Dataset Information

Global research mapping of substance use disorder and treatment 1971-2017: implications for priority setting.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Globally, substance use disorders are prevalent and remain an intractable public health problem for health care systems. This study aims to provide a global picture of substance use disorders research.

Methods

The Web of Science platform was used to perform a cross-sectional analysis of scientific articles on substance use disorders and treatment. Characteristics of publication volume, impact, growth, authors, institutions, countries, and journals were examined using descriptive analysis and network visualization graphs.

Results

Thirteen thousand six hundred eighty-five papers related to illicit drugs (5403), tobacco (4469), and alcohol (2137) use disorders and treatment were published between 1971 and 2017. The number of publications on Mindfulness and Digital medicine topics had the highest increase with more than 300% since 2003-2007 despite later presence than other methods. The number of papers on other non-pharmaceutical therapies (behavioral therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, skills training or motivational interviewing) grew gradually, however, the growth rate was lower every 5-year period. The United States is the substance use disorder research hub of the world with the highest volume of publications (8232 or 60.2%) and total citations (252,935 or 65.2%), number of prolific authors (25 of top 30 or 83%) and institutions (24 of top 26 or 92%), formed the most international research partnerships (with 96 distinct countries). The international collaboration followed a pattern based on geographic proximity and cultural similarity.

Conclusions

This study offers a comprehensive picture of the global trend of publications of substance use disorder. Findings suggest a need for research policy that supports the examination of interventions that culturally adhere to different local contexts to address substance use disorder in communities.

SUBMITTER: Tran BX

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6525403 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global research mapping of substance use disorder and treatment 1971-2017: implications for priority setting.

Tran Bach Xuan BX Tran Bach Xuan BX Moir Mackenzie M Latkin Carl A CA Hall Brian J BJ Nguyen Cuong Tat CT Ha Giang Hai GH Nguyen Nam Ba NB Ho Cyrus S H CSH Ho Roger C M RCM

Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy 20190517 1

<h4>Background</h4>Globally, substance use disorders are prevalent and remain an intractable public health problem for health care systems. This study aims to provide a global picture of substance use disorders research.<h4>Methods</h4>The Web of Science platform was used to perform a cross-sectional analysis of scientific articles on substance use disorders and treatment. Characteristics of publication volume, impact, growth, authors, institutions, countries, and journals were examined using de ...[more]

PMID: 31101059

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA review of research priorities completed by WHO technical units was undertaken. Results of the mapping were recorded in a database that was used to generate analysis and compare research priorities and the different methodological approaches used in their development.MethodsA total of 116 documents were reviewed for this study. The documents were published between 2002 and 2017 by the technical programmes of WHO headquarters and deposited in the institutional repository, IRIS. Research priorities were extracted from documents into a standard template and mapped to a five-category research cycle type framework defined in the WHO Strategy on Research for Health covering research to describe the research problem, identifying the cause and risk factors, developing solutions and new interventions, understanding the barriers to implementation, and evaluation of the impact of response. Details of the research priority methods were recorded. A database with user interface was created using Microsoft Excel 2010.ResultsA total of 2145 research priorities were extracted from the 116 documents meeting the inclusion criteria. The priorities specifically address 73 diseases/health topics. The document types were 26% Report, 22% WHO Guideline, 26% Research Prioritisation publication and 11% Meeting Notes. The most widely reported method used to identify priorities was expert consultation. Expert consultation was used to identify 86% of the priorities categorised here, with 26% (561) reporting it as the sole method; 52% (1111) explicitly listed a literature review as contributing to the identification of priorities. When the 2145 priorities were categorised across the research cycle framework, the largest portion (43%) addressed implementation challenges. The database is published here under an open access licence.ConclusionComparing research priorities between diseases/health topics requires standardisation and the research cycle type framework is one approach that can be applied across all the health topics found in public health. There is great variation in the use of research priority-setting methodology at WHO Headquarters. Therefore, a standard reporting approach, linked to established good practice, should be an area for future development by the WHO Global Health R&D Observatory. The database reported here can also be used to quickly access and analyse the research priorities for a specific health topic or to compare across a range of health topics.

Project description:BackgroundThis scoping review provides a thorough analysis of how stakeholders have so far been involved in research priority setting. The review describes, synthesizes, and evaluates research priority setting projects not only for the field of health-as previous reviews have done-but does so on a much broader scale for any research area.MethodsA comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reflecting the importance of grey literature, Google Scholar and relevant websites were also screened for eligible publications. A computational approach was then used for the study selection. The final screening for inclusion was done manually.ResultsThe scoping review encompasses 731 research priority setting projects published until the end of 2020. Overall, the projects were conducted within the realm of 50 subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Key learnings include that nearly all priority setting projects aimed to identify research priorities for the field of health (93%), particularly for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. Only 6% of the projects were not health-related and 1% identified research priorities at the interface between health and a non-health area. Over time, 30 different stakeholder groups took part in research priority setting. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Nearly two thirds of all projects have been conducted in Europe and North America. Overall, only 9% of the projects emphasized the importance of stakeholders in their goals and rationales and actively involved them. In around a quarter of the projects, stakeholders deliberated on their research priorities throughout the entire process.ConclusionBy mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society. As a practical addition to this review, the first worldwide research priority setting database was created: https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database . The database contains all the projects analyzed for this review and is constantly updated with the latest published research priority setting projects.

Project description:BackgroundDiagnostic errors are a major source of preventable harm but the science of reducing them remains underdeveloped.ObjectiveTo identify and prioritize research questions to advance the field of diagnostic safety in the next 5 years.ParticipantsNinety-seven researchers and 42 stakeholders were involved in the identification of the research priorities.DesignWe used systematic prioritization methods based on the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology. We first invited a large international group of expert researchers in various disciplines to submit research questions while considering five prioritization criteria: (1) usefulness, (2) answerability, (3) effectiveness, (4) potential for translation, and (5) maximal potential for effect on diagnostic safety. After consolidation, these questions were prioritized at an in-person expert meeting in April 2019. Top-ranked questions were subsequently reprioritized through scoring on the five prioritization criteria using an online questionnaire. We also invited non-research stakeholders to assign weights to the five criteria and then used these weights to adjust the final prioritization score for each question.Key resultsOf the 207 invited researchers, 97 researchers responded and 78 submitted 333 research questions which were then consolidated. Expert meeting participants (n = 21) discussed questions in different breakout sessions and prioritized 50, which were subsequently reduced to the top 20 using the online questionnaire. The top 20 questions addressed mostly system factors (e.g., implementation and evaluation of information technologies), teamwork factors (e.g., role of nurses and other health professionals in the diagnostic process), and strategies to engage patients in the diagnostic process.ConclusionsTop research priorities for advancing diagnostic safety in the short-term include strengthening systems and teams and engaging patients to support diagnosis. High-priority areas identified using these systematic methods can inform an actionable research agenda for reducing preventable diagnostic harm.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Communities' engagement in priority-setting is a key means for setting research topics and questions of relevance and benefit to them. However, without attention to dynamics of power and diversity, their engagement can be tokenistic. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance on how to share power with communities, particularly those considered disadvantaged and marginalised, in global health research priority-setting. This paper generates a comprehensive, empirically-based "ethical toolkit" to provide such guidance, further strengthening a previously proposed checklist version of the toolkit. The toolkit places community engagement and power-sharing at the heart of priority-setting for global health research projects. METHODS:A two part method was used to generate a revised toolkit. Part one was conceptual, consisting of novel analysis of empirical data (previously collected as part of the same overall project) to identify additional concepts relevant to power-sharing between researchers and communities in global health research priority-setting. Part two was empirical, seeking feedback on the initial checklist version of the toolkit in interviews with researchers, ethicists, community engagement practitioners, and community organisation staff. RESULTS:The conceptual process identified two additional components of engagement and six additional features that affect who defines, who participates, and who is heard in research priority-setting. New ethical considerations related to sharing power in global health research priority-setting are articulated in relation to those components and features. Interviewees provided suggestions for revising the toolkit's content and language. The implications of these suggestions and the analytic process for the toolkit are described. CONCLUSIONS:The resultant toolkit is a reflective project planning aid for researchers and their community partners to employ before priority-setting is undertaken for global health research projects. It consists of three worksheets (to be completed collectively) and a companion document detailing how to use them. It is more comprehensive than the initial toolkit, as worksheet questions for discussion cover all phases of priority-setting.

Dataset Information

Global research mapping of substance use disorder and treatment 1971-2017: implications for priority setting.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Global research mapping of substance use disorder and treatment 1971-2017: implications for priority setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets