Dataset Information

Reporting health services research to a broader public: An exploration of inconsistencies and reporting inadequacies in societal publications.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Little is known about the accuracy of societal publications (e.g. press releases, internet postings or professional journals) that are based on scientific work. This study investigates a) inconsistencies between scientific peer-reviewed health services research (HSR) publications and non-scientific societal publications and b) replication of reporting inadequacies from these scientific publications to corresponding societal publications.

Methods

A sample of HSR publications was drawn from 116 publications authored in 2016 by thirteen Dutch HSR institutions. Societal publications corresponding to scientific publications were identified through a systematic internet search. We conducted a qualitative, directed content analysis on societal publications derived from the scientific publications to assess both reporting inadequacies and determine inconsistencies. Descriptive frequencies were calculated for all variables. Odds ratios were used to investigate whether inconsistencies in societal publications were less likely when the first scientific author was involved.

Results

We identified 43 scientific and 156 societal publications. 94 societal publications (60.3%), (associated with 32 scientific publications (74.4%)) contained messages that were inconsistent with the scientific work. We found reporting inadequacies in 22 scientific publications (51.2%). In 45 societal publications (28.9%), we found replications of these reporting inadequacies. The likelihood of inconsistencies between scientific and societal publications did not differ when the latter explicitly involved the first scientific author, (OR = 1.44, CI: 0.76-2.74); were published on the institute's or funder's website, (OR = 1.32, CI: 0.57-3.06); published with no involvement of a scientific author, (OR = 0.52, CI: 0.25-1.07).

Conclusion

To improve societal publications, one should examine both the consistency with scientific research publications and ways to prevent replication of scientific reporting inadequacies. HSR institutions, funders, and scientific and societal publication platforms should invest in a supportive publication culture to further incentivise the responsible and skilled involvement of researchers in writing both scientific and societal publications.

SUBMITTER: Gerrits RG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8026015 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is considered important internationally, with increasing evidence that PPI improves the quality, relevance and outcomes of research. There has been a growth in research publications that describe PPI in the research process, but the frequency and detail of PPI reporting varies considerably. This paper reports on a collaborative study that aimed to describe the extent of PPI in publications from research funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) in the East of England (EoE), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in England (2014-2019).MethodsA descriptive study of all research publications (1st January 2014 to 31st October 2017) funded by the NIHR CLAHRC EoE. Members of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg), at the University of Hertfordshire, were actively involved, with four PIRg co-researchers. We used an internationally recognised reporting checklist for PPI called the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) to guide the reviewing process.ResultsOut of 148 research papers identified, 16 (14%) reported some aspect of PPI activity and were included for review. Ten of the publications (63%) acknowledged the contributions of PPI individuals and/or groups and five had PPI co-authors. There was considerable variation in the PPI reported in the publications, with some 'missed opportunities' to provide detail of PPI undertaken. The perspectives of the co-researchers shaped the reporting of the results from this study. The co-researchers found the GRIPP2-SF (short form) to be useful, but the GRIPP2-LF (long form) was considered over complicated and not user-friendly.ConclusionsThis is one of the first studies to involve lay co-researchers in the review of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2 reporting checklists (GRIPP2-SF and GRIPP2-LF). We make recommendations for a revised version of the GRIPP2-SF, with clearer instructions and three additional sections to record whether PPI is reported in the abstract or key words, in the acknowledgements section, and whether there are PPI co-authors. We also recommend the provision of training and support for patient and public peer reviewers.

Project description: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.

Project description:ObjectivesExplore the occurrence and nature of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research (HSR) publications authored by researchers from HSR institutions in the Netherlands.DesignIn a joint effort to assure the overall quality of HSR publications in the Netherlands, 13 HSR institutions in the Netherlands participated in this study. Together with these institutions, we constructed and validated an assessment instrument covering 35 possible QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions. Two reviewers independently assessed a random sample of 116 HSR articles authored by researchers from these institutions published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals in 2016.SettingNetherlands, 2016.Sample116 international peer-reviewed HSR publications.Main outcome measuresMedian number of QRPs per publication, the percentage of publications with observed QRP frequencies, occurrence of specific QRPs and difference in total number of QRPs by methodological approach, type of research and study design.ResultsWe identified a median of six QRPs per publication out of 35 possible QRPs. QRPs occurred most frequently in the reporting of implications for practice, recommendations for practice, contradictory evidence, study limitations and conclusions based on the results and in the context of the literature. We identified no differences in total number of QRPs in papers based on different methodological approach, type of research or study design.ConclusionsGiven the applied nature of HSR, both the severity of the identified QRPs, and the recommendations for policy and practice in HSR publications warrant discussion. We recommend that the HSR field further define and establish its own scientific norms in publication practices to improve scientific reporting and strengthen the impact of HSR. The results of our study can serve as an empirical basis for continuous critical reflection on the reporting of messages and conclusions.

Project description:BackgroundThe influence of the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders on medical science has been increasingly criticised. When dealing with conflicts of interest in scientific publications it is important to ensure the best possible transparency. The objective of this work is to examine the disclosure practice of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest in German language publications concerning health services research for the first time.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in the PubMed data base using the MeSH term "health services research". The review was conducted on July 10, 2006, setting the limits "dates: published in the last 2 years" and "languages: German" (only articles with abstracts). 124 articles in 31 magazines were found. In the magazines the instructions for authors were examined as to whether a statement on conflicts of interest is expected--and if, in which form. Regarding the articles in the journals which require a statement, we examined whether the statement is explicitly published. The results are descriptively represented.Results13 magazines (42%) do not require any statement on conflicts of interest, whereas 18 journals (58%) expect a statement. Two of these 18 magazines refer explicitly to the uniform requirements of the International Committee of the Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); the remaining 16 magazines give differently accentuated instructions on how to disclose conflicts of interest, whereby the focus is primarily on financial issues. A statement on conflicts of interest is explicitly published in 11 of the 71 articles (15%) which are found in the magazines that require a statement with the submission of a manuscript. Related to the total number of included articles, this means that the reader explicitly receives information on potential conflicts of interest in 9% of the cases (11 of 124 articles). Statements of others that are involved in the publication process (reviewers, editors) are not available in any of the articles examined.ConclusionA better sensitization for possible conflicts of interest in German publications concerning health services research is necessary. We suggest tightening the criteria for disclosure in the instructions for authors in the scientific journals. Among other things the equivalent consideration of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest as well as the obligatory publication of the statements should be part of good practice.

Project description:Background While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why.Objective To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.Methods The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.Results 143 participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.Conclusions GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.

Project description:Methodologically sound mixed methods research can improve our understanding of health services by providing a more comprehensive picture of health services than either method can alone. This study describes the frequency of mixed methods in published health services research and compares the presence of methodological components indicative of rigorous approaches across mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative articles.All empirical articles (n = 1,651) published between 2003 and 2007 from four top-ranked health services journals.All mixed methods articles (n = 47) and random samples of qualitative and quantitative articles were evaluated to identify reporting of key components indicating rigor for each method, based on accepted standards for evaluating the quality of research reports (e.g., use of p-values in quantitative reports, description of context in qualitative reports, and integration in mixed method reports). We used chi-square tests to evaluate differences between article types for each component.Mixed methods articles comprised 2.85 percent (n = 47) of empirical articles, quantitative articles 90.98 percent (n = 1,502), and qualitative articles 6.18 percent (n = 102). There was a statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 12.20, p = .0005, Cramer's V = 0.09, odds ratio = 1.49 [95% confidence interval = 1,27, 1.74]) in the proportion of quantitative methodological components present in mixed methods compared to quantitative papers (21.94 versus 47.07 percent, respectively) but no statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 0.02, p = .89, Cramer's V = 0.01) in the proportion of qualitative methodological components in mixed methods compared to qualitative papers (21.34 versus 25.47 percent, respectively).Few published health services research articles use mixed methods. The frequency of key methodological components is variable. Suggestions are provided to increase the transparency of mixed methods studies and the presence of key methodological components in published reports.