There appears to be some hesitation within the forensic biology community to formally evaluate and report on findings given activity level propositions. This hesitance in part stems from concerns about the lack of relevant data on the dynamics of biological traces and doubt about the relevance of such expert opinions to the trier of fact. At the Netherlands Forensic Institute formal evaluative opinions on the probability of case findings given propositions at the activity level are provided since 2013, if requested by a mandating authority. In this study we share the results from a retrospective analysis of 74 of such requests. We explore which party initiates requests, the types of cases that are submitted, the sources of data being used to assign probabilities to DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (TPPR) events, the conclusions that were drawn by the scientists, and how the conclusions were used by the courts. This retrospective analysis of cases demonstrates that published sources of data are generally available and can be used to address DNA TPPR events in most cases, although significant gaps still remain. The study furthermore shows that reporting on forensic biology findings given activity level propositions has been generally accepted by the district and appeal courts, as well as the other parties in the criminal justice system in the Netherlands.
Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails. We found no significant differences between authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers. Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey’s overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable. Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: The quality standards of the Dutch Society of Intensive Care require monitoring of the satisfaction of patient's relatives with respect to care. Currently, no suitable instrument is available in the Netherlands to measure this. This study describes the development and psychometric evaluation of the questionnaire-based Consumer Quality Index 'Relatives in Intensive Care Unit' (CQI 'R-ICU'). The CQI 'R-ICU' measures the perceived quality of care from the perspective of patients' relatives, and identifies aspects of care that need improvement.METHODS: The CQI 'R-ICU' was developed using a mixed method design. Items were based on quality of care aspects from earlier studies and from focus group interviews with patients' relatives. The time period for the data collection of the psychometric evaluation was from October 2011 until July 2012. Relatives of adult intensive care patients in one university hospital and five general hospitals in the Netherlands were approached to participate. Psychometric evaluation included item analysis, inter-item analysis, and factor analysis.RESULTS: Twelve aspects were noted as being indicators of quality of care, and were subsequently selected for the questionnaire's vocabulary. The response rate of patients' relatives was 81% (n = 455). Quality of care was represented by two clusters, each showing a high reliability: 'Communication' (α = .80) and 'Participation' (α = .84). Relatives ranked the following aspects for quality of care as most important: no conflicting information, information from doctors and nurses is comprehensive, and health professionals take patients' relatives seriously. The least important care aspects were: need for contact with peers, nuisance, and contact with a spiritual counsellor. Aspects that needed the most urgent improvement (highest quality improvement scores) were: information about how relatives can contribute to the care of the patient, information about the use of meal-facilities in the hospital, and involvement in decision-making on the medical treatment of the patient.CONCLUSIONS: The CQI 'R-ICU' evaluates quality of care from the perspective of relatives of intensive care patients and provides practical information for quality assurance and improvement programs. The development and psychometric evaluation of the CQI 'R-ICU' led to a draft questionnaire, sufficient to justify further research into the reliability, validity, and the discriminative power of the questionnaire.
MULTIFILE
![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)
