Assessing Trainees’ Satisfaction With Clinical Research Teaching in Neuroepidemiology

Study designed to evaluate neuroepidemiology courses reveals general satisfaction in content, high willingness to recommend courses.

By Martin Kouame Tchankoni, Camille Voisin-Merveille, Carlos Ketzoian, Walter A. Rocca, Giancarlo Logroscino, Marco D’Amelio, Paolo Ragonese, Giovanni Savettieri, Fernando Gracia, Mario O. Melcon, Thibaut Gellé, Andrea Erazo, Barnabé Boton, Kenesh Dzhusupov, Artashes Tadevosyan, Dieu donné Gnonlonfoun, Pierre-Marie Preux

In recent years, health care professionals, particularly young neurologists, have increasingly turned to careers in clinical research. As a result, there is a growing need to update and broaden their knowledge of research methodology and epidemiology. Strengthening these skills is essential to ensuring good quality research, and to improving public health decision-making and patient care.

To meet this need, specialized courses in research methodology have been organized over the past four decades, offering a structured and comprehensive training program for health care professionals. These courses are designed to accommodate a wide range of profiles, including epidemiologists, biostatisticians, demographers, bioinformaticians, computer scientists, and artificial intelligence specialists. The main aim of these programs is to strengthen the research capabilities of some participants, while offering others the opportunity to acquire fundamental skills in research methodology.

Organized by B.S. Schoenberg,¹ the first course was held in San Miniato, Italy (province of Pisa), in 1981. It was titled “Advanced Course in Neuroepidemiology: Principles and Clinical Applications.” It was the first major international course devoted to neuroepidemiology. Others took place more recently in Europe and Latin America, fostering an international learning environment that encourages interdisciplinary collaboration.²

Despite the long history of these training programs, an assessment of participant satisfaction is essential to ensure their relevance and effectiveness. Understanding participants’ experiences and perceptions provides valuable information on strengths and areas for improvement in the format, content, and overall impact of the course.

The aim of this study was to describe the satisfaction levels of participants who have attended one of seven recent courses. This study will enable us to assess the effectiveness of the course and its ability to meet the educational needs of participants, and to identify potential improvements for future sessions.

Study Design and Setting

This was a cross-sectional study, based on the results of an online questionnaire completed by course participants from July 2 to Dec. 31, 2025. The course leaders of seven recent international courses of neuroepidemiology were contacted, and they shared the link to the online questionnaire with the participants by e-mail. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1: World map of countries hosting international neuroepidemiology training courses.

Data Collection and Population

Participants were informed that participation in the study was voluntary, and they were provided with contact information if they wanted to clarify doubts or ask questions. All data were coded to ensure anonymity. The questionnaire was organized into five parts. They were:

• Sociodemographic and professional information
• Information on the course content
• Information on the course enrollment
• Course evaluation (participants’ satisfaction)
• Intention to recommend the course

Participants’ satisfaction with different parts of the course was assessed via direct questions with a four-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 4 (very satisfied). The course content has been described elsewhere.²

Statistical Analysis

Data were collected online using a KoboToolbox questionnaire, which was provided directly via a Microsoft Excel output database. All analyses were performed using the R statistical package (version 4.5.3, Vienna, Austria). Quantitative variables were presented as median with their interquartile range, and qualitative variables were presented as frequency and proportions.

Results

Figure 2. Course evaluation by participants.

A total of 64 participants completed the questionnaire. The median age of participants was 35 years (30-43), with extremes ranging from 22 to 63 years. Gender distribution was slightly in favor of women (57.8%). About one in four participants (23.4%) had attended their first course at the 2025 edition in Benin.

The main reason respondents enrolled in these courses was to improve knowledge (68.8%), and at least 80% reported improved knowledge and research skills in neuroepidemiology. (See Table 1.)

Participants described themselves as generally satisfied with the various parts of the course (satisfaction above 50%). (See Figure 2.) Of the 64 respondents for the courses, 98.4% would recommend these courses to their colleagues: 31.2% would recommend, and 67.2% would strongly recommend. (See Figure 3.)

Discussion

Figure 3: Course recommendation by participants.

The study found a high level of satisfaction among participants who attended the training courses. The median age of 35 years suggests that most attendees were early- to mid-career professionals, which aligns with the expected target audience for these specialized courses.

Numerous studies have highlighted the central role of knowledge acquisition in stimulating curiosity. Curiosity encourages deeper engagement in the learning process. In our study, the primary motivation for enrollment was knowledge improvement (68.8%), reinforcing the idea that these courses effectively address an educational gap among professionals in the field.

As demonstrated in the literature, the acquisition of knowledge generates feelings of curiosity, helping people to identify gaps in their understanding and reinforcing their motivation to learn.³ These findings underscore the importance of designing educational experiences that are not limited to providing information.

Furthermore, at least 70% of respondents reported benefiting from the courses in a variety of ways, demonstrating the relevance and impact of the program. Indeed, more than nine out of 10 respondents were able to put into practice the knowledge acquired during this program, particularly in their ability to analyze epidemiological studies related to neuroepidemiology, after taking these courses.

Relevance and Effectiveness of the Teaching Format

Active learning is defined as all approaches that focus more on developing students’ skills than on transmitting information.⁴ Active learning strategies have been shown to facilitate interaction between learners and teachers, thereby encouraging discussion, critical thinking, and advanced clinical reasoning skills.⁵ Also, the use of active learning classrooms has the ability to improve student engagement, interaction, and active learning.⁶

Participant Satisfaction and Engagement

Participants’ level of satisfaction with the various course components was positive. The “course overall” component received the highest proportion of “very satisfied” responses (67.2%), reinforcing the effectiveness of the program’s structure and content. Similarly, the “conferences” received strong approval (59.4% “very satisfied”). This is in line with studies highlighting the value of expert-led sessions for learning something new and developing one’s network.^7,8

Conferences usually bring together a complex network of academic and nonacademic professionals to discuss and disseminate new knowledge. The practice of “conferencing” also includes activities that go far beyond the exchange of information.⁸

In addition, the high proportion of satisfaction and recommendation intention (31.2% would recommend and 67.2% would strongly recommend) suggest that the courses successfully met participants’ expectations. Such endorsement underscores the perceived value and effectiveness of the training.

Potential Improvements and Future Perspectives

Our results are consistent with previous studies on the satisfaction of participants who have benefited from reinforcement courses. The study highlights the importance of the interactive format of the courses and of their varied content (lectures, practical training, etc.). This training initiative needs to be maintained and continued in view of the high level of satisfaction observed.

Future improvements should focus on integrating digital tools or case studies to enhance the practical aspect. The training offer could consider modules tailored to the specific profiles of students, such as biostatisticians, doctors, and junior/senior researchers. Another point of improvement would be to promote networking and mentoring opportunities to ensure continuous accessibility for various professionals. Strengthening post-training follow-up, as well as refresher sessions or remote collaboration projects, could be alternatives.

An important aspect to consider is the deliberate choice by the organizers to maintain these courses in a face-to-face format. This setting fosters sustained immersion and encourages rich, informal interactions between faculty and participants that are difficult to replicate remotely. Close contact over several days not only supports in-depth scientific discussions but also promotes the development of collaborations, mentorship, and durable professional networks.

At present, we do not have data to assess how these courses would perform if delivered entirely online. Although such a format would offer clear advantages in terms of accessibility, cost, and flexibility, it might also weaken the quality of human interactions, participant engagement, and the collective dynamics that are central to the value of these courses.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that the neuroepidemiology training courses are perceived as highly relevant and beneficial, particularly due to their interactive and applied approach. Participants reported significant improvements in clinical research and epidemiology skills, supporting the continuation and adaptation of these courses to meet the evolving needs of public health professionals. Further enhancements, such as integrating innovative teaching tools and strengthening post-training follow-up, could optimize the long-term impact on participants’ careers and the field of neuroepidemiology research. •

Martin Kouame Tchankoni is a researcher affiliated with the African Center for Epidemiology and Public Health Research in Togo, Africa. Camille Voisin-Merveille is a researcher affiliated with the Institute of Epidemiology and Global Health and Omega Health in Limoges, France. Carlos Ketzoian is a researcher in the Institute of Neurology at the Hospital de Clínicas at the University of the Republic in Montevideo, Uruguay. Walter A. Rocca is a professor of epidemiology and neurology in the department of quantitative health sciences at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, New York. Giancarlo Logroscino is a researcher in the department of neuroscience at the University of Bari in Bari, Italy. Maro D’Amelio is a senior researcher in the department of biomedicine, neurosciences, and advanced diagnostics at the University of Palermo in Palermo, Italy. Paulo Ragonese is an associate professor in the department of biomedicine, neurosciences, and advanced diagnostics at the University of Palermo in Palermo, Italy. Giovanni Savettieri is a professor of neurology in the department of biomedicine, neurosciences, and advanced diagnostics at the University of Palermo in Palermo, Italy. Fernando Gracia is a neurologist at the Hospital Santo Thomás in Panama City, Panama. Mario O. Melcon is president of the Fundación para la Investigacíon en Neuro Epidemiología (FINEP) in Junín, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Thibaut Gellé, Andrea Erazo, and Barnabé Boton are researchers affiliated with the University of Limoges, in Limoges, France, and the Laboratory of Epidemiology of Chronic and Neurological Disease at the University of Abomey-Calavi in Cotonou, Benin. Kenesh Dzhusupov is head of the public health department in the International Higher School of Medicine at the International University of Kyrgyzstan in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Artashes Tadevosyan is a professor in the department of public health at Yerevan State Medical University in Yerevan, Armenia. Dieu donné Gnonlonfoun is a researcher affiliated with the Institute of Epidemiology and Global Health and Omega Health in Limoges, France, and the Laboratory of Epidemiology of Chronic and Neurological Disease at the University of Abomey-Calavi in Cotonou, Benin.  Pierre-Marie Preux is a researcher affiliated with the Institute of Epidemiology and Global Health and Omega Health in Limoges, France.