Naar gezond zorgonderzoek: interactieve leerervaringen uit het ZonMw-programma Gezondheidszorgonderzoek

Reijmerink, Wendy; Robben, Paul; Ruwaard, Dirk; Vermeulen, Hester

doi:10.1007/s12508-014-0115-y

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It could thus be worthwhile to investigate how feedback structures can better support authors and what type of feedback culture would specifically create a stimulating debate. The assessment form developed for assessing QRPs in scientific publications might guide structured feedback on reported messages and conclusions specifically, and may be retrieved from the supplementary material 1 in our previous open access publication [ 6 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…QRPs were defined as “to report, either intentionally or unintentionally, conclusions or messages that may lead to incorrect inferences and do not accurately reflect the objectives, the methodology, or the results of the study.” [ 8 ] For the assessment, we used a detailed assessment form including 35 possible QRPs in reporting messages and conclusions (e.g., “conclusions that do not adequately reflect the findings of the study”, “limitations are not adequately justified”). This assessment form, along with corresponding methods and results, have been published elsewhere [ 6 ]. For the current study, we conducted a survey amongst the 172 first and last authors of these publications.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study we focus on the field of Health Services Research (HSR). HSR has a direct link to policy and practice, where stakeholders and funders may contribute considerably to the interpretation of results [ 6 , 7 ]. Additionally, HSR relies on mixed methodologies such as qualitative and mixed methods designs that may have less strict reporting requirements compared to quantitative designs such as randomized controlled trials [ 3 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications

Gerrits

Mulyanto

Wammes

et al. 2020

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health Services Research findings (HSR) reported in scientific publications may become part of the decision-making process on healthcare. This study aimed to explore associations between researcher’s individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors and the occurrence of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific HSR publications. Methods We employed a mixed-methods study design. We identified factors possibly contributing to QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions through a literature review, 14 semi-structured interviews with HSR institutional leaders, and 13 focus-groups amongst researchers. A survey corresponding with these factors was developed and shared with 172 authors of 116 scientific HSR publications produced by Dutch research institutes in 2016. We assessed the included publications for the occurrence of QRPs. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify factors within individual, institutional, and environmental domains. Next, we conducted bivariate analyses using simple Poisson regression to explore factors’ association with the number of QRPs in the assessed HSR publications. Factors related to QRPs with a p -value < .30 were included in four multivariate models tested through a multiple Poisson regression. Results In total, 78 (45%) participants completed the survey (51.3% first authors and 48.7% last authors). Twelve factors were included in the multivariate analyses. In all four multivariate models, a higher score of “pressure to create societal impact” (Exp B = 1.28, 95% CI [1.11, 1.47]), was associated with higher number of QRPs. Higher scores on “specific training” (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.77–0.94]) and “co-author conflict of interest” (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.75–0.97]) factors were associated with a lower number of QRPs. Stratification between first and last authors indicated different factors were related to the occurrence of QRPs for these groups. Conclusion Experienced pressure to create societal impact is associated with more QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions in HSR publications. Specific training in reporting messages and conclusions and awareness of co-author conflict of interests are related to fewer QRPs. Our results should stimulate awareness within the field of HSR internationally on opportunities to better support reporting in scientific HSR publications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%