowledge about Chagas disease among healthcare students and residents as well as students and professionals of social and other health science disciplines.\n\nPrincipal findingsTwo validated scales were obtained: the 10-item Chagas Level of Knowledge Scale for healthcare professionals (ChaLKS-Medical) and the 8-item ChaLKS-Social&Health for potential aid workers from those fields. Both scales were considered adequate in terms of readability, internal consistency, construct validity and discriminant validity.\n\nThe mean number of correct answers on the ChaLKS-Medical among respondents from non-healthcare versus healthcare sectors was 1.80 (standard deviation [SD] 2.55) versus 7.00 (SD 2.32) (p<0.001). The scores on the ChaLKS-Social&Health also discriminated between the knowledge levels in these two groups (1.76 [SD 2.47] versus 6.78 [SD 1.55], p<0.001). Knowledge among medical/pharmacy students and residents on the ChaLKS-Medical was acceptable (mean 5.8 [SD 2.1] and 7.4 [SD 2.2], respectively; p<0.001). Respondents knowledge on Chagas disease was greater in those who had previously received information on the disease; this was true in both respondents from the healthcare sector (mean correct answers, ChaLKS-Medical: 7.2 [SD 2.1] versus 4.3 [2.6], p<0.001) and in potential aid workers (mean correct answers, ChaLKS-Social&Health: 5.1 [SD 2.5] versus 1.1 [SD 1.9], p=0.001).\n\nConclusionsThe metric properties of both scales are adequate for their use in supporting aid operations in Chagas-endemic countries or in providing health and social care to migrant populations in non-endemic countries. The results of these scales also provide orientation regarding the knowledge gaps to be filled in future health professionals training programs.\n\nAuthor summaryChagas disease is endemic to much of Latin America, but it is still largely unrecognized in Europe, in part because of the lack of professional training in tropical medicine and global health among healthcare professionals. Few studies have evaluated awareness of Chagas disease among healthcare professionals and medical students, and to our knowledge none have done so in aid workers or volunteers working with Latin American populations. The aim of our study was to design and validate instruments for assessing knowledge about Chagas disease among healthcare students and professionals as well as potential aid workers. Two validated scales were obtained: the Chagas Level of Knowledge Scale for healthcare professionals (ChaLKS-Medical) and the ChaLKS-Social&Health for potential aid workers in social and other health fields. The two scales could be especially useful to reinforce training on Chagas disease among medical students and health and social aid workers working in Chagas-endemic regions or with migrants from those countries, regardless of whether their mission is related to Chagas or not. Moreover, this could reinforce the cross-cutting nature of programs in areas endemic to Chagas and other neglected tropical diseases.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Navarro, M., Ramos-Rincon, J. M., Mira-Solves, J. J., Ramos-Sesma, V., Torrus-Tendero, D., Llenas-Garcia, J.. 2019-08-20. Healthcare professionals and students awareness of Chagas disease: design and validation of ChaLKS (Chagas Level of Knowledge Scale). https://doi.org/10.1101/741488

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↗