scholarly journals Important topics for fostering research integrity by research performing and research funding organizations – A Delphi consensus study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishma Labib ◽  
Rea Scepanovic ◽  
Lex Bouter ◽  
Guy Widdershoven ◽  
Natalie Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Delphi Study ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Delphi Studies ◽  
Preventative Approach

Background: To foster research integrity (RI), it is necessary to address the institutional and system-of-science factors that influence researchers’ behavior. Consequently, research performing and research funding organizations (RPOs and RFOs) should develop RI promotion plans (RIPPs) outlining the concrete steps they will take to foster RI. So far, there is no consensus on which topics are important to address in RIPPs. This study aimed to explore which RI topics to address in RIPPs by seeking consensus from research policy experts and institutional leaders. Additionally, we aimed to rank the identified RI topics in priority. Methods: We employed a three round Delphi study to reach our objectives. Delphi studies include a series (‘rounds’) of questionnaires. To achieve consensus, results are fed back to respondents between subsequent rounds. In Round 1, we asked research policy experts to rate the importance of RI topics on a 1-5 scale. In Round 2, they were asked to rank the topics, which received consensus on importance, in order of priority to be included in RIPPs. In Round 3, experts were asked to provide answers to open-ended questions about the rationale behind the rankings in the previous round.Results: A total of 68 RPO and 52 RFO experts, representing different disciplines, countries and genders, completed one, two or all rounds of the Delphi study. There was consensus among the experts on the importance of 12 RI topics for RPOs and 11 for RFOs (67% agreement on ratings 4-5). The topics that ranked highest for RPOs concerned education and training, supervision and mentoring, supporting a responsible research process (e.g. through quality assurance), and dealing with RI breaches. The highest ranked RFO topics concerned dealing with breaches of RI, conflicts of interest and setting expectations on RPOs (e.g. about educating researchers about RI).Conclusions: Together with research policy experts and institutional leaders, we developed a comprehensive overview of topics important for inclusion in RIPPs of RPOs and RFOs. The topics reflect a clear preference for a preventative approach to RI, coupled with fair procedures for dealing with RI breaches. Study pre-registration: https://osf.io/saj4u

scholarly journals Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishma Labib ◽  
Rea Roje ◽  
Lex Bouter ◽  
Guy Widdershoven ◽  
Natalie Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Funding ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Preventative Approach

AbstractTo foster research integrity (RI), it is necessary to address the institutional and system-of-science factors that influence researchers’ behavior. Consequently, research performing and research funding organizations (RPOs and RFOs) could develop comprehensive RI policies outlining the concrete steps they will take to foster RI. So far, there is no consensus on which topics are important to address in RI policies. Therefore, we conducted a three round Delphi survey study to explore which RI topics to address in institutional RI policies by seeking consensus from research policy experts and institutional leaders. A total of 68 RPO and 52 RFO experts, representing different disciplines, countries and genders, completed one, two or all rounds of the study. There was consensus among the experts on the importance of 12 RI topics for RPOs and 11 for RFOs. The topics that ranked highest for RPOs concerned education and training, supervision and mentoring, dealing with RI breaches, and supporting a responsible research process (e.g. through quality assurance). The highest ranked RFO topics concerned dealing with breaches of RI, conflicts of interest, and setting expectations on RPOs (e.g. about educating researchers about RI). Together with the research policy experts and institutional leaders, we developed a comprehensive overview of topics important for inclusion in the RI policies of RPOs and RFOs. The topics reflect preference for a preventative approach to RI, coupled with procedures for dealing with RI breaches. RPOs and RFOs should address each of these topics in order to support researchers in conducting responsible research.

scholarly journals 10.B. Workshop: Corporate influence on science – what is happening and what can be done?

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Fossil Fuels ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Corporate Influence ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industries ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Funding Research

Abstract The role of the corporate sector in research sponsorship is growing. So too is the evidence that corporations whose products are potentially damaging to health or the environment influence science and the ways in which science is used in policy and practice. Such efforts are a key part of corporate attempts to maintain or increase the consumption or use of industry products, and to secure favourable policy outcomes. The products and practices of corporations are responsible for a growing proportion of the global disease burden. Non-communicable diseases, many driven by consumption of unhealthy commodities and exposure to chemicals, account for over 73 percent of global deaths. It is increasingly important to understand the complex and multifaceted ways corporations seek to influence science; the impact these strategies have; and the ways this influence can be addressed. This workshop brings together global experts to explore these issues. Drawing on examples from several industries (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, food, and pharmaceuticals), it aims to: Increase understanding of the ways corporations whose products are potentially damaging to health influence science. We present a newly developed, evidence-based typology which draws together the vast existing literature in this field, to present a simplified way of understanding corporate influence on science. Delegates will be provided with materials that provide a means for recognising such influence.Examine the influence that corporations have on the first stage in the research process - research agendas. We present examples from tobacco, food and pharmaceutical industries which illustrate the mechanism through which industry funding of science drives researchers to study questions that are favourable to industry. The desired outcome is to maximise research on the benefits of industry products (positioning these products as solutions to complex problems), minimise research on the harms of their products, support their policy and legal positions, and impede potential regulation of their products.Increase awareness of the involvement that corporations have had in altering the mechanisms though which science is used in policymaking. Delegates will hear how corporations promoted and embedded policymaking reforms which increase reliance on and provide a conduit for industry-favourable science.Suggest ways forward concerning management of conflicts of interest in the publication of health research. Here we will discuss the roles that journals can play in governing conflicts of interest and issues of transparency in the publication of academic research.Suggest ways forward for funding research on unhealthy commodities. We present criteria for tobacco industry-supported research funding programs, and discuss the applicability of similar programs for funding research on other unhealthy commodities, and on the practices of other industries such as the fossil fuels industry. Key messages Corporations have been seen to skew evidence bases, manipulate interpretations of science, and influence use of science in policy and practice – such influence is a major threat to public health. This workshop exposes industry tactics in this area and begins to identify ways for dealing with them.

scholarly journals The development of a faecal incontinence core outcome set: an international Delphi study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 617-622
Author(s):  
Sadé Assmann ◽  
Daniel Keszthelyi ◽  
Jos Kleijnen ◽  
Merel Kimman ◽  
Foteini Anastasiou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Faecal Incontinence ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Outcome Set

Abstract Purpose Faecal incontinence (FI) is estimated to affect around 7.7% of people. There is a lack of uniformity in outcome definitions, measurement and reporting in FI studies. Until now, there is no general consensus on which outcomes should be assessed and reported in FI research. This complicates comparison between studies and evidence synthesis, potentially leading to recommendations not evidence-based enough to guide physicians in selecting an FI therapy. A solution for this lack of uniformity in reporting of outcomes is the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS) for FI. This paper describes the protocol for the development of a European COS for FI. Methods Patient interviews and a systematic review of the literature will be performed to identify patient-, physician- and researcher-oriented outcomes. The outcomes will be categorised using the COMET taxonomy and put forward to a group of patients, physicians (i.e. colorectal surgeons, gastroenterologists and general practitioners) and researchers in a Delphi consensus exercise. This exercise will consist of up to three web-based rounds in which participants will prioritise and condense the list of outcomes, which is expected to result in consensus. A consensus meeting with participants from all stakeholder groups will take place to reach a final agreement on the COS. Discussion This study protocol describes the development of a European COS to improve reliability and consistency of outcome reporting in FI studies, thereby improving evidence synthesis and patient care. Trial registration This project has been registered in the COMET database on the 1st of April 2020, available at http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1554. The systematic review has been registered on the PROSPERO database on the 31st of August 2020, available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=202020&VersionID=1381336.

scholarly journals National Competencies for Registered Nurses in Primary Care: A Delphi Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (12) ◽  
pp. 1078-1087
Author(s):  
Julia Lukewich ◽  
Michelle Allard ◽  
Lisa Ashley ◽  
Kris Aubrey-Bassler ◽  
Denise Bryant-Lukosius ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Registered Nurses ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Care Experience ◽  
Role Integration ◽  
Partnership Quality ◽  
Research Leadership ◽  
Team Functioning ◽  
Final Round

A Delphi (consensus) process was used to obtain national agreement on competencies for registered nurses (RNs) in primary care. A draft of competencies was developed by key informants. Following this, nurses with primary care experience/expertise completed a Delphi survey to rate the importance of competency statements on a six-point Likert scale. Statements not reaching consensus (agreement ≥80%) were modified and included in a second (final) round. The first survey was completed by 63% ( n = 86/137) of participants and 84% ( n = 72/86) of these participants completed the second survey. Most statements ( n = 45) achieved agreement after the first survey; one statement was dropped and two were combined following the second round. The final list of competencies consists of 47 statements across six domains (professionalism; clinical practice; communication; collaboration and partnership; quality assurance, evaluation, and research; leadership). National competencies will help strengthen the RN workforce within primary care, improve team functioning, and support role integration/optimization.

scholarly journals Users and Social Science Research: Policy, Problems and Possibilities

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 69-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Rappert
Keyword(s):  
Research Policy ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
User Involvement ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Policy Problems

Recent times have seen a significant reorientation in public funding for academic research across many countries. Public bodies in the UK have been at the forefront of such activities, typically justified in terms of a need to meet the challenges of international competitiveness and improve quality of life. One set of mechanisms advanced for further achieving these goals is the incorporation of users’ needs into various aspects of the research process. This paper examines some of the consequences of greater user involvement in the UK Economic and Social Research Council by drawing on both empirical evidence and more speculative argumentation. In doing so it poses some of the dilemmas for conceptualizing proper user involvement.

scholarly journals Development of a screening tool for pelvic floor dysfunction in female athletes: protocol of a Delphi consensus

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Giagio ◽  
Andrea Turolla ◽  
Tiziano Innocenti ◽  
Stefano Salvioli ◽  
Giulia Gava ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Pelvic Floor ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Female Athletes ◽  
Pelvic Floor Dysfunction ◽  
Negative Influence ◽  
Delphi Consensus

Background/aim: Several epidemiological studies have found a high prevalence of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction (PFD) among female athletes. However, according to several authors, these data could even be underestimated, both in research and clinical practice. Screening for potential PFD is often delayed and risk factors are not often evaluated. As a consequence, withdrawal from sport, negative influence on performance, worsening symptoms and unrecognized diagnosis may occur. The aim of our research is to develop a screening tool for pelvic floor dysfunction in female athletes useful for clinicians (musculoskeletal/sport physiotherapists, sports medicine physicians, team physicians) to guide referral to a PFD expert (e.g. pelvic floor/women's health physiotherapist, gynecologist, uro-gynecologist, urologist). Methods: A 2-round modified Delphi study will be conducted to ascertain expert opinion on which combination of variables and risk factors should be included in the screening tool. Conclusion: The implementation of the present screening tool into clinical practice may facilitate the referral to a PFD expert for further assessment of the pelvic floor and therefore, to identify potential dysfunction and, eventually, the related treatment pathway.

scholarly journals Mental wellbeing in doctors: the measure matters! development of a core outcome set for measuring wellbeing in doctors

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S235-S236
Author(s):  
David Baldwin ◽  
Aimee O'Neill ◽  
Julia Sinclair ◽  
Gemma Simons
Keyword(s):  
Health Education ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Mental Wellbeing ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Health And Social Care

AimsTo achieve a consensus Core Outcome Set for measuring mental wellbeing in doctors.Hypothesis: A minimum set of valid, reliable and practical wellbeing measures is needed for doctors.BackgroundThe importance of doctors’ mental wellbeing to everyone using Health Care is highlighted by the levels of burnout reported in doctors around the world. In 2019 a number of UK policy documents made recommendations for the wellbeing of doctors, but how those wellbeing interventions are evaluated needs to be defined. Core Outcome Sets are increasingly being used in medicine to prevent waste in research, by recommending the inclusion of a minimum set of valid, reliable and practical measures. An operational definition and Core Outcome Set for wellbeing in doctors is needed to meaningfully progress the work in this field.MethodThe Centre for Workforce Wellbeing (C4WW), a collaboration between the University of Southampton and Health Education England, was created to support research into the nature, assessment and enhancement of wellbeing in physicians. A Systematic Review of wellbeing measures used in doctors and the robustness of those measures, along with surveys of 250 UK doctors of all grades and specialities and patient and public involvement is informing what a core outcome set could be. A Delphi Study among 37 UK experts has been initiated to establish the consensus Core Outcome Set.ResultPublication of research into doctors’ wellbeing is growing internationally. In the UK alone data are being captured by multiple national organisations including: the Care Quality Commission, General Medical Council, British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges. Health and Social Care Organisations are, therefore, keen to “do something” and are spending money on wellbeing interventions with little, or no, evidence base and a lack of appropriate, comparable evaluation. A Core Outcome Set for measuring wellbeing in doctors is ethically required to reduce waste, to replace burnout measures and to refine wellbeing interventions.ConclusionWellbeing measures that actually measure wellbeing, and not burnout, which are validated, reliable and practical, are needed to inform local organisational, national government and international research policy. An absence of burnout does not equate to wellbeing. The focus of measurement needs to shift to capture in what contexts we thrive, not just survive. If everyone used the same Core Outcome Set to measure mental wellbeing, direct comparisons could be made, and money invested, in creating infrastructure, processes and cultures that really work.Health Education England funded PhD.

The Association for Educational Assessment - Europe. An Agency for Accountability in Europe

CADMO ◽  
2009 ◽  
pp. 5-18
Author(s):  
Emma Nardi
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
European Union ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Educational Assessment ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Research Development ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
European Higher Education

- AEA-Europe was founded in 2000 with the main goals of improving communication among European institutions interested in educational and occupational assessment, and providing a framework within which co-operative research, development implementation and evaluation of projects involving educational assessment could be undertaken. After 10 years of successful activity, the Association has built a position that could allow it to become the protagonist of the EU's policy in the field of assessment, becoming a reference point for all its members, and playing a crucial role as an applicant for projects funded by the European Union. This article, dealing with research policy, describes the activity carried out by the Association since 2000, presents the EU's policy in research funding specifically applied to Tempus projects, and discusses how the Association could contribute to evaluation and accountability in the European Higher Education and Research Area.

Demystifying the Delphi Method

2015 ◽  
pp. 375-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaye Shelton ◽  
Kathleen Adair Creghan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Delphi Method ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Group Communication ◽  
Rand Corporation ◽  
The 1950S ◽  
Delphi Research ◽  
Delphi Studies

The Delphi research method was specifically designed as a forecasting tool for the Rand Corporation in the 1950s. However, in the last several decades, Delphi research has been more frequently used for facilitating group communication for decision making and planning. Because of the Delphi Method's increased use, more information is needed for researchers to understand how to best utilize the method to precisely complete a Delphi study with rigor. This chapter explores the Delphi Method's origin, provides an explanation of the methodology, acknowledges the types and variations in Delphi studies, discusses the advantages and limitations, and provides clear, step-by-step guidelines for employing a successful research study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document