Dataset Information

Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists.

ABSTRACT: Amidst a worldwide vaccination campaign, trust in science plays a significant role when addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Given current concerns regarding research standards, we were interested in how Spanish scholars perceived COVID-19 research and the extent to which questionable research practices and potentially problematic academic incentives are commonplace. We asked researchers to evaluate the expected quality of their COVID-19 projects and other peers' research and compared these assessments with those from scholars not involved in COVID-19 research. We investigated self-admitting and estimated rates of questionable research practices and attitudes towards current research status. Responses from 131 researchers suggested that COVID-19 evaluations followed partisan lines, with scholars being more pessimistic about others' colleagues' research than their own. Additionally,researchers not involved in COVID-19 projects were more negative than their participating peers. These differences were particularly notable for areas such as the expected theoretical foundations or overall quality of the research, among others. Most Spanish scholars expected questionable research practices and inadequate incentives to be widespread. In these two aspects, researchers tended to agree regardless of their involvement in COVID-19 research. We provide specific recommendations for improving future meta-science studies, such as redefining QRPs as inadequate research practices (IRP). This change could help avoid key controversies regarding QRPs' definition while highlighting their detrimental impact. Lastly, we join previous calls to improve transparency and academic career incentives as a cornerstone for generating trust in science.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-02797-6.

SUBMITTER: Garcia-Garzon E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8884412 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSARS-CoV-2 is a highly contagious virus, and despite professionals' best efforts, nosocomial COVID-19 (NC) infections have been reported. This work aimed to describe differences in symptoms and outcomes between patients with NC and community-acquired COVID-19 (CAC) and to identify risk factors for severe outcomes among NC patients.MethodsThis is a nationwide, retrospective, multicenter, observational study that analyzed patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry) from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. NC was defined as patients admitted for non-COVID-19 diseases with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test on the fifth day of hospitalization or later. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality (IHM). The secondary outcome was other COVID-19-related complications. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed.ResultsOf the 23,219 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 1,104 (4.8%) were NC. Compared to CAC patients, NC patients were older (median 76 vs. 69 years; p < 0.001), had more comorbidities (median Charlson Comorbidity Index 5 vs. 3; p < 0.001), were less symptomatic (p < 0.001), and had normal chest X-rays more frequently (30.8% vs. 12.5%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for sex, age, dependence, COVID-19 wave, and comorbidities, NC was associated with lower risk of moderate/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.87; p < 0.001) and higher risk of acute heart failure (aOR: 1.40; 1.12-1.72; p = 0.003), sepsis (aOR: 1.73; 1.33-2.54; p < 0.001), and readmission (aOR: 1.35; 1.03-1.83; p = 0.028). NC was associated with a higher case fatality rate (39.1% vs. 19.2%) in all age groups. IHM was significantly higher among NC patients (aOR: 2.07; 1.81-2.68; p < 0.001). Risk factors for increased IHM in NC patients were age, moderate/severe dependence, malignancy, dyspnea, moderate/severe ARDS, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and shock; odynophagia was associated with lower IHM.ConclusionsNC is associated with greater mortality and complications compared to CAC. Hospital strategies to prevent NC must be strengthened.

Project description:BackgroundLong-term health consequences following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, referred to as post-COVID-19 condition or Long COVID, are increasing, with population-based prevalence estimates for adults at around 20%. Persons affected by Long COVID report various health problems, yet evidence to guide clinical decision making remains scarce.ObjectiveThe present study aimed to identify Long COVID research priorities using a citizen science approach and solely considering the needs of those affected.MethodsThis citizen science study followed an iterative process of patient needs identification, evaluation and prioritisation. A Long COVID Citizen Science Board (21 persons with Long COVID, and seven with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and a Long COVID Working Group (25 persons with Long COVID, four patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and one relative) were formed. The study included four activities: three remote meetings and one online survey. First, Board members identified the needs and research questions. Second, Working Group members and persons affected by Long COVID (241 respondents, 85.5% with Long COVID, 14.5% with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and 7.1% relatives) evaluated the research questions on a 1-5 Likert scale using an online survey. Then the Board gave feedback on this evaluation. Finally, Board members set the priorities for research through voting and discussion.ResultsSixty-eight research questions were generated by the Board and categorised into four research domains (medicine, healthcare services, socioeconomics and burden of disease) and 14 subcategories. Their average importance ratings were moderate to high and varied from 3.41 (standard deviation = 1.16) for sex-specific diagnostics to 4.86 (standard deviation = 0.41) for medical questions on treatment. Five topics were prioritised: "treatment, rehabilitation and chronic care management", "availability of interfaces for treatment continuity", "availability of healthcare structures", "awareness and knowledge among professionals" and "prevalence of Long COVID in children and adolescents".ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study developing a citizen-driven, explicitly patient-centred research agenda with persons affected by Long COVID, setting it apart from existing multi-stakeholder efforts. The identified priorities could guide future research and funding allocation. Our methodology establishes a framework for citizen-driven research agendas, suitable for transfer to other diseases.

Dataset Information

Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists.

Supplementary information

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets