Dataset Information

The quality of reports of medical and public health research from Palestinian institutions: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Over the past decade, there has been an increase in reports of health research from Palestine, but no assessment of their quality. We have assessed the quality of reports of Palestinian health research and factors associated with it. DESIGN:This is a systematic review. INCLUSION CRITERIA:We searched Medline and Scopus for reports of original research relevant to human health or healthcare authored by researchers affiliated with Palestinian institutions and published between January 2000 and August 2015 inclusive. OUTCOMES:We used international guidelines to assess report quality, classifying as adequate those with ?50% of items completely addressed. RESULTS:Of 2383 reports identified, 497 met our inclusion criteria. Just over half (264; 55%) of these were published after 2010. 354 (71%) of first authors were affiliated with Palestinian institutions; 261 (53%) reports had coauthors from outside Palestine. The majority of the reports in our study were inadequately reported (342; 69%), and none had adequately reported all items. Of 439 observational studies, 11 (2.5%) reports provided adequate descriptions of eligibility criteria and selection procedures; 35 (8%) reported efforts to address potential sources of bias; 50 (11.4%) reported the basis for the study sample size; and funding sources were mentioned in 74 reports (17%). Higher reporting quality was associated with international affiliation of the first author (prevalence ratio (PR) 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1)), international collaboration (PR 2.9 (95% CI 1.7 to 5.0)), international funding (PR 1.9 (95% CI1.5 to 2.5)), publication after 2005 (PR 3.9 (95% CI 1.8 to 8.5)) and four or more coauthors (PR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.1)). CONCLUSION:Although the quality of reports of Palestinian research has improved in recent years, it remains well below an acceptable standard. International reporting guidelines should be used to guide research design and improve the quality of reports of research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:The systematic review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registery (registration number: CRD42015027553).

SUBMITTER: Albarqouni L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5726119 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The quality of reports of medical and public health research from Palestinian institutions: a systematic review.

Albarqouni Loai L Abu-Rmeileh Niveen Me NM Elessi Khamis K Obeidallah Mohammad M Bjertness Espen E Chalmers Iain I

BMJ open 20170609 6

<h4>Objective</h4>Over the past decade, there has been an increase in reports of health research from Palestine, but no assessment of their quality. We have assessed the quality of reports of Palestinian health research and factors associated with it.<h4>Design</h4>This is a systematic review.<h4>Inclusion criteria</h4>We searched Medline and Scopus for reports of original research relevant to human health or healthcare authored by researchers affiliated with Palestinian institutions and publish ...[more]

PMID: 28601839

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Crowdsourcing is used increasingly in health and medical research. Crowdsourcing is the process of aggregating crowd wisdom to solve a problem. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize quantitative evidence on crowdsourcing to improve health. METHODS:We followed Cochrane systematic review guidance and systematically searched seven databases up to September 4th 2019. Studies were included if they reported on crowdsourcing and related to health or medicine. Studies were excluded if recruitment was the only use of crowdsourcing. We determined the level of evidence associated with review findings using the GRADE approach. RESULTS:We screened 3508 citations, accessed 362 articles, and included 188 studies. Ninety-six studies examined effectiveness, 127 examined feasibility, and 37 examined cost. The most common purposes were to evaluate surgical skills (17 studies), to create sexual health messages (seven studies), and to provide layperson cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) out-of-hospital (six studies). Seventeen observational studies used crowdsourcing to evaluate surgical skills, finding that crowdsourcing evaluation was as effective as expert evaluation (low quality). Four studies used a challenge contest to solicit human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing promotion materials and increase HIV testing rates (moderate quality), and two of the four studies found this approach saved money. Three studies suggested that an interactive technology system increased rates of layperson initiated CPR out-of-hospital (moderate quality). However, studies analyzing crowdsourcing to evaluate surgical skills and layperson-initiated CPR were only from high-income countries. Five studies examined crowdsourcing to inform artificial intelligence projects, most often related to annotation of medical data. Crowdsourcing was evaluated using different outcomes, limiting the extent to which studies could be pooled. CONCLUSIONS:Crowdsourcing has been used to improve health in many settings. Although crowdsourcing is effective at improving behavioral outcomes, more research is needed to understand effects on clinical outcomes and costs. More research is needed on crowdsourcing as a tool to develop artificial intelligence systems in medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO: CRD42017052835. December 27, 2016.

Project description:BackgroundMeasures to ensure research integrity have been widely discussed due to the social, economic and scientific impact of research integrity. In the past few years, financial support for health research in emerging countries has steadily increased, resulting in a growing number of scientific publications. These achievements, however, have been accompanied by a rise in retracted publications followed by concerns about the quality and reliability of such publications.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to investigate the profile of medical and life sciences research retractions from authors affiliated with Brazilian academic institutions. The chronological trend between publication and retraction date, reasons for the retraction, citation of the article after the retraction, study design, and the number of retracted publications by author and affiliation were assessed. Additionally, the quality, availability and accessibility of data regarding retracted papers from the publishers are described.MethodsTwo independent reviewers searched for articles that had been retracted since 2004 via PubMed, Web of Science, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS) and Google Scholar databases. Indexed keywords from Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Descritores em Ciências da Saúde (DeCS) in Portuguese, English or Spanish were used. Data were also collected from the Retraction Watch website (www.retractionwatch.com). This study was registered with the PROSPERO systematic review database (CRD42017071647).ResultsA final sample of 65 articles was retrieved from 55 different journals with reported impact factors ranging from 0 to 32.86, with a median value of 4.40 and a mean of 4.69. The types of documents found were erratum (1), retracted articles (3), retracted articles with a retraction notice (5), retraction notices with erratum (3), and retraction notices (45). The assessment of the Retraction Watch website added 8 articles that were not identified by the search strategy using the bibliographic databases. The retracted publications covered a wide range of study designs. Experimental studies (40) and literature reviews (15) accounted for 84.6% of the retracted articles. Within the field of health and life sciences, medical science was the field with the largest number of retractions (34), followed by biological sciences (17). Some articles were retracted for at least two distinct reasons (13). Among the retrieved articles, plagiarism was the main reason for retraction (60%). Missing data were found in 57% of the retraction notices, which was a limitation to this review. In addition, 63% of the articles were cited after their retraction.ConclusionPublications are not retracted solely for research misconduct but also for honest error. Nevertheless, considering authors affiliated with Brazilian institutions, this review concluded that most of the retracted health and life sciences publications were retracted due to research misconduct. Because the number of publications is the most valued indicator of scientific productivity for funding and career progression purposes, a systematic effort from the national research councils, funding agencies, universities and scientific journals is needed to avoid an escalating trend of research misconduct. More investigations are needed to comprehend the underlying factors of research misconduct and its increasing manifestation.

Project description:BackgroundThe judicialization of health care is a social claim concerning the right to the access to health care. It usually occurs due to gaps in public policy or failures in its application. In Brazil, several public institutions have implemented strategies to approach this phenomenon. However, these strategies have not yet been systematized into functional categories.ObjectiveTo categorize and analyze the strategies implemented by public institutions in Brazil to approach the judicialization of health care.MethodA systematic scoping review was developed following the method proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The descriptor 'judicialization of health' was used to conduct the searches for studies in 18 electronic databases and other types of documents in the gray literature until March 2019. Documents containing the reports of strategies implemented in public institutions to approach the judicialization of health care in Brazil were included. Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of the documents and extracted the data. The strategies identified were categorized using definitions from the World Health Organization and existing Brazilian legislation.ResultsSeventy eight implemented strategies were identified and organized into nine categories: i. Technical support to the judiciary; ii. State health committees; iii. Organization of assistance; iv. Compliance with court orders, v. Computerized information systems; vi. Administrative proceeding; vii. Defense of the public authority; viii. Pharmacy and therapeutics committee; ix. Alternative dispute resolution. These categories are not mutually exclusive and often act in concert or complement each other's activities. They represent services either existing or provided for in legal provisions by the public administration to meet various types of demands.ConclusionsThe categories proposed to approach the judicialization of health care represent some of the recommendations for qualifying public administration or are provided for in Brazilian legislation, or both. The existence of recommendations and legislation facilitate, but do not guarantee, the implementation of strategies by public institutions.

Project description:BackgroundMuch research is being carried out using publicly available Twitter data in the field of public health, but the types of research questions that these data are being used to answer and the extent to which these projects require ethical oversight are not clear.ObjectiveThis review describes the current state of public health research using Twitter data in terms of methods and research questions, geographic focus, and ethical considerations including obtaining informed consent from Twitter handlers.MethodsWe implemented a systematic review, following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, of articles published between January 2006 and October 31, 2019, using Twitter data in secondary analyses for public health research, which were found using standardized search criteria on SocINDEX, PsycINFO, and PubMed. Studies were excluded when using Twitter for primary data collection, such as for study recruitment or as part of a dissemination intervention.ResultsWe identified 367 articles that met eligibility criteria. Infectious disease (n=80, 22%) and substance use (n=66, 18%) were the most common topics for these studies, and sentiment mining (n=227, 62%), surveillance (n=224, 61%), and thematic exploration (n=217, 59%) were the most common methodologies employed. Approximately one-third of articles had a global or worldwide geographic focus; another one-third focused on the United States. The majority (n=222, 60%) of articles used a native Twitter application programming interface, and a significant amount of the remainder (n=102, 28%) used a third-party application programming interface. Only one-third (n=119, 32%) of studies sought ethical approval from an institutional review board, while 17% of them (n=62) included identifying information on Twitter users or tweets and 36% of them (n=131) attempted to anonymize identifiers. Most studies (n=272, 79%) included a discussion on the validity of the measures and reliability of coding (70% for interreliability of human coding and 70% for computer algorithm checks), but less attention was paid to the sampling frame, and what underlying population the sample represented.ConclusionsTwitter data may be useful in public health research, given its access to publicly available information. However, studies should exercise greater caution in considering the data sources, accession method, and external validity of the sampling frame. Further, an ethical framework is necessary to help guide future research in this area, especially when individual, identifiable Twitter users and tweets are shared and discussed.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020148170; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=148170.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.MethodsTo locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.ConclusionsTo more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.

Project description:PhenomenonResearch literacy remains important for equipping clinicians with the analytical skills to tackle an ever-evolving medical landscape and maintain an evidence-based approach when treating patients. While the role of research in medical education has been justified and established, the nuances involving modes of instruction and relevant outcomes for students have yet to be analyzed. Institutions acknowledge an increasing need to dedicate time and resources towards educating medical undergraduates on research but have individually implemented different pedagogies over differing lengths of time.ApproachWhile individual studies have evaluated the efficacy of these curricula, the evaluations of educational methods and curriculum design have not been reviewed systematically. This study thereby aims to perform a systematic review of studies incorporating research into the undergraduate medical curriculum, to provide insights on various pedagogies utilized to educate medical students on research.FindingsStudies predominantly described two major components of research curricula-(1) imparting basic research skills and the (2) longitudinal application of research skills. Studies were assessed according to the 4-level Kirkpatrick model for evaluation. Programs that spanned minimally an academic year had the greatest proportion of level 3 outcomes (50%). One study observed a level 4 outcome by assessing the post-intervention effects on participants. Studies primarily highlighted a shortage of time (53%), resulting in inadequate coverage of content.InsightsThis study highlighted the value in long-term programs that support students in acquiring research skills, by providing appropriate mentors, resources, and guidance to facilitate their learning. The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition underscored the importance of tailoring educational interventions to allow students with varying experience to develop their skills. There is still room for further investigation of multiple factors such as duration of intervention, student voluntariness, and participants' prior research experience. Nevertheless, it stands that mentoring is a crucial aspect of curricula that has allowed studies to achieve level 3 Kirkpatrick outcomes and engender enduring changes in students.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-020-01183-w.

Dataset Information

The quality of reports of medical and public health research from Palestinian institutions: a systematic review.

Publications

The quality of reports of medical and public health research from Palestinian institutions: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets