scholarly journals COVID ‐19 and the generation of novel scientific knowledge: Research questions and study designs

Author(s):  
Lucie Perillat ◽  
Brian S. Baigrie
Author(s):  
Lucie Perillat ◽  
Brian Baigrie

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: One of the sectors challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic is medical research. COVID-19 originates from a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the scientific community is faced with the daunting task of creating a novel model for this pandemic or, in other words, creating novel science. This paper aims to explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of scientific knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: During the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was chaotic and sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated. Research on HCQ is used as a case study in this paper. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer-reviewed journals, pre-print servers and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID-19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges. Results: This paper demonstrates that a lack of prioritization among research questions and therapeutics was responsible for the duplication of clinical trials and the dispersion of precious resources. Study designs, aimed at minimizing biases and increasing objectivity, were, instead, the subject of fruitless oppositions. These two issues combined resulted in the generation of fleeting and inconsistent evidence that complicated the development of public health guidelines. The reporting of scientific findings highlighted the difficulty of finding a balance between accuracy and speed. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (1) finding and prioritizing relevant research questions, (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency, (3) evaluating evidence for the purpose of making evidence-based decisions and (4) sharing scientific findings with the rest of the scientific community. This paper demonstrates that these challenges have often compounded each other.


Author(s):  
Laura A. Helbling ◽  
Martin J. Tomasik ◽  
Urs Moser

AbstractSummer break study designs are used in educational research to disentangle school from non-school contributions to social performance gaps. The summer breaks provide a natural experimental setting that allows for the measurement of learning progress when school is not in session, which can help to capture the unfolding of social disparities in learning that are the result of non-school influences. Seasonal comparative research has a longer tradition in the U.S. than in Europe, where it is only at its beginning. As such, summer setback studies in Europe lack a common methodological framework, impairing the possibility to draw lines across studies because they differ in their inherent focus on social inequality in learning progress. This paper calls for greater consideration of the parameterization of “unconditional” or “conditional” learning progress in European seasonal comparative research. Different approaches to the modelling of learning progress answer different research questions. Based on real data and constructed examples, this paper outlines in an intuitive fashion the different dynamics in inequality that may be simultaneously present in the survey data and distinctly revealed depending on whether one or the other modeling strategy of learning progress is chosen. An awareness of the parameterization of learning progress is crucial for an accurate interpretation of the findings and their international comparison.


Author(s):  
Stephen Zehr

Expressions of scientific uncertainty are normal features of scientific articles and professional presentations. Journal articles typically include research questions at the beginning, probabilistic accounts of findings in the middle, and new research questions at the end. These uncertainty claims are used to construct clear boundaries between uncertain and certain scientific knowledge. Interesting questions emerge, however, when scientific uncertainty is communicated in occasions for public science (e.g., newspaper accounts of science, scientific expertise in political deliberations, science in stakeholder claims directed to the public, and so forth). Scientific uncertainty is especially important in the communication of environmental and health risks where public action is expected despite uncertain knowledge. Public science contexts are made more complex by the presence of multiple actors such as citizen-scientists, journalists, stakeholders, social movement actors, politicians, and so on who perform important functions in the communication and interpretation of scientific information and bring in diverse norms and values. A past assumption among researchers was that scientists would deemphasize or ignore uncertainties in these situations to better match their claims with a public perception of science as an objective, truth-building institution. However, more recent research indicates variability in the likelihood that scientists communicate uncertainties and in the public reception and use of uncertainty claims. Many scientists still believe that scientific uncertainty will be misunderstood by the public and misused by interest groups involved with an issue, while others recognize a need to clearly translate what is known and not known. Much social science analysis of scientific uncertainty in public science views it as a socially constructed phenomenon, where it depends less upon a particular state of scientific research (what scientists are certain and uncertain of) and more upon contextual factors, the actors involved, and the meanings attached to scientific claims. Scientific uncertainty is often emergent in public science, both in the sense that the boundary between what is certain and uncertain can be managed and manipulated by powerful actors and in the sense that as scientific knowledge confronts diverse public norms, values, local knowledges, and interests new areas of uncertainty emerge. Scientific uncertainty may emerge as a consequence of social conflict rather than being its cause. In public science scientific uncertainty can be interpreted as a normal state of affairs and, in the long run, may not be that detrimental to solving societal problems if it opens up new avenues and pathways for thinking about solutions. Of course, the presence of scientific uncertainty can also be used to legitimate inaction.


Author(s):  
Doug Oman

This chapter traces the history of modern meditation research. Meditation is conceptualized primarily as a seated practice for systematically training attention. Historically present in every major religion, meditation was traditionally used for spiritual purposes and usually accompanied by ancillary practices, such as spiritual fellowship. This chapter traces the dynamics and evolving interplay between dominant conceptions and forms of meditative practices under scientific study, as well as critiques of those conceptions, research questions, study designs, measurement instruments, and public reception and application. It describes how developments in each of these spheres have at different times opened up new lines of research, sometimes transforming other dimensions of ongoing research and practice. For the past fifty years, modern meditation research has progressed through partly overlapping periods that emphasized physiological measurement and secular adaptations; links to numerous health and well-being outcomes; emphasis on a sui generis psychosocial goal (mindfulness); advances in physiological and questionnaire-based empirical measurement; expansion of public, corporate, and governmental interest; increased concerns about abandonment of ethical bases and cultural context; and initial moves toward greater inclusiveness and integration of diverse methods and traditional perspectives.


Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-18
Author(s):  
Christopher E Louie ◽  
Erin D’Agostino ◽  
Alexander Woods ◽  
Timothy Ryken

Abstract There is inadequate neurosurgical literature discussing appropriate clinical study design. Here, we explore considerations for 2 fundamental study designs of epidemiology: experimental and observational cohort studies, through examples of theoretical yet realistic neurosurgical research questions. By examining 2 common neurosurgical procedures—namely, subdural drains for evacuation of chronic subdural hematoma, and the utility of navigation for placing external ventricular drains—we characterize the framework of cohort study models for clinical research applications.


1992 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Hickey

Based on the premise that scientists should periodically examine the history of their ideas and methodologies, this article focuses on the issue of continuity in the evolution of scientific knowledge about aging. Taking a twenty-five-year perspective, selected research questions and priorities in the biomedical, behavioral, and social domains of aging are used to exemplify the continuity of the gerontological knowledge base. This article concludes that there is considerable evidence of continuity, despite the strong influences of changing cohorts of people and external forces that have shaped new ideas and research questions in gerontology.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah A. Haber ◽  
Sarah E. Wieten ◽  
Julia M. Rohrer ◽  
Onyebuchi A. Arah ◽  
Peter W.G. Tennant ◽  
...  

Background: Avoiding "causal" language with observational study designs is common publication practice, often justified as being a more cautious approach to interpretation. Objectives: We aimed to i) estimate the degree to which causality was implied by both the language linking exposures to outcomes and by action recommendations in the high-profile health literature ii) examine disconnects between language and recommendations, iii) identify which linking phrases were most common, and iv) generate estimates by which these phrases imply causality. Methods: We identified 18 of the most prominent general medical/public health/epidemiology journals, and searched and screened for articles published from 2010 to 2019 that investigated exposure/outcome pairs until we reached 65 non-RCT articles per journal (n=1,170). Two reviewers and an arbitrating reviewer rated the degree to which they believed causality had been implied by the language in abstracts based on written guidance. Reviewers then rated causal implications of linking words in isolation. For comparison, additional review was performed for full texts and for a secondary sample of RCTs. Results: Reviewers rated the causal implication of the sentence and phrase linking the exposure and outcome as None (i.e. makes no causal implication) in 13.8%, Weak in 34.2%, Moderate in 33.2%, and Strong in 18.7% of abstracts. Reviewers identified an action recommendation in 34.2% of abstracts. Of these action recommendations, reviewers rated the causal implications as None in 5.3%, Weak in 19.0%, Moderate in 42.8% and Strong in 33.0% of cases. The implied causality of action recommendations was often higher than the implied causality of linking sentences (44.5%) or commensurate (40.3%), with 15.3% being weaker. The most common linking word root identified in abstracts was "associate" (n=535/1,170; 45.7%) (e.g. "association," "associated," etc). There were only 16 (1.4%) abstracts using "cause" in the linking or modifying phrases. Reviewer ratings for causal implications of word roots were highly heterogeneous, including those commonly considered non-causal. Discussion: We found substantial disconnects between causal implications used to link an exposure to an outcome vs action implications made. This undercuts common assumptions about what words are often considered non-causal and that policing them eliminates causal implications. We recommend that instead of policing words; editors, researchers, and communicators should increase efforts at making research questions, as well as the potential of studies to answer them, more transparent.


Author(s):  
Michael Kalu

A satisfactory research question often signifies the beginning point for many researchers. While this can be true for quantitative studies because of pre-defined research questions, qualitative research questions undergo series of revisions through a reflective process. This reflective process provides the framework for the subjectivity associated with qualitative inquiry. The continuous iterative reflective process is an essential component for developing qualitative research questions that correspond with the various qualitative study designs. Although qualitative inquiry is term exclusively subjective, there is a need to use a framework in developing qualitative research questions. The Emphasis- Purposeful sampling- Phenomenon of interest – Context (EPPiC) framework guides qualitative researchers in developing and revising qualitative research questions to suit a specific qualitative approach. This article addresses both the development of a research question using the “EPPiC framework” and demonstrate how to revise the “developed” research question to reflect two qualitative research design. I developed a qualitative research question for Sally Thorne’s Interpretive Description design using the EPPiC Framework and subsequently revised the research question to suit a grounded theory design.


Author(s):  
Pamela Baxter ◽  
Susan Jack

Qualitative case study methodology provides tools for researchers to study complex phenomena within their contexts. When the approach is applied correctly, it becomes a valuable method for health science research to develop theory, evaluate programs, and develop interventions. The purpose of this paper is to guide the novice researcher in identifying the key elements for designing and implementing qualitative case study research projects. An overview of the types of case study designs is provided along with general recommendations for writing the research questions, developing propositions, determining the “case” under study, binding the case and a discussion of data sources and triangulation. To facilitate application of these principles, clear examples of research questions, study propositions and the different types of case study designs are provided.


2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 759-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farhad Fatehi ◽  
Anthony C Smith ◽  
Anthony Maeder ◽  
Victoria Wade ◽  
Leonard C Gray

Planning a research strategy and formulating the right research questions at various stages of developing a telehealth intervention are essential for producing scientific evidence. The aim of research at each stage should correspond to the maturity of the intervention and will require a variety of study designs. Although there are several published evaluation frameworks for telemedicine or telehealth as a subset of broader eHealth domain, there is currently no simple model to guide research planning. In this paper we propose a five-stage model as a framework for planning a comprehensive telehealth research program for a new intervention or service system. The stages are: (1) Concept development, (2) Service design, (3) Pre-implementation, (4) Implementation, (5) Post-implementation, and at each stage a number of studies are considered. Robust evaluation is important for the widespread acceptance and implementation of telehealth. We hope this framework enables researchers, service administrators and clinicians to conceptualise, undertake and appraise telehealth research from the point of view of being able to assess how applicable and valid the research is for their particular circumstances.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document