Search

Background: Several studies suggest that deviations from proper authorship practices are commonplace in medicine. The aim of this study was to explore experiences of and attitudes towards the handling of authorship in PhD theses at medical faculties in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Methods: Those who defended their PhD thesis at a medical faculty in Scandinavia during the second half of 2020 were offered, by e-mail, to participate in an online survey. Survey questions dealt with experiences of violations of the first three of the ICMJE authorship criteria and misuse of authorship order in the thesis articles, as well as respondents' attitudes to these matters. Both questions with fixed response alternatives and questions with free-text responses were used. Quantitative data were analysed statistically using the Table functions in SPSS 25 and Chi-2 tests. Free-text responses were analysed qualitatively using manifest content analysis. Results: 287 valid questionnaires were returned (response rate: 34.1%). Almost half (46.0%) of the respondents reported that the ICMJE authorship criteria were not fully respected in at least one of the papers in their thesis, while a vast majority (96.7%) found it important that authorship is handled according to the ICMJE authorship criteria. 24.4% reported inadequate handling of authorship order in at least one paper. The qualitative results provide a wide spectrum of examples of how the ICMJE authorship criteria are circumvented. Conclusion: Despite increasing educational efforts to reduce deviations from good research practice at Scandinavian universities, the handling of authorship in medical papers remains problematic.

Rational: Low‐value radiological imaging threatens patient safety and efficient use of limited health resources. It is important to evaluate measures for reducing low‐value utilisation, to learn and to improve. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to qualitatively evaluate a pilot intervention for reducing low‐value imaging in Norway. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted aimed at describing stakeholders' experience with a multicomponent pilot intervention consisting of a standardised procedure for referral assessment, a standardised return letter, and information about the value and possible risks of magnetic resonance imaging‐examinations to the public. Data were analysed in line with qualitative content analysis with a deductive approach. Results: Seven healthcare providers were interviewed, including two radiologists, two radiographers, one manual therapist, one practice consultant and one general practitioner. Data analysis yielded four categories: (1) information and reception, (2) referral‐ and assessment processes, (3) suggestions for improvement and facilitation and (4) outcomes of the pilot intervention. Conclusions: The pilot intervention was deemed acceptable, feasible, engaging and relevant. Specific training in the use of the new procedure was suggested to improve the intervention. The simple design, as well as the positive acceptance demonstrated and the few resources needed, make the pilot intervention and methodology highly relevant for other settings or when aiming to reduce the number of other low‐value radiology examinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research integrity has gained attention in the general public as well as in the research community. We wanted to investigate knowledge, attitudes, and practices amongst researchers that have recently finished their PhD and compare this to their responses during their PhD fellowship. In particular, we wanted to investigate whether their attitudes are related to their experiences of their immediate research environment. Material and method: Researchers (n = 86) awarded the PhD degree at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2016 were invited to answer a questionnaire about knowledge, attitudes, and actions related to scientific dishonesty. Seventy-two responded (83.7%). The results were compared with results among first-year doctoral students who responded to the same questionnaire during 2010-2017. Results: Overall, 13% of PhDs reported that they knew of people in their immediate research environment who had committed serious forms of scientific dishonesty. A small percentage of PhDs (1.4%) indicated that they themselves had committed such acts. About 3% of the candidates had experienced pressure to commit serious forms of dishonesty and nearly a third of respondents had experienced unethical pressure with respect to authorship during the course of their fellowship. Thirteen percent reported that they had experienced unethical pressure in relation to other forms of dishonesty and 11% had experienced the consequences of some form of scientific dishonesty. Eighteen percent of the respondents believed that one or more actions, which in the literature were perceived as scientific misconduct, were not wrong. We find a connection between attitudes and the perceived research integrity of their research environment. The results also show a difference between PhD students and graduated PhDs in terms of scientific dishonesty. In some areas, the PhDs' norms are stricter, such as for the use of statistical analysis methods, while there is little change in others, such as in misconduct in order to expedite publications. Conclusion: Many PhDs knew about serious forms of scientific misconduct from the research environment in which they are trained, and some also report misconduct themselves. Some experienced pressure to serious forms of misconduct and a large proportion of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure with respect to authorship during their fellowship. Attitudes change during the PhD studies, but ambiguously. Scientific misconduct seems to be an environmental issue as much as a matter of personal integrity.