RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users' perspectives when justifying and designing a new study. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied. CHARTING METHODS: Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research. RESULTS: We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented. CONCLUSIONS THAT RELATE TO THE REVIEW QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES: Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021).
Asunto(s)
Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Humanos , MEDLINERESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Public health research is an important component of United Kingdom (UK) health research and strategic analysis of its breadth and balance is key to ensure value. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one of the main funders of health research in the UK and includes many research programmes and schools. This study reports on public health research funded by the NIHR between April 2006 and March 2013. METHODS: The NIHR research programmes and schools were asked for information about all research funded during the study period. Firstly, projects were classified as a public health research project according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The public health research projects were further categorised according to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence taxonomy. RESULTS: Approximately 3000 research projects were funded by the NIHR, of which about 900 were relevant to public health. This represents approximately one-third of the research portfolio. All NIHR research funding programmes and schools funded research related to public health. The most prevalent domain of the Public Health Outcomes Framework was 'healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality' and there were a large number of health planning and self-management projects. One-quarter of projects were concerned with mental health and behavioural conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The NIHR is a significant funder of research relevant to public health. This analysis offers a snapshot of the breadth and balance of NIHR research, which forms a basis for discussion. This is important for the NIHR and other research funders as it shows areas that are better represented and opportunities to fill important gaps. Appropriate research priority setting is an integral part of a needs-led research agenda and adds value to research.
Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica/economía , Financiación Gubernamental , Salud Pública , Apoyo a la Investigación como Asunto , Humanos , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
The remit of the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research (PHR) Programme is to evaluate public health interventions, providing new knowledge on the benefits, costs, acceptability and wider impacts of interventions, set outside of the National Health Service, intended to improve the health of the public and reduce inequalities. This paper illustrates how the PHR Programme is providing new knowledge for public health decision makers, based on the nine key areas for local authority public health action, described by the King's Fund. Many funded PHR projects are evaluating interventions, applied in a range of settings, across the identified key areas for local authority influence. For example, research has been funded on children and young people, and for some of the wider determinants of health, such as housing and travel. Other factors, such as spatial planning, or open and green spaces and leisure, are less represented in the PHR Programme. Further opportunities in research include interventions to improve the health of adolescents, adults in workplaces, and communities. Building evidence for public health interventions at local authority level is important to prioritise and implement effective changes to improve population health.