Dataset Information

Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.

ABSTRACT: The methods and results of health research are documented in study protocols, full study reports (detailing all analyses), journal reports, and participant-level datasets. However, protocols, full study reports, and participant-level datasets are rarely available, and journal reports are available for only half of all studies and are plagued by selective reporting of methods and results. Furthermore, information provided in study protocols and reports varies in quality and is often incomplete. When full information about studies is inaccessible, billions of dollars in investment are wasted, bias is introduced, and research and care of patients are detrimentally affected. To help to improve this situation at a systemic level, three main actions are warranted. First, academic institutions and funders should reward investigators who fully disseminate their research protocols, reports, and participant-level datasets. Second, standards for the content of protocols and full study reports and for data sharing practices should be rigorously developed and adopted for all types of health research. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators, and legislators should endorse and enforce policies supporting study registration and wide availability of journal reports, full study reports, and participant-level datasets.

SUBMITTER: Chan AW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4533904 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.

Chan An-Wen AW Song Fujian F Vickers Andrew A Jefferson Tom T Dickersin Kay K Gøtzsche Peter C PC Krumholz Harlan M HM Ghersi Davina D van der Worp H Bart HB

Lancet (London, England) 20140108 9913

The methods and results of health research are documented in study protocols, full study reports (detailing all analyses), journal reports, and participant-level datasets. However, protocols, full study reports, and participant-level datasets are rarely available, and journal reports are available for only half of all studies and are plagued by selective reporting of methods and results. Furthermore, information provided in study protocols and reports varies in quality and is often incomplete. W ...[more]

PMID: 24411650

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCompelling evidence has demonstrated that a large proportion of investment in biomedical research is wasted; this waste is avoidable. Academic institutions have, thus far, shown limited response to recommendations for increasing value and reducing waste. We formulated an academic response by (i) achieving consensus across a wide range of stakeholder groups on a comprehensive framework for quality of patient-oriented clinical research and (ii) highlighting first successful examples of its operationalization to facilitate waste-reducing strategies at academic institutions.Methods and findingsBased on a systematic review of quality definitions, concepts, and criteria in the medical literature (systematic MEDLINE search up to February 15, 2015, with independent and in duplicate article selection) and on stakeholder websites from 13 countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States), we systematically developed a comprehensive framework for the quality of clinical research. We identified websites through personal contacts with experts in clinical research or public health who also suggested, for each country, websites of the following 7 stakeholder groups: patient organizations; academic research infrastructures; governmental bodies; regulatory agencies; ethics committees; the pharmaceutical industry; and funding agencies. In addition, we searched websites of inter- or supranational bodies involved in clinical research until no further insights emerged. After consolidation of the identified definitions, concepts, and criteria of quality in a basic framework structure, we conducted 4 rounds of an adapted online Delphi process among the same 7 stakeholder groups from 16 countries. The Delphi process ultimately achieved consensus on structure and content. The framework addresses 5 study stages (concept, planning and feasibility, conduct, analysis and interpretation, and reporting and knowledge translation) and includes the following dimensions: (i) protection of patient safety and rights, (ii) relevance/patient centeredness and involvement, (iii) minimization of bias (internal validity), (iv) precision, (v) transparency/access to data, and (vi) generalizability (external validity) of study results. These dimensions interact with 2 promoters-infrastructure and sustainability through education-that include a set of factors that may enhance all listed quality dimensions. Each quality dimension contains specific questions and explanatory items that guide quality assessment at each research stage from conceptualization of the research question through reporting and knowledge translation of study results. In the last survey round, Delphi participants from 9 countries (Austria, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, and US) agreed on the structure, content, and wording of the research stages, quality dimensions, specific questions, and descriptive examples of the final framework. In Switzerland, INQUIRE has resulted in a roadmap that guides initiatives to increase value within the Swiss Clinical Trial Organization network and through affiliated researchers.ConclusionsWe present a framework based on a consensus of different stakeholder groups guiding the practical assessment of clinical research quality at all stages of a research project. Operationalization of this common structure will support the increase of value by guiding academic institutions and researchers in developing quality enhancement initiatives, from posing the right research question to the transparent publication of results.

Project description:International experts have recommended actions that funders can take to improve the value of research investments. They state that self-assessment and public sharing are the basis for accountability and improvement. We examined our policies and practice to determine the extent to which the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's (PCORI) policies and practices as a research funder align with international best practice recommendations. A self-audit of current policies and practice against 17 recommendations and 35 sub-recommendations representing five major stages of research production, based on adapted methods used for self-assessment by another funder, was performed. Fit of existing PCORI policies and practices with 35 sub-recommendations, qualitative assessment of adequacy (area of strength; area of partial strength; area of growth; not applicable) for 17 recommendations for five stages of research production was assessed. Of the 17 recommendations, 15 were applicable to PCORI's research mission and focus. PCORI has policies and practices in place for all elements of six recommendations ("area of strength") and policies that address each element but with some still in active development for three ("area of partial strength"). PCORI is partially addressing six of the 15 relevant recommendations ("area of growth"). Areas for growth include making study protocols publicly available, improving policies on data sharing, and enhancing collaboration with other funders to reduce redundant funding. A voluntary consortium of international funders is underway to encourage further progress, including additional self-assessment and public sharing for accountability. These findings indicate PCORI has undertaken efforts to align its funding practices with international recommendations to ensure the value of public dollars invested in research. Further efforts will likely require additional coordination and collaboration between funders and stakeholders.

Project description:Medical waste is a special class of hazardous pollutants. Improper treatment would cause secondary environmental pollution, especially when responding to public health emergencies. However, there are relatively few researches on the generation of medical waste, and there is a lack of basic understanding of its spatial-temporal heterogeneity. The outbreak of SARS in 2002 is a turning point in China's medical system reform. We estimated the production of medical waste and pollutants on a provincial scale in China from 2002 to 2018, using the data of medical statistics. Moreover, we forecasted the trend of medical waste in China until 2030, using a combination of environmental pressure model (STIRPAT) and time series model (ARIMA). We found that with the development of China's medical system and economy (such as the increase in personal income and popularization of universal health care), the number of seeking medical treatment rapidly increase led to explosive growth in medical waste (∼240%) and pollutants (∼260%), and large hospitals are the major sources. By 2030, the production of medical waste would still increase by more than 50% compared with 2018 even there is no the pandemic due to the huge population. The production of medical waste in the eastern region was higher than that in the west under the influence of higher population and GDP, while the per capita medical waste was only affected by household consumption level which had no regional characteristic. Additionally, Hg loads from medical waste are more than twice as high as that from discharged wastewater in some regions, which are facing great control pressures. In the future, when planning for medical waste disposal, policymakers shall increase the disposal facilities based on population and promote mobile treatment equipment to improve efficiency, increase the number of beds in medical institutions rather than building more hospitals, and strengthen basic research on the environmental impact.

Dataset Information

Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.

Publications

Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets