Search

Abstract Background Engaging researchers as research subjects is key to informing the development of effective and relevant research practices. It is important to understand how best to engage researchers as research subjects. Methods A 24 factorial experiment, as part of a Multiphase Optimization Strategy, was performed to evaluate effects of four recruitment strategy components on participant opening of an emailed survey link and survey completion. Participants were members of three US-based national health research consortia. A stratified simple random sample was used to assign potential survey participants to one of 16 recruitment scenarios. Recruitment strategy components were intended to address both intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation, including: $50 gift, $1,000 raffle, altruistic messaging, and egoistic messaging. Multivariable generalized linear regression analyses adjusting for consortium estimated component effects on outcomes. Potential interactions among components were tested. Results are reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results Surveys were collected from June to December 2023. A total of 418 participants were included from the consortia, with final analytical sample of 400 eligible participants. Out of the final sample, 82% (341) opened the survey link and 35% (147) completed the survey. Altruistic messaging increased the odds of opening the survey (aOR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.35–2.69, p = 0.033), while egoistic messaging significantly reduced the odds of opening the survey (aOR 0.56, 95%CI 0.38–0.75, p = 0.08). The receipt of egoistic messaging increased the odds of completing the survey once opened (aOR 1.81, 95%CI: 1.39–2.23, p

Background: Engaging researchers as research subjects is key to informing the development of effective and relevant research practices. It is important to understand how best to engage researchers as research subjects. Methods: A 24 factorial experiment, as part of a Multiphase Optimization Strategy, was performed to evaluate effects of four recruitment strategy components on participant opening of an emailed survey link and survey completion. Participants were members of three US-based national health research consortia. A stratified simple random sample was used to assign potential survey participants to one of 16 recruitment scenarios. Recruitment strategy components were intended to address both intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation, including: $50 gift, $1,000 raffle, altruistic messaging, and egoistic messaging. Multivariable generalized linear regression analyses adjusting for consortium estimated component effects on outcomes. Potential interactions among components were tested. Results are reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: Surveys were collected from June to December 2023. A total of 418 participants were included from the consortia, with final analytical sample of 400 eligible participants. Out of the final sample, 82% (341) opened the survey link and 35% (147) completed the survey. Altruistic messaging increased the odds of opening the survey (aOR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.35–2.69, p = 0.033), while egoistic messaging significantly reduced the odds of opening the survey (aOR 0.56, 95%CI 0.38–0.75, p = 0.08). The receipt of egoistic messaging increased the odds of completing the survey once opened (aOR 1.81, 95%CI: 1.39–2.23, p < 0.05). There was a significant negative interaction effect between the altruistic appeal and egoistic messaging strategies for survey completion outcome. Monetary incentives did not a have a significant impact on survey completion. Conclusion: Intrinsic motivation is likely to be a greater driver of health researcher participation in survey research than extrinsic motivation. Altruistic and egoistic messaging may differentially impact initial interest and survey completion and when combined may lead to improved rates of recruitment, but not survey completion. Further research is needed to determine how to best optimize message content and whether the effects observed are modified by survey burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Researchers are responsible for the protection of health research participants. The purpose of this study was to identify and prioritize the training needs of researchers involved in human health research in Cameroon. Methods It was a cross-sectional study conducted in all the Cameroon regions in the last quarter of 2020. It targeted researchers involved in human health research selected by systematic stratified sampling from health and training institutions, and health facilities. Data were collected using a face-to-face administered questionnaire deployed in Smartphones via the ODK-collect. The distribution of participants’ exposure to research ethics training was described as well as their knowledge on the related regulatory texts. A score was used to rank the training needs identified by the participants. Results Of 168 reached participants, 134 (79.76%) participated in the study. A total of 103 (76.87%) researchers reported having received training in human health research ethics and 98 (73.13%) perceived need of training in research ethics. Of those involved in clinical, vaccine, and field trials, 63.64, 33.33, 52.53% have been exposed respectively to related training regarding participants’ protection. Having received at least one training in research ethics significantly increase the proportion of researchers systematically submitting application for ethical evaluation prior to implementation (OR = 3.20 (1.31–7.78)). Training priorities identified by researchers include: guidelines and regulations on health research ethics and research participant’s protection in Cameroon, procedures for evaluating research protocols, protection of research participants in clinical trials, and fundamental ethics principles. Conclusion The coverage of researchers in training regarding research participant protection remains limited in a number of areas including those related to clinical trial participant protection and research participant protection in Cameroon. Improving this coverage and addressing perceived needs of researchers are expected to contribute in improving their ability in playing their role in research participant protection.

Background: Researchers are responsible for the protection of health research participants. The purpose of this study was to identify and prioritize the training needs of researchers involved in human health research in Cameroon. Methods: It was a cross-sectional study conducted in all the Cameroon regions in the last quarter of 2020. It targeted researchers involved in human health research selected by systematic stratified sampling from health and training institutions, and health facilities. Data were collected using a face-to-face administered questionnaire deployed in Smartphones via the ODK-collect. The distribution of participants' exposure to research ethics training was described as well as their knowledge on the related regulatory texts. A score was used to rank the training needs identified by the participants. Results: Of 168 reached participants, 134 (79.76%) participated in the study. A total of 103 (76.87%) researchers reported having received training in human health research ethics and 98 (73.13%) perceived need of training in research ethics. Of those involved in clinical, vaccine, and field trials, 63.64, 33.33, 52.53% have been exposed respectively to related training regarding participants' protection. Having received at least one training in research ethics significantly increase the proportion of researchers systematically submitting application for ethical evaluation prior to implementation (OR = 3.20 (1.31–7.78)). Training priorities identified by researchers include: guidelines and regulations on health research ethics and research participant's protection in Cameroon, procedures for evaluating research protocols, protection of research participants in clinical trials, and fundamental ethics principles. Conclusion: The coverage of researchers in training regarding research participant protection remains limited in a number of areas including those related to clinical trial participant protection and research participant protection in Cameroon. Improving this coverage and addressing perceived needs of researchers are expected to contribute in improving their ability in playing their role in research participant protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Increasingly, health researchers must demonstrate the impact and real-life applications of their research. We investigated how health researchers with expertise in knowledge translation report research translation activities and impact on their curriculum vitae (CV). Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of health researchers with expertise in knowledge translation as we anticipated best practices in CV reporting from this specialized group. Our survey asked participants about their reporting of research translation and impact activities on their CVs, intention to report, and barriers and facilitators to reporting such activities on their CVs. We calculated univariate descriptive statistics for all quantitative data. Linear regression models determined predictors of researchers’ intention to report research translation and impact activities on their CVs. We analyzed open-ended qualitative responses using content analysis. Results One hundred and fifty-three health researchers responded to the survey (response rate = 29%). Most respondents were Canadian, were female, and had a doctoral degree. Eighty-two percent indicated they reported at least one research translation and/or impact indicator on their CVs. Of those, health researchers commonly reported the following: advisory/regulatory committee membership related to research program (83%), research translation award(s) (61%), and academic performance assessments (59%). Researchers least commonly indicated the following: citation metric scores (31%), summaries of impact (21%), and requests to use research materials and/or products (19%). Fewer than half of the health researchers intended to report knowledge translation (43%) and impact (33%) on their CVs. Strong beliefs about capabilities and consequences of reporting research translation and/or impact were significant predictors of intention. Main barriers were as follows: CV templates do not include research translation and impact activities, participants perceived employers do not value research translation and impact activities, and lack of metrics to evaluate research translation and impact. Ninety-six percent were unaware of a CV template formatted to include research translation and/or impact reporting. Conclusions Knowledge translation and impact indicators on the CV are inconsistently reported by our sample of health researchers. Modifiable barriers should be addressed to support more consistent reporting of such activities, including providing a CV template that includes research translation and impact as well as clear metrics to quantify them.

Abstract: Background: Acquiring the theoretical and practical knowhow of conducting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is not part of the traditional curriculum of researchers. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Huis voor de Zorg, a regional umbrella patient organization, therefore started a 1.5‐year coaching programme. Objective: To establish a community of practice by developing a PPI coaching programme for senior and junior health services researchers of Zuyd University. The context consisted of research projects conducted by the participants. Methods: A participatory action research methodology. Data were collected from reports of thematic group meetings and individual sessions with participants, field notes and regular reflection meetings with the project team. Data were analysed by reflexive deliberation. Findings: The programme comprised a kick‐off meeting (52 attendees), followed by 7 group meetings with 11 junior and 9 senior researchers. The project team constructed a serious game based on the concept of the participation ladder. Questions and concerns differed for junior and senior researchers, and separate tailored meetings were organized for both groups. Between group meetings, participants received individual assignments. Group meetings were accompanied by individual coaching sessions to provide tailor‐made feedback. The programme concluded with a combined meeting with all stakeholders. Conclusion: Building a community of PPI practice through action research facilitates the development of a coaching programme that fosters social learning, empowerment and the development of a shared identity concerning PPI. The role and responsibilities of senior researchers should be distinguished from those of junior researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Publications and research experiments are a major part of daily activities of the university academic members. Research misconduct, specifying its frequency and identifying the related behaviours is controversial. In recent years, there have been reports of scientific misconduct by Iranian academics. We examined the frequency of research misconduct by academic members in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in Iran. Method: 157 academic members participated in this study. A validated questionnaire according to Martinson study was used. Results: Our results showed that the most frequently admitted research misconduct was "inaccurate assignment of authorship credit" by 35% of academic members and 54.8% of their colleagues. All the respondents mostly emphasized their colleagues' engagement in research misconduct rather than themselves. Almost 43% of the respondents had engaged in at least one of the top ten scientific plagiaristic behaviours listed in the table of results. Conclusion: Nearly 43% of the Iranian academic members had engaged in at least one of the top ten misbehaviours over the past three years. A relatively high proportion of misconduct behaviours should be addressed in the scientific community by all relevant institutions and factors and by scientific journal editors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. This study adds to the discussion of appropriate categories of analysis in health research. We contribute data based on actual interviews about the concepts of race and ethnicity, conducted among a broad range of US health researchers. Design. In-person qualitative interviews were conducted with 73 scientists at two health research institutions, one that focused on public health research, and one that focused on research about a specific disease. This represents a larger and more interdisciplinary sample of health researchers than has been previously interviewed about these topics. Results. We identify a core model of how race and ethnicity are understood. The respondents were confused about the concepts of race and ethnicity and their link to genetic differences between populations; many treated these concepts as interchangeable and genetically based. Although ethnicity was considered somewhat more socially constructed, it was often felt to cause unhealthy behavior. In addition, the situation is not improving; the younger health researchers tended to put a stronger emphasis on the genetic aspects of race than did the older health researchers. Conclusion. Unlike reviews of how these concepts are used in scientific publications in which race and ethnicity are often undefined, our face-to-face interviews with these researchers allowed an understanding of their concepts of race and ethnicity. Building on their actual perspectives, these data suggest alternative approaches to formal and continuing educational training for health researchers. We recommend beginning with discussions of human diversity, and then moving on to what race and ethnicity are – and are not. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article talks about resources that health researchers use to ensure ethical conduct in human research. In some countries, ethics guidelines are set by various organizations and researchers are required to secure ethics approval from review boards. The authors interviewed 34 ethics committee members and 54 health researchers in Victoria who are involved in clinical and social science-based health research. It was found that while researchers valued ethics review, they relied more on past professional experience and personal values.

Background: Social media has been widely used for health-related purposes, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous reviews have summarized social media uses for a specific health purpose such as health interventions, health campaigns, medical education, and disease outbreak surveillance. The most recent comprehensive review of social media uses for health purposes, however, was conducted in 2013. A systematic review that covers various health purposes is needed to reveal the new usages and research gaps that emerge in recent years.Objective: This study aimed to provide a systematic review of social media uses for health purposes that have been identified in previous studies.Methods: The researchers searched for peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2006 and 2020 in 12 databases covering medicine, public health, and social science. After coding the articles in terms of publication year, journal area, country, method, social media platform, and social media use for health purposes, the researchers provided a review of social media use for health purposes identified in these articles.Results: This study summarized 10 social media uses for various health purposes by health institutions, health researchers and practitioners, and the public.Conclusions: Social media can be used for various health purposes. Several new usages have emerged since 2013 including advancing health research and practice, social mobilization, and facilitating offline health-related services and events. Research gaps exist regarding advancing strategic use of social media based on audience segmentation, evaluating the impact of social media in health interventions, understanding the impact of health identity development, and addressing privacy concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To understand researcher capability for and interest in patient-centered comparative effectiveness research (PC-CER), particularly related to engaging with patients/caregivers., Materials & Methods: Web-based survey of 508 health researchers recruited via professional health research organizations., Results: Most respondents (94%) were familiar with CER and many (69%) reported having previously conducting some form of CER. Most respondents were familiar with (81%) and interested in (87%) partnering with patients and/or caregivers in research. Resources to assist in training, coordination of partners, guidance in apply for funding and improved infrastructure were commonly cited factors that would help researchers conduct PC-CER., Conclusion: There is a significant opportunity for researchers to engage patients and caregivers as partners in CER. Researchers recognize the need for additional training and expertise to leverage those opportunities.

Much of the published research on evidence-informed health policymaking in low- and middle-income countries has focused on policymakers, overlooking the role of health researchers in the research-to-policy process. Through 20 semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews conducted with researchers in Argentina's rural northwest and the capital of Buenos Aires, we explore the perspectives, experiences and attitudes of Argentine health researchers regarding the use and impact of health research in policymaking in Argentina. We find that the researcher, and the researcher's function of generating evidence, is nested within a broader complex system that influences the researcher's interaction with policymaking. This system comprises communities of practice, government departments/civil society organizations, bureaucratic processes and political governance and executive leadership. At the individual level, researcher capacity and determinants of research availability also play a role in contributing to evidence-informed policymaking. In addition, we find a recurrent theme around 'lack of trust' and explore the role of trust within a research system, finding that researchers' distrust towards policymakers and even other researchers are linked inextricably to the sociopolitical history of Argentina, which contributes to shaping researchers' identities in opposition to policymakers. For policymakers, national research councils and funders of national health research systems, this article provides a deeper understanding of researchers' perceptions which can help inform and improve programme design when developing interventions to enhance research utilization and develop equitable and rational health policies. For donors and development agencies interested in health research capacity building and achieving development goals, this research demonstrates a need for investment in building research capacity and training health researchers to interact with the public policy 'world' and enhancing research communications and transferability to decision makers. It also highlights an opportunity to invest in implementation research platforms, such as health policy research and analysis institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]