Identifying trustworthy experts: how do policymakers find and assess public health researchers worth consulting or collaborating with?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Haynes AS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3293848 | biostudies-other | 2012
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo ascertain the views of public health experts on adverse trends in life expectancy across England and Wales over the past decade, causal factors, possible solutions, and their opinions about how the prepandemic situation influenced the UK's COVID-19 response.Study designSemistructured, in-depth interviews.MethodsNineteen public health experts were identified by purposeful sampling and invited to take part via e-mail. Sixty-three percent responded and participated (n = 12), six females and six males. Interviews took place via Microsoft Teams between November 2021 and January 2022. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic content analysis.ResultsThere was no consensus on the significance of the stalling and, at some ages, reversal of previous improvements in life expectancy between 2010 and 2020. Explanations offered included data misinterpretation, widening health inequalities, and disinvestment in public services, as well as some disease-specific causes. Those accepting that the decline was concerning linked it to social factors and suggested solutions based on increased investment and implementing existing evidence on how to reduce health inequalities. These interviewees also pointed to the same factors playing a role in the UK's poor COVID-19 response, highlighting the need to understand and address these underlying issues as part of pandemic preparedness.ConclusionsThere was no consensus among a group of influential public health experts in the UK on the scale, nature, and explanations of recent trends in life expectancy. A majority called for implementation of existing evidence on reducing inequalities, especially in the wake of COVID-19. However, without agreement on what the problem is, action is likely to remain elusive.
| S-EPMC9754903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTh EQUATOR Network improves the quality and transparency in health research, primarily by promoting awareness and use of reporting guidelines. In 2018, the UK EQUATOR Centre launched GoodReports.org , a website that helps authors find and use reporting guidelines. This paper describes the tool's development so far. We describe user experience and behaviour of using GoodReports.org both inside and outside a journal manuscript submission process. We intend to use our findings to inform future development and testing of the tool.MethodsWe conducted a survey to collect data on user experience of the GoodReports website. We cross-checked a random sample of 100 manuscripts submitted to a partner journal to describe the level of agreement between the tool's checklist recommendation and what we would have recommended. We compared the proportion of authors submitting a completed reporting checklist alongside their manuscripts between groups exposed or not exposed to the GoodReports tool. We also conducted a study comparing completeness of reporting of manuscript text before an author received a reporting guideline recommendation from GoodReports.org with the completeness of the text subsequently submitted to a partner journal.ResultsSeventy percent (423/599) of survey respondents rated GoodReports 8 or more out of 10 for usefulness, and 74% (198/267) said they had made changes to their manuscript after using the website. We agreed with the GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation in 84% (72/86) of cases. Of authors who completed the guideline finder questionnaire, 14% (10/69) failed to submit a completed checklist compared to 30% (41/136) who did not use the tool. Of the 69 authors who received a GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation, 20 manuscript pairs could be reviewed before and after use of GoodReports. Five included more information in their methods section after exposure to GoodReports. On average, authors reported 57% of necessary reporting items before completing a checklist on GoodReports.org and 60% after.ConclusionThe data suggest that reporting guidance is needed early in the writing process, not at submission stage. We are developing GoodReports by adding more reporting guidelines and by creating editable article templates. We will test whether GoodReports users write more complete study reports in a randomised trial targeting researchers starting to write health research articles.
| S-EPMC8520646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:From 1995-2013, an 8-day Physical Activity and Public Health Course for Researchers has been offered yearly in the United States.In 2013, an evaluation quantified time that fellows spent in different course offerings, surveyed fellows on course impact, documented grant funding, and identified fellow participation on leading physical activity-related journals.The number of fellows that attended the course ranged from 20 per year to 35 per year. Fellows who participated in the web survey (n = 322) agreed that the course: met their expectations (99%), had a positive impact on the physical activity research or practice work they did (98%), and helped increase their professional networking in the field (93%). Following the course, 73% of fellows had further contact with course faculty and 71% had further contact with other fellows. From the National Institutes of Health, 117 grants were awarded to 82 fellows (21% of eligible fellows). Out of 14 journals reviewed, 11 had at least 1 fellow on their staff as editor, associate editor, or editorial board member.The Physical Activity and Public Health Course for Researchers helps address a training need by providing instruction and building capacity in the US and abroad for conducting research on physical activity and public health.
| S-EPMC4949596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:School-based health promotion is drastically disrupted by school closures during public health emergencies or natural disasters. Climate change will likely accelerate the frequency of these events and hence school closures. We identified innovative health promotion practices delivered during COVID-19 school closures and sought consensus among education experts on their future utility. Fifteen health promotion practices delivered in 87 schools across Alberta, Canada during COVID-19 school closures in Spring 2020, were grouped into: 'awareness of healthy lifestyle behaviours and mental wellness', 'virtual events', 'tangible supports' and 'school-student-family connectedness'. Two expert panels (23 school-level practitioners and 20 decision-makers at the school board and provincial levels) rated practices on feasibility, acceptability, reach, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and other criteria in three rounds of online Delphi surveys. Consensus was reached if 70% or more participants (strongly) agreed with a statement, (strongly) disagreed or neither. Participants agreed all practices require planning, preparation and training before implementation and additional staff time and most require external support or partnerships. Participants rated 'awareness of healthy lifestyle behaviours and mental wellness' and 'virtual events' as easy and quick to implement, effective and cost-effective, sustainable, easy to integrate into curriculum, well received by students and teachers, benefit school culture and require no additional funding/resources. 'Tangible supports' (equipment, food) and 'school-student-family connectedness' were rated as most likely to reach vulnerable students and families. Health promotion practices presented herein can inform emergency preparedness plans and are critical to ensuring health remains a priority during public health emergencies and natural disasters.
| S-EPMC10716908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:This study explores the variety of information formats used and audiences targeted by public health faculty in the process of disseminating research. Methods:The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve faculty members in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago, asking them about their research practices, habits, and preferences. Results:Faculty scholars disseminate their research findings in a variety of formats intended for multiple audiences, including not only their peers in academia, but also public health practitioners, policymakers, government and other agencies, and community partners. Conclusion:Librarians who serve public health faculty should bear in mind the diversity of faculty's information needs when designing and improving library services and resources, particularly those related to research dissemination and knowledge translation. Promising areas for growth in health sciences libraries include supporting data visualization, measuring the impact of non-scholarly publications, and promoting institutional repositories for dissemination of research.
| S-EPMC6579591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionElectronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-powered nicotine delivery systems that have become increasingly popular in the United States. We sought to understand how U.S. adults hear about e-cigarettes.MethodsA national sample of 17,522 U.S. adults (≥ 18 years old) completed an online survey in March 2013 assessing their awareness of and sources of information about e-cigarettes.ResultsMost respondents (86%) had heard of e-cigarettes. Current and former smokers were more likely to be aware of e-cigarettes than non-smokers. Males, younger adults, non-Hispanic Whites, and those with higher education were also more likely to have heard of e-cigarettes. The most commonly reported sources of information were another person, ads on television, and seeing e-cigarettes being sold, although the relative frequency of these sources differed for current, former, and never-smokers. Former and current smokers were more likely to have heard about e-cigarettes from e-cigarette users than were never-smokers. Adults age 30 years or younger were more likely than adults older than 30 years to have heard about e-cigarettes online.ConclusionsNearly all U.S. adults had heard of e-cigarettes in 2013. By focusing on the most common channels of information, public health campaigns can more efficiently communicate information about e-cigarette safety and consider necessary regulations should companies use these channels for marketing that targets youth, non-tobacco users, and other at-risk groups.
| S-EPMC4110926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the Netherlands, municipal health assessments are carried out by 28 Regional Health Services, serving 418 municipalities. In the absence of guidelines, regional public health reports were developed in two pilot regions on the basis of the model and experience of national health reporting. Though they were well received and positively evaluated, it was not clear which specific characteristics determined 'good public health reporting'. Therefore, this study was set up to develop a theoretical framework for the quality of regional public health reporting in The Netherlands.MethodsUsing concept mapping as a standardized tool for conceptualization, 35 relevant reporting experts formulated short statements in two different brainstorming sessions, describing specific quality criteria of regional public health reports. After the removal of duplicates, the list was supplemented with international criteria, and the statements were sent to each participant for rating and sorting. The results were processed statistically and represented graphically. The output was discussed and interpreted, leading to the final concept map.ResultsThe final concept map consisted of 97 criteria, grouped into 13 clusters, and plotted in two dimensions: a 'product' dimension, ranging from 'production' to 'content', and a 'context' dimension, ranging from 'science' to 'policy'. The three most important clusters were: (i) 'solution orientation', (ii) 'policy relevance' and (iii) 'policy impact'.ConclusionThis study provided a theoretical framework for the quality of regional public health reporting, indicating relevant domains and criteria. Further work should translate domains and criteria into operational indicators for evaluating regional public health reports.
| S-EPMC3358630 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Public health situations faced by family physicians and other primary care practitioners, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and more recently H1N1, have resulted in an increased interest to identify the public health competencies relevant to family medicine. At present there is no agreed-on set of public health competencies delineating the knowledge and skills that family physicians should possess to effectively face diverse public health challenges. Using a multi-staged, iterative process that included a detailed literature review, the authors developed a set of public health competencies relevant to primary care, identifying competencies relevant across four levels, from "post-MD" to "enhanced." Feedback from family medicine and public health educator-practitioners regarding the set of proposed "essential" competencies indicated the need for a more limited, feasible set of "priority" areas to be highlighted during residency training. This focused set of public health competencies has begun to guide relevant components of the University of Toronto's Family Medicine Residency Program curriculum, including academic half-days; clinical experiences, especially identifying "teachable moments" during patient encounters; resident academic projects; and elective public health agency placements. These competencies will also be used to guide the development of a family medicine-public health primer and faculty development sessions to support family medicine faculty facilitating residents to achieve these competencies. Once more fully implemented, an evaluation will be initiated to determine the degree to which these public health competencies are being achieved by family medicine graduates, especially whether they attained the knowledge, skills, and confidence necessary to effectively face diverse public health situations-from common to emergent.
| S-EPMC7126100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceApproximately one-third of U.S. life sciences faculty engage in industry consulting. Despite reports that consulting contracts often impinge on faculty and university interests, institutional approaches to regulating consulting agreements are largely unknown.ObjectiveTo investigate the nature of institutional oversight of faculty consulting contracts at U.S. schools of medicine and public health.DesignStructured telephone interviews with institutional administrators. Questions included the nature of oversight for faculty consulting agreements, if any, and views about consulting as a private versus institutional matter. Interviews were analyzed using a structured coding scheme.SettingAll accredited schools of medicine and public health in the U.S.ParticipantsAdministrators responsible for faculty affairs were identified via internet searches and telephone and email follow-up. The 118 administrators interviewed represented 73% of U.S. schools of medicine and public health, and 75% of those invited to participate.InterventionStructured, 15-30 minute telephone interviews.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence and type of institutional oversight; responses to concerning provisions in consulting agreements; perceptions of institutional oversight.ResultsOne third of institutions (36%) required faculty to submit at least some agreements for institutional review and 36% reviewed contracts upon request, while 35% refused to review contracts. Among institutions with review, there was wide variation the issues covered. The most common topic was intellectual property rights (64%), while only 23% looked at publication rights and 19% for inappropriately broad confidentiality provisions. Six in ten administrators reported they had no power to prevent faculty from signing consulting agreements. Although most respondents identified institutional risks from consulting relationships, many maintained that consulting agreements are "private."Conclusions and relevanceOversight of faculty consulting agreements at U.S. schools of medicine and public health is inconsistent across institutions and usually not robust. The interests at stake suggest the need for stronger oversight.
| S-EPMC6205599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:The significance of patient and public engagement is increasingly recognized in health research, demonstrated by explicit requirements for patient and public engagement by funding agencies and journals. Such requirements have charged health researchers with leading patient and public engagement efforts, but evidence suggests that this practice is still evolving. Little research has explored the experiences and training needs of health researchers. This study aimed to establish a baseline understanding of the experiences, perceptions and training needs of health researchers in engaging patients and the public in health research in the context of Manitoba. Methods:A cross-sectional 50-item questionnaire was distributed using a multi-phase purposive sampling strategy targeting health researchers in Manitoba, Canada. Data was summarized using frequencies, percentages and analyzed using chi-square testing. A local patient engagement advisory group was consulted at the interpretation stage of the study to obtain feedback and input on the findings and their implications. Results:Responses from 53 health researchers were included. Most participants had engaged patients and the public in their own research (n =?43, 81.1%). Those who had engaged reported having some (n =?19, 44.2%), extensive (n =?14, 32.6%) or a little (n =?10, 23.3%) experience with this process. Most engaged at the levels of inform, consult or involve (81.3, 64.6 and 54.2% respectively), while fewer engaged at the collaborate (37.5%) or patient-directed levels (12.5%). Recruitment occurred using a number of approaches and engagement occurred at various phases of the research process, while main groups engaged were patients (n =?38, 82.6%) and families/caregivers (n =?25, 54.4%). Barriers to engaging patients and the public in health research included funding, time, compensation, logistics, recruitment, motivation at both the patient and researcher level, and skills of researchers to engage. Researchers reported an overwhelming need and interest for supports, funding and training to effectively engage patients and the public in health research. Consultation with the patient advisory group provided further insight on study findings and areas for future research. Conclusions:Participating Manitoba health researchers engaged patients and the public in health research at multiple, but typically lower levels of involvement. Findings highlight the barriers to effective, authentic and meaningful patient and public engagement and support the need for targeted training, supports, funding and time for health researchers.
| S-EPMC6781300 | biostudies-literature