RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The focus on quantitative indicators-number of publications and grants, journal impact factors, Hirsch-index-has become pervasive in research management, funding systems, and research and publication practices (SES). Accountability through performance measurement has become the gold standard to increase productivity and (cost-) efficiency in academia. Scientific careers are strongly shaped by the push to produce more in a veritable 'publish or perish' culture. To this end, we investigated the perspectives of biomedical researchers on responsible assessment criteria that foster responsible conduct of research. METHODS: We performed a qualitative focus group study among 3 University medical centers in the Netherlands. In these centers, we performed 2 randomly selected groups of early career researchers (PhD and postdoc level & senior researchers (associate and full professors) from these 3 institutions and explored how relational responsibilities relate to responsible conduct of research and inquired how potential (formal) assessment criteria could correspond with these responsibilities. RESULTS: In this study we highlighted what is considered responsible research among junior and senior researchers in the Netherlands and how this can be assessed in formal assessment criteria. The participants reflected on responsible research and highlighted several academic responsibilities (such as supervision, collaboration and teaching) that are often overlooked and that are considered a crucial prerequisite for responsible research. As these responsibilities pertain to intercollegiate relations, we henceforth refer to them as relational. After our systematic analysis of these relational responsibilities, participants suggested some ideas to improve current assessment criteria. We focused on how these duties can be reflected in multidimensional, concrete and sustainable assessment criteria. Focus group participants emphasized the importance of assessing team science (both individual as collective), suggested the use of a narrative in researcher assessment and valued the use of 360 degrees assessment of researchers. Participants believed that these alternative assessments, centered on relational responsibilities, could help in fostering responsible research practices. However, participants stressed that unclarity about the new assessment criteria would only cause more publication stress and insecurity about evaluation of their performance. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that relational responsibilities should ideally play a more prominent role in future assessment criteria as they correspond with and aspire the practice of responsible research. Our participants gave several suggestions how to make these skills quantifiable and assessable in future assessment criteria. However, the development of these criteria is still in its infancy, implementation can cause uncertainties among those assessed and consequently, future research should focus on how to make these criteria more tangible, concrete and applicable in daily practice to make them applicable to measure and assess responsible research practices in institutions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9tjda/.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Research Funding Organizations (RFOs) play an important role in promoting research integrity (RI). Not only do they allocate resources to research institutions and researchers, but they also set and monitor research standards in their funded projects. In spite of their crucial role, there is a paucity of guidance on how RFOs can promote research integrity. As part of the EU-Funded SOPs4RI project, we aimed to address this gap by co-creating guidelines to help RFOs promote RI, engaging a diverse group of stakeholders. Based on a Delphi survey, reviews of evidence and stakeholder interviews, three guideline topics were identified: 1) the selection and evaluation of proposals; 2) monitoring of funded projects; and 3) prevention of unjustified interference. Four sets of co-creation workshops were conducted for each guideline topic, and the input revised and finalized. Understanding these debates could help RFOs from diverse cultural and organizational backgrounds who are developing their own RI guidelines. Therefore, in this paper, we summarize the key results and emphasize the final recommendations. Further, we provide the main points of discussion that occurred during the workshops and explain how they were addressed or resolved in the final guidelines and how they can help in future endeavors to improve funders' practices to foster RI.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Hospital health care workers (HCW) are at increased risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. We investigated whether certain behavioral and physical features, e.g. nose picking and wearing glasses, are associated with infection risk. AIM: To assess the association between nose picking and related behavioral or physical features (nail biting, wearing glasses, and having a beard) and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2-infection. METHODS: In a cohort study among 404 HCW in two university medical centers in the Netherlands, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were prospectively measured during the first phase of the pandemic. For this study HCW received an additional retrospective survey regarding behavioral (e.g. nose picking) and physical features. RESULTS: In total 219 HCW completed the survey (response rate 52%), and 34/219 (15.5%) became SARS-CoV-2 seropositive during follow-up from March 2020 till October 2020. The majority of HCW (185/219, 84.5%) reported picking their nose at least incidentally, with frequency varying between monthly, weekly and daily. SARS-CoV-2 incidence was higher in nose picking HCW compared to participants who refrained from nose picking (32/185: 17.3% vs. 2/34: 5.9%, OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.05 to 24.52), adjusted for exposure to COVID-19. No association was observed between nail biting, wearing glasses, or having a beard, and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSION: Nose picking among HCW is associated with an increased risk of contracting a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We therefore recommend health care facilities to create more awareness, e.g. by educational sessions or implementing recommendations against nose picking in infection prevention guidelines.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

To foster research integrity (RI), research institutions should develop a continuous RI education approach, addressing various target groups. To support institutions to achieve this, we developed RI education guidelines together with RI experts and research administrators, exploring similarities and differences in recommendations across target groups, as well as recommendations about RI education using approaches other than formal RI training. We used an iterative co-creative process. We conducted four half-day online co-creation workshops with 16 participants in total, which were informed by the RI education evidence-base. In the first two workshops, participants generated ideas for guidelines' content, focusing on different target groups and various approaches to RI education. Based on this content we developed first drafts of the guidelines. Participants in the third and fourth workshop refined those drafts. We next organized a working group which further prioritized, reorganized, and optimized the content of the guidelines. We developed four guidelines on RI education focusing on (a) bachelor, master and PhD students; (b) post-doctorate and senior researchers; (c) other RI stakeholders; as well as (d) continuous RI education. Across guidelines, we recommend mandatory RI training; follow-up refresher training; informal discussions about RI; appropriate rewards and incentives for active participation in RI education; and evaluation of RI educational events. Our work provides experience-based co-created guidance to research institutions on what to consider when developing a successful RI education strategy. Each guideline is offered as a distinct, publicly available tool in our toolbox ( www.sops4ri.eu/toolbox ) which institutions can access, adapt and implement to meet their institution-specific RI education needs.Trial registration https://osf.io/zej5b .

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Reports of questionable or detrimental research practices (QRPs) call into question the reliability of scientific evidence and the trustworthiness of research. A critical component of the research ecosystem is the organization within which research takes place. We conducted a survey to explore the attitudes and beliefs of European and American researchers about the organisations in which they work, their own research practices and their attitudes towards research integrity and research integrity policies. METHODS: We administered an online survey (International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS)) to 2,300 active researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland).  We employed a stratified probability sample of the authors of research articles published between 2016 and 2020 included in Clarivate's Web of Science citation database. Coverage includes researchers in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and medical sciences, who hold at least a master's level degree. RESULTS: In comparison to researchers in the US, European researchers admit to more QRPs and are less confident in maintaining high research integrity (RI) standards. In the US and Europe, many researchers judge their organization to fall short of best RI practice. All researchers recognize the benefits of RI, reliable knowledge and the trust of colleagues and the public, and there is support for RI training particularly among Europeans. CONCLUSION: To create and maintain a culture of integrity in scientific research, a collective commitment from researchers, their institutions and funders is needed. Researchers rely on many channels of communication about research integrity and thus the involvement of many different participants in the research system is required to make improvements. Policies must be developed to reinforce best practice rather than being seen as an irrelevance to the real business of research.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Climate change may bring about anxiety, which may be referred to as eco-anxiety. Commonly accepted conceptual or diagnostic criteria for eco-anxiety are currently lacking. Here, we briefly summarize the current literature on climate change and mental illness. We suggest dividing the concept of eco-anxiety into adaptive eco-anxiety and an anxiety disorder where climate change plays a major role. This distinction may be helpful in clinical practice to discern relatively common and potentially healthy eco-anxiety from a disorder causing impairment in daily functioning. Benefits of adaptive eco-anxiety include the development of active coping strategies (increasing resilience) as well as behavioural changes to mitigate climate change. When debilitating anxiety comes with avoidance and centers around climate change, a specific phobia called eco-anxiety disorder may be considered. Importantly, as validated diagnostic criteria for this disorder are currently lacking, further conceptualization is highly needed. Future clinical research may help fill these current knowledge gaps.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The significant increase in Internet availability has resulted in a rise in search queries on health-related topics. Previous research has demonstrated the potential for analyzing web search query volume for nonpsychotropic prescription drugs, while studies on psychotropic drugs remain scarce. The aims of this study were to expand upon this scarce knowledge by investigating the relationship between web search query volumes and prescription volumes of antidepressants and antipsychotics in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and to gain insight in topics of concern, such as withdrawal symptoms and discontinuation. METHODS: Data were obtained for the United Kingdom and the Netherlands from January 2010 until January 2021. Prescription volume data for 5 antidepressants (paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline, citalopram, venlafaxine) and 5 antipsychotics (quetiapine, olanzapine, clozapine, aripiprazole, and risperidone) were obtained. Web search query volumes and data on related search queries of these substances were acquired from Google Trends. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analyses were performed. RESULTS: A strong, positive, and statistically significant correlation between web search query volume and prescription volume was observed for most included substances in both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The search queries related to the included antidepressants and antipsychotics indicate important topics of concern for specific substances, such as withdrawal symptoms and discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Web search data from Google Trends could potentially be used as a proxy for prescribing trends of antidepressants and antipsychotics and to gain insight in topics of concern of users of these substances. These findings highlight the importance of providing reliable patient information, particularly regarding adverse effects, withdrawal, and discontinuation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Both fatal and nonfatal suicidal behaviours are important complications of mental, neurological, and substance use disorders (MNSDs) worldwide. We aimed at quantifying the association of suicidal behaviour with MNSDs in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs) where varying environmental and socio-cultural factors may impact outcome. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to report the associations between MNSDs and suicidality in LMICs and the study-level factors of these associations. We searched the following electronic databases: PUBMED, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, World Cat, and Cochrane library for studies on suicide risk in MNSDs, with a comparison/control group of persons without MNSDs, published from January 1, 1995 to September 3, 2020. Median estimates were calculated for relative risks for suicide behaviour and MNSDs, and when appropriate, these were pooled using random effects metanalytic model. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020178772. RESULTS: The search identified 73 eligible studies: 28 were used for quantitative synthesis of estimates and 45 for description of risk factors. Studies included came from low and upper middle-income countries with a majority of these from Asia and South America and none from a low-income country. The sample size was 13,759 for MNSD cases and 11,792 hospital or community controls without MNSD. The most common MNSD exposure for suicidal behaviour was depressive disorders (47 studies (64%)), followed by schizophrenia spectrum, and other psychotic disorders (28 studies (38%)). Pooled estimates from the meta-analysis were statistically significant for suicidal behaviour with any MNSDs (odds ratios (OR) = 1∙98 (95%CI = 1∙80-2∙16))) and depressive disorder (OR = 3∙26 (95%CI = 2∙88-3∙63))), with both remaining significant after inclusion of high-quality studies only. Meta-regression identified only hospital-based studies (ratio of OR = 2∙85, CI:1∙24-6∙55) and sample size (OR = 1∙00, CI:0∙99-1∙00) as possible sources of variability in estimates. Risk for suicidal behaviour in MNSDs was increased by demographic factors (e.g., male sex, and unemployment), family history, psychosocial context and physical illness. INTERPRETATION: There is an association between suicidal behaviour and MNSDs in LMICs, the association is greater for depressive disorder in LMICs than what has been reported in High Income Countries (HICs). There is urgent need to improve access for MNSDs care in LMICs. FUNDING: None.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Research integrity (RI) is crucial for trustworthy research. Rules are important in setting RI standards and improving research practice, but they can lead to increased bureaucracy; without commensurate commitment amongst researchers toward RI, they are unlikely to improve research practices. In this paper, we explore how to combine rules and commitment in fostering RI. Research institutions can govern RI using markets (using incentives), bureaucracies (using rules), and network processes (through commitment and agreements). Based on Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action, we argue that network processes, as part of the lifeworld, can legitimize systems - that is, market or bureaucratic governance modes. This can regulate and support RI practices in an efficient way. Systems can also become dominant and repress consensus processes. Fostering RI requires a balance between network, market and bureaucratic governance modes. We analyze the institutional response to a serious RI case to illustrate how network processes can be combined with bureaucratic rules. Specifically, we analyze how the Science Committee established at Tilburg University in 2012 has navigated different governance modes, resulting in a normatively grounded and efficient approach to fostering RI. Based on this case, we formulate recommendations to research institutions on how to combine rules and commitment.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the reasons for suicidal behaviour in Africa, and communities' perception of suicide prevention. A contextualised understanding of these reasons is important in guiding the implementation of potential suicide prevention interventions in specific settings. AIMS: To understand ideas, experiences and opinions on reasons contributing to suicidal behaviour in the Coast region of Kenya, and provide recommendations for suicide prevention. METHOD: We conducted a qualitative study with various groups of key informants residing in the Coast region of Kenya, using in-depth interviews. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and translated from the local language before thematic inductive content analysis. RESULTS: From the 25 in-depth interviews, we identified four key themes as reasons given for suicidal behaviour: interpersonal and relationship problems, financial and economic difficulties, mental health conditions and religious and cultural influences. These reasons were observed to be interrelated with each other and well-aligned to the suggested recommendations for suicide prevention. We found six key recommendations from our thematic content analysis: (a) increasing access to counselling and social support, (b) improving mental health awareness and skills training, (c) restriction of suicide means, (d) decriminalisation of suicide, (e) economic and education empowerment and (f) encouraging religion and spirituality. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons for suicidal behaviour are comparable with high-income countries, but suggested prevention strategies are more contextualised to our setting. A multifaceted approach in preventing suicide in (coastal) Kenya is warranted based on the varied reasons suggested. Community-based interventions will likely improve and increase access to suicide prevention in this study area.

RESUMEN

We assess Radder's criticisms of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and show that they either miss their mark or depend on controversial background assumptions about the purpose of the Code. Although Radder raises important questions about the broader roles and purposes of research in society, his conclusion that the Code should be revised in the ways he proposes is unjustified.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

One way to strengthen research integrity, is through supervision. According to previous research, a supervisor should be well-versed in responsible research practices (RRPs) and possess the necessary interpersonal skills to convey RRPs. We developed a 3-day pilot training for PhD supervisors that combined RRPs and interpersonal skills. Our aim was to assess: perceptions regarding supervision skills (before and after the pilot) and participants' views on combining RRPs and interpersonal skills. Before and after the pilot, we sent the Research Supervision Quality Evaluation survey to the participating PhD supervisors and their PhD candidates. The pilot was concluded with a focus group where participants deliberated over the combination of training in interpersonal skills and RRPs and whether such training should become compulsory. Both supervisors and PhD candidates were more positive about the supervisor's interpersonal skills and the ability to foster RRPs after the training. Participants were enthusiastic about the training's dual focus but believed that making the training compulsory would be undesirable. The results highlight the potential of RRPs training for supervisors. However, caution is warranted, as the results regard a small sample of volunteering supervisors, underscoring the need for larger programs to foster responsible supervision that are rigorously evaluated.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Existing research integrity (RI) guideline development methods are limited in including various perspectives. While co-creation methods could help to address this, there is little information available to researchers and practitioners on how, why and when to use co-creation for developing RI guidelines, nor what the outcomes of co-creation methods are. In this paper, we aim to address this gap. First, we discuss how co-creation methods can be used for RI guideline development, based on our experience of developing RI guidelines. We elaborate on steps including preparation of the aims and design; participant sensitization; organizing and facilitating workshops; and analyzing data and translating them into guidelines. Secondly, we present the resulting RI guidelines, to show what the outcome of co-creation methods are. Thirdly, we reflect on why and when researchers might want to use co-creation methods for developing RI guidelines. We discuss that stakeholder engagement and inclusion of diverse perspectives are key strengths of co-creation methods. We also reflect that co-creation methods have the potential to make guidelines implementable if followed by additional steps such as revision working groups. We conclude that co-creation methods are a valuable approach to creating new RI guidelines when used together with additional methods.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To explore indicators of the following questionable research practices (QRPs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs): (1) risk of bias in four domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment); (2) modifications in primary outcomes that were registered in trial registration records (proxy for selective reporting bias); (3) ratio of the achieved to planned sample sizes; and (4) statistical discrepancy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Full texts of all human RCTs published in PubMed in 1996-2017 were automatically identified and information was collected automatically. Potential indicators of QRPs included author-specific, publication-specific, and journal-specific characteristics. Beta, logistic, and linear regression models were used to identify associations between these potential indicators and QRPs. RESULTS: We included 163,129 RCT publications. The median probability of bias assessed using Robot Reviewer software ranged between 43% and 63% for the four risk of bias domains. A more recent publication year, trial registration, mentioning of CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-checklist, and a higher journal impact factor were consistently associated with a lower risk of QRPs. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive analysis provides an insight into indicators of QRPs. Researchers should be aware that certain characteristics of the author team and publication are associated with a higher risk of QRPs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Transparency is increasingly becoming the new norm and modus operandi of the global research enterprise. In this mini-review, we summarize ongoing initiatives to increase transparency in science and funding in particular. Based on this, we make a plea for the next step in funders' compliance with the principles of Open Science, suggesting the adoption of open applications. Our proposed model includes a plea for the publication of all submitted grant applications; open sharing of review reports, argumentations for funding decisions and project evaluation reports; and the disclosure of reviewers' and decision committee members' identities. In line with previous calls for transparency and the available evidence about these measures' effectiveness, we argue that open applications could lead to more diverse collaboration, recognition of research ideas, fairer procedures for grant allocation, more research on funding practices and increased trust in the funding allocation process.

RESUMEN

Proponents of open science often refer to issues pertaining to research integrity and vice versa. In this commentary, we argue that concepts such as responsible research practices, transparency, and open science are connected to one another, but that they each have a different focus. We argue that responsible research practices focus more on the rigorous conduct of research, transparency focuses predominantly on the complete reporting of research, and open science's core focus is mostly about dissemination of research. Doing justice to these concepts requires action from researchers and research institutions to make research with integrity possible, easy, normative, and rewarding. For each of these levels from the Center for Open Science pyramid of behaviour change, we provide suggestions on what researchers and research institutions can do to promote a culture of research integrity. We close with a brief reflection on initiatives by other research communities and stakeholders and make a call to those working in the fields of research integrity and open science to pay closer attention to one other's work.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that the organizations and individual researchers they support make an explicit commitment to research integrity. Moreover, funders need to adopt appropriate research integrity practices themselves. To facilitate this, we recommend that funders develop and implement a Research Integrity Promotion Plan (RIPP). This Consensus View offers a range of examples of how funders are already promoting research integrity, distills 6 core topics that funders should cover in a RIPP, and provides guidelines on how to develop and implement a RIPP. We believe that the 6 core topics we put forward will guide funders towards strengthening research integrity policy in their organization and guide the researchers and research organizations they fund.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Supervisors, PhD candidates and research leaders are expected to be the primary persons responsible for maintaining a high research integrity standards. However, research institutions should support them in this effort, by promoting responsible supervision and leadership practices. Although it is clear that institutions play a crucial role in this, there is a lack of institutional guidelines focusing on these topics. The development of the experience-based guidelines presented in this article consisted of a multi-step, iterative approach. We engaged 16 experts in supervision and research integrity in four workshops to co-create institutional guidelines for responsible supervision and leadership. To revise the guidelines and make them operational, we formed a dedicated working group and consulted experts in the field of supervision. This resulted in three guidelines focusing on what institutions can do to support: responsible supervision, PhD candidates during their PhD trajectory, and responsible leadership. The recommendations focus on the rights and responsibilities of the three targeted stakeholder groups, and institutions' responsibilities for the personal development and well-being of supervisors, PhD candidates and research leaders. The three guidelines can be used by institutions to foster responsible supervision and leadership by supporting researchers to conduct research with integrity.

Asunto(s)