RESUMEN

If we assume that nonhuman animals experience pain or distress, then ethically justifying human-centered research with only nonhuman animals as subjects likely requires that the research's benefits to humans must, at least, outweigh harms suffered by the nonhuman animals. Yet this reasoning does not seem to account well for the ethical view that nonhuman animals are morally valuable in their own right. This commentary on a case considers this ethical tension and discusses how clinician-researchers should navigate it. This commentary also suggests why clinician-researchers' reasoning about the nature and scope of their obligations to nonhuman animals extends beyond governing regulations and federal oversight, which is silent on or ambiguous about nonhuman animals as morally valuable in their own right.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Research institutions often lack policies addressing the risks and benefits of enrolling "invested parties" such as investigators, research staff, and patient, caregiver, and community representatives (groups most affected by a disease or intervention) in studies where they have direct involvement. Invested parties may have both strong motivations to study the condition or intervention and to participate as study subjects. More guidance is needed to promote appropriate access to research participation and mitigate potential risks. This article addresses the gap in guidance by presenting an ethical framework and practical guidelines for the enrollment of invested parties. Drawing from experiences with the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a large multisite observational cohort study, we argue that invested parties should not be categorically excluded from enrollment in their own research studies if certain criteria are met and appropriate safeguards are in place. We underscore the need to balance inclusion with fairness, promote valid voluntary informed consent, ensure data privacy, protect scientific validity, and mitigate unique risks to invested parties as participants. Additionally, we recommend regular reporting and empirical assessment to evaluate the impact of enrolling invested parties on participants and study outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Research dissemination is essential to accelerate the translating of evidence into practice. Little is known about dissemination among Chinese public health researchers. This study aimed to explore the understanding and practices of disseminating research findings and to identify barriers and facilitators that influence dissemination activities to non-research audiences. METHODS: This study deployed an exploratory qualitative design with purposive and snowball sampling. One focus group with 5 participants and 12 in-depth interviews were conducted with participants working in diverse fields from universities (n = 10), the National Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (n = 4), the Chinese National Cancer Center (n = 1), the Chinese National Center for Cardiovascular Disease (n = 1), and China office of a global research institute (n = 1) from May to December 2021 to reach saturation. Data were initially analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. The designing for dissemination (D4D) logic model was then used to organize themes and subthemes. Two coders independently coded all transcripts and discussed disparities to reach a consensus. RESULTS: Out of 17 participants, 12 misunderstood the concept of dissemination; 14 had disseminated to non-research audiences: 10 to the public, 10 to practitioners, and 9 to policymakers. We identified multiple barriers to dissemination to non-research audiences across four phases of the D4D logic model, including low priority of dissemination, limited application of D4D strategies, insufficient support from the research organizations, practice settings, and health systems, and overemphasis on academic publications. CONCLUSIONS: There was a lack of understanding and experience of dissemination, indicating a lack of emphasis on active dissemination in China. We provide implications for raising awareness, building capacity, facilitating multidisciplinary collaboration, providing incentives and infrastructure, changing climate and culture, establishing communication and executive networks, and accelerating systematic shifts in impact focus.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

We use data from 30 countries and find that the more women in a discipline, the lower quality the research in that discipline is evaluated to be and the lower the funding success rate is. This affects men and women, and is robust to age, number of research outputs, and bibliometric measures where such data are available. Our work builds on others' findings that women's work is valued less, regardless of who performs that work.

There have been growing concerns around sexism in science. Studies have found that women in science are often paid less, are less likely to get credit for their work and receive fewer and smaller grants than men at similar stages in their careers. This can make it harder for women to advance in their careers, resulting in less women than men taking up positions of leadership. There are also gender imbalances between scientific disciplines, with a higher proportion of women working in some fields compared to others. Here, James et al. set out to find whether having more women working in a discipline leads to biases in how the research is evaluated. The team examined four datasets which included information on the research evaluations and funding success of thousands of researchers across 30 different countries. The analysis suggested that scientists working in women-dominated disciplines were less likely to succeed in their grant applications. Their research was also often evaluated as being lower quality compared to researchers working in fields dominated by men. These biases applied to both men and women working in these disciplines. There were not sufficient data to analyse patterns faced by non-binary individuals. The study by James et al. cannot pinpoint a specific cause for these outcomes. However, it suggests that funding organisations should analyse the pattern of successful applications across disciplines and consider taking steps to ensure all disciplines have similar success rates. James et al. also propose that when hiring or making promotions, scientific institutions should take care when comparing researchers across disciplines and ensure there is no built-in assumption that fields dominated by men are intrinsically better.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

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

This research explores the perspectives of academic physicists from three national contexts concerning their roles and responsibilities within the realm of science. Using a dataset comprised of 211 interviews with scientists working in China, the United States, and the United Kingdom, the study seeks to explain whether and in what manner physicists conceptualize scientific ethics within a global or national framework. The empirical findings bring to light disparities across nations in the physicists' perceptions of what constitutes responsible mentorship and engagement in public service. These cross-national variations underscore the moral agency of physicists as they navigate the ethical standards embraced by the global scientific community vis-à-vis those that are specific to their respective national contexts. The study's empirical insights may carry significant implications for both policymakers and ethicists, underscoring the imperative of soliciting and acknowledging the perspectives of academic scientists working and living in disparate national contexts when formulating comprehensive science ethics frameworks. Such inclusive and context-aware approaches to shaping ethics in science can contribute to the cultivation of a more robust and universally relevant ethical foundation for the scientific community.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Guidance on co-production between researchers and people with lived experience was published in 2018 by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) advisory group, previously known as INVOLVE. This guidance described sharing power as a key principle within co-production. Authentic sharing of power within co-produced mental health research does not always occur however and remains a challenge to achieve within many projects. OBJECTIVES: To explore what has been learned about the sharing of power in co-production within mental health research since the publication of these guidelines, by synthesising qualitative literature relating to power within co-produced mental health research. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review with thematic synthesis. We searched CINHAL, Embase and PubMed databases to identify qualitative or mixed-method studies relating to power within co-produced mental health research. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool (CASP) for qualitative research. RESULTS: We identified nine papers that met the criteria for inclusion and were included in the synthesis. Three themes were generated: (1) Battling to share power against a more powerful system, (2) Empowerment through relationships and (3) The journey is turbulent, but it is not supposed to be smooth. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight that power is pervasive, especially within the hierarchical systems research is often conducted within. Sharing power within co-produced mental health research is an ongoing complex process that is not intended to be easy. Respectful trusting relationships can help facilitate power sharing. However, ultimately meaningful change needs to come from research funders, universities and NHS providers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The study authors include a lived experience researcher who contributed to the review design, analysis and write-up.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Null.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Communication is a core component of a clinician's role; however, when clinicians conduct research, communicating the emerging findings and recommendations to different types of stakeholders can be unfamiliar territory. Communicating research to advocate for change can be even more challenging. Clinician researchers seeking to be agents for change need to conceive and craft specific, evidence-based messages and communicate these effectively to different stakeholders to negotiate action. As part of a global health research program, we developed and tested a novel game-based model to strengthen the communication skills of clinician researchers, from 4 countries, for improving services for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This model focused on communication with 3 key stakeholder groups for knowledge translation: Patients/carers, healthcare providers and policy makers/healthcare managers. Delivered through a series of facilitated, online meetings, this model consisted of 2 parts: developing and rehearsing advocacy messages with coaching support, and then testing them with a panel of 3 representative stakeholders, and an audience of fellow researchers. All the country teams reported increased confidence in crafting advocacy messages for specific stakeholders and have applied lessons learned from the model. Delivering this model within a global health research program requires mentoring, time, commitment, resources and translation support to address language barriers. It offers an exemplar to build the communication skills of clinician and non-clinician researchers so that they can go beyond dissemination toward translation of evidence into policy and practice.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

As the world around us changes, so too do the bonds that people have with their environment. These environmental bonds, or Senses of Place (SoP), are a key component of social-ecological systems (SESs). SoP has social, psychological and economic value, it impacts how people use and behave in an environment and how they respond to changes such as those caused by anthropogenic pressures. Despite this connection, the consideration and application of SoP in the management of SESs remains relatively under explored. This study takes the first step in addressing that gap by investigating the perceptions of researchers in the field. We achieve this by interviewing SoP researchers from around the globe to elucidate whether they see SoP as valuable for the management of SES. We also identify their perspectives on the barriers to, and enablers of, incorporating SoP into policy and management. Results show while researchers do see the value in incorporating SoP into policy, there are a range of barriers that impact this, most notably, the intangible nature of the phenomena and shortcomings of current governance systems. Results also identify a range of enablers that could improve the incorporation of SoP into policy-particularly through improved engagement and communication between stakeholders. These findings represent a first step in the formal inclusion of this social value into the management of SES.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The Danish Reproducibility Network (DKRN) is a grassroots initiative for establishing a peer-supportive reproducibility-focused academic network in Denmark. We modelled our approach on already existing national Reproducibility Networks. We consulted with researchers and research support professionals to identify the needs of the research community. Three themes emerged around policy implementation, training and the appropriate application of reproducible practices. The network aims to address these three themes in a strategic plan, which harnesses the benefits of grassroots initiatives. The mission of the DKRN is therefore to facilitate communication, peer-support, and the exchange of ideas through a network of topic and geographical nodes. The network is open to researchers and research support professionals from all career stages and disciplines. It aligns with broader international initiatives, and national institutions, positioning itself as a contributor to the Danish research ecosystem.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)