Seeking evidence from medical research consumers as part of the medical research process could improve the uptake of research evidence

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret T. Whitstock
2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (78) ◽  
pp. 101-114
Author(s):  
Harvey Goldstein

The paper explores some of the issues involved in evaluating educational policy initiatives. It gives examples of how research findings can be evaluated and draws lessons for the ways in which policymakers can interact usefully with researchers. It argues that while central government's use of research evidence is often highly selective and concerned with its own perceived short term interests, a broader view of the research process is more productive and beneficial. The issues of class size, school league tables and the effects of homework are studied in detail and the often provisional nature of research evidence is emphasised as well as the uncertainty surrounding the findings of individual studies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilini Gunatillake ◽  
Cade Shadbolt ◽  
Daniel Gould ◽  
Michelle Lam ◽  
Marion Glanville Hearst ◽  
...  

Plain English summary Involving consumers and community members in the research process is an important step towards developing and delivering effective, person-centered health care. The National Health and Medical Research Council have provided recommendations for involving consumers and community members in research; however, definitive actions to implement these are not well defined. To address this, an established research centre in Melbourne, Australia, has developed a consumer and community involvement framework to incorporate the national recommendations into their research program. This paper describes the framework the research centre has employed, in the hope that other researchers can adapt this approach and learnings to their own research practices. The framework described in this paper aims to foster partnerships between consumers, community members and researchers, and in doing so, encourages consumers to be actively involved in research to help improve future outcomes for those living with musculoskeletal conditions. Simultaneously, the framework encourages researchers to value the consumer voice in their research to ensure they yield meaningful research outcomes for those living with musculoskeletal conditions. Abstract Background The value of involving consumers and community members in every stage of the research process is gaining recognition as an important consideration in the wider research landscape. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has provided general recommendations for involving consumers and community members in research, although the translation of these recommendations into tangible actions has not yet been well defined. In light of these recommendations, many research institutions are now seeking to incorporate the voices of consumers and community members in their research practices. Methods The consumer and community involvement framework described in this paper incorporates the NHMRC’s recommendations to produce a four-tiered model where consumer participants nominate their level of involvement depending on their research interests and preferred level of commitment. In ascending order, the tiers are: Consumer Subscriber, Document Reviewer, Research Buddy and Consumer Advocate. The success of this framework depends upon the implementation of effective governance and access to appropriate infrastructure. A Consumer and Community Advisory Group and a designated Consumer and Community Liaison Officer will take responsibility for ensuring appropriate interactions between consumers, researchers, and the research center’s executive team. The framework aims to apply suitable support structures in place to manage expectations and minimize barriers to effective involvement, whilst ensuring that consumer contributions are appropriately valued and incorporated in the research. Discussion Involving consumers and community members in the research process is an important step towards developing and delivering effective, person-centered health care. While consumer and community involvement offer researchers invaluable perspectives on their research program, it provides an opportunity for consumers and community members to be actively involved in health research and improve the health and wellbeing for those living with health conditions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 160940692110345
Author(s):  
Patricia Melgar Alcantud ◽  
Lidia Puigvert ◽  
Oriol Rios ◽  
Elena Duque

Previous research has generally found that providing specific research evidence about concrete improvements in the development of field work promotes the achievement of social impact during the research process itself ( Aiello et al., 2021 ). This result opens as a prospective for further research to specify which scientific evidences can promote this impact in the different research topics, as well as the methodological aspects that will facilitate it. In research on gender violence, some of these evidences have already been identified—for example, the mirage of upward mobility ( Oliver, 2010-2012 ). However, the methodological aspects that will determine, when exposing such evidence, the social impact obtained during the research process have not been analyzed. In this sense, in the FREE TEEN DESIRE project, sharing this evidence with the participants using the language of desire has promoted transformations. This language of desire must be incorporated from its reality, being the result of a construction between the researcher and the participants. Its incorporation is enhanced if it is done in the context of Dialogic Feminist Gatherings (DFG). And, throughout the process, the researcher must adopt a role in which, among other things, she or he makes visible any attitude linked to violence when it becomes unattractive, as well as making visible the language of desire that is being constructed with respect to egalitarian relationships. The social impact of this research methodology was evidenced by the fact that after participating in DFG on the mirage of upward mobility, the girls’ intention to have a sporadic relationship with a boy with violent attitudes decreased ( Puigvert, 2016 ).


Author(s):  
Dya Eldin Mohammed Elsayed

One of the important feature of scientific research is scrutinizing truth. Investigators strive for honesty and integrity in all scientific communications.  Candidly reported methods and procedures, data and results, and their publication status should reflect authenticity. Publication of fake data diverts the search from truth. The aim of studying human subjects should be advancing research and scholarship and not just the researcher’s own career. Misconduct in medical research is any intentional deviation from acceptable ethical principles. Intentional misconduct is a serious observation, and misconduct such as falsification and fabrication of data and plagiarism are the most common fraud practices in medical research. Misconduct can occur at any stage of the research process; however, it particularly occurs in the results section of the research as researchers try to avoid negative findings. Data falsification occurs when investigators attempt to alter data to meet their own expectations. Falsification could involve altering data and results on research participants’ record to fit research report. Data fabrication occurs when researchers report data that were completely constructed and never occurred when running the research. Plagiarism is using—either deliberate or inattentive—other researchers’ ideas and words without clearly acknowledging the source of that information. Although fraud and misconduct have serious consequences, they are not uncommon among research publications in scientific journals. Institutions have to develop a mechanism to discover research misconduct and to prevent it. Editors and reviewers are required to introduce some commentaries in the regulations to impose sanctions on those found guilty of research misconduct. Key words: research, fraud, misconduct


2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-256
Author(s):  
Joel R. Levin ◽  
Angela M. O’ Donnell

Educational research is continually being thrashed for its poor quality. Several recent efforts to define better research standards have sputtered. Acknowledging others’ arguments that the nature of educational research is applied (directed at problems of schooling), heterogeneous (multidisciplinary), and complex (multidimensional), we nonetheless advocate more widespread implementation of scientifically based research methodologies. Our central thesis focuses on the concept of credible evidence. We suggest that most educational research approaches that are in vogue today are incapable of yielding empirical evidence that is convincing from either a scientific or a prescriptive standpoint. After offering a refresher on the logic underlying carefully controlled scientific investigations and then contrasting current educational research inquiry with inquiry characteristic of medical research, we present an educational research model in which what we refer to as “randomized classroom trials” studies are accorded a position of prominence. We provide examples of candidate topics for such studies and discuss the challenging issues that must be resolved so that educational practice will be better informed by educational research evidence that is credible.


Author(s):  
Emanuela Oldoni ◽  
Alain van Gool ◽  
Laura García Bermejo ◽  
Andreas Scherer ◽  
Michaela Th Mayrhofer ◽  
...  

Abstract An effective response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires a better understanding of the biology of the infection and the identification of validated biomarker profiles that would increase the availability, accuracy, and speed of COVID-19 testing. Here, we describe the strategic objectives and action lines of the European Alliance of Medical Research Infrastructures (AMRI), established to improve the research process and tackle challenges related to diagnostic tests and biomarker development. Recommendations include: the creation of a European taskforce for validation of novel diagnostic products, the definition and promotion of criteria for COVID-19 samples biobanking, the identification and validation of biomarkers as clinical endpoints for clinical trials, and the definition of immune biomarker signatures at different stages of the disease. An effective management of the COVID-19 pandemic is possible only if there is a high level of knowledge and coordination between the public and private sectors within a robust quality framework.


2001 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia D. Mulrow ◽  
Kathleen N. Lohr

Medicne pravo ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 69-77
Author(s):  
M. V. Mendzhul

The article examines international acts and national legislation and highlights the conditions for the legality of medical research with human participation. The provisions of the Nuremberg Code (1947), the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association «Ethical principles for medical research involv- ing human subjects» (1964), the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997), the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (1997) and the Addi- tional Protocols to the Convention, Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU) No 536/2014. The support of the recommendation to ratify the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and its additional protocols in Ukraine has been expressed. It has been established that international acts stipulate that the design and implementation of each human subject research must be clearly described in the research protocol. In addition, research protocols must be subject to prior review by the Ethics Committees. It has been substantiated that international acts set for medical research standards, which are based on the principles of respect for dignity and human rights, the priority of interests of the person over the interests of society or sci- ence, compliance with safety requirements and prevention of harm to humans, mandatory permission to conduct medical examination, research and control- lability of the research process and its results, compensation for any damage caused by medical research. Conditions of legality of medical research can be divided into general (obser- vance of which is always necessary if a person participates in experiments) and special (additional conditions of legality, which are put forward depend- ing on the field or object of research, namely in the field of experiments com- bined with medical care , human genome research, in vitro embryo research, in the field of clinical trials of drugs).


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack S. Nunn ◽  
Marilyn Crawshaw ◽  
Paul Lacaze

Abstract Background Human genomics research is growing rapidly. More effective methods are required for co-design and involving people, especially those sub-populations which are inherently high interest to medical research and thus at greater risk of being exploited. This case study documents how we worked with a large group of donor-conceived siblings who share the same sperm donor father, to explore how they might want to engage with and influence any future genomic research. Method A participatory action research process was used to explore the views of a group of 18 people who knew they are donor-conceived siblings. They are part of a larger group of up to 1000 people who share the same sperm donor father but the only ones in contact with each other; it is likely that many of the uncontacted siblings are unaware of their biological father, have been unable to trace others or have died. The discussion explored views about how the group would like to be involved in future research. Five members participated in co-design; 12 completed a pre-discussion online survey; and six participated in an online discussion forum and evaluation survey. The online discussion was led by one facilitator, supported by the study team. Results Of the 18 siblings approached in 2018, 14 participated in the co-design stages or the surveys and online discussion. Co-design informed the research process. Participants reported enjoying the overall experience of the surveys and discussion forum, which were perceived as inclusive and flexible. Most participants’ views regarding the value of involvement in research changed during the process, and ‘widened’ about who should be involved. Participants were supportive of future research being done with the siblings group. All who completed the final survey requested to remain part of the co-design process. Other themes in the online discussion included concerns about conflicting interests and a desire for research participation to improve the situation for people affected by assisted conception. The process informed later discussions in the sibling group about participating in a self-managed biobank and informed decision making about participating in genomics research. Conclusion Findings from this study help inform ways in which people from certain sub-populations can be involved in planning and defining their participation in genomic research, particularly those that are inherently high interest to medical research and thus at greater risk of exploitation. This process provides a replicable method of involving potential participants in co-designing genomics research using online discussions, with positive outcomes. Reporting this study using ‘Standardised data on initiatives (STARDIT)’ to report the process allows comparison with other studies.


2020 ◽  
pp. 146531252096857
Author(s):  
Veena A Patel ◽  
Jonathan Shelswell ◽  
Neil Hillyard ◽  
Sue Pavitt ◽  
Sophy K Barber

Introduction: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in research is an essential component of high-quality research. Patients and the public can identify which research topics are most relevant to them, contribute to study design, and interpretation and dissemination of findings. While inclusion of PPIE is widely adopted in medical research, awareness within the dental research community is more limited. Aim: To examine patient and public involvement and engagement in orthodontic research activity. Design: Identification and appraisal of use of PPIE in orthodontic research reporting and funding applications using a systematic approach. Methods: Three sources of information were examined: (1) research articles published between September 2018 and September 2019 in four major orthodontic journals. Articles were examined for reported PPIE; (2) common funding bodies for orthodontic research were assessed to establish whether PPIE was mandated (National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Chief Scientist Office (Scotland), Health and Care Research Wales, British Orthodontic Society Foundation, Royal College of Surgeons and CLEFT); and (3) publication guidance for authors in these journals was examined to identify whether reporting of PPIE was included. Results: Of the 363 research articles, 2 (0.6%) mention patient/public involvement. None of the 363 research articles mention patient/public engagement. Of nine funding bodies, 2 (22%) request evidence of patient/public involvement as a condition of receiving funding with one (11%) expecting evidence of public engagement to be provided as a condition of receiving funding. None of the four major orthodontic journals include patient/public involvement and/or engagement in their guidance for authors. Conclusion: There is currently: (1) a notable lack of reporting of PPIE in orthodontic research; (2) variability in the requirements of funding bodies for researchers to include PPIE in funding applications and throughout the research process; and (3) no stipulation in journals’ instructions for authors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document