Reporting of research findings is often selective. This threatens the validity of the published body of knowledge if the decision to report depends on the nature of the results. The evidence derived from studies on causes and mechanisms underlying selective reporting may help to avoid or reduce reporting bias. Such research should be guided by a theoretical framework of possible causal pathways that lead to reporting bias. We build upon a classification of determinants of selective reporting that we recently developed in a systematic review of the topic. The resulting theoretical framework features four clusters of causes. There are two clusters of necessary causes: (A) motivations (e.g. a preference for particular findings) and (B) means (e.g. a flexible study design). These two combined represent a sufficient cause for reporting bias to occur. The framework also features two clusters of component causes: (C) conflicts and balancing of interests referring to the individual or the team, and (D) pressures from science and society. The component causes may modify the effect of the necessary causes or may lead to reporting bias mediated through the necessary causes. Our theoretical framework is meant to inspire further research and to create awareness among researchers and end-users of research about reporting bias and its causes.
![Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20240419021423483168.68f_a863_4e94_84cd_cf2a63540cea_18310_jenny_van_der_stee-thumbnail-400x300.png)
The European policy emphasis on providing informal care at home causes caregivers and home care professionals having more contact with each other, which makes it important for them to find satisfying ways to share care. Findings from the literature show that sharing care between caregivers and professionals can be improved. This study therefore examines to what degree and why caregivers’ judgements on sharing care with home care professionals vary. To improve our understanding of social inequities in caregiving experiences, the study adopts an intersectional perspective. We investigate how personal and situational characteristics attached to care judgements are interwoven. Using data of the Netherlands Institute for Social Research, we conducted bivariate and multivariate linear regression analysis (N = 292). We combined four survey questions into a 1–4 scale on ‘caregiver judgement’ (α = 0.69) and used caregivers’ personal (such as gender and health status) and situational characteristics (such as the care recipient's impairment and type of care) as determinants to discern whether these are related to the caregivers’ judgement. Using a multiplicative approach, we also examined the relationship between mutually constituting factors of the caregivers’ judgement. Adjusted for all characteristics, caregivers who provide care to a parent or child with a mental impairment and those aged between 45 and 64 years or with a paid job providing care to someone with a mental impairment are likely to judge sharing care more negatively. Also, men providing care with help from other caregivers and caregivers providing care because they like to do so who provide domestic help seem more likely to be less satisfied about sharing care. This knowledge is vital for professionals providing home care, because it clarifies differences in caregivers’ experiences and hence induce knowledge how to pay special attention to those who may experience less satisfaction while sharing care.
Tipping is a social norm in many countries and has important functions as a source of income, with significant social welfare effects. Tipping can also represent a form of lost tax revenue, as service workers and restaurants may not declare all cash tips. These interrelationships remain generally insufficiently understood. This paper presents the results of a comparative survey of resident tipping patterns in restaurants in Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. ANOVA and ANCOVA analyses confirm significant variation in tipping norms between countries, for instance with regard to the frequency of tipping and the proportion of tips in relation to bill size. The paper discusses these findings in the context of employment conditions and social welfare effects, comparing the European Union minimum wage model to gratuity-depending income approaches in the USA. Results have importance for the hospitality sector and policymakers concerned with social welfare
