Accountability, research transparency and data reporting.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Licker M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7427052 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Accountability, research transparency and data reporting.
Licker Marc M Diaper John J Ellenberger Christoph C
BMC anesthesiology 20200814 1
More than one published paper are often derived from analyzing the same cohort of individuals to make full use of the collected information. Preplanned study outcomes are generally mentioned in open databases while exhaustive information on methodological aspects are provided in submitted articles. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe syntheses of multiple qualitative studies can pull together data across different contexts, generate new theoretical or conceptual models, identify research gaps, and provide evidence for the development, implementation and evaluation of health interventions. This study aims to develop a framework for reporting the synthesis of qualitative health research.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search for guidance and reviews relevant to the synthesis of qualitative research, methodology papers, and published syntheses of qualitative health research in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and relevant organisational websites to May 2011. Initial items were generated inductively from guides to synthesizing qualitative health research. The preliminary checklist was piloted against forty published syntheses of qualitative research, purposively selected to capture a range of year of publication, methods and methodologies, and health topics. We removed items that were duplicated, impractical to assess, and rephrased items for clarity.ResultsThe Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) statement consists of 21 items grouped into five main domains: introduction, methods and methodology, literature search and selection, appraisal, and synthesis of findings.ConclusionsThe ENTREQ statement can help researchers to report the stages most commonly associated with the synthesis of qualitative health research: searching and selecting qualitative research, quality appraisal, and methods for synthesising qualitative findings. The synthesis of qualitative research is an expanding and evolving methodological area and we would value feedback from all stakeholders for the continued development and extension of the ENTREQ statement.
| S-EPMC3552766 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7656281 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article discusses the background to the need for change in the reporting of experiments involving animals, including a report of a consensus meeting organised by the Basel Declaration Society and Understanding Animal Research UK that sought to Internationalise guidelines for reporting experiments involving animals. A commentary on the evolution of BJP's attempts to implement the ARRIVE guidelines and details of our new guidance for authors is published separately (McGrath, 2014). This is one of a series of editorials discussing updates to the BJP Instructions to Authors LINKED EDITORIALS: This Editorial is the first in a series. The other Editorials in this series will be published in the forthcoming issues. To view them, visit: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1476-5381.
| S-EPMC4409896 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAcademic medicine continues to struggle in its efforts to compensate scholarly productivity. Academic achievements receive less recognition compared to clinical work, evidenced by a lack of reduced clinical hours or financial incentive. Core departmental education responsibilities are often distributed inequitably across academic departments. An approach using an incentive program, which emphasizes transparency, equity, and consensus may help academic departments share core education responsibilities and reward scholarly activity.MethodsWe launched a two-stage approach to confront the inequitable distribution of educational responsibilities and to recognize the scholarly work among our faculty. In the first stage, baseline education expectations were implemented for all faculty members, which included accountability procedures tied to a financial incentive. The second stage involved the creation of an aAcademic rRelative vValue uUnit (ARVU) system which contained additional activities that were derived and weighted based on stakeholder consensus. The points earned in the ARVU system were applied towards additional financial incentive at academic year-end. We compared education contributions before and after implementation as well as total points earned in the ARVU system.ResultsIn the first year of implementing education expectations, 87% of faculty fulfilled requirements. Those with a heavier clinical load made up the majority of deficient faculty. Those who did not meet education expectations were notified and had their year-end incentive reduced to reflect this. Faculty conference attendance increased by 21% (P<.001) and the number of resident assessments completed increased by 30% (P<.001) compared to the previous year. To date, faculty across the department have logged a total of 1,240 academic activities in the database, which will be converted into financial bonus amounts at year-end.ConclusionWe have seen significant increases in faculty participation in educational activities and learner assessments as well as documentation of activities in the ARVU system. A similar system using different specialty-specific activities may be generalizable and employed at other institutions.
| S-EPMC6860393 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails. We found no significant differences between authors', reviewers', and editors' attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers. Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey's overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable. Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations.
| S-EPMC9994678 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We assess the impact of a transparency and accountability program designed to improve maternal and newborn health (MNH) outcomes in Indonesia and Tanzania. Co-designed with local partner organizations to be community-led and non-prescriptive, the program sought to encourage community participation to address local barriers in access to high quality care for pregnant women and infants. We evaluate the impact of this program through randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 100 treatment and 100 control communities in each country. We find that on average, this program did not have a statistically significant impact on the use or content of maternal and newborn health services, nor on perceptions of civic efficacy or civic participation among recent mothers in the communities where it was offered. These findings hold in both countries and in a set of prespecified subgroups. To identify reasons for the lack of impacts, we use a mixed-method approach combining interviews, observations, surveys, focus groups, and ethnographic studies that together provide an in-depth assessment of the complex causal paths linking participation in the program to improvements in MNH outcomes. Although participation in program meetings was substantial and sustained in most communities, and most attempted at least some of what they had planned, only a minority achieved tangible improvements, and fewer still saw more than one such success. In our assessment, the main explanation for the lack of impact is that few communities were able to traverse the complex causal paths from planning actions to accomplishing tangible improvements in their access to quality health care.
| S-EPMC8085768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) is a multistakeholder initiative quickly constructed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to a catastrophic breakdown in global cooperation. ACT-A is now the largest international effort to achieve equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies, and its governance is a matter of broad public importance. We traced the evolution of ACT-A's governance through publicly available documents and analysed it against three principles embedded in the founding mission statement of ACT-A: participation, transparency, and accountability. We found three challenges to realising these principles. First, the roles of the various organisations in ACT-A decision making are unclear, obscuring who might be accountable to whom and for what. Second, the absence of a clearly defined decision making body; ACT-A instead has multiple centres of legally binding decision making and uneven arrangements for information transparency, inhibiting meaningful participation. Third, the nearly indiscernible role of governments in ACT-A, raising key questions about political legitimacy and channels for public accountability. With global public health and billions in public funding at stake, short-term improvements to governance arrangements can and should now be made. Efforts to strengthen pandemic preparedness for the future require attention to ethical, legitimate arrangements for governance.
| S-EPMC8797025 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10413165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo facilitate global COVID-19 vaccine equity, the World Health Organization, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, and the United Nations Children's Fund supported the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access (COVAX) partnership. COVAX's goals may have best been pursued through shared health governance - a theory of global health governance based on six premises, in which global health actors collaborate to achieve a shared goal. Shared health governance employs a framework for accountability termed "mutual collective accountability", in which actors hold each other accountable for achieving their goal, thus relying on transparency with one another.MethodsWe conducted a multi-method qualitative study triangulating document analysis and key informant interviews to address the question: To what extent did COVAX employ shared health governance, mutual collective accountability, and transparency? We thus aimed to explore the governance structures and accountability and transparency mechanisms in COVAX and determine whether these constituted shared health governance and mutual collective accountability.ResultsWe identified 117 documents and interviewed 20 key informants. Our findings suggest that COVAX's co-convening organisations were governed by their individual formal governance mechanisms, while each was formally accountable to its own leadership team, resulting in challenges when activities and decisions involved collaboration between organisations. Furthermore, COVAX's governance lacked transparency, as there was little public information about their decision-making processes and operations, including information about the algorithm with which they make vaccine allocation decision, possibly contributing to its inability to achieve its goals.ConclusionsThe COVAX partnership only achieved four of the six premises of shared health governance. Since actors involved in COVAX did not hold one another accountable for their role in the partnership, it did not employ mutual collective accountability, while also lacking in transparency. Although these results do not entirely explain COVAX's shortcomings, they contribute to evidence about the roles of good governance, transparency, and accountability in large global health initiatives and underscore failures of the current global governance system.
| S-EPMC10705035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the adequacy of reporting and conduct of narrative synthesis of quantitative data (NS) in reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:A retrospective comparison of a 20% (n = 474/2,372) random sample of public health systematic reviews from the McMaster Health Evidence database (January 2010-October 2015) to establish the proportion of reviews using NS. From those reviews using NS, 30% (n = 75/251) were randomly selected and data were extracted for detailed assessment of: reporting NS methods, management and investigation of heterogeneity, transparency of data presentation, and assessment of robustness of the synthesis. RESULTS:Most reviews used NS (56%, n = 251/446); meta-analysis was the primary method of synthesis for 44%. In the detailed assessment of NS, 95% (n = 71/75) did not describe NS methods; 43% (n = 32) did not provide transparent links between the synthesis data and the synthesis reported in the text; of 14 reviews that identified heterogeneity in direction of effect, only one investigated the heterogeneity; and 36% (n = 27) did not reflect on limitations of the synthesis. CONCLUSION:NS methods are rarely reported in systematic reviews of public health interventions and many NS reviews lack transparency in how the data are presented and the conclusions are reached. This threatens the validity of much of the evidence synthesis used to support public health. Improved guidance on reporting and conduct of NS will contribute to improved utility of NS systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC6327109 | biostudies-literature