From the publisher's website: Large groups in society, in particular people with low literacy, lack the necessary proactivity and problem-solving skills to be self-reliant. One omnipresent problem area where these skills are relevant regards filling in forms and questionnaires. These problems could be potentially alleviated by taking advantage of the possibilities of information and communication technology (ICT), for example by offering alternatives to text, interactive self-explaining scales and easily accessible background information on the questionnaires’ rationale. The goal of this paper was to present explorative design guidelines for developing interactive questionnaires for low-literate persons. The guidelines have been derived during a user-centered design process of the Dutch Talking Touch Screen Questionnaire (DTTSQ), an interactive health assessment questionnaire used in physical therapy. The DTTSQ was developed to support patients with low health literacy, meaning they have problems with seeking, understanding and using health information. A decent number of guidelines have been derived and presented according to an existing, comprehensive model. Also, lessons learned were derived from including low-literate persons in the user-centered design process. The guidelines should be made available to ICT developers and, when applied properly, will contribute to the advancement of (health) literacy and empower citizens to fully participate in society
LINK
During the 2024 Open Science Retreat, the Measuring Open Science team collected, reviewed, and analyzed existing research into open science practices. As a team, we developed an interactive overview of open science surveys, which may be used e.g. to reuse questionnaire items on different open science practices.
MULTIFILE
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
