• Multidisciplinary
  • Basic course in Biomedical Research (Video) 
  • Co-ordinated by : IIT Madras
  • Available from : 2019-08-01
  • Introduction to health research
  • Formulating research question
  • Literature review
  • Measures of disease frequency
  • Descriptive study designs
  • Analytical study designs
  • Experimental study designs: Clinical trials
  • Validity of epidemiological studies
  • Qualitative research methods: An overview
  • Measurement of study variables
  • Sampling methods
  • Calculating sample size and power
  • Selection of study population
  • Study plan and project management
  • Designing data collection tools
  • Principles of data collection
  • Data management
  • Overview of data analysis
  • Ethical framework for health research
  • Conducting clinical trials
  • Preparing a concept paper for research projects
  • Elements of a protocol for research studies
  • Publication Ethics
  • Watch on YouTube
  • Assignments
  • Transcripts

Forget Password?

Don't have an account! Register Now

Qworld

  • Flash Cards
  • Medical Comics

Basic course in Biomedical Research Question bank

  • USMLE Step 1 Microbiology Question Bank
  • FRCPath Medical Microbiology part 1 MCQ bank
  • Dermatology NEET PG Question Bank
  • Anaesthesia NEET PG Question Bank
  • Ophthalmology NEET PG Question Bank
  • Radiology NEET PG Question Bank
  • Surgery NEET PG Question Bank
  • Medicine NEET PG Question Bank
  • Forensic Medicine NEET PG Question Bank
  • FRCPath Medical Microbiology Flash Cards

Books/Notes

Acute rheumatic fever medical comic book.

  • Intestinal Nematodes: Parasitology Medical Comic Book
  • Trematodes: parasitology medical comic book
  • Cestode: Parasitology comic book
  • Malaria: Parasitology Medical Comic Book
  • Amoebae: Parasitology Medical Comic Book
  • Parasitology Basics Medical Comic Book
  • Clostridium perfringenes medical comic book
  • Cholera Medical Comic book

Case Based Medical Microbiology

Product details.

  • Product Detail

Basic course in Biomedical Research Question bank

  •    1300

Q Bank Product

For 180 days

Description : It is an online question bank which covers Multiple choice questions (MCQs) in exam mode and practi....

  • Description
  • Reviews (1)

Product Description

It is an online question bank which covers Multiple choice questions (MCQs) in exam mode and practice mode for the final exam of the Basic course in Biomedical Research. Detailed Features of the question Bank: • Updated latest pattern MCQs: Practicing with the latest pattern of questions is critical for success in the exams. We constantly add and update MCQs as per latest examination patterns to make sure that you have an extra edge in exams. • 2 Modes in Each MCQ Bank : Exam mode and Practice mode o Exam mode: Our Simulator gives you real exam like environment and test pattern. Exam mode challenges you to perform as per standard PGMEE pattern in the subject. o Practice Mode: Solve MCQs as opposed to Reading them. Real exam is a computer-based exam, practicing MCQs is critical. This helps improve your educated guess, thereby helping you tackle unsure questions better, especially when negative marking is involved. You can create customized unlimited multiple Practice Tests under various subjects with one or more chapters combination. Practice mode allows you to practice MCQ one by one with immediate answer explanation and option statistics. • User friendly navigation: Qworld gives you unique aesthetic and revolutionary user interface experience in each MCQ bank. User interface has digital clock, Question navigation menu, flagging facility of question to attempt later on. • Take Notes while practicing MCQ: You can type your notes while practicing MCQs. These notes are arranged automatically topic wise in each subject. You can access these notes anytime from your dashboard. • MCQs option statistics: Review the answer and know how many students have opted each option. Beat even the toughest distractors. • Review the test: The user can self analyze performance in a particular test as explanations are also provided along with the correct answers and references. You can also know in which examination this questions was appeared previously. • Qworld’s revolutionary online MCQ Banks result analysis software gives you In depth insight of your performance in real time with 10 different kind of reports. Analytics and comparative performance analysis helps in estimating preparation levels. It also enables students track their completion account of various subjects and topics. o Question report: Know how many questions are attempted, unattempted, correct and incorrect o Marks report: Know your score as per recent examination pattern including negative marking o Exam Time report: know how much time you took compared to other students nationwide. o Exam Strong and weak area subject Report: Know in which subject you performed well and in which one needs more preparation by percentage statistics of one test. o Exam Strong and Weak Chapters report: Know which chapters or topics you have learned very well and which one needs more focus by percentage statistics of one test. o Comprehensive Strong and weak area subject Report: Dynamic reports generated from all of your tests attempts to give you insight about weak and strong subjects. o Comprehensive Strong and Weak Chapters report: Dynamic reports generated from all of your tests attempts and let you know about chapters to focus on o Weak Area Focus report: It also generates a dynamic list of weak areas from all test attempts. You can take a print of it, so that you can focus on those areas more while studying. o Comprehensive Performance report: The Performance Dashboard provides more detailed data that will enable you to benchmark yourself against your peers and see your performance across the full range of MCQ banks . • Use MCQ banks on any device (mobile, laptop, PC, tablet) anywhere anytime as per your convenience. About the Basic course in Biomedical Research: In order to improve the research skills of Indian medical postgraduate (PG) students and teachers in medical institutions, the Board of Governors (BoG) in supersession of Medical Council of India (MCI) has recommended a uniform research methodology course across the country. The online course, “Basic Course in Biomedical Research”, is offered by ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology (ICMR-NIE), Chennai. Covers multiple choice questions from following chapters of the course: 1 Introduction to health research 2 Formulating research question, hypothesis and objectives 3 Literature review 4 Measures of disease frequency 5 Descriptive study designs 6 Analytical study designs 7 Experimental study designs 8 Validity of epidemiological studies 9 Qualitative research methods: An overview 10 Measurement of study variables 11 Sampling methods 12 Calculating sample size and power 13 Selection of study population 14 Study plan and project management 15 Designing data collection tools 16 Principles of data collection 17 Data management 18 Overview of data analysis 19 Ethical framework for health research 20 Conducting clinical trials 21 Preparing a concept paper for research projects 22 Elements of a protocol for research studies 23 Publication ethics

Biomedical research

500 Most Common List for NEET-PG   Ad

basic course in biomedical research question paper

Featured Products    View All

NEET PG Question Bank

NEET PG Question Bank

Acute Rheumatic Fever Medical Comic Book

Short Answer Questions (SAQs) Pharmacology

Case Based Medical Microbiology

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Research Council (US) Committee for Monitoring the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical, Behavioral, and Clinical Personnel. Advancing the Nation's Health Needs: NIH Research Training Programs. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2005.

Cover of Advancing the Nation's Health Needs

Advancing the Nation's Health Needs: NIH Research Training Programs.

  • Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

2 Basic Biomedical Sciences Research

Basic biomedical research, which addresses mechanisms that underlie the formation and function of living organisms, ranging from the study of single molecules to complex integrated functions of humans, contributes profoundly to our knowledge of how disease, trauma, or genetic defects alter normal physiological and behavioral processes. Recent advances in molecular biology techniques and characterization of the human genome, as well as the genomes of an increasing number of model organisms, have provided basic biomedical researchers with the tools to elucidate molecular-, cellular-, and systems-level processes at an unprecedented depth and rate.

Thus basic biomedical research affects clinical research and vice versa. Biomedical researchers supply many of the new ideas that can be translated into potential therapies and subsequently tested in clinical studies, while clinical researchers may suggest novel mechanisms of disease that can then be tested in basic studies using animal models.

The tools also now exist to rapidly apply insights gained from model organisms to human health and disease. For example, gene mutations known to contribute to human disease can be investigated in model organisms, whose underlying characteristics lend them to rapid assessment. Resulting treatment strategies can then be tested in mammalian species prior to the design of human clinical trials.

These and other mutually supportive systems suggest that such interactions between basic biomedical and clinical researchers not only will continue but will grow as the two domains keep expanding. But the two corresponding workforces will likely remain, for the most part, distinct.

Similarly, there is a symbiosis between basic biomedical and behavioral and social sciences research (covered in Chapter 3 ) and an obvious overlap at the interface of neuroscience, physiological psychology, and behavior. The boundary between these areas is likely to remain indistinct as genetic and environmental influences that affect brain formation and function are better understood. Consequently, such investigations will impact the study of higher cognitive functions, motivation, and other areas traditionally studied by behavioral and social scientists.

Basic biomedical research will therefore undoubtedly continue to play a central role in the discovery of novel mechanisms underlying human disease and in the elucidation of those suggested by clinical studies. As an example, although a number of genes that contribute to disorders such as Huntington's, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's disease have been identified, the development of successful therapies will require an understanding of the role that the proteins encoded by these genes play in normal cellular processes. Similarly, realizing the potential of stem cell–based therapies for a number of disorders will require characterization of the signals that cause stem cells to differentiate into specific cell types. Thus a workforce trained in basic biomedical research will be needed to apply current knowledge and that gained in the future toward the improvement of human health. Since such research will be carried out not only in academic institutions but increasingly in industry as well, the workforce must be sufficient to supply basic biomedical researchers for large pharmaceutical companies as well as smaller biotech and bioengineering firms, thereby contributing to the economy as well as human health.

The role of the independent investigator in academe, industry, and government is crucial to this research enterprise. They provide the ideas that expand knowledge and the research that leads to discovery. The doubling of the NIH budget has increased the number of research grants and the number of investigators but not at a rate commensurate to the budget increases. Grants have become bigger and senior investigators have received more of them. While this trend has not decreased the nation's research capacity, there may be things that will affect the future pool of independent researchers, such as a sufficient number of academic faculty that can apply for research grants, an industrial workforce that is more application oriented, and most important, a decline in doctorates from U.S. institutions.

  • BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH WORKFORCE

The research workforce for the biomedical sciences is broad and diverse. It is primarily composed of individuals who hold Ph.D.s, though it also includes individuals with broader educational backgrounds, such as those who have earned their M.D.s from the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) or other dual-degree programs. In addition, some individuals with M.D.s but without Ph.D.s have acquired the necessary training to do basic biomedical research. But although the analysis in this report should ideally be based on the entire workforce just defined, there are no comprehensive databases that identify the research activities of M.D.s. Therefore much of the analysis will be restricted to holders of a Ph.D. in one of the fields listed in Appendix C , with the assumption that an individual's area of research is related to his or her degree field. A separate section in this chapter is devoted to M.D.s doing biomedical research, and an analysis of the clinical research M.D. workforce is given in Chapter 4 .

It should also be noted that the discussion in this chapter does not include individuals with doctorates in other professions, such as dentistry and nursing even if they hold a Ph.D. in addition to their professional degrees. However, there are important workforce issues in these two fields, and they are addressed separately in Chapters 5 and 6 of this report.

  • EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSION

The major sources of Ph.D. researchers in the biomedical sciences are the U.S. research universities, but a substantial number also come from foreign institutions. These scientists, whether native or foreign born, enter the U.S. biomedical research workforce either directly into permanent assignments or via postdoctoral positions.

For most doctorates in the biomedical sciences, interest in the field begins at an early age, in high school or even grade school. In fact, almost all high school graduates (93 percent) in the class of 1998 took a biology course—a rate much greater than other science fields, for which the percentages are below 60 percent. 1 Even in the early 1980s, over 75 percent of high school graduates had taken biology, compared to about 30 percent for chemistry, which had the next-highest enrollment. This interest in biology continues into college, with 7.3 percent of the 2000 freshman science and engineering (S&E) population having declared a major in biology. This was an increase from about 6 percent of freshman majors in the early 1980s but less than the high of about 9.5 percent in the mid-1990s. Overall, the number of freshman biology majors increased from about 50,000 in the early 1980s to over 73,000 in 2000. 2 In terms of actual bachelor's degrees awarded in the biological sciences, there was a decrease from about 47,000 in 1980 to 37,000 in 1989 and then a relatively sharp rise to over 67,000 in 1998. This was followed by a slight decline to about 65,000 in 2000.

There is attrition, however, in the transition from undergraduate to graduate school. In the 1980s and 1990s only about 11,000 first-year students were enrolled at any one time in graduate school biology programs. Percentage-wise, this loss of students is greater than in other S&E fields but is understandable: many undergraduates obtain a bachelor's degree in biology as a precursor to medical school and have no intention of graduate study in biology per se. The total graduate enrollment in biomedical sciences at Ph.D.-granting institutions grew in the early 1990s and was steady at a little under 50,000 during the latter part of the decade. However, there was some growth in 2001, of about 4 percent over the 2000 level, and the growth from 2000 to 2002 was about 10 percent (see Figure 2-1 ), driven in large part by an 18.9 percent increase of temporary residents. The overall growth may not continue, however, as the first-year enrollment for this group slowed from 8.9 percent in 2001 to 3.0 percent in 2002.

First-year and total graduate enrollment in the biomedical sciences at Ph.D.-granting institutions, 1980–2002. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering.

The tendency for graduate students to receive a doctorate in a field similar to that of their baccalaureate degree is not as strong in the biomedical sciences as it is in other fields, where it is about 85 percent. From 1993 to 2002, some 68.4 percent of the doctorates in biomedical programs received their bachelor's degree in the same field and another 8.4 percent received bachelor's degrees in chemistry. 3 This relative tendency to shift fields should not be viewed negatively, however, as doctoral students with exposure to other disciplines at the undergraduate level could provide the opportunity for greater interdisciplinary training and research.

  • EARLY CAREER PROGRESSION IN THE BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES

Advances in biomedical research and health care delivery, together with a strong economy in the 1990s and increased R&D support, drove the growth of academic programs. Total academic R&D expenditures in the biological sciences, in 2001 dollars, began to rise dramatically in the early 1980s. They started from a base of about $3 billion and reached a plateau of almost $5 billion in the mid-1990s. As seen in Figure 2-2 , this increase of about $2 billion was virtually repeated in the much shorter period from the late 1990s to 2002, as the NIH budget doubled. Although the increases in R&D support during the earlier period were reflected in the increased graduate enrollments of the 1980s and mid-1990s (seen in Figure 2-1 ), the enrollments since then have not kept pace with fast-growing R&D expenditures. This disconnect between research funding and enrollment in the late 1990s is difficult to explain but could in part be due to the unsettled career prospects in the biomedical sciences. In a report 4 from the American Society for Cell Biology, the authors examined the data on enrollment and surveyed both undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctorates on their career goals and found that students were aware of and concerned about the problem young people were having in establishing an independent research career. This ASCB report, as well as in the National Research Council report, Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists, 5 express concern for the future of biomedical research, if the best young people pursue different career paths. This slowdown in graduate enrollment in the late 1990s might have also contributed to the expansion of the postdoctoral and non-tenure-track faculty pool of researchers, since there was an increasing need for research personnel.

Academic research and development expenditures in the biological sciences. (All dollars are in thousands.) SOURCE: National Science Foundation R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, 1973–2002. Adjusted to 2002 dollars by the Biomedical (more...)

The increase in funding and enrollments in the early 1990s did lead to an increase in doctoral degrees awarded in the late 1990s, as seen in Figure 2-3 . Since the 1970s, Ph.D.s awarded by U.S. institutions in the biomedical sciences increased from roughly 3,000 then to 5,366 in 2002. Most of the increase occurred in the mid-1990s and has since remained fairly constant. The year with the largest number of doctorates was 2000, when 5,532 degrees were awarded. The number of degrees in 2000 may be an anomaly, since the number in 2001 (5,397 Ph.D.), 2002 (5,375 Ph.D.), and 2003 (5,412 Ph.D.) are more in line with the number in the late 1990s (see Appendix Table E-1 ).

Number of doctorates in the biomedical sciences, 1970–2003. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2001.

Increases in doctorates were seen among women, temporary residents, and underrepresented minorities. Notably, since 1986 much of the increase in the number of doctorates has come from increased participation by women. In 1970 only 16 percent of doctorates were awarded to women; by 2003 the percentage had grown to 45.2. Temporary residents earned about 10 percent of the doctorates in 1970, and although this had increased to almost one-quarter in the early 2000s, it was still lower than the percentage awarded in many other fields in the physical sciences and engineering. Participation by underrepresented minorities in 2003 stood at 9.4 percent—as in many other S&E fields, substantially below their representation in the general population.

The percentage of doctorates with definite postdoctoral study plans increased from about 50 percent in the early 1970s to a high of 79 percent in 1995. It then declined to 71 percent in 2002 but increased to 75 percent in 2003. The changes in doctorates electing postdoctoral study are reflected in those choosing employment after they received their degrees (from 20 percent in 1995 to 28 percent in 2002 and 25 percent in 2003). It is difficult to find reasons for these changes in career plans. Prior to 2003 it may be the result of more diverse and attractive employment opportunities generated by recent advances in the applied biological sciences, especially in industry, or a conscious choice not to pursue an academic research career, where postdoctoral training is required since an academic position may not be available down the road. The increase in postdoctoral appointments in 2003 and the decline in employment might be due to poor economic conditions in the early part of this decade. Whether these changes will impact the quality of the biomedical workforce and its research should be monitored.

Time to degree, age at receipt of degree, and the long training period prior to reaching R01 research status have been cited as critical issues in the career progression of biomedical researchers. 6 Graduate students are taking longer and longer periods of time to earn their Ph.Ds. The median registered time in a graduate degree program gradually increased from 5.4 years in 1970 to 6.7 years in 2003, and the median age of a newly minted degree holder in the biomedical sciences grew during the same period—from 28.9 in 1970 to 30.6 in 2003 (see Appendix E ). It should be noted that this time to degree is shorter than those of such fields as physics, computer science, and the earth sciences. Only chemistry, mathematics, and engineering have a lower median age at time of degree. While shortening the time in graduate school would reduce the age at which doctorates could become independent investigators, it may not significantly affect their career paths since postdoctoral training is required of almost all researchers in the biomedical sciences, and the time spent in these positions seems to be lengthening.

With the growth of research funding and productivity in the biomedical sciences, the postdoctoral appointment has become a normal part of research training. From the 1980s to the late 1990s, the number of postdoctoral appointments doubled for doctorates from U.S. educational institutions (see Figure 2-4 ). The rapid increase in the postdoctoral pool from 1993 to 1999 in particular appears to be the result of longer training periods for individuals and not the result of an increase in the number of individuals being trained since Table E-1 shows a decline in the number of new doctorates planning postdoctoral study and the number of doctorates has remained fairly constant over recent years.

Postdoctoral appointments in the biomedical sciences by sector, 1973–2001. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients.

The lengthening of postdoctoral training is documented by data collected in 1995 on the employment history of doctorates. 7 Of the Ph.D.s who pursued postdoctoral study after graduating in the early 1970s, about 35 percent spent less than two years and about 65 percent spent more than 2 years in a postdoctoral appointment. By contrast, of Ph.D.s who received their degrees in the late 1980s and completed postdoctorates in the 1990s, 80 percent spent more than two years and 20 percent spent less than 2 years in such appointments. More indicative of the change in postdoctoral training was the increase in the proportion that spent more than 4 years in a position, from about 20 percent to nearly 40 percent.

In 2001 the number of postdoctoral appointments actually declined across all employment sectors. This decline might be the result of lower interest by new doctorates in postdoctoral study and an academic career but is probably a response to the highlighting of issues related to postdoctoral appointments, such as the long periods of training with lack of employment benefits, the general perception that the positions are more like low-paying jobs than training experiences, and the poor prospects of a follow-up position as an independent investigator. Not only is interest in postdoctoral positions declining, there appears to be more rapid movement out of them by present incumbents. (These phenomena are more fully explored in Chapter 9 , Career Progression.)

The above discussion applies only to U.S. doctorates. There are also a large number of individuals with Ph.D.s from foreign institutions being trained in postdoctoral positions in U.S. educational institutions and other employment sectors. Data from another source are available for postdoctorates from this population at academic institutions, 8 but there is no source for data in the industrial, governmental, and nonprofit sectors other than an estimate that about half of the 4,000 intramural postdoctoral appointments at NIH are held by temporary residents. Almost all of these temporary residents have foreign doctorates. The number of temporary residents in academic institutions steadily increased through the 1980s and 1990s until 2002 when the number reached 10,000 (see Figure 2-5 ). The data also show that the rate at which temporary residents took postdoctoral positions slowed in 2002. The decline in academic appointments in 2001 for U.S. citizens and permanent residents population that was described above is also seen in this data, but that might be temporary since there was an increase in 2002. The reasons for this change may be twofold: a tighter employment market for citizens and permanent residents and immigration restrictions. However, it is still important to recognize that foreign-educated researchers hold about two-thirds of the postdoctoral positions in academic institutions. If national security policies were to limit the flow of foreign scientists into the United States, this could adversely affect the research enterprise in the biomedical sciences.

Postdoctoral appointments in academic institutions in the biomedical sciences. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering.

  • A PORTRAIT OF THE WORKFORCE

The traditional career progression for biomedical scientists after graduate school includes a postdoctoral position followed by an academic appointment, either a tenure-track or nonpermanent appointment that is often on “soft” research money. As shown in Figure 2-6 , the total population of academic biomedical sciences researchers, excluding postdoctoral positions, grew at an average annual rate of 3.1 percent from 1975 to 1989. 9

Academic positions for doctorates in the biomedical sciences, 1975–2001. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients.

Since 1995, growth slowed to about 2.5 percent, with almost all of the growth in the non-tenure-track area. From 1999 to 2001 there was actually a decline in the number of non-tenure-track positions (by a few hundred). The fastest-growing employment category since the early 1980s has been “Other Academic Appointments,” which is currently increasing at about 4.9 percent annually (see Appendix E-2 ). These jobs are essentially holding positions, filled by young researchers, coming from postdoctoral experiences, who would like to join an academic faculty on a tenure track and are willing to wait. In effect, they are gambling because institutions are restricting the number of faculty appointments in order to reduce the possible long-term commitments that come with such positions. From 1993 to 2001, the number of tenure-track appointments increased by only 13.8 percent, while those for non-tenure-track faculty and other academic appointments increased by 45.1 percent and 38.9 percent, respectively.

The longer time to independent research status is also seen by looking at the age distributions of tenure-track faculty over the past two decades (see Figure 2-7 ). By comparing age cohorts in 1985 and 2001, it is observed that doctorates entered tenure-track positions at a later age in 2001.

Age distribution of biomedical tenured and tenure-track faculty, 1985, 1993, and 2001. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients.

For example, while about 1,000 doctorates in the 33 to 34 age cohort were in faculty positions in 1985, only about half that number were similarly employed in 2001, even though the number of doctorates for that cohort was greater in the late 1990s than in the early 1980s. The age cohort data also show that the academic workforce is aging, with about 20 percent of the 2001 academic workforce over the age of 58. The constraints of a rather young biomedical academic workforce and the conservative attitudes of institutions to not expand their faculties in the tight economic times of the early 1990s may have slowed the progression of young researchers into research positions. However, this may change in the next 8 to 10 years as more faculty members retire.

Meanwhile, over 40 percent of the biomedical sciences workforce is employed in nonacademic institutions (see Figure 2-8 ). Researchers' employment in industry, the largest of these other sectors, has been growing at a 15 percent rate over the past 20 years. There was a lull in employment in the early 1990s, but growth since the mid-1990s has been strong. The increases in industrial employment may be due to the unavailability of faculty positions, but is more likely fueled by the R&D growth in pharmaceutical and other medical industries from $9.3 billion in 1992 to $24.6 in 2001 (constant 2001 dollars). 10 In 1992 almost all of this funding was from nonfederal sources, but in 2001 only 42 percent was from those sources. The result of this increase in federal funding has resulted in an increase in R&D employment, but not as large as would be expected. It is difficult to estimate the increase in biomedical doctorates in this industrial sector since they are drawn from many fields and are at different degree levels, but the total full-time equivalent R&D scientists and engineers increased 6.2 percent from 38,700 in 1992 to 41,100 in 2001. 11 However, there may be a trend toward increased employment in this sector, since a growing fraction of new doctorates are planning industrial employment (see Table E-1 ). The downturn in 2003 may be an anomaly due to the economy and not the strength of the medical industry, but data from a longer time period will be needed before definite trends in industrial employment can be determined. The government and nonprofit sectors have been fairly stable in their use of biomedical scientists, with about 8 and 4 percent growth rates, respectively, in recent years.

Employment of biomedical scientists by sector, 1973–2001. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients.

The number of underrepresented minorities in the basic biomedical sciences workforce increased from 1,066 in 1975 to 5,345 in 2001 and now accounts for 5.3 percent of the research employment in the field. Even though the annual average rate of growth for minorities in the workforce has been 15 percent over the past 10 years—more than twice the growth rate of the total workforce (6.5 percent)—the overall representation of minorities in biomedical research is still a small percentage of the overall workforce (see Appendix E-2 ). Their representation is also important from the scientific perspective, since researchers from minority groups may be better able and willing to address minority health care issues.

  • PHYSICIAN-RESEARCHERS

Throughout this report Ph.D.s are considered to be researchers or potential researchers, but no such assumption is made of M.D.s because they could be practitioners. The above discussion, in particular, applies only to Ph.D.s in the fields listed in Appendix C , but it does not take into consideration physicians who are doing basic biomedical research. It is difficult to get a complete picture of this workforce because there is no database that tracks M.D.s involved in such activity, but a partial picture can be obtained from NIH files on R01 awards.

In 2001, R01 grants were awarded to 4,383 M.D.s (and to 17,505 Ph.D.s). 12 The number of R01-supported M.D. researchers has been increasing over the years (see Table 2-1 ) but has remained at about 20 percent. This means that the size of the biomedical workforce could be as much as one-fifth larger than indicated above. In fact, since NIH began to classify clinical research awards in 1996, it has become evident that both M.D.s and M.D./Ph.D.s supported by the agency are more likely to conduct nonclinical—that is, biomedical—than clinical research. Because many physician-investigators approach nonclinical research with the goal of understanding the mechanisms underlying a particular disease or disorder, their findings are likely to ultimately contribute to improvements in human health.

TABLE 2-1. Number of M.D.s and Ph.D.s with Grant Support from NIH .

Number of M.D.s and Ph.D.s with Grant Support from NIH .

Some data are available from the American Medical Association on the national supply of physicians potentially in research. In 2002 there were 15,316 medical school faculty members in basic science departments and 82,623 in clinical departments. Of those in basic science, 2,255 had M.D. degrees, 11,471 had Ph.D.s, and 1,128 had combined M.D./ Ph.D. degrees. To identify the M.D.s in basic science departments who were actually doing research, the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster was linked to NIH records; it found that 1,261 M.D.s had been supported as principal investigators (PIs) on an R01 NIH grant at some point. This number is clearly an undercount of the M.D. research population, however, given that there are forms of NIH research support other than PI status and non-NIH organizations also support biomedical research.

  • THE NATIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM AND BIOMEDICAL TRAINING SUPPORT

The National Research Service Award Program

In 1975, when the National Research Service Award (NRSA) program began, 23,968 graduate students in the basic biomedical sciences received some form of financial assistance for their studies, and about 8,000 supported their own education through loans, savings, or family funds. 13 The number of fellowships and traineeships, whether institutional or from external sources, was about 8,500 in 1975 and remained at about that level into the early 1990s, increasing only recently to 12,186 in 2002 (see Figure 2-9 ).

Mechanisms of support for full-time graduate students in the biomedical sciences, 1979–2002. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering.

In the 1970s the majority of graduate student support came from these fellowships, traineeships, and institutional teaching assistantships. The picture began to change in the early 1980s as the prevalence of research grants grew. By 2002 it represented almost 50 percent of the support for graduate study in the biomedical sciences, and NIH's funding of this mechanism grew as well. In the early 1980s, NIH research grants formed about 40 percent of the total, and by the early 1990s this fraction grew to 64 percent and has remained at about this level through 2002 (see Figure 2-10 ). Even during the years when the NIH budget doubled, there was not a shift in this balance. In fact, from 1997 to 2002 both research grant and trainee/fellowship support from NIH increased by 14 percent. NIH in its response to the 2000 assessment of the NRSA program 14 has stated that research grants and trainee/fellowship awards are not used for the control of graduate support and that it would be inappropriate to try to do so.

FIGURE 2-10

Graduate support for NIH, 1979–2002. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering.

The NRSA program now comprises the major part of NIH's fellowship and traineeship support. It began small in 1975—with 1,046 traineeships and 26 fellowships—but quickly expanded. By 1980 the number was nearly 5,000 for the traineeships; it remained at that level until 2001, though it dropped to a little over 4,000 in 2002 (see Table 2-2 ). (The drop in 2002 traineeships was probably an institutional reporting issue. Given that the total number of awards by NIH under the T32 15 mechanisms was about the same as in 2001, it is unlikely that the awards in the biomedical sciences would fall below the 2000 or 2001 levels.)

TABLE 2-2. NRSA Predoctoral Trainee and Fellowship Support in the Basic Biomedical Sciences .

NRSA Predoctoral Trainee and Fellowship Support in the Basic Biomedical Sciences .

Information on funding patterns for postdoctorates in the basic biomedical sciences is not as complete as that for graduate students since academic institutions are the only sources of data. As has been the case for graduate student support, the portion of federal funds devoted to postdoctoral training grants and fellowships has diminished since the 1970s. In 1995, 1,966 (or 45.3 percent) of the 4,343 federally funded university-based postdoctorates received their training on a fellowship or traineeship. By 2002 the number had increased to 2,670 but was still only 20.3 percent of the total federal funding. The remaining 79.7 percent (or 10,514) in 2002 were supported by federal research grants. Meanwhile, the number of postdoctoral positions, funded by nonfederal institutional sources, was fairly constant at about 25 percent and grew from 1,325 in 1975 to 4,628 in 2002.

The picture for NRSA support at the postdoctoral level for the period following introduction of the NRSA program resembled that of the graduate level. However, in 2002 there was a sharp decrease in the number of postdoctoral traineeships; but, as in the case for predoctoral trainees, this may be an institutional reporting issue (see Table 2-3 ). Since the decline from 2001 to 2002 is nearly 50 percent and the decline for predoctoral trainees was only 20 percent, there may be a real decline at the postdoctoral level. The reason for this is unclear, though factors may include the limited number of individuals who can be supported under the increased stipend levels and the general decline in the number of postdoctoral research trainees eligible for NRSA support.

TABLE 2-3. NRSA Postdoctoral Trainee and Fellowship Support in the Basic Biomedical Sciences .

NRSA Postdoctoral Trainee and Fellowship Support in the Basic Biomedical Sciences .

The shift in the pattern of federal research training support, at both the graduate and postdoctoral levels, can be traced to a number of related trends. Over the past 25 years, the number of research grants awarded by the NIH and other agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has more than doubled. 16 PIs have come to depend on graduate students and postdoctorates to carry out much of their day-to-day research work, and, as a result, the number of universities awarding Ph.D.s in the basic biomedical sciences, as well as the quantity of Ph.D.s awarded by existing programs, has grown.

Furthermore, federal funding policies have inadvertently provided universities with an incentive to appoint students and postdoctorates to research assistantships instead of training grants or fellowships. An example given in the eleventh NRSA study 17 shows that in 1999 the NIH provided almost $9,000 more to research assistants and their institutions (largely in the form of indirect cost payments to universities) than to NRSA trainees or fellows. Because the indirect cost rate for institutional training grants is generally about 7 percent compared to the 60 to 70 percent rate on research grants, it is financially advantageous for an institution to have as many research grants as possible for the support of graduate students. However, current policies at NIH have raised the NRSA predoctoral stipend levels to $19,968 and starting postdoctoral levels to $34,200. These increases might force stipends on research grants to similar levels and reduce the number of students who can be supported on research grants.

As described earlier, the number of students and postdoctorates provided with research training through NRSA training grants and fellowships has been deliberately limited over much of the past 25 years, as a control on the number of researchers entering the workforce. No similar federal effort has been undertaken thus far to ensure an adequate supply of technically prepared support staff in research, nor is there a system for regulating the number of research assistantships. As Massy and Goldman concluded in their 1995 analysis of science and engineering Ph.D. production, the size of doctoral programs is driven largely by departmental needs for research and teaching assistants rather than by the labor market for Ph.D.s. 18

In any case, NRSA training grants to institutions are highly prized and competitively sought. They confer prestige and add stability to graduate programs as they are usually for five years and allow for planning into the future. On the other hand, since the legislation that established the NRSA program allows only U.S. citizens and permanent residents to be trained through these grants and fellowships, the growing number of graduate students with temporary-resident status must be supported by other mechanisms.

Another factor in the shifting pattern of federal research training support is the type of education the students receive. Since the beginning of the NRSA program, NIH has required predoctoral training grants in the basic biomedical sciences to be “multidisciplinary” in order to expose students to a range of biomedical fields and even to other branches of science. Given that research collaborations between a wide variety of scientists have been producing significant advances, this requirement is even more important. Although the level of multidisciplinary training varies from program to program, students in training grant programs with this as part of their curriculum may better be ensured of such interdisciplinary training than those on a research assistantship. The committee considers multidisciplinary training in the biomedical sciences to be very valuable and of increasing importance. (A full discussion of these issues is presented in Chapter 8 , Emerging Fields and Interdisciplinary Studies.)

Although research grants provide an important base for training, data suggest that NRSA training grant participants complete training faster and go on to more productive research careers than do non-NRSA-supported students at their institution or doctorates from universities without NRSA training programs. This is supported by an assessment, completed in 1984, in which NRSA participants were found to complete their doctoral degrees faster and were more likely to go on to NIH-supported postdoctoral training than graduate students with other forms of support. 19 They also received a higher percentage of NIH research grants, authored more articles, and were cited more frequently by their peers.

Comparable outcomes were seen in a more recent study conducted by NIH. 20 Ph.D.s in the basic biomedical sciences who received NRSA support for at least one academic year spent less time in graduate school. About 57 percent of NRSA trainees and fellows received their doctorates by age 30, while only 39 percent of their classmates and 32 percent of graduates from departments without NRSA support similarly reached that milestone.

The study also showed that NRSA trainees and fellows were more likely to move into faculty or other research positions. Nearly 40 percent of the NRSA program participants held faculty appointments at institutions ranking in the top 100 in NIH funding, as opposed to 24 and 16 percent, respectively, for non-NRSA graduates from the same institution and graduates from non-NRSA institutions. Similarly, NRSA trainees and fellows were more likely to be successful in competing for grants and had better publication records than either of the other groups.

The NRSA program is essential to training in the biomedical sciences not only for these and other direct reasons; there are also its indirect benefits, such as establishing high standards for the entire graduate program and creating a generally improved environment for all students. Also, when students are supported by a combination of NRSA and research grant support, the NRSA funding is significantly leveraged.

The Medical Scientist Training Program

The MSTP was established at NIH in 1964 by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) to support education leading to the M.D./Ph.D degree. By combining graduate training in the biomedical sciences with clinical training offered through medical schools, the program was designed to produce investigators who could better bridge the gap between basic science and clinical research. Since its inception, the Ph.D. portion of the training has been expanded to include the physical sciences, computer science, behavioral and social sciences, economics, epidemiology, public health, bioengineering, biostatistics, and bioethics, though almost all trainees receive a Ph.D. in a biomedical field.

When the MSTP began, it had only three programs, but it has since grown—in 2003 it had 41 programs involving 45 degree-granting institutions, with a total of 925 full-time training slots. This number is slightly down from the 933 slots in 2002. In addition, about 75 medical schools that do not have MSTP grants nevertheless offer opportunities for M.D./Ph.D. studies. The number of new students supported each year by MSTP funds varies from 2 or 3 at many institutions to 10 to 12 at a few exceptional ones, such as Duke University and the University of California, San Francisco. Some 170 new students nationwide are added to the program each year, with selection being highly competitive. The program provides 6 years of support for both phases of training, and institutions usually continue the awards for any additional years needed to complete the degrees. Support includes a tuition allowance, a stipend that is usually supplemented by the institution, and modest funds for travel, equipment, and supplies.

While the funds from NIH are sufficient to support only a few students in any one year of their training, institutions have been able to parlay the NIH funds by judiciously using institutional or research grant funds to support more students. A typical scenario is to support a student on MSTP funds during the first two years of medical training and again in the sixth or seventh years, when he or she returns to complete the medical degree. But during their Ph.D. studies, MSTP students are in a position to receive research grant support just like any other Ph.D. student. For example, one institution uses MSTP funds to support only 10 students during their first year and 2 during their second year in medical school, but there are 60 students in the MSTP program, with the remaining 48 receiving institutional or research grant support. This combination of funding results in the awarding of about 350 MSTP M.D./Ph.D. graduates each year. In the eyes of NIH, any student who receives MSTP funds and is supported for his or her entire course of study is considered a product of the program.

These graduates usually move on to postdoctoral, intern, and residency appointments and after completing their training tend to find academic research positions relatively easily. Another measure of the program's success is seen at the other end of the cycle—the competition among students for entry into the program. Some institutions, such as Johns Hopkins University, receive over 500 applications for the 10 or 12 available positions. Many of these students are highly qualified, and they apply for many programs simultaneously. Institutions easily fill their MSTP class, but some institutions with smaller and less well recognized programs have only a 30 percent acceptance rate. Occasionally these institutions lose students to other programs and begin the year with unfilled MSTP slots. Although not all applicants find MSTP positions, many end up pursuing a joint dual-degree program at an MSTP institution with partial or sometimes full support from non-MSTP funds. They follow the same track as the MSTP students and are indistinguishable from them.

Funding of the program is an issue at almost all MSTP institutions. While institutions are creative in the use of MSTP funds, they are unable to support many highly qualified students who have an interest in research but opt instead to attend just medical school and pursue a professional career. At a time when there is a need for more researchers with a medical background, it would be advantageous to have more M.D.s who are generally debt free and able to pursue research that requires the unique combination of biomedical and clinical training.

In addition to the advantages to biomedical and clinical research, MSTP graduates appear to have more productive research careers. In 1998 the NIGMS published a study of past recipients of MSTP support. 21 This study used résumé data of MSTP graduates with both an M.D. and a Ph.D. to compare their careers to four other groups of doctorates: MSTP-supported students who received only an M.D., Ph.D. recipients at MSTP institutions supported by NIH training grants, non-MSTP dual-degree graduates from an MSTP institution, and non-MSTP dual-degree graduates from a non-MSTP institution. The individuals in the study were divided into four 5-year cohorts from 1970 to 1995 to allow for changes over time in the educational characteristics and research environment. The cohorts and doctoral grouping were also compared on existing data from NIH files. The training and career paths of the MSTP graduates and the comparison groups were assessed from different perspectives, including time to degree, postdoctoral training, employment history, and research support and publication outcomes. By almost all measures, the MSTP-trained graduates fared better than the other groups. For example, they entered graduate training more quickly and took less time to complete the two degrees. Only the Ph.D. group applied for NIH postdoctoral fellowships at a higher rate, but the MSTP success rate was about the same as for the Ph.D. group. Depending on the cohort, between 60 and 70 percent of the MSTP graduates had a clinical fellowship and about 50 percent had both a clinical fellowship and postdoctoral training.

In terms of research activity, the NIH data showed that the MSTP graduates applied for research grant support from NIH at a greater rate and they were more successful in receiving support. The research productivity of the MSTP graduates across each of the cohorts as measured by published articles from the résumé data was about the same as that for the Ph.D. group and only slightly higher than the non-MSTP graduates from MSTP institutions. However, an examination of publications over the period from 1993 to 1995 showed that the earlier cohorts were more likely to be currently active than the Ph.D. graduates by publishing twice as many articles. The 1976–1980 non-MSTP cohorts, from MSTP institutions, also continued to be almost as active in publishing as the MSTP graduates.

The résumé analysis also provided insight into the professional and research activities of the different groups. About 83 percent of MSTP graduates in the study who were employed in 1995 had one or more academic appointments. This was higher than the M.D.- and Ph.D.-only groups and somewhat higher than the non-MSTP M.D./Ph.D.s group. Most of the dual-degree graduates in either group were in clinical departments and probably indicates some responsibility with regard to patient-oriented care. To better assess the type of research conducted by the different groups, the study classified the publications reported on the résumés into basic, clinical, and mixed type. Even though many of the dual-degree graduates are in clinical departments, they are still more likely to publish in basic journals, and this tendency is stronger in later cohorts.

The conclusions drawn from this analysis are that MSTP graduates appear to have been highly successful in establishing research careers, and their recent publication records suggest that members of all cohorts continue to be productive researchers. However, MSTP graduates appear most similar to non-MSTP M.D./Ph.D.s from the same institution; both groups are likely to be employed in academia with appointments in clinical or dual clinical and basic science departments, and both have similar publication patterns. This is not surprising, since non-MSTP-supported students at MSTP institutions follow the same program as their MSTP counterparts, complete the same degree requirements, and benefit from the MSTP-sponsored training efforts at those institutions.

  • RESEARCH LABOR FORCE PROJECTIONS

The biomedical workforce with degrees from U.S. universities was estimated to be 100,262 in 2001. This included individuals in postdoctoral positions but did not count the 4,935 doctorates with degrees in biomedical fields who were unemployed or the 8,091 in positions not considered related to biomedical research (see Table 2-4 ). These three groups brought the potential workforce of U.S. doctorates to 113,288 (the only doctorates excluded were those who had retired). Table 2-4 also shows the change in this workforce over the past decade.

TABLE 2-4. Potential Workforce in the Biomedical Sciences by Employment Status, 1991–2001 .

Potential Workforce in the Biomedical Sciences by Employment Status, 1991–2001 .

Note that in 2001 almost 80 percent of the potential workforce was employed in S&E and unemployment was less than 1 percent. Even with the inclusion of those unemployed and not seeking employment, only about 4.5 percent were unemployed.

The above figures represent only part of the total potential workforce, however, because foreign-trained doctorates also are employed in this country (and a few U.S. doctorates leave the country). Estimating this foreign component is difficult, given that no database describes the demographics of this group. Some data sources with information on foreign-trained doctorates exist, but they provide only a partial picture. 22 Based on these sources, it is estimated that about 15,500 such individuals are involved in biomedical research in the United States, though the size of this contingent could be as high as 25,000.

How the overall size of the S&E workforce might change over the next 10 years will be influenced by several factors: the number of doctorates who graduate each year, the unemployment levels in the field, the number of foreign-trained doctorates, and retirement rates. These factors can be accounted for by taking a multistate life-table approach, which models the workforce to estimate the numbers of researchers who enter and exit the workforce at various stages. It is also important to know the age of the workforce and the age at which individuals enter it, as this information determines retirement rates. What follows in this section is a short summary of the findings from this model's analysis, with full details available in Appendix D (Demographic Projections of the Research Workforce).

The largest and most relevant source of new researchers is the set of graduates from U.S. doctoral programs. The size of this group grew significantly in the 1990s but has leveled off or declined in recent years. Making projections of the numbers of future graduates, therefore, depends on which years are used to develop the model (a quadratic regression). Rather than choose just one scenario, three different scenarios for Ph.D. growth were developed. The first was a regression from 1985 to obtain a high estimate; the second was a low estimate, based on the assumption of constant growth from the 2001 level; and the third was the average of the two to represent “moderate” growth. For the high estimate the annual number of Ph.D.s grows from 5,386 in 2001 to 7,433 in 2011, and the average of this number and the one resulting from no growth yields 6,441 in 2011 (see 10-year totals in Table 2-5 ).

TABLE 2-5. Projected Changes in U.S. and Foreign Doctorates Entering the Biomedical Workforce Between 2001 and 2011 .

Projected Changes in U.S. and Foreign Doctorates Entering the Biomedical Workforce Between 2001 and 2011 .

A similar approach—with low, median, and high scenarios—was used for the inflow of foreign doctorates. However, because it is difficult to estimate the number of individuals in the current workforce with a foreign doctorate, the scenarios are based on estimates of the growth rate in the 1990s and the resulting population in 2001. Based on these estimates, it is possible to project the potential workforce in the biomedical sciences between 2001 and 2011. Using estimates of unemployment and the flow of doctorates in and out of the S&E workforce, the employed biomedical researcher population can also be estimated. Table 2-6 shows the results of the multistate life-table analysis under the medium scenario. These totals exhibit an annual growth rate in the biomedical workforce of 2 to 2.5 percent, which is comparable to the projected annual growth rate of the overall labor force.

TABLE 2-6. Projected Workforce by Status for the Median Scenario, 2001–2011 .

Projected Workforce by Status for the Median Scenario, 2001–2011 .

Although these workforce projections are subject to many caveats, such as incomplete data and uncertainties in the economy and government spending, the balance between Ph.D. production and employment looks quite stable through 2011. Unemployment remains at about 1 percent, and the portion of the workforce remaining in science is about 80 percent. The committee believes this is a healthy percentage of trained people employed in science, but it has concerns about those unemployed and not seeking employment. The percentage of women in this category is significantly greater than their male counterparts, and there is a fear that some talented researchers may be lost because of the difficulty of balancing a career in science and raising a family. (This matter is considered further in Chapter 9 , Career Progression.)

The analysis in this chapter suggests that the number of researchers in basic biomedical research will remain stable for the next decade, as will employment opportunities, and the percentage of postdoctorals in holding patterns appears to be declining. Nevertheless, the committee's concern about the increased time to degree and the length of postdoctoral appointments should be noted—an infusion of young people into independent research positions, after all, is critical to the health of the research community. However, we also note that the increase in the average age of researchers parallels the aging of the general population.

“Success” is not easily quantified, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the NRSA program has successfully produced high-quality research personnel and has been important for the upgrading of research training in general. The MSTP program also merits special mention. It has been brilliantly successful at attracting outstanding physicians into basic biomedical research, much to the benefit of future health care. Given their special knowledge of human disease, physicians lend a unique perspective to such research.

The committee's recommendations for future training in the basic biomedical sciences are presented below, along with brief justifications based on the analysis described in this chapter.

  • RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 2-1: This committee recommends that the total number of NRSA positions awarded in the biomedical sciences should remain at least at the 2003 level. Furthermore, the committee recommends that training levels after 2003 be commensurate with the rise in the total extramural research funding in the biomedical, clinical, and behavioral and social sciences.

Although manpower models have been developed in this report, they are not particularly useful in assessing the role of NRSA support in particular, as this represents only a small fraction of the total training support in the biomedical sciences. Available information, however, suggests that the system is in reasonable balance. Stipends clearly should rise over time, but this should be accomplished by the allocation of additional funds, not by decreasing the number of trainees. The relatively low unemployment among Ph.D.s in the biomedical sciences, an almost constant number of U.S.-trained doctorates from 2001 to 2003, and the fact that the pool of postdoctorates appears to be stabilizing or declining justify the suggested level, which should not fall below that of 2003.

The year 2001 is the last one for which reasonably accurate data were available for awards specific to the biomedical sciences. However, the total number of NRSA awards continued to rise ( Figure 1-1 ) in 2002 and 2003, and it is assumed that the awards in the biomedical sciences have also increased. Using the percentage increase from 2001 to 2003 from Table 1-1 and the actual awards data for 2001 in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 , the predoctoral and postdoctoral traineeships in the biomedical sciences in 2003 are estimated to be 5,390 and 1,740, respectively. Fellowship data for 2002 appear to be more complete and show that awards at the postdoctoral level are somewhat below those of 2001. Based on the totals for NRSA predoctoral and postdoctoral training in 2001 and 2003, the estimated levels for fellowships in 2003 for the biomedical sciences are 425 and 1,450, respectively.

The primary rationale for NRSA is to attract high-quality people into specific research areas and to set the training standards for major research fields. NRSAs should be a paragon for quality training and have served this role admirably. NRSA programs are an important investment in the future to ensure the health of the research enterprise and should be made by all NIH institutes and centers.

Beyond the monetary requirements of maintaining NRSA training numbers, this committee does not recommend that support be shifted from research grants to training grants (contrary to the recommendation of the previous committee). A balance is needed between research and training grants for the productive support of students and postdoctorates. Research grants offer an alternative training venue, and students and postdoctorates are essential for accomplishing the research specified in research grants. Moreover, a variety of support mechanisms for training is desirable. The NRSA provides multiple pipelines into the research endeavor, most notably for foreign students and postdoctorates. In certain technical areas, insufficient numbers of U.S. citizens are available to train in and carry out national research efforts in critical areas. The training of foreign scientists on research grants has also significantly enriched the talent pool in this country, as they often join the workforce for extended periods of time, including permanent residence.

Although two earlier National Academies committees 23 , 24 have recommended that some NIH research funding be shifted to training grants and fellowships, our committee has concluded—based on the uncertainty about the rate of future growth in employment opportunities in industry, and perhaps other sectors, and the considerations discussed above—that the number of graduate students supported on NRSA training grants should not increase any faster than NIH research funding, which is a principal determinant of employment demand. With regard to postdoctoral support, another National Academies committee 25 has recommended that foreign scientists be permitted to receive training grant and fellowship support—thereby increasing the size of the eligible pool—and that some research funds be transferred to training budgets. However, consideration of the current restriction on supporting foreign scientists on NRSA training was outside the scope of this study and was not discussed by our committee.

At the present time, the committee does not recommend a shift in the overall proportion of training dollars spent on NRSA versus other training vehicles but does suggest that the ratios of research dollars to fellows/students be maintained in approximate alignment for the different areas and that training efforts be supported by all NIH institutes and centers. Better coordination of training efforts across institutes is needed. The committee recognizes, however, that the balance may vary from field to field and will evolve over time.

Recommendation 2-2: This committee recommends that the size of MSTP programs be expanded by at least 20 percent and that the scope be expanded to include the clinical, health services, and behavioral and social sciences.

Available evidence suggests that it is increasingly difficult for physicians to move into research because of the high cost of medical training and graduates' enormous debt load. Nevertheless, the committee believes that it is very important to attract physicians into research and that MSTP programs have done so with remarkable success; the excellent record of these programs' M.D./Ph.D.s in obtaining research grants and remaining in research is well documented. This would increase the number of trainees from the 2003 level of 933 to about 1,120.

As has been the policy, MSTP grants should be confined to institutions where high-quality medical and research training are both available. Expanding the range of disciplines should be helpful in attracting physicians into clinical and health services research but not at the expense of current MSTP support for basic biomedical training. Today's applicant pool for MSTP positions can easily accommodate a doubling of the size of the program without compromising its current quality. However, in recognition of the high cost of the MSTP program and budget constraints, the committee recommends a 20 percent increase as a significant and prudent investment.

U.S. Department of Education. 2000 .

Tabulations from the Higher Education Research Institute and the U.S. Department of Education.

Unpublished tabulation from the Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2001. Available from the National Academies.

Freeman, R. B., et. al. 2001 .

National Research Council. 1998c .

Goldman, E. and E. Marshall. 2002 .

National Science Foundation. 1997 .

National Science Foundation. 2002b .

The down turn in 1991 may be due to a change in the Survey of Doctorate Recipient data collection methods.

National Science Foundation. 2004 .

NIH Web site: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/research/rgbydgre01.htm . Accessed on October 22, 2004.

Unpublished tabulation from the NIH IMPAC System.

NIH Web site: NIH Statement in Response to Addressing the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists, http://grants.nih.gov/training/nas_report/NIHResponse.htm .

See Appendix B for a complete explanation of the awards.

NIH Web site. Available on http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/research/rgbydgre01.htm . Accessed October 22, 2004.

National Research Council. 2000b .

Massy, W. F., and C. A. Goldman. 1995 .

Coggeshall, P., and P. W. Brown. 1984 .

Pion, G. M. 2000 .

National Institute of General Medical Sciences. 1998 .

Partial data are available from the Association of American Medical College's Faculty Roster and from the National Science Foundation, National Survey of College Graduates.

National Research Council. 2000a .

National Research Council. 1998c . op. cit.

National Research Council. 2005 .

  • Cite this Page National Research Council (US) Committee for Monitoring the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical, Behavioral, and Clinical Personnel. Advancing the Nation's Health Needs: NIH Research Training Programs. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2005. 2, Basic Biomedical Sciences Research.
  • PDF version of this title (1.4M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

  • The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health

Recent Activity

  • Basic Biomedical Sciences Research - Advancing the Nation's Health Needs Basic Biomedical Sciences Research - Advancing the Nation's Health Needs

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

statistics

राष्ट्रीय आयुर्विज्ञान आयोग NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION

digital india

  • Feedback/Suggestion
  • Ethics Agenda
  • Information Desk
  • For Students to Study in India

Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR)

  • Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) for Postgraduate Medical Students and Medical Teachers.
  • Details of the Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) for Postgraduate Medical Students and Medical  Teachers
  • Click here to enroll in BCBR

© 2020- National Medical Commission . All Rights Reserved.

  • Terms of Use
  • Open access
  • Published: 13 May 2022

“Design and implementation challenges of massive open online course on research methods for Indian medical postgraduates and teachers –descriptive analysis of inaugural cycle”

  • Manickam Ponnaiah 1 ,
  • Tarun Bhatnagar 1 ,
  • Parasuraman Ganeshkumar 1 ,
  • Ditipriya Bhar 1 ,
  • Rajalakshmi Elumalai 1 ,
  • Mathavaswami Vijayageetha 1 ,
  • Rizwan Suliankatchi Abdulkader 1 ,
  • Sirshendu Chaudhuri 1 ,
  • Upasana Sharma 1 &
  • Manoj Vasant Murhekar 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  22 , Article number:  369 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

1557 Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

In view of the growing popularity, reach and access for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), India’s apex body for medical education, the National Medical Commission (NMC) mandated uniform foundational course on research methods for the medical post graduates (PGs) and faculty members of the medical institutions under NMC as MOOC. This course is a pioneering effort in the field of India’s PG medical education. NMC entrusted Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-National Institute of Epidemiology (NIE) to design and offer the MOOC, named as Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR). We describe the experience of designing and that of implementation challenges in the inaugural cycle of the course.

The course objective was to inculcate the fundamental concepts in research methods covering epidemiology and biostatistics in the form of video lectures, resource materials, discussion forum, assignments, feedback and a final proctored examination. The course was delivered over 16 weeks through MOOCs platform under the Indian Ministry of Education. We reviewed records, documents and faculty notes and described the course conceptualization, development, design and implementation process. We abstracted information from course portal on enrolment profile of the participants, self-reported course feedback (structured and open-ended on format, lectures and quality of contents), examination registration form, scores obtained in the assignments/examination and that of the participant queries. We described quantitative data using descriptive statistics. We presented the thematic analysis of qualitative data from open-ended questions in the feedback system and that of email interactions.

The inaugural cycle (September-December 2019) was taken by 24,385 participants. Majority, 15,879 (65%) were from medical background. 13,242 (54%) were medical postgraduates and 2637 (11%) were medical teachers. Among the enrolled, 14,720 (60%) cleared the assignments. A total of 11,392 (47%), 8,205 (62%) medical PGs and 896 (34%) faculty members successfully completed the course. Feedback from 1305 (5%) participants had mean score of 4.5/5 ( ± 0.7) for quality of teaching. We faced challenges in customizing the course for medical participants, unawareness among target group, digital illiteracy and the ongoing pandemic.

Conclusions

During the inaugural cycle of the online Basic Course in Biomedical Research course, nearly half of the enrolled participants successfully completed and received the certificate. India’s MOOC for enhancing research capabilities of future medical researchers encountered successes and challenges. Lessons learnt from the inaugural cycle will guide future directions and to address larger issues in terms of sustainability and replication by stakeholders in medical education in India or elsewhere.

Peer Review reports

Health research is a prerequisite for pioneering advancements in medicine [ 1 ]. In developed countries, there is extensive investment to identify and investigate health research priorities. In India, although health research has surged in the last decade, it is clustered within few institutions with excessive focus in specific geographical settings. The dearth of forums to interact and share knowledge, inaccessibility of existing global resources and information asymmetry all pose a threat to the ecosystem of health research [ 2 ]. A lack of uniform training programme in research methods is one of the key factors posing a threat to both quantity and quality of research conducted in India [ 3 ]. By using online teaching tools such as MOOCs , we can impart knowledge, and skill in research methods.

The way education has been taught and practiced has changed since the advent of digital technology [ 4 ]. Recently, Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) have seen an increase in their development and implementation across a wide array of sectors of higher education, including health professions education [ 5 , 6 ]. MOOCs gained popularity due to its flexibility and accessibility to provide content anywhere and anytime with a meaningful learning experience [ 7 ]. Studies have shown that MOOCs are highly efficient and effective for learning [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. There is enough evidence that e-learning can achieve the same level of effectiveness as traditional didacticism and promote self-directed learning [ 11 ].

According to a review of current MOOCs, a major proportion are now provided by institutions in developed countries [ 12 ]. Globally, while major emphasis on the student experience is understandable, there appears to be little research on the provider experiences and challenges [ 13 ]. Several reviews of MOOC literature have been done in order to identify emerging trends and directions for future research into the characteristics that can help MOOCs achieve long-term success [ 10 , 14 , 15 ]. There have been very few studies on the implementation and uptake of MOOCs, as well as the implications of the adoption of MOOCs in countries like India.

The National Medical Commission (NMC) (erstwhile Medical Council of India), India’s apex body for regulating medical education, recognizes and recommends medical research as an integral part of the post-graduate (PG) medical education. The key objectives of the recommendation are to develop competency in basic concepts of research methodology and epidemiology, critical appraisal of published research and function as an effective leader of a health team engaged in health care, research and training. Despite the large number of theses being conducted by these postgraduates, the quality of their work remains questionable. The capacity of the medical teachers who guide PG theses is also inadequate. Strengthening the teaching of research methods in PG medical curriculum could improve the current status. This huge research machinery offers an opportunity for good research that can influence practice or contribute to health programmes [ 16 , 17 ].

Keeping the above in context, the NMC decided to introduce a mandatory, uniform, online, foundational course on research methods for the medical PGs and teachers in the country. The NMC identified the National Institute of Epidemiology (ICMR-NIE), an Institute under the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to develop and deliver an online course on fundamental concepts in research methodology for medical postgraduates and faculty members across the nation [ 18 ]. The selection of ICMR-NIE was based on the institute’s prior experience in developing and delivering massive open online courses (MOOCs) on health research through the MOOCs programme of the Indian Ministry of Education, called SWAYAM [‘Study Webs of Active-Learning for Young Aspiring Minds’]. Building on the experience of ICMR-NIE, the present course called Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) was designed and delivered through the SWAYAM. In the context of limited reports on the experiences and challenges associated with the implementation of MOOCs for improving biomedical research capacity in medical schools from the Indian sub-continent and that of similar countries, we conducted a retrospective study and described the experience of designing and that of implementation challenges in the inaugural cycle of the BCBR.

The course objective was to inculcate the fundamental concepts in research methods covering epidemiology and biostatistics in the form of video lectures, resource materials, discussion forum, assignments, feedback and a final proctored examination. The course was delivered over 16 weeks through MOOCs platform under the Indian Ministry of Education. The inaugural cycle (September-December 2019) was taken by 24,385.

Study approach

We did a retrospective study to analyse the inaugural cycle of the course based on review of course records and that of the data generated during the implementation process.

Data collection

In order to describe the course conceptualization, development, design and implementation process, we reviewed records, documents and faculty notes.

We accessed the course portal for abstracting data on enrollment profile of the participants, assignment completion with scores, examination registration form and scores in the assignments and performance in the proctored examination. The course collected feedback of the participants on course contents, structure, faculty, lecture presentation and quality of contents through a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. We accessed the feedback data for every module and that of overall experience at the end of the course. We reviewed emails sent by course participants regarding queries related to administrative and technical aspects.

Additionally, as part of the course feedback, for each of the module, we collected response to three open-ended questions on what the participant liked, inputs and suggestions to improve and key learning points. We abstracted qualitative data from these open-ended questions, from discussion forum and that of email queries and interactions of the participants.

Data analysis

Based on the review of the documents and notes, we identified the core components of the course, in terms of structure, content and the implementation process of the course. We enlisted the challenges, barriers and facilitators faced in the inaugural cycle of the course.

The quantitative data was used to describe the characteristics of the participants by age, educational background and profession. We plotted number of Indian participants by their Indian State. We calculated percentage assignment submission, mean and standard deviation (SD) of scores of the assignments by lecture and pass percentage. Participants who obtained at least 50% in all the assignments put together were eligible to register for the final proctored examination. We calculated descriptive statistics for participants’ feedback in various domains. We calculated the mean score and standard deviation for the Likert type questions.

We did analyze manually the contents of the qualitative data from the feedback system and that of email interactions. Codes were identified which were then categorized into emergent themes by two authors (ER and SC) independently. Any difference between them was resolved by RA through independent review. All of them were trained in qualitative research. In addition, a word cloud was created for conceptual analysis for the most commonly occurring word in the verbatim texts.

Conceptualization, development, design and implementation process of the course

Learning objectives of the course.

The objective of the course was to explain fundamental concepts in epidemiology and biostatistics. Inaugural cycle of BCBR course (September-December 2019, cycle 1) was conducted for 16 weeks by the ICMR-NIE and was delivered through one of the national coordinators of the SWAYAM, namely NPTEL (National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning) located at the Indian Institute of Technology-Madras, Chennai.

Organizational structure and functions

At the national level, the course coordination committee established by the NMC was monitoring the progress of the course. At the Institute level, the course is coordinated by a core team under the supervision of the Director of ICMR-NIE. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) funded the initiative. The course is supported by a group of teaching and non-teaching staff of ICMR. The team has been divided into administrative and academic wings. The administrative wing is responsible for handling the issues related to the enrolment and registration of the course participants with a dedicated helpline number and an email account. The academic wing facilitates subject matter query resolution and updating the academic content

Course development team

The NMC formed an expert committee to meet the vision of the “Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2019” to instill a spirit of scientific inquiry, orient the principles of research methodology and epidemiology by the medical postgraduates [ 19 ]. ICMR-NIE's multi-disciplinary team of epidemiologists, biostatisticians and public health specialists developed the curriculum contents of BCBR (Additional table 1 ) according to the competency matrix given by NMC for research methods. This was designed as a self-paced MOOC, as per the SWAYAM guidelines [ 20 ]. As per the official notification of NMC dated 13 December 2019, medical PGs had to mandatorily complete the BCBR.

Course contents

The recommended format follows the four-quadrant instructional design which includes: e-tutorial (course videos), e-contents (reading materials, lecture handouts, text transcripts), the discussion forum and assessment (assignments and proctored examination). Accordingly, the course included 23 lectures with an average duration of 20 minutes for each lecture and delivered across 16 weeks. The course covered the topics - conceptualizing a research study, epidemiological considerations and bio-statistical considerations in designing a research study, planning and conducting a research study, writing a research protocol and publication ethics. A total of 23 lectures were covered under these topics by experts in the field of biostatistics, epidemiology, public health, and research methods from ICMR-NIE.

Course implementation

Medical colleges were officially notified regarding the site and enrolment process by the NMC well in advance. The participants were notified through their medical colleges to enroll until 1 st December 2019 on the course website or on the SWAYAM mobile application. The enrollment was free of cost. On the course page, the administrative wing regularly posted course-related announcements. Enrolled participants received email and text messages reminders on due dates. They were also able to make inquiries through the helpline.

Upon enrolment, course participants were able to access the course content including the lecture videos, handouts of the slides, transcripts and the reference links. Additionally, the course page provided assignments after each lecture, announcements and frequently asked questions regarding the course process. For academic clarifications, a separate section namely ‘discussion forum’ was created where the participants could post lecture related queries to the teaching assistants (TA). The TAs resolved the queries within two working days.

Assessment and certification

The BCBR course offered both formative as well as a summative assessment to determine eligibility for certification. The assessment strategy adopted was in alignment with the learning objectives of the BCBR. For the formative assessment, the participants had to complete the online auto-graded assignments after every lecture. Each assignment consisted of ten multiple-choice questions. For each lecture, the academic team prepared a set of questions after multiple rounds of internal revisions. The course participants could submit the assignments any number of times before the deadline and the one submitted last was considered for scoring. A minimum of 50% score in the assignment was required to be eligible for final examination registration. Those scoring <50% were prompted to redo the assignments in the next BCBR cycle with the same login credentials.

For summative assessment, an in-person proctored computer based examination was to be conducted at 138 designated centers across the country. Eligible participants were directed to register for the proctored examination by paying a nominal fee using the registration link available on the course page. We initiated the registration process three months in advance of the scheduled examination dates. Six sets of question papers each consisting of a hundred multiple choice questions were prepared by a team of experts from ICMR-NIE. We had scheduled the exams for three days in March and April 2020 with two slots per day. However, the exams could not be conducted due to the ongoing pandemic.

A course participant was considered ‘pass’ and ‘eligible’ for a verifiable e-certificate only if s/he scored at least 50% on an average in the assignment score and final examination score separately. The final marks were communicated to the participants within four weeks from the date of completion of the proctored examination. In the event of scoring less than 50 percent in the proctored examination, the participants had to register again in the next BCBR cycle for the proctored examination with the same login credentials without re-submitting the assignments.

Quality assurance

Quality assurance mechanism was built into the design and conduct of the course. Through the ‘participant feedback mechanism’ participants were able to give their feedback after the completion of each lecture via a link provided below each video. Further inputs and suggestions from participants to improve the quality of course and key learning points from the sessions were documented. In the discussion forum, solutions to the academic queries were formulated by a team of experts including teaching assistants and course consultants. In addition to this, the finalization of the proctored examination was undertaken with strict adherence to the rules laid down by the NPTEL. An extensive technical review of the questions was undertaken by the teams from ICMR-NIE and NPTEL for the finalization of the six sets of encrypted question papers. Moreover, periodic interim meetings were organized between the course coordination committee, course faculty and consultants discussing the progress and challenges faced and the solutions.

Description of the course participants

A total of 24,385 participants from 38 countries enrolled during cycle 1. Majority ( n =15906, 65%) were aged 21-30 years. Out of the total enrolled participants, 24,182 (99.2%) were from India. (Additional Table 2 ) Within India, majority of the participants were from Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra (12% each) states, followed by Karnataka (11%), and Andhra Pradesh (8%) (Fig. 1 ).

figure 1

Geographical distribution of participants in a massive open online course on biomedical research in India, 2019-2020 

Among the participants, 13,242 (54%) were PGs pursuing MS or MD and 2,637 (11%) were faculty members. Among the medical PGs, 9,213 (69.6%) were pursuing MD and 4029 (30.4%) were pursuing MS. The remaining 8,506 (35%) participants were from outside the target group and included participants who were doing medical diploma, Master of Public Health (MPH) or employed elsewhere. (Additional Table 2 )

Among the total enrolled, 14,720 (60%) had passed the assignments and qualified to register for the proctored exams. Of the medical PGs enrolled, 10,726 (81%) and among the faculty enrolled, 1055 (40%) passed the assignments and were eligible to register for the proctored examination. Among the total enrolled, over all 11,392 (47%), medical PGs 8205 (62%) and faculty 896 (34%) registered for the proctored examination. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person proctored exams could not be conducted. Therefore, the NMC decided to issue pass certificates to all those who had qualified from the assignments and were registered for the proctored examination.

In the analysis by lectures, among the faculty members, the frequency of completion gradually declined from lecture 1 to lecture 23. 38% of the faculty members completed all the assignments. Among those who submitted the assignments, the pass percentage varied from 97% (for lecture 5: Descriptive study designs) to 99.6% (for lecture 3: Literature review). Among PGs, the assignment completion rate varied from 77% to 82%, gradually declined from lecture 1 to lecture 23, and 77% completed all the assignments. Among those PGs who submitted, the pass percentage varied from 99.9% (lecture 16: Principles of data collection) to 99% (lecture 12: Sample size). When taking the mean score of the lectures into account, the five lowest-scoring lectures for both faculty members and PGs were lectures involving developing tools or bio statistical considerations. (Table 1 )

A total of 1,845 queries were posted by the participants in the discussion forum which included both academic and administration related queries. There were approximately 348 (19%) academic queries and 1497 (81%) administrative queries which included 1,151 (62%) enrollment and technical, 112 assignment and eligibility related and 234 examination related queries.

Feedback from participants

A total of 1,305 (5%) participants responded with feedback. The mean score (SD) of overall quality of teaching sessions was 4.5 (0.7). (Additional table 3 ) Majority of the course related technical queries were regarding accessing the course materials and registration in the examination. We implemented a number of solutions for these queries (Additional table 4 ). Most of the participants expressed their satisfaction about the content, clarity, explanation, presentation and the way the speakers delivered the lecture. A few suggested adding further explanation in certain topics and hands on training in biostatistics, specifically, sampling methods, sample size calculation, data management software and calculation of measures of association. For most of the lectures the participants suggested addition of more examples, especially with screenshots, graphics, animation and clinical scenarios. (Table 2 , Additional Figure 1 )

Challenges faced

Implementation challenges.

As with all major rollouts, the BCBR programme faced several challenges. These challenges can be organized into administrative, technical and participant related challenges. As described, the BCBR course depends on a smooth coordination between three major organizations. This resulted in a few delays in communications between them. In our course, decision making had to go through layers of communications at various levels. Evidence showed that inter-institutional collaborative efforts often impede the course development [ 21 ]. Despite these delays, the course was launched on the promised time and successfully started recruiting participants. Another administrative challenge was a lower than expected enrolment of first year postgraduates who were the intended participants for the course. It was realized later that the many PGs were unaware about the course. This was followed by widespread dissemination activities, where information was sent through proper channel to the college deans for dissemination within the college. Despite such activities, the enrolment was poor. Previous research suggested that recruitment of participants often reported as low when a course is initially launched [ 21 ]. This was alike to our experience in the course enrollment. There were some delays in responding to the participants. This delay took place because of two reasons. First, participants sometimes asked questions beyond the scope of the lectures. However, we earnestly addressed them with few exceptions. Second, most of the faculty members of BCBR are also researchers in the ICMR-NIE. Hence, there were delays in resolving the participant queries. Overall, most of the queries were answered within 48 hours. When it came to the stage of assignment completion and examination registration, there were a lot of dropouts.

The SWAYAM-NPTEL have been offering several science and technology courses. Offering this MOOC in customized way to a medical group under another authority was a challenge. Few participants faced difficulty in enrollment, accessing and submitting assignments. In other words, digital non-literacy was a major course hindrance factor. A few participants who decided to pay the examination registration fees on the last day of the registration faced difficulties in completing the payment.

Pandemic related challenges

Since most of our participants were doctors and were actively engaged in the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic duties they could not complete the assignments/course. Some of the doctors were reassigned for COVID-19 duty and could not continue course. Requests for cancelling and changing of examination centres were placed by several participants. The examination which was scheduled in March/April 2020 was postponed and then finally cancelled.

Participant side challenges

Apart from the digital literacy challenges faced by the participants, there were issues related to internet connectivity in some areas of the country. Participants experienced problems in accessing the course contents and submitting the assignments. In some cases, the assignment submission did not register with the android app. For developing country like India technological infrastructure could be a major factor for successful retention of MOOCs participants [ 22 ].

To resolve the issue the BCBR team posted several announcements on the course page, mailed and texted the course participants individually. However, some of these technical challenges were beyond the scope of the ICMR-NIE to resolve and the NPTEL team had to be intimated regarding these issues. Therefore, maintaining the chain of communication between several stakeholders delayed solving of some issues.

In order to improve the rigor of teaching health research among medical postgraduates and the faculty members, India’s apex medical education regulatory body entrusted launching of MOOC on research methods through ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology. Towards achieving the same, with full support from the ICMR, we designed and implemented a MOOC on research methods. We share our experience from the inaugural cycle in terms of the processes involved, indicators achieved, and challenges faced. The course participants sounded positive about the conduct of the course but also provided suggestions for improvement.

It is truly a one-of-kind experiment in the history of Indian medical education to introduce a mandatory and completely online research course managed and run by an external agency like the ICMR. It shows the willingness of the medical education regulatory agency to upgrade and adapt to the changing needs of the medical postgraduate education. This is also a step in the direction to improve the quality of research performed by young scientists and their mentors.

Online teaching methods have been shown to be no different than face-to-face teaching methods at the school level. A similar situation is also likely true for adult learning, especially for medical subject matter [ 23 ]. Several online teaching courses for nurses, nursing students and practicing doctors have shown good effectiveness when compared to face-to-face teaching [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. A few have shown that online only courses have shown no significant difference [ 29 , 30 ]. One particular evaluation of an interactive for teaching hypothesis testing concepts was shown to be highly effective [ 31 ]. Although these studies point to the fact that online medium of instruction may be beneficial for teaching research methodology to a group of medical personnel, a formal randomized controlled study may be required to prove this conclusively [ 32 ].

Similar to our observation dropouts was noticed for several MOOCs organized by university of Virginia [ 33 ]. They found a negative relationship between procrastination and achievement in MOOCs. Unlike traditional classroom teaching MOOC enrollment needs fewer requirements for eligibility. The intent for enrollment may reflect a trial and error approach since the cost for initiation of most MOOC’s is small. Thus drop out often tends to be high [ 34 ]. In addition, similar to our observation various MOOC’s have reported participant challenges such as digital incompetence and unsupportive environment that could restrain participant’s MOOC experience [ 35 , 36 ].

Planning for subsequent cycles of the BCBR will incorporate the findings discussed above. Among the many tasks to be undertaken, steps to increase the enrollment coverage, update course contents to reflect recent changes and provide additional relevant reading materials to accommodate the participant feedback are primary. A major step towards developing a college/regional level mentorship plan along the lines of the Medical Education Technology programme of the MCI (now, NMC) is also envisioned. These mentors will be readily available at the college level to clarify learner queries and act as a liaison with the coordination team at ICMR-NIE.

With the experience gained in the first cycle, we were able to introduce certain innovations that provided a richer learning experience to the participants. Participant feedback was instrumental in designing these modifications. Some of the planned modifications for future cycles are lecture specific example accompaniments, Frequently Asked Questions documents, reading materials that are open source and simple enough for a beginner and Live webcast session for real time interaction and query solving. From the administrative perspective, we plan to automate the process of query management by having a chatbot on our website and allowing human interactions for rare and uncommon queries.

In this article, we have provided a framework and a roadmap for anyone who is willing to launch a similar campaign at a national or even a regional level. We hope our experiences will benefit the larger medical education community in designing and delivering such health research MOOCs .

Limitations

A common enrolment form is used for fetching the details on the SWAYAM portal for all the courses covering engineering, basic sciences, and selected humanities and social sciences subjects. As a result, we could not capture few enrolment details of participants such as the discipline of the medical post graduate studies, institute name, year of enrolment of PG degree. There was paucity of feedback data as we kept it optional for the participants.

During the inaugural cycle of the online Basic Course in Biomedical Research course, nearly half of the enrolled participants successfully completed and received the certificate. We concluded that India’s MOOC for enhancing capacity in the basics of biomedical research methods among medical PGs and faculty members was a challenging task. The lessons learnt from the inaugural cycle could help in better delivery of the course in the subsequent cycles. Further, the stakeholders need to address larger issues in terms of sustainability and replication in offering similar MOOCs in medical education in India or elsewhere.

Recommendations

Designing and implementing a MOOC on research methods at the national level is fraught with challenges. Taking into account expected hurdles during the design and planning stage may lead to a seamless experience to the course takers. Technological proficiency of participants with medical background will require intensive training and handholding during the implementation. Experiences from other research methodology related MOOCs need to be reported widely and further studies must be undertaken to enable better implementation and knowledge transfer to the course participants.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files]. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information: The HIPAA Privacy Rule. Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health Through Research [Internet]. Nass SJ, Levit LA, Gostin LO, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009 [cited 2020 Oct 7]. (The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health). Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9578/

Kalita A, Shinde S, Patel V. Public health research in India in the new millennium: A bibliometric analysis. Glob Health Action. 2015;8:1–10.

Article   Google Scholar  

Nagoba B, Davane M. Current Status of Medical Research in India- Where are we ? Walawalkar Int Med J. 2017;4(1):71–6.

Sánchez J, Salinas A, Contreras D, Meyer E. Does the New Digital Generation of Learners Exist? A Qualitative Study: New Digital Generation of Learners. Br J Educ Technol. 2011;42(4):543–56.

Chauhan A. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS): Emerging Trends in Assessment and Accreditation. Digit Educ Rev. 2014;25:7–17.

Liyanagunawardena TR, Williams SA. Massive Open Online Courses on Health and Medicine: Review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(8):e191.

Alhazzani N. MOOC’s impact on higher education. Soc Sci Humanit. 2020;2(1):100030.

Keramidas CG. Are Undergraduate Students Ready for Online Learning? A Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face Sections of a Course. Rural Spec Educ Q. 2012;31(4):25–32.

Hew KF, Cheung WS. Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educ Res Rev. 2014;12:45–58.

Veletsianos G, Shepherdson P. A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn [Internet]. 2016 Mar 1 [cited 2022 Feb 3];17(2). Available from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2448

Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2006;81(3):207–12.

Ayoub A, Amin R, Wani ZA. Contribution of developed countries towards MOOCs: an exploration and assessment from a representative platform Coursera. Asian Assoc Open Univ J. 2020;15(2):251–62.

Pouezevara S, Horn L. MOOCs and Online Education: Exploring the Potential for International Educational Development [Internet]. RTI Press; 2016 Mar [cited 2022 Feb 3]. Available from: http://www.rti.org/publication/moocs-and-online-education-exploring-potential-international-educational-development

R Deng P Benckendorff What are the key themes associated with the positive learning experience in MOOCs? An empirical investigation of learners’ ratings and reviews. Int J Educ Technol High Educ [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Feb 8];18(1):9 Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00244-3

Deng R, Benckendorff P, Gannaway D. Understanding Learning and Teaching in MOOCs from the Perspectives of Students and Instructors: A Review of Literature from 2014 to 2016. In: Delgado Kloos C, Jermann P, Pérez-Sanagustín M, Seaton DT, White S, editors. Digital Education: Out to the World and Back to the Campus. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 176–81. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science).

Agarwal J, Kulkarni M, Mohan U, Das V, Singh V, Das S, et al. IndiaClen recommendations for improving postgraduate medical research & publication. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2013;1(2):54–7.

Pillai RK, Mehendale S, Awasthi S, Ravi VG. The significance of research in post-graduate education and ways to facilitate. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2015;3(2):1–5.

Google Scholar  

ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology. Basic Course in Bio-medical Research. Chennai; 2019.

Medical Council of India. Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. India: Medical Education. New Delhi; 2018.

Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development D of HE. Revised Guidelines for developing Online Courses for SWAYAM. New Delhi, India: Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development; 2018.

Alexander JW, Polyakova-Norwood V, Johnston LW, Christensen P, Loquist RS. Collaborative Development and Evaluation of an Online Nursing Course. Distance Educ. 2003;24(1):41–56.

Castaño-Muñoz J, Kreijns K, Kalz M, Punie Y. Does digital competence and occupational setting influence MOOC participation? Evidence from a cross-course survey. J Comput High Educ. 2017;29(1):28–46.

Means B, Toyama Y, Murphy R, Bakia M, Jones K. Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Washington D.C; 2010.

Turner MK, Simon SR, Facemyer KC, Newhall LM, Veach TL. Web-based learning versus standardized patients for teaching clinical diagnosis: A randomized, controlled, crossover trial. Teach Learn Med. 2006;18(3):208–14.

Beeckman D, Schoonhoven L, Boucqué H, Van Maele G, Defloor T. Pressure ulcers: E-learning to improve classification by nurses and nursing students. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(13):1697–707.

Bello G, Pennisi MA, Maviglia R, Maggiore SM, Bocci MG, Montini L, et al. Online vs live methods for teaching difficult airway management to anesthesiology residents. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(4):547–52.

Benjamin SE, Tate DF, Bangdiwala SI, Neelon BH, Ammerman AS, Dodds JM, et al. Preparing child care health consultants to address childhood overweight: A randomized controlled trial comparing web to in-person training. Matern Child Health J. 2008;12(5):662–9.

Hugenholtz NIR, de Croon EM, Smits PB, van Dijk FJH, Nieuwenhuijsen K. Effectiveness of e-learning in continuing medical education for occupational physicians. Occup Med Oxf Engl. 2008;58(5):370–2.

Harris JM, Elliott TE, Davis BE, Chabal C, Fulginiti JV, Fine PG. Educating generalist physicians about chronic pain: Live experts and online education can provide durable benefits. Pain Med. 2008;9(5):555–63.

Jang KS, Hwang SY, Park SJ, Kim YM, Kim MJ. Effects of a Web-based teaching method on undergraduate nursing students’ learning of electrocardiography. J Nurs Educ. 2005;44(1):35–9.

Aberson CL, Berger DE, Healy MR, Romero VL. Evaluation of an Interactive Tutorial for Teaching Hypothesis Testing Concepts. Teach Psychol. 2003;30(1):75–8.

Holmes CM, Reid C. A Comparison Study of On-campus and Online Learning Outcomes for a Research Methods Course. J Couns Prep Superv. 2017;9(2). Available from: https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/jcps/vol9/iss2/15/ .

Paul Diver, Ignacio Martinez. MOOCs as a massive research laboratory: opportunities and challenges: Distance Education: Vol 36, No 1 [Internet]. [cited 2020 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1019968

Hoxby CM. The Economics of Online Postsecondary Education: MOOCs, Nonselective Education, and Highly Selective Education [Internet]. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2014 Jan [cited 2020 Oct 7]. (Working Paper Series). Report No.: 19816. Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19816

Chauhan J, Goel A. An Overview of MOOC in India. Seventh Sense Researcg Group. 2017;49(2):111–20.

Stracke C, Tan E, Teixeira A, Pinto M, Vassiliadis B, Kameas A, et al. Gap between MOOC Designers’ and MOOC Learners’ Perspectives on Interaction and Experiences in MOOCs: Findings from the Global MOOC Quality Survey. In 2018. p. 1–5.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by the senior management of ICMR (New Delhi), the NMC, Dr. Sanjay Mehendale (former Additional Director General-ICMR) and Dr. Sumit Aggarwal (Scientist E, ICMR). The authors would also like to acknowledge the support and assistance provided by the teaching assistants; Dr D. Bella Devaleenal (Scientist C) and Dr V. V. Banurekha (Scientist E), at the ICMR-National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, Dr V. Saravana Kumar (Scientist C) and Dr Jeromie Wesley Vivian Thangaraj (Scientist C), at the ICMR-NIE, Chennai and the assistance provided by Mr. Jeyakumar A, Mr. Harshal Sonekar, Ms. Jeen Melfha M. and Mr. Balusamy M (ICMR-NIE technical staff), P Anitha (Personal Assistant) and I. Arockia Alexzander, (Administrative Assistant) for the day-to-day running of the course.

The Indian Council of Medical Research, Headquarters, New-Delhi funded the online course (BCBR). However, this particular research was non-funded.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, R127, TNHB, Ayappakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600077, India

Manickam Ponnaiah, Tarun Bhatnagar, Parasuraman Ganeshkumar, Ditipriya Bhar, Rajalakshmi Elumalai, Mathavaswami Vijayageetha, Rizwan Suliankatchi Abdulkader, Sirshendu Chaudhuri, Upasana Sharma & Manoj Vasant Murhekar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

PM, TB, PG and MM conceptualized the educational model. DB, ER, MV, SAR, SC and US were involved in the data collection, analysis and writing of the first draft of the manuscript. All the authors gave critical inputs to finalize the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript. 

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manickam Ponnaiah .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The Institutional Human Ethics Committee at ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology exempted this research from review (Reference number: NIE/IHEC/202107-05) since it was considered as an evaluation for online teaching/training processes educational processes. The data used for this study did not have linked identifiers.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: figure 1..

Qualitative analysis of feedback received from the participants in a massive open online course on health researchin India, 2019-2020.  Table 1. Curriculumof Basic Course in Biomedical Research that was aligned with the competencyframework on research methods for medical post-graduates by the NationalMedical Commission.  Table 2. Profile of participants ina massive open online course on health research in India, 2019-2020 ( n =24,385).  Table 3. Participants’ feedback in a massive open online course on health research in India, 2019-2020.  Table 4. Verbatim examples of technical queries received from the participants in a massive open online course on health research in India,2019-2020

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ponnaiah, M., Bhatnagar, T., Ganeshkumar, P. et al. “Design and implementation challenges of massive open online course on research methods for Indian medical postgraduates and teachers –descriptive analysis of inaugural cycle”. BMC Med Educ 22 , 369 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03423-6

Download citation

Received : 22 July 2021

Accepted : 29 April 2022

Published : 13 May 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03423-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Descriptive analysis
  • International medical education
  • Medical education research
  • Teaching learning methods

BCBR Answer Key 2024 Basic Course in Biomedical Research Exam Key Paper

BCBR Answer Key 2023-2024 Swayam NPTEL Basic Course in Biomedical Research Exam Key Paper . National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning(NPTEL) has conducted the BCBR Proctored Examination on 24th December 2023. Candidates who have took the examination can check and analyze the BCBR Answer Key which could provide basic information regarding the correct answers of the written test.

BCBR Answer Key 2023 is provided at onlinecourses.nptel.ac.in. From the announcements page, this key is provided. So all the candidates who have registered and have attended the test can download the BCBR Key Paper. From the user dashboard this will be provided.

Basic Course In Biomedical Research(BCBR) Answer Key 2023-2024

The key provided will be valid to all the candidates who have attending the test. Since this is a common test conducted all across the country, a single Swayam NPTEL Basic Course in Biomedical Research(BCBR) Answer Key pdf will be provided.

This can be utilized by all those who have attended the bcbr test on 24th dec 2023. NPTEL will be conducting the BCRB examination for the year 2024 in the months of February, July, August, September, and December 2024. So for all these months the bcbr answer key 2024 will be provided for all these months.

BCBR Exam Answer Key 2023

How to download bcbr exam answer key pdf 2023.

NPTEL Dashboard on the individual candidates will give information regarding the release of the BCBR Answer Key 2023. Candidates who have the login details can download the answer key when available.

Objections can also be submitted if allowed by NPTEL. Such objections will be verified and valid objections are considered for alterations in the key.

Important Links :

BCBR Answer Key Download: Click Here

Related Posts

Rajya Utpadan Shulk Answer Key

swayam-logo

  • Review Assignment
  • Announcements
  • About the Course
  • Explore Courses

Announcement: SnapStats Session – Ask your Queries to Experts from BCBR

Dear course participants,

We hope you are staying safe.

The BCBR team at ICMR-NIE had initiated ‘SnapStats’ to augment the core learning among participants of BCBR. Accordingly, a series of live Webcasts are being streamed through YouTube Live.

As part of the SnapStats programme, we have planned for a special Q&A session, wherein Experts from BCBR clarify the doubts and queries from the participants in a live interactive session.

The live interactive session 'Ask the BCBR Experts' is tentatively scheduled on 2nd July 2021 ,

Use google form attached to pose questions on your own biomedical research projects to ICMR-NIE experts.

https://forms.gle/ 3KgP66FbmP78tdNh6

These will be answered by the experts during the designated SnapStats session.

Watch the sessions live at  https://www.youtube.com/ channel/UCOz- 4lufxxfm4njksLDs9Cg

Wish you a happy learning experience!

- BCBR Team

Announcement: SnapStats Session 2 - Confidence Intervals

We hope you are staying safe. 

We are happy to announce the second session of SnapStats on YouTube Live.

Join us tomorrow for a brief talk on “ Confidence intervals ”.

Don't miss the opportunity to interact with the speakers with your queries and doubts.

Kindly share this information with your friends as well.

Date: 30-04-2021, Friday

Time: 04:00 - 04:30 P.M.

Webcast link:   https://www.youtube.com/ channel/UCOz- 4lufxxfm4njksLDs9Cg

If you missed our first session on "What is p-value?", kindly watch it here ( https://youtu.be/vR3UsqayhU8 )

Details of future sessions will be communicated later.

- BCBR Team    

Basic course in Biomedical Research- Cycle 2: Results Published!

  • If You have filled G-Form for Name/DOB changes, it will be reflected in your login and  E-Certificate after Jan 15th, 2021.
  • As announced earlier, hard copies of certificates will not be dispatched.

Pattern of final proctored exam for BCBR – Cycle 2

2. Pattern of online exam: Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) with one best answer. Questions will be based on material from the lecture videos,     lecture handouts, assignment questions, reading/resource materials, and discussion forum.

3. Total number of questions is 100 (each question carries 1 mark). There is no negative marking.

4. Duration of online exam is 3 hours. Candidates will be allowed to leave after a minimum duration of 90 minutes.

5. Some questions may need simple calculations. For this purpose, online calculator would be available on the computer being used for examination. --Team BCBR

Basic course in Biomedical Research- Cycle 2 - Update on Dec 2020 Exam!!

Dear candidate,.

For the Jul-Oct 2020 semesters, NPTEL exams are scheduled to be conducted from Dec 18 to Dec 20, 2020. Due to the current pandemic situation, we have been receiving requests from candidates for exam city changes, cancel of exams, etc. 

Please read the following and fill the suitable form.

If you do not want any changes in your current choices you had mentioned while registering for the exam, you DO NOT have to fill these forms - Kindly ignore this email.

EXAM CITY CHANGES & CANCEL+REFUND

If you want to request for exam city changes and/or

If you still wish to cancel the exam(s) and obtain a refund, please go to this link and log in using your exam registered email id.

Link: https://internalapp.nptel.ac. in/

CHANGES IN DATA

If you wish to make any changes in the following fields of the exam registration form, please go to the Google form link given below.

Changes in your name (note that this will be displayed in your e-certificate)

Mobile Number

College Name

Saying YES to sharing details with your college

Link: http://tiny.cc/share_info_form

This is your LAST CHANCE to request for a) exam city change b) cancel the exams and get a refund, and c) changes in select fields in the exam form. Beyond the last date mentioned here, we will NOT accept requests for any changes whatsoever.

LAST DATE TO FILL THE FORMS: Nov 23, 2020 (Monday) 12pm

Announcement on last date for bcbr cycle 2 (march-june 2020) exam registration.

Attention for the eligible participants to register for proctored exam in Basic Course in Biomedical Research Cycle 2

Dear course participant,

Those who have received the eligibility mail to register for BCBR Cycle 2 exam kindly note the timeline and fees structure.  

Pay the exam fees and submit the form well in advance to avoid last minute rush.

Watch the video tutorial completely on  how to register for BCBR exam  before filling up the exam registration form. -Team BCBR

Watch the video tutorial completely on how to register for BCBR exam before filling up the exam registration form. -Team BCBR

1.        Exam will be conducted at designated centres using a computer via online mode.

2.        Pattern of online exam: Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) with one best answer.

3.        Syllabus for the exam: Questions will be based on material from the lecture videos, lecture handouts, assignment questions, reading/resource        materials and discussion forum.

4.        Total no. questions is 100 (each question carries 1 mark). There is no negative marking.

5.        Duration of online exam is 3 hours. Candidates will be allowed to leave after a minimum duration of 90 minutes.

6.       Some questions may need simple calculations. For this purpose, online calculator would be available on the computer being       used for examination

Delay in responding email queries on exam registration for BCBR Cycle-2 (March-June 2020)

We are currently receiving more than the anticipated number of email queries regarding exam registration for Cycle 2 of BCBR.

At BCBR, we always strive to reply to every email as soon as possible. However, due to unforeseen administrative constraints we may not be able to respond to your query immediately. Nevertheless, we assure you that your queries will be replied, albeit with some delay. So, kindly bear with us.

We also request you to watch the video tutorial ( https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=mmprYvTeoVA&t=1s ) completely on how to register for BCBR exam before filling up the exam registration form. This will clarify most of your queries. If you still have doubts, kindly email us.

Video tutorial to fill Exam Registration Form

This announc ement is only for those who have received the  ‘Eligible’  mail to register for the final proctored exam for BCBR-Cycle 2 (March-June 2020)

Kindly click this link  https://youtu.be/mmprYvTeoVA  to watch a video tutorial on ‘How to fill the Exam Registration Form for BCBR – Cycle 2 final proctored exam.

For any queries related to filling the Exam Form, kindly send email to  [email protected]

Basic course in Biomedical Research- Cycle 2 : Exam Registration form is open now for cycle 2!!!

Dear course participant,  Here is the much-awaited announcement on registering for the July 2020 NPTEL course certification exam.  1. Registration for the final proctored exam is open only to those learners who have enrolled and scored a minimum of 50% in aggregate in the assignments of cycle 2 of Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) [Cycle 2-March to June 2020]. 2. If you want to register for the exam for this course, login here using the same email id which you had used to enroll to the course in Swayam portal. Please note that Assignments submitted through the exam registered email id ALONE will be taken into consideration towards final consolidated score & certification.  3. Date of exam: December 18/19/20, 2020  Certification exam registration URL is: https://examform.nptel.ac.in/   Choose from the Cities where exam will be conducted:  Exam Cities     4. Exam fees:  If you register for the exam and pay before  Oct 28, 10:00 AM,  Exam fees will be  Rs. 1000/- per exam .  If you register for exam before  Oct 28, 10:00 AM  and have not paid or if you register between  Oct 28, 10:00 AM & Nov 02, 5:00 PM,  Exam fees will be  Rs. 1500/-  per exam  5. 50% fee waiver for the following categories:  Students belonging to the SC/ST category: please select Yes for the SC/ST option and upload the correct Community certificate. Students belonging to the PwD category with more than 40% disability: please select Yes for the option and upload the relevant Disability certificate.  6. Last date for exam registration: Nov 02, 2020 5:00 PM (Friday).  7. Mode of payment: Online payment - debit card/credit card/net banking.  8. HALL TICKET:  The hall ticket will be available for download tentatively by  2 weeks prior to the exam date - between December 10-15, 2020.  We will confirm the same through an announcement once it is published.  9. FOR CANDIDATES WHO WOULD LIKE TO WRITE MORE THAN 1 COURSE EXAM:- you can add or delete courses and pay separately – till the date when the exam form closes. Same day of exam – you can write exams for 2 courses in the 2 sessions. Same exam center will be allocated for both the sessions.  10.  Data changes:  Last date for data changes: 02 Nov 2020, 5:00 PM:  All the fields in the Exam form except for the following ones can be changed until the form closes.  The following 6 fields can be changed ONLY when there are NO courses in the course cart. And you will be able to edit the following fields only if you: -  REMOVE unpaid courses from the cart And/or - CANCEL paid courses  1. Do you come under the SC/ST category? *  2. SC/ST Proof  3. Are you a person with disabilities? *  4. Are you a person with disabilities above 40%?  5. Disabilities Proof  6. What is your role ?  Note:  Once you remove or cancel a course, you will be able to edit these fields immediately.  But, for cancelled courses, refund of fees will be initiated only after 2 weeks.  11.  LAST DATE FOR CANCELLING EXAMS and getting a refund: 02 Nov 2020, 5:00 PM  12. Click here to view Timeline and Guideline :  Guideline    Thanks & Regards, NPTEL TEAM

Announcement to BCBR cycle 2 participants to migrate to cycle 3

·            If you have previously enrolled in cycle 2 but  could not complete the assignment submission or you scored less than 50%,  then you need to enroll in BCBR cycle 3 to retake the course.

·            You can still access your cycle 2 records from the course page.

·            Please watch the tutorial on “How to migrate from cycle 2 (assignment incomplete /failed) to cycle 3 of the online BCBR course ( https://youtu.be/CzcGv1xv_qc ) for more details.

 -BCBR Team

Announcement for cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020) participants

Basic Course in Biomedical Research Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun2020) : Delay in exam registration process

Your assignment scores for cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020) is available in the Progress tab of your course page.

The marks displayed in the top set (Assignment 1 to Assignment 23) is for cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020). A minimum of 50% in consolidated assignment score is required to register for the final examination.

The exam registration process and the final exam dates for cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020) are kept on hold by our technical partner NPTEL due to COVID-19 circumstances. 

Once the exam dates are finalized by NPTEL, you will receive an eligibility notification and the link for exam registration in your enrolled email ID. Stay tuned to the course page for exam related updates.

Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020): Assignment evaluation changes

Basic Course in Biomedical Research Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020 ): Assignment evaluation changes

This is to inform you about the changes in the evaluation of Basic Course in Biomedical Research cycle 2 assignment (Mar-June 2020). The following questions were identified to have issues in them and therefore they are not considered for scoring. For each lecture, the score obtained is calculated as a percentage based on the number of valid questions.

Details are given below:

Assignment 3:  Literature review

Question no: 6.  All the following are examples of databases EXCEPT

a)       MEDLINE

b)       EMBASE

c)       CINAHL

d)       Google scholar

Remark:   All the four options are examples of database.

****************************** ****************************** ***************

Assignment 6:  Analytical study designs

Question no: 3. Relative risk is a

a)        Rate

b)        Ratio

c)        Proportion

d)        None of the above

Remark:   Correct answer is b) Ratio

****************************** ****************************** ******************

Assignment 8:  Validity of epidemiological studies

Question no: 2 . Blinding in an epidemiological study is a way to deal with:

a)       Chance

b)       Selection Bias

c)       Information Bias

d)       Sampling Error

Remark:   Both b) and c) options are correct.

Assignment 14:  Study plan and project management

Question no: 2.  Which of the following can be considered true in case of an  ad hoc  approach to conduct a research study?

a)       Its advantages are the low development effort and possibility of getting results in a short time span

b)       Its advantage is that the accuracy of the results is usually high

c)       Only ‘a’

d)       Both ‘a’ and ‘b’

Remark:   Both a) and c) options mean the same and are correct.

Assignment 20:  Conducting Clinical Trials

Question No: 10 . Which of the following are methods for identifying and preventing potential harm to study participants?

a)       Adverse and serious adverse events reporting

b)       Periodic review of the project by Data Safety Monitoring Board

c)       Close watch on enrolment targets

d)       Regular monitoring of the trial by a pre-identified monitoring agency

Remark:  The question should have read “Which of the following is  NOT  a method for identifying and preventing potential harm to study participants?” for which the correct answer would have been option “c)  Close watch on enrolment targets”

Last one day remaining for assignment submission

Assignment Submission for Basic Course in Biomedical Research - Cycle 2 (Mar - Jun 2020)

  • The last date for assignment submission is  30 June 2020  ( 2020-06-30, 23:59 IST, Tuesday )
  • A minimum of 50% in total assignment score is essential to register for the examination.

Announcement on session feedback

Session Feedback-Basic Course in Biomedical Research

Kindly give your lecture-wise feedback by clicking the highlighted  "CLICK HERE "  provided under the session feedback section.  

Your feedback is of course completely anonymous.  Your valuable feedback will be highly appreciated.

Last date for Assignment Submission

Nptel jan-apr 2020 - update about pass certificate.

Dear Learner,

  This announcement is onl y for those who registered for final exam(cycle 1).

The Assignment score sheet and Modified Pass certificate, if you are eligible for it, for the course "Basic course in Biomedical Research" have been generated.

How to access Candidate login:

Please login to https://nptel.ac.in/noc/ (preferably in incognito mode) with the exam registered email ID to check the same.

Average Assignment score is calculated as follows:

Please check Candidate login for details.

Modified pass certificate:

If this score >= 50/100 (which is also one condition for certificate eligibility), we will issue a modified Pass certificate.

If this score <50/100, this certificate will not be issued.

We have been advised by NIE that:

THIS WILL BE YOUR YOUR FINAL CERTIFICATE

No further exam will be conducted for this course by NPTEL on a future date

80% of the exam fees will be refunded.

For any queries, please write to [email protected]

As announced earlier there will be NO dispatch of certificate hard copies. 

Also, the certificate publishing link for social media is currently disabled.

                Assignment Submission for Basic Course in Biomedical Research - Cycle 2 (Mar - Jun 2020)

NPTEL: Latest update on Exams for Jan 2020 semester

Dear learner, Hope you are safe and doing fine in the current situation. This is with regard to the Jan-Apr 2020 NPTEL exams. Based on the feedback received the last couple of days from several stakeholders such as learners, colleges, etc, we have decided on the following: Cancelling the exams scheduled for 23/24/25 June through TCS The exams scheduled on 23/24/25 June, stand cancelled and the choices learners had opted for - In person exams or Refund, stand cancelled. 1. Attested Assignment Score sheet:  For ALL exam registered candidates: We will issue an attested assignment score sheet letter, regardless of your assignment score - which can be used as appropriate. 2. Modified Pass certificate: Based on Average Assignment score We will calculate the Average Assignment score as follows: Average of the best 3/6/8 assignments for courses of duration 4/8/12 weeks (or as announced apriori in the course in case of changes) If this score >= 40/100 (which is also one condition for certificate eligibility), we will issue a modified Pass certificate. If this score <40/100, this certificate will not be issued. This certificate will not be counted towards the Domain certification as a completed course.  Similarly, we will not be issuing an AICTE-NPTEL FDP certificate also based on this. 3. A generic letter from our side - request to College authorities to accept this as per their requirement will be put up on  nptel.ac.in , can be downloaded and used We will put up a pdf in which we will explain the assignment score sheet and the Pass certificate and request them to accept and process further. We will also independently approach the ministry, AICTE and UGC to convey this new process for Jan 2020 semester to all universities.    Regarding the conduct of exams in future: Independent of the Pass certificate and the Attested assignment score sheet mentioned above,  in order to plan for a possible exam sometime in the future, w e will share another form after the above activities are completed, with 2 choices:   a.  Cancel and refund  - Those who are very sure that they would not want to appear for regular proctored NPTEL exams and want a refund - can choose this. We will refund the money. We may not be able to open registrations again in this case if you wish to appear for it later. b.  NPTEL can retain fees for exams whenever organized for Jan 2020 courses  -Those who would like to wait and take the exam with us - whenever we conduct it - can opt for this choice  and we will keep the fees with us. Writing this and passing as per the certification criteria laid down will get them the regular NPTEL certificate. This will alone be counted towards the Domain certificate and issue of the FDP certificate. The mode of conducting the exams, date of the exams, etc - we will inform as the situation evolves.   For any queries: please contact  [email protected]. in -NPTEL Team

UPDATE ABOUT NPTEL JAN-APR 2020 EXAMS

NPTEL Committee has decided to discontinue the Online Remote Proctored Exam Option .

Hence, you now have to choose between the following 2 options.

OPTION 1: IN PERSON PROCTORED EXAM AT FIXED EXAM CENTRES

We will be conducting exams with TCS iON (like we normally do) for which you have to appear in person at the designated exam centre in the city chosen by you.

The current exam dates fixed for this are:

  Important:

The above is subject to Government restrictions prevalent in various states at that point in time.

If you choose this option, the responsibility to reach the centre lies with you.

If the exams do get postponed due to unavoidable circumstances, exams may be conducted in August 2020 or maybe even as late as in October 2020.

If you choose to write the exam through this option and the exam is conducted by us in a particular city and you miss it, refund will NOT be possible as all arrangements would have been made with the vendor for the same and hence payment made to the vendor.

If you do pass the course as per the criteria mentioned, certificate will be the same as we normally give.

  • We will ensure you will be able to write the exams you have registered for without a clash in slots.

NPTEL, along with the exam partner, will make sure that exams are conducted by following appropriate social distancing norms and hygiene rules as required in the current situation.

We will try and ensure conduct of exam in the cities given in the list, but if in case for any unforeseen reason, we are unable to conduct the exam in the city chosen by you, we will refund 80% of the exam fee. In this case, you will not get the certificate from us.

Same final score calculation and pass criteria as mentioned in the Course introduction page will be applied  and NPTEL certificates will be given as per that.

Exam fees will not be refunded if you select this option and later do not/cannot take the exam.

In the link given below, you may choose exam cities where you prefer to write exams.

------------------------------ ----

OPTION 2: CANCEL EXAM AND TAKE A REFUND

NPTEL certificate will NOT be issued in this case and you will only get an attested assignment score sheet. We will create and share a letter stating the Assignment scores obtained in the course, by the end of June, 2020.

We will refund 80% of the exam fees you had paid, with 20% retained by NPTEL towards admin costs. Refund will be initiated only after exams are concluded (after June 25).

THOSE WHO DO NOT FILL THIS FORM

By default, your choice will be taken as: CANCEL AND REFUND

LAST DATE TO FILL THIS FORM: JUNE 7, 2020 - 5PM

Link: bit.ly/NPTELExamOptionForm (Please open from Incognito window)

- NPTEL Team

NPTEL:New Exam dates and options for Jan-Apr 2020

  • A laptop/desktop with webcam, audio and stable internet connection.
  • You can write the exam from wherever you are.
  • Please check system requirements shown below.

basic course in biomedical research question paper

If you wish to take the remote proctored online exam online, please follow the following steps. STEP 1 : Mock Test You will receive an email with Link for a Mock Test. Please go ahead and use this link to test your system requirements and compatibility.

  • The duration of this Mock test will be 10 mins.
  • This Mock Test has to be completed in order to check your system’s compatibility to take the remote proctored online exam.
  • Hence, completing this Mock test is Mandatory for those who wish to take the remote proctored online exam.
  • Those who do not complete the Mock Test successfully will not be able to participate in the remote proctored online exam.
  • We, along with the exam partner, will make sure that exams will be conducted by following appropriate social distancing norms and hygiene rules as required in the current situation.
  • It will be your responsibility to ensure that you reach the centre to give the exam.
  • We will try and ensure conduct of exam in the cities given in the list, but if in case for any unforeseen reason, we are unable to conduct the exam in the city chosen by you, we will refund 80% of the exam fee and you will not get the certificate from us.
  • Those of you graduating this year and who definitely need an NPTEL certificate - we suggest that you should make a serious effort in attempting this online remote proctored exam. As you know, the in-person-at-centre exam has a lot more dependencies on external factors. So please try to arrange for the systems per the requirements and attempt this online exam.
  • The above 3 options can be exercised for each of the courses registered for individually.
  • If you pass the course as per the certification criteria, the certificate will be the same as we normally give.
  • You can choose either the online exam session or the in-person session to write the exam. If you miss that we will be unable to provide another opportunity to take up the exam this semester. The fees paid will be used towards this one session.
  • Fees will not be refunded if you participate in this exam and then could not complete the exam for any reason whatsoever.

Last few days remaining for enrollment

Few days remaining for enrollment in "Basic Course in Biomedical Research - Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020)"

1.  The last date for enrollment is  1 st  June 2020 23:59 IST (Monday)

2. To enroll please click on  https://swayam.gov.in/nd1_ noc19_ge33/preview

3. No further extension of date for enrollment for the current cycle

4. Pass this information to your friends/colleagues who are not enrolled in this course

Basic course in Biomedical Research - NPTEL Exam Postponed

Dear learner, Hope you are staying safe and keeping well.  Many of you have been wondering about the status of exams and writing to us or posting on the forums.  In view of the current situation all across the country, we are  postponing the NPTEL exams  that were scheduled to have happened on March 29,April 25 and April 26 . We are still unsure about the dates for conducting the same as it depends on how things change. We will keep you informed through email and sms as we finalise the options. Once the dates are finalised, we will also allow you: 1. to cancel your exams if the future dates announced by us do not suit you  2. to change cities selected, if required. Please check the course Announcement section, your email (spam/junk folders also) and ask your friends/college for updates so that you don't miss it. Please write to  [email protected]  for any clarifications/concerns. Warm regards Nptel team

Announcement on the importance of enrollment email id

DO NOT USE MORE THAN ONE  EMAIL ID TO ENROLL IN THE  COURSE!!!

·          The participant who enroll in this course should use the same email id as the course undergoes the following processes

1.       Enrollment 

2.       Submission of Assignments

3.       Receiving the eligibility mail for examination registration

4.       Examination registration 

5.       Receiving hall ticket 

6.       Proctored examination results

7.       Collecting e-Certificates

·          Do not use more than one email id for enrollment and assignment submission to avoid receiving multiple confusing information for proctored examination

·          Assignment submitted using any other email id will not be taken into consideration towards the final consolidated score & certification

·          You will receive all notifications related to the course to your enrolled email id only

·          The responsibility of keeping the email id valid till the end of the course lies with the participant. Hence, it is recommended that the participant preserves the enrollment credentials (i.e., username and password) securely throughout the course

    -           BCBR Team     

Announcement on queries by course participants

Post queries through e-mail

Due to the present lockdown condition amid COVID-19 pandemic, our staffs of Basic Course in Biomedical Research are working from home. Therefore, we will be unable to attend your telephonic queries until further notice. However, you can always reach us via email and send us your technical/administrative queries related to the course to this email address  ( [email protected] )  and we will gladly respond to the same at the earliest. 

Happy learning and stay safe!

Announcement on submission of assignments for Basic Course in Biomedical Research: Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020)

Submission of assignments for Basic Course in Biomedical Research: Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020)

·         To access the assignments for lecture 1 to 23, Click on “Basic Course in Biomedical Research: Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020)” under “Course outline” on the left side of the course page. “Quiz: Assignment” will be available under each lecture

·         To view the steps for  submitting the assignments  Click:  https://youtu.be/5T28Eu1RQL8? t=588

·         The deadline for submission of assignments (Cycle 2) is  23:59 pm on 30 June 2020 (Tuesday)

·         The assignments score will be shown only after the deadline (i.e., after  30 June 2020 ) in the  “Progress”  page

·         It is recommended that all the assignments (Lecture 1- Lecture 23) are preferably submitted using desktop or laptop to avoid probable technical difficulty in submission of assignments through mobile application

-          BCBR Team

Basic Course in Biomedical Research Cycle 2 (Mar-June 2020): Assignments for lecture 4 to lecture 23 is available now

Dear Course Participants,

You can now access the assignments for lecture 4 to lecture 23 of Basic Course in Biomedical Research: Cycle 2 (Mar-June 2020)  in the course outline.

- BCBR faculty

Announcement regarding 29 March 2020 exam postponement of Basic Course in Biomedical Research Cycle 1(Sep-Dec 2019)

Dear Candidate

The email announcement that you received regarding postponement of Basic Course in Biomedical Research exam to be held on 29 March 2020 is only for participants who have registered to write the exam on this date.

Participants who registered for exam on  25/26  April  2020 kindly wait for further notice.

Basic course in Biomedical Research : March 29, 2020, NPTEL Exam Postponed

Dear Candidate Thank you for registering course for March 29, 2020 NPTEL Exam. Taking into consideration the current situation, we are postponing the NPTEL exam scheduled for March 29, 2020 exam. We will keep you posted about the final date for the exam shortly. Please check your email/course announcement for further updates. (We will revert on cancellation, city change, and other logistics once we finalize on our side. Till then request you to wait patiently) - NPTEL team

Announcement on availability of assignments (lectures 4 to 23) for Basic Course in Biomedical research: Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020)

Dear Course participants,

Release of assignments (lectures 4 to 23) for Basic Course in Biomedical research: Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020)    

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1.  Who is eligible for the online Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR)?

Medical Postgraduates

As per the MCI notice dated 9 July 2019, BCBR is  mandatory  for Medical Postgraduates admitted from July 2019 onwards .  Medical Postgraduates include those pursuing MD/MS/Diploma/MPH following their MBBS course and governed by Medical Council of India (MCI).

Medical Teachers

As per the Gazette of India notification dated 12 February 2020 for Minimum qualifications for teachers in medical institutions, BCBR is  mandatory  for medical teachers for their promotion.

Q2. I’m not a post graduate student or teacher from a medical college. Am I eligible to enrol in BCBR?

All the other interested candidates  including students, clinical/ public health/ laboratory researchers, physicians, research associates, allied health professionals, scientists, statisticians, ethics committee members and project managers, can enroll into NIE’s online course- Health Research Fundamentals (Please follow ICMR-NIE website for the same) ( https://swayam.gov.in/nd1_ noc20_hs20/preview )

Q2. Please tell me about the enrolment process

·          Step 1 – Go to   https://swayam.gov.in/nd1_ noc19_ge33/preview

·          Step 2 – Click on the tab "JOIN " seen on the right-hand corner

·          Step 3 – Use Facebook, Google, Microsoft or SWAYAM account to login

·          Step 4 – Fill “My Profile” and click SAVE

Q3. Can I change my profile after the enrolment is over?

Yes. Once you are sign in, you need to go to ‘MY PROFILE’ where option is available to ‘EDIT PROFILE’. Click there to edit your profile.

Q4. I have forgot my login ID and password after enrolment. How can I retrieve those?

Please use your regular Email as login ID. It is always advisable to remember your password. If you forget your password,  you can retrieve your login credentials by using "Forgot your password?". However, if you forget the login ID, you will have to enroll again (With new login ID) for the course, before assignment submission deadline. (Ref. to Q5)

Q5. How shall I access the course and submit the assignments?

·          Step 1: Sign in to the course page ( https://swayam.gov.in/nd1_ noc19_ge33/preview )

·          Step 2: After signing in, click “Basic course in Biomedical Research” under Course outline in the top left of the course page.

·          Step 3: In the left panel, all the 23 lectures will be available. Click to open the intended lecture.

·          Step 4: At the end of the lecture find “Quiz: Assignment” for all the topics.

·          Step 5: Click on any of the “Quiz: Assignment”. The assignment page will open.

·          Step 7: Complete the assignment by choosing the appropriate answer.

·          Step 8: Verify your answers before submitting and click “Submit Answers”.

·          Step 9: The confirmation of submission will be displayed on the top of the page as “Thank you for taking the assignment” .

·          For submitted assignments you could find the following message  “Your last recorded submission was on Date, Time IST”  under the Assignment topic.

·          You may submit the assignments any number of times before the deadline. i.e., 23:59 pm on 30 June 2020 (Tuesday). The one which last submitted will be considered for scoring.

·          Each of the 23 lectures will have online assignments consisting of 10 multiple choice questions (MCQs). Thus ‘total assignment score’ sums to a maximum of 230.

·          There is no negative mark.

Q5 How to ask queries on lectures?

You may follow the steps below for posting queries on “Basic Course in Biomedical Research”

While watching the video lectures

1. If you have any queries you may click on “ Ask a question ” below the video lecture.

2. You can then type a short description, followed by a question in the space provided.

3. You can then click on post question to submit your query/comment in the discussion forum.

After accessing the course materials

1. If you still have any queries/comments to be addressed after accessing the course material you can post them in the discussion forum.

2. The discussion forum can be accessed by clicking on  “Ask a Question”  tab in the menu bar of the “Basic Course in Biomedical Research” home page,  followed by selecting the appropriate topic .

3. You can then type your query/comment in  “click here to reply”.  Once you have finished typing, click on  “post”  to get a response from Faculty/Teaching assistants.

4. Please  post any queries  that you have  only in the   discussion threads assigned  for that particular lecture [for e.g., if you have a query related to lecture 22; you need to find a thread named: “Queries/comments for lecture 22. Elements of a protocol for research studies” and post your queries therein. This will help our Faculty/Teaching assistants in noticing immediately and addressing the queries expeditiously]

5. Once you post a query, our Teaching Assistants will respond to you.

6.  Please confine your questions to the lectures. It is beyond our scope to respond to any other queries.

Q7. Can I download the course material?

Yes. Please follow the steps to access the course material.   1.         Access course home page from the link:  https://swayam.gov.in/nd1_ noc19_ge33/preview  

2.     Login using the e-mail ID that was used to enrol for the course

3.     Click on your user ID on the right side of login page then click on "MY COURSES" tab

4.     Your course page will open, click on "Go to course" tab

5.     On the left panel, click on “Basic Course in Biomedical Research : Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020)” tab

6.      Click on the ‘Lecture’ you wish to view. This will take you to a new page where you can view the video and download the lecture handouts, reading/resource materials and the videos by clicking on the respective links given on that page

Q8. How will I know my assignment score?

If you click on the ‘Progress’ button on your course page, you will be able to know the lecture-wise assignment score. However, the score will be available only after the assignment deadline  i.e., 23:59 pm on 30 June 2020 (Tuesday).

Q9. Please tell me about the exam registration process

The registration for the certification exam will be open only to those course participants who will enrol for the course and who  Secure more than or equal to 50% in total assignment score . A candidate has to pay a registration fee of 1000 INR. However, 50% of this fee will be waived for candidates belong to the SC/ST category, and persons with more than 40% disability. The exam related announcements will be made subsequently. 

Announcement on Basic Course in Biomedical research: Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020) Assignments

  • The assignments for lecture 1, 2 and 3 are now available
  • The assignments for lecture 4 to 23 will be released later
  • The assignments consist of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) 
  • Each topic has 10 MCQs
  • Each MCQ carries one mark 
  • There is no negative marking
  • The deadline for submission of assignments is  23:59 pm on 30 June 2020 (Tuesday)
  • You may submit the assignments any number of times before the deadline. i.e .,  23:59 pm on 30 June 2020 (Tuesday)
  • The final submission will be considered for scoring
  • Your score will be shown only after the assignment submission deadline (i.e., after  30 June 2020 )

Announcement on Steps to Submit Assignments

·         Step 1 : After signing in, click “Basic course in Biomedical Research” under Course     

                    outline in the top left of the course page.

·         Step 2 : At the end of the lecture, find “Quiz: Assignment” for each lecture.

·         Step 3 : Click on any of the “Quiz: Assignment”. The assignment page will open.

·         Step 4 : Complete the assignment by choosing the appropriate answer.

·         Step 5 : Verify your answers before submitting and click “Submit Answers”.

·         Step 6 : The confirmation of submission will be displayed on the top of the page  

                     as “Thank you for taking the assignment” .

·         For submitted assignments, you could find the following message “ Your last recorded submission was on Date, Time IST”  under the Assignment topic.

·         You may submit the assignments any number of times before the deadline. i.e.,  23:59 pm on 30 June 2020 (Tuesday) . The one which last submitted will be  considered for scoring.

·         Each of the 23 lectures will have online assignments consisting of 10 multiple choice questions (MCQs) each. Thus ‘total assignment score’ sums to a maximum of 230.

·         There is no negative mark.

Welcome message to course participants joined in Basic Course in Biomedical Research: Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020)

Dear course participants, We thank you for joining the online course  Basic Course in Biomedical Research Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020) .  You can now access the course lectures.

Conceptualizing a research study

1. Introduction to health research – Dr. Sanjay Mehendale

2. Formulating research question, hypothesis and objectives – Dr. Manickam Ponnaiah

3. Literature review – Dr.P.Ganeshkumar

Epidemiological considerations in designing a research study

4. Measures of disease frequency – Dr.R.Ramakrishnan

5. Descriptive study designs – Dr. Prabhdeep Kaur

6. Analytical study designs – Dr. Manoj V.Murhekar

7. Experimental study designs - Dr. Sanjay Mehendale

8. Validity of epidemiological studies – Dr.Tarun Bhatnagar

9. Qualitative research methods – Dr.Tarun Bhatnagar

Bio-statistical considerations in designing a research study 

10. Measurement of study variables -– Dr.R.Ramakrishnan

11. Sampling methods -– Dr.R.Ramakrishnan

12. Calculating sample size and power -– Dr.R.Ramakrishnan

Planning a research study

13. Selection of study population- Dr.P.Ganeshkumar

14. Study plan and project management – Dr. Sanjay Mehendale

15. Designing data collection tools - Dr.Tarun Bhatnagar

16. Principles of data collection - Dr. Prabhdeep Kaur

17. Data management - Dr. Manickam Ponnaiah

18.  Overview of data analysis - Dr. Manickam Ponnaiah

Ethical issues in conducting a research study

19. Ethical framework for health research - Dr. Sanjay Mehendale           

20. Conducting clinical trials - Dr. Sanjay Mehendale

Writing a research protocol

21. Preparing a concept paper for research projects - Dr. Manickam Ponnaiah

22. Elements of a protocol for research studies - Dr.Tarun Bhatnagar 23. Publication Ethics – Dr. Sirshendu Chaudhuri

Steps to access the course

  • Access course home page from the link:  https://swayam.gov.in/ nd1_noc19_ge33/preview
  • Login using the e-mail ID that was used to enroll for the course
  • Click on your user ID on the right side of login page then click on "MY COURSES" tab
  • Your course page will open, click on "Go to course" tab
  • Click on the specific topic to access the corresponding lectures on the left panel of the home page (below "Course outline")
  • Please select “CLICK HERE” in session feedback under each lecture to submit your valuable feedback.

Announcement on availability of previous assignments

Availability of answer keys of assignments for  Cycle 1 (Sep-Dec 2019)

The assignment questions along with answer keys   for   Cycle 1 (Sep-Dec 2019)   are available on your course page under        ‘ Cycle 1 (Sep-Dec 2019) Assignments ’. 

Announcement for participants who had secured less than 50% in total assignment score in Basic Course in Biomedical Research: Cycle 1 (Sep-Dec 2019)

Course of action for participants ineligible for Basic Course in Biomedical Research: Cycle 1 (Sep-Dec 2019) exam registration Course participants who had enrolled in Cycle 1 (Sep-Dec 2019) and secured less than 50% in total assignment score are required to re-do the assignments posted under each lecture in the course page of Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020).  A  minimum of 50% in total assignment score  is essential to register for the proctored examination.

Announcement on Last date for exam registration

Attention for the eligible participants to register for certificate exam Basic Course in Biomedical Research

·         You can choose one of the three exam dates given in the drop down list (29 March, 25 April, 26 April) while filling the exam registration form

·         Accordingly, the last date for exam registration will be as follows:

Announcement on Online Exam Pattern

Online Exam Pattern – Basic Course in Biomedical Research

·         Pattern of online exam- Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) with one best answer. Questions are based on material from the lecture videos, lecture handouts, assignment questions, reading/resource materials, discussion forum.

·         Total questions in the online exam – 100 (each question carries 1 mark).  There is no negative marking.

·         Duration of online exam - 3 hours. The candidates would be allowed to leave after minimum duration of 90 minutes.

·          Few questions may need simple calculations. For this purpose, online TCS calculator would be available on the computer being used for examination.

Basic course in Biomedical Research : REGISTER TODAY - CERTIFICATION EXAM FORM IS OPEN NOW!!

  • Certification April exam registration URL is:  https://bcbrexam.swayam.gov. in/
  • Choose an exam session:  Forenoon: 9.00 AM -12.00 PM; Afternoon: 2.00PM - 5.00 PM
  • Choose from the Cities where exam will be conducted:  Exam cities
  • Students belonging to the SC/ST category: please select Yes for the SC/ST option and upload the correct Community certificate
  • Students belonging to the PwD category with more than 40% disability: please select Yes for the option and upload the relevant Disability certificate.
  • Data that cannot be changed in form by candidates themselves once you saved your profile : Name, DOB, Address, College name, Role, Photo, Signature, Exam city.    
  • No changes will be entertained in any details for March 29 Exam after   21 Feb 2020, 5:00 PM.   
  • No changes will be entertained in any details for April 26/26 Exam after   20 Mar 2020, 5:00 PM

User manual to fill up exam registration form

User manual to fill up exam registration form Basic course in Biomedical Research Please click here to download the user manual.  

A project of

basic course in biomedical research question paper

In association with

basic course in biomedical research question paper

IMAGES

  1. (PDF) Basic course in Biomedical Research

    basic course in biomedical research question paper

  2. Basic Course in Biomedical Research # Literature Review #how to do

    basic course in biomedical research question paper

  3. Alagappa University M.Phil., Biochemistry RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

    basic course in biomedical research question paper

  4. AKTU B.Tech Question Paper

    basic course in biomedical research question paper

  5. Basic Course In Biomedical Research Mcqs With Explained Answers

    basic course in biomedical research question paper

  6. Visvesvaraya Technological University B.E. (CBCS) Fifth Semester 15BM54

    basic course in biomedical research question paper

VIDEO

  1. 114.Basic Course in Biomedical Research # Introduction to Health Research #bcbr #nmc #promotion

  2. Marketing Research question paper 2023 Mcom. 3rd sem. kuk

  3. Part 3: Required Skills to Participate in Biomedical Research

  4. Operations Research question paper m.com 3rd sem of ccs university

  5. NPTEL Basic Course in Biomedical Research Quiz: Assignment-2 Answers

  6. #PG semester -4 Math (Operation Research ) question paper 2023

COMMENTS

  1. (PDF) Basic Course in Biomedical Research Handbook

    Basic Course in Biomedical Research Handbook by Tanmay Mehta Kindle e-book available at- https://www.amazon.in/dp/B08ZNQP2RS Paperback book available at- https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08ZQGSLF4...

  2. Basic Course in Biomedical Research

    Proctored exam schedule - 2024 Course content Conceptualizing a research study 1 Introduction to health research 2 Formulating research question, hypothesis and objectives 3 Literature review Epidemiological considerations in designing a research study 4 Measures of disease frequency

  3. PDF Basic Course in Biomedical Research

    Basic Course in Biomedical Research - Review (Compiled by Dr. Amit M Shah) 1 Contents Lecture 1: Introduction to health research 2 Lecture 2: Formulating research question 6 Lecture 3: Literature review 9 Lecture 4: Measures of disease frequency 12 Lecture 5: Descriptive study designs 16 Lecture 6: Analytical study designs 19

  4. 51 questions with answers in BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

    51 questions with answers in BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH | Science topic Science topic Biomedical Research - Science topic Explore the latest questions and answers in Biomedical Research, and...

  5. Basic Biomedical Sciences

    The goal of basic biomedical research is to provide comprehensive and detailed understanding of the mechanisms that underlie the development and normal function of humans and other living organisms and thereby gain insights into the pathological and pathophysiological mechanisms that cause disease.

  6. Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) Tutorials

    The Medical Council of India (MCI)/National Medical Commission has made it mandatory for PG medical students and medical faculties to pass certification exam after attending an online 6 months course, "Basic Course in Biomedical Research", by ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology (ICMR-NIE).

  7. Basic course in Biomedical Research Question bank

    To join our channel click on this link:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNMn1U-NDKat70_6T0fdK2g/joinBasic course in Biomedical Research Question bank (Comple...

  8. Multidisciplinary

    Basic course in Biomedical Research (Video) Syllabus; Co-ordinated by : IIT Madras; Available from : 2019-08-01. ... Formulating research question: PDF unavailable: 3: Literature review: PDF unavailable: 4: ... Preparing a concept paper for research projects: PDF unavailable: 22: Elements of a protocol for research studies:

  9. PDF Details of the Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) for ...

    The online course, "Basic Course in Biomedical Research" (BCBR), is being conducted by ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology (ICMR-NIE), Chennai, on behalf of the National Medical Commission.

  10. Basic course in Biomedical Research- Cycle 3

    In order to improve the research skills of Indian medical postgraduate (PG) students and teachers in medical institutions, the Board of Governors (BoG) in supersession of Medical Council of India (MCI) has recommended a uniform research methodology course across the country.

  11. Basic course in Biomedical Research Question bank

    Basic course in Biomedical Research Question bank 1300 Q Bank Product For 180 days Description : It is an online question bank which covers Multiple choice questions (MCQs) in exam mode and practi.... Add to cart Description Reviews (1) 500 Most Common List for NEET-PG Ad

  12. Basic course in Biomedical Research- Cycle 2

    Basic course in Biomedical Research- Cycle 2 - Course X About Swayam | Sign-In / Register Home Basic course in Biomedical Research- Cycle 2 By Multifaculty | ICMR - National Institute of Epidemiology Learners enrolled: 49859 www.nie.gov.in ). The course will explain fundamental concepts in research methodology.

  13. Basic Biomedical Sciences Research

    Basic biomedical research, which addresses mechanisms that underlie the formation and function of living organisms, ranging from the study of single molecules to complex integrated functions of humans, contributes profoundly to our knowledge of how disease, trauma, or genetic defects alter normal physiological and behavioral processes. Recent advances in molecular biology techniques and ...

  14. Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR)

    Home Information Desk For Students to Study in India Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) for Postgraduate Medical Students and Medical Teachers.

  15. "Design and implementation challenges of massive open online course on

    During the inaugural cycle of the online Basic Course in Biomedical Research course, nearly half of the enrolled participants successfully completed and received the certificate. India's MOOC for enhancing research capabilities of future medical researchers encountered successes and challenges. ... Six sets of question papers each consisting ...

  16. Introduction to Biomedical Research

    Home Introduction to Biomedical Research Introduction to Biomedical Research Develop a clear understanding of the key concepts and principles in biomedical research. In this free online course you'll learn that biomedical research is a fast-growing and highly-rewarding profession whose aim is to solve critical health challenges.

  17. BCBR MCQs with Answers

    BASIC COURSE IN BIOMEDICAL Cycle 1, 2 & 3 Which of the following areas can be included in health research? i. Improving the health of the population. ii. Predicting progression of a disease in a patient iii. Prevention of various diseases iv.

  18. Basic course in Biomedical Research- Cycle 5

    This online course, "Basic Course in Biomedical Research", is offered by ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology (ICMR-NIE), Chennai ( www.nie.gov.in ). The course will explain the fundamental concepts of research methodology in health.

  19. Basic Course in Biomedical Research Handbook

    About Basic Course in Biomedical Research: In order to improve the research skills of Indian medical postgraduate (PG) students and teachers in medical institutions, the Board of Governors (BoG) in supersession of Medical Council of India (MCI) has recommended a uniform research methodology course across the country. The online course, "Basic Course in Biomedical Research", is offered by ICMR ...

  20. BCBR Answer Key 2024 Basic Course in Biomedical Research Exam Key Paper

    Basic Course In Biomedical Research (BCBR) Answer Key 2023-2024 The key provided will be valid to all the candidates who have attending the test. Since this is a common test conducted all across the country, a single Swayam NPTEL Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR) Answer Key pdf will be provided.

  21. Basic course in Biomedical Research- Cycle 5

    The course will explain the fundamental concepts of research methodology in health. Course materials include video lectures reading/resource materials, example accompaniments, workbooks, lecture handouts and frequently asked questions (based on participant queries from previous cycle).

  22. Basic course in Biomedical Research- Cycle 2

    Release of assignments (lecture 1-3) for Basic Course in Biomedical research: Cycle 2 (Mar-Jun 2020) The assignments for lecture 1, 2 and 3 are now available. The assignments for lecture 4 to 23 will be released later. The assignments consist of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) Each topic has 10 MCQs.

  23. Basic Course in Biomedical Research Last Minute Revision Notes V2

    Basic course in Biomedical research Last Minute Revision notes V2 - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Basic course in biomedical research compiled notes Version 2: BCBR exam last minute revision (Kindly note my blog address has been changed to https://praja21.blogspot.com)