Het platform voor open en praktijkgericht onderzoek

product

Wat te doen als je ouderenmishandeling vermoedt?

Ouderenmishandeling is een belangrijk maatschappelijk probleem. Het hangt samen met verschillende negatieve gezondheidsuitkomsten, waaronder verhoogde mortaliteit en morbiditeit, psychologische stress en een groter gebruik van de gezondheidszorg. 1 Toch signaleren zorgprofessionals het nog onvoldoende en is er sprake van een hoge mate van handelingsverlegenheid. Dit mede door onbekendheid met het probleem en kennistekort. Daarnaast rust er zowel onder patiënten als onder zorgprofessionals nog steeds een groot taboe op het bespreekbaar maken van dit onderwerp. 2-4 Ouderenmishandeling komt in allerlei vormen voor en betreft ‘al het handelen of het nalaten van handelen

MULTIFILE

Wat te doen als je ouderenmishandeling vermoedt?

product

International multi-stakeholder consensus statement on clinical trial integrity

Objective: To prepare a set of statements for randomised clinical trials (RCT) integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus. Methods: The consensus was developed via: multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymised two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percentage of majority opinions; and, a final consensus development meeting. Prospective registrations: (https://osf.io/bhncy, https://osf.io/3ursn). Results: There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from five continents including triallists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representatives, industry representatives, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer-reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with eight additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n = 6), design and approval (n = 11), conduct and monitoring (n = 19), reporting of protocols and findings (n = 20), post-publication concerns (n = 12), and future research and development (n = 13). Conclusion: Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.

MULTIFILE

International multi-stakeholder consensus statement on clinical trial integrity

product

Long lockdowns and rainy days: Modeling the interactive roles of weather, behavior, and restrictions in COVID-19 transmission in the Netherlands

Extant research on the role of weather in COVID-19 has produced ambiguous results and much methodological debate. Following advice emerging from this methodological debate, we take a step further in modeling effects of weather on COVID-19 spread by including interactions between weather, behavior, baseline cases, and restrictions in our model. Our model was based on secondary infection, hospitalization, restriction, weather, and mobility data per day nested with safety region in the Netherlands. Our findings show significant but inconsistent interactions. The robust effects of weather on COVID-19 spread persisted over and above these interactions, highlighting the need to account for weather with nuance and caution in public policy, communication, and forecasting

LINK

product

Journals' instructions to authors

In light of increasing calls for transparent reporting of research and prevention of detrimental research practices, we conducted a cross-sectional machine-assisted analysis of a representative sample of scientific journals' instructions to authors (ItAs) across all disciplines. We investigated addressing of 19 topics related to transparency in reporting and research integrity. Only three topics were addressed in more than one third of ItAs: conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and the type of peer review the journal employs. Health and Life Sciences journals, journals published by medium or large publishers, and journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were more likely to address many of the analysed topics, while Arts & Humanities journals were least likely to do so. Despite the recent calls for transparency and integrity in research, our analysis shows that most scientific journals need to update their ItAs to align them with practices which prevent detrimental research practices and ensure transparent reporting of research.

MULTIFILE

product

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals’ recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals’ Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).

PDF

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

product

Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prevalence of automatically listing (a) senior member(s) of a department as co-author(s) on all submitted articles in health sciences and the prevalence of degrees of support on a 5-point justification scale. Survey research was searched in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of studies and conducted quantitative syntheses. We identified 15 eligible surveys, that provided 67 results, all of which were rated as having low quality. A pooled estimate of 20% [95% CI 16–25] (10 surveys, 3619 respondents) of researchers in various health sciences reported that a senior member of their department was automatically listed as an author on all submitted articles. Furthermore, 28% [95% CI 22–34] of researchers (10 surveys, 2180 respondents) felt that this practice was ‘never’, 24% [95% CI 22–27] ‘rarely’, 25% [95% CI 23–28] ‘sometimes’, 13% [95% CI 9–17] ‘most of the time’, and 8% [95% CI 6–9] ‘always justified’. The practice of automatically assigning senior members of departments as co-authors on all submitted manuscripts may be common in the health sciences; with those admitting to this practice finding it unjustified in most cases.Registration of the protocol The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. Link: https://osf.io/4eywp/.

MULTIFILE

Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences

product

Wat te doen als je ouderenmishandeling vermoedt?

In dit artikel gaan we het hebben over ouderenmishandeling; een probleem dat 1 op de 20 thuiswonende ouderen treft. Zorgprofessionals signaleren het echter nog onvoldoende. Ouderenmishandeling is een belangrijk maatschappelijk probleem. Het hangt samen met verschillende negatieve gezondheidsuitkomsten, waaronder verhoogde mortaliteit en morbiditeit, psychologische stress en een groter gebruik van de gezondheidszorg.1 Toch signaleren zorgprofessionals het nog onvoldoende en is er sprake van een hoge mate van handelingsverlegenheid. Dit mede door onbekendheid met het probleem en kennistekort. Daarnaast rust er zowel onder patiënten als onder zorgprofessionals nog steeds een groot taboe op het bespreekbaar maken van dit onderwerp.

LINK

product

Honorary authorship in health sciences

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/.

PDF

product

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences

A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21–31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15–21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47–56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9–12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13–18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys’ methods and reporting needs improvement.

MULTIFILE

Zoekresultaten

Producten 25

Wat te doen als je ouderenmishandeling vermoedt?

International multi-stakeholder consensus statement on clinical trial integrity

Long lockdowns and rainy days: Modeling the interactive roles of weather, behavior, and restrictions in COVID-19 transmission in the Netherlands

Journals' instructions to authors

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences

Wat te doen als je ouderenmishandeling vermoedt?

Honorary authorship in health sciences

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences

Navigeer naar