Background: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. Methods: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency. Discussion: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/.
BackgroundIn 2015, Amsterdam became part of the WHO Age Friendly City community, thereby accepting the responsibility to work towards a more age friendly Amsterdam. To study senior citizens’ needs and wishes concerning the age friendliness of their neighbourhood, the municipality asked the Amsterdam University of Applied Science to set up two pilot projects in two neighbourhoods. Aim was to 1) gain insight in seniors’ views and wishes regarding an age friendly city, and 2) reflect on the experiences with working with senior co-researchers. MethodologyThe study followed a Participatory Action Research approach with research teams consisting of seniors as co-researchers and professional researchers. We chose two neighbourhoods with distinct characteristics: the Indische Buurt which is centrally located, vibrant, multicultural, and strongly gentrifying, and Buitenveldert, a suburban and spacious neighbourhood, with less facilities and a dominance of well-to-do senior citizens. In both areas, we recruited senior co-researchers to form the research teams. They generally lived in, or close to, the pilot neighbourhood, and varied in age and ethnical background. The aim was to put the co-researchers in the lead during the entire research process. However, it differed between the neighbourhoods which type of researcher was in the lead. As a team, they formulated the main research question, constructed a topic list for interviews with older citizens, convened the interviews, analysed the data, wrote the report, and presented the results. During the entire process, they were supported by professional researchers.Both research teams interviewed 40 senior citizens, who were recruited through the co-researchers’ networks, professional care organisations, neighbourhood communities, and local media. We intended to gather a sample representative for the neighbourhood population. In the Indische Buurt, this proved to be difficult, since the relatively large Turkish and Moroccan communities were difficult to get into contact with, and it was hard to find co-researchers from those communities who could have provided a way in. Process and outcomesWe will share some of the results, but we will mainly reflect on the research process. ProcessRegarding the process, we found some differences between the two neighbourhoods. In the Indische Buurt, it took much effort to find co-researchers, since the seniors we encountered said to be too busy with other neighbourhood activities. We did recruit a small group of four co-researchers of different ethnical background, but sadly lacking Turkish and Moroccan seniors. They started with a very limited research experience and experienced ownership, which greatly increased during the process. At the finalisation of the project, the group ceased to be, but the outcomes were followed up by existing groups and organisations in the neighbourhood.In Buitenveldert, a large group of co-researchers was recruited in no-time, bearing more resemblance to an action group than a research group. They were generally highly educated and some already had research experience. The group proved to be pro-active, had a strong feeling of ownership, and worked in constant collaboration with the ‘professional’ researchers, respecting each other’s knowledge and skills. At the finalisation of the project, the group remained active as partner of the local government. OutcomesConcerning the content of the outcomes, we found some expected differences and unexpected similarities. For instance, we expected to find different outcomes concerning housing and facilities between the neighbourhoods. Indeed, in Buitenveldert, housing was already age friendly whereas facilities were scarce and geographically far apart. Yet, in the Indische Buurt, housing was poorly equipped for physically impaired seniors, but facilities were abundant and close by.We also found that, in both neighbourhoods, senior citizens were reluctant to share their limitations and ask for support, despite differences in neighbourhood, ethnicity, age etc. Of course, this can be expected of seniors from the ‘silent generation’. However, they seemingly shared these emotions more easily with their peers than with professional researchers. ConclusionThe social-cultural context of the neighbourhood impacts the research process. Overall, co-research appears to be a fruitful method to involve senior citizens in decisions concerning the improvement of their neighbourhood. Aims and content of the workshopWe aim to:• present our reflections on the participative process of working with senior co-researchers in Amsterdam• exchange and discuss with the participants of the workshop the lessons learned on how to facilitate citizens’ participation in the community• discuss similar and future projects and possibilities for collaboration among the participants of the workshopContent of the workshop• Presentation• Exchange and discussion in small groups • Plenary discussion on possible collaboration projects aiming to enhance citizens’ participation in the community
Background: Acquiring the theoretical and practical knowhow of conducting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is not part of the traditional curriculum of researchers. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Huis voor de Zorg, a regional umbrella patient organization, therefore started a 1.5-year coaching programme. Objective: To establish a community of practice by developing a PPI coaching programme for senior and junior health services researchers of Zuyd University. The context consisted of research projects conducted by the participants. Methods: A participatory action research methodology. Data were collected from reports of thematic group meetings and individual sessions with participants, field notes and regular reflection meetings with the project team. Data were analysed by reflexive deliberation. Findings: The programme comprised a kick-off meeting (52 attendees), followed by 7 group meetings with 11 junior and 9 senior researchers. The project team constructed a serious game based on the concept of the participation ladder. Questions and concerns differed for junior and senior researchers, and separate tailored meetings were organized for both groups. Between group meetings, participants received individual assignments. Group meetings were accompanied by individual coaching sessions to provide tailor-made feedback. The programme concluded with a combined meeting with all stakeholders. Conclusion: Building a community of PPI practice through action research facilitates the development of a coaching programme that fosters social learning, empowerment and the development of a shared identity concerning PPI. The role and responsibilities of senior researchers should be distinguished from those of junior researchers.
