Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study

Background The European Commission is funding projects that aim to establish data-sharing platforms. These platforms are envisioned to enhance and facilitate the international sharing of cohort data. Nevertheless, broad data sharing may be restricted by the lack of adequate recognition for those who share data. Objective The aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research. Methods A total of 17 participants linked to European Union–funded data-sharing platforms were recruited for a semistructured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results Interviewees argued that data sharing within international projects could challenge authorship guidelines in multiple ways. Some respondents considered that the acquisition of credit for articles with extensive author lists could be problematic in some instances, such as for junior researchers. In addition, universities may be critical of researchers who share data more often than leading research. Some considered that the evaluation system undervalues data generators and specialists. Respondents generally looked favorably upon alternatives to the current evaluation system to potentially ameliorate these issues. Conclusions The evaluation system might impede data sharing because it mainly focuses on first and last authorship and undervalues the contributor’s work. Further movement of crediting models toward contributorship could potentially address this issue. Appropriate crediting mechanisms that are better aligned with the way science ought to be conducted in the future need to be developed.

Relation of hypertension with episodic primary headaches and chronic primary headaches in population of Rafsanjan cohort study

Headache has a variety of types, such as episodic primary headaches (EPH) and chronic primary headache (CPH) in its primary form. There is a positive correlation between these two types of headaches and hypertension (HTN), but in some works this correlation has been reported negatively. Therefore, we planned to study HTN-CPH as well as HTN-EPH correlation in our population. A sample of Rafsanjan population (10,000 individuals) entered the cohort study, as one of the Prospective Epidemiological Research Studies in Iran (PERSIAN). We compared the frequency of HTN categories in CPH and EPH cases with a normal population. Out of 9933 participants (46.6% males and 53.4% females) about 29% had EPH and 7.5% had CPH. HTN was found in 24.27% of EPH cases and 31.98% of CPH cases. HTN was also found to be associated with EPH and CPH in the crude model. Two Categories of HTN (Long controlled and uncontrolled) were not associated with EPH. On the other hand, CPH showed associations with all of the HTN categories. After included all variables and confounders, EPH and CPH had association with HTN without any considerable changes. There is strong HTN-EPH as well as HTN-CPH correlations in the studied population.

Validity and bias in epidemiological research

Some of the major concepts of validity and bias in epidemiological research are outlined in this chapter. The contents are organized in four main sections: Validity in statistical interpretation, validity in prediction problems, validity in causal inference, and special validity problems in case–control and retrospective cohort studies. Familiarity with the basics of epidemiological study design and a number of terms of epidemiological theory, among them risk, competing risks, average risk, population at risk, and rate, is assumed. Despite similarities, there is considerable diversity and conflict among the classification schemes and terminologies employed in various textbooks. This diversity reflects that there is no unique way of classifying validity conditions, biases, and errors. It follows that the classification schemes employed here and elsewhere should not be regarded as anything more than convenient frameworks for organizing discussions of validity and bias in epidemiological inference. Several important study designs, including randomized trials, prevalence (cross-sectional) studies, and ecological studies, are not discussed in this chapter. Such studies require consideration of the validity conditions mentioned earlier and also require special considerations of their own. A number of central problems of epidemiological inference are also not covered, including choice of effect measures, problems of induction, and causal modelling.

The questionnaire as a tool for collecting information in support of medical researchers

In medical and epidemiological research, multi-item questionnaires are often used to assess changes in the health of a particular group of subjects over a certain period. They can target a selected population sample based on specific exposure characteristics or target the whole population. Also, they can constitute an objective tool to help health professionals improve the quality of life and guide patients to the most appropriate care suitable [1,2]. Trying to complete an entirely new questionnaire or translating an existing questionnaire from another language can be difficult. The biggest challenge is making a questionnaire that is effective for use in research and clinical conditions. This article tries to guide for adapting validated and translated questionnaires to apply them to various population categories. We want to support readers less familiar with the process of developing and adapting validated questionnaires. Although using an existing questionnaire will save time and resources, a questionnaire that includes all items of interest to the researcher may not be available, or the current questionnaire may not be translated into the language required for respondents. If no already validated questionnaires are available or suitable, it is necessary to design a new questionnaire. For this, there are several steps to follow that one must take into account.

Review of the New Zealand Theileria orientalis Ikeda Type Epidemic and Epidemiological Research since 2012

This article sets out to document and summarise the New Zealand epidemic and the epidemiological research conducted on the epizootic of bovine anaemia associated with Theileria orientalis Ikeda-type infection, which began in New Zealand in August 2012. As New Zealand has no other pathogenic tick-borne cattle haemoparasites, the effects of the T. orientalis Ikeda-type infection observed in affected herds and individual animals were not confounded by other concurrent haemoparasite infections, as was possibly the case in other countries. This has resulted in an unbiased perspective of a new disease. In addition, as both New Zealand’s beef and dairy cattle systems are seasonally based, this has led to a different epidemiological presentation than that reported by almost all other affected countries. Having verified the establishment of a new disease and identified the associated pathogen, the remaining key requirements of an epidemiological investigation, for a disease affecting production animals, are to describe how the disease spreads, describe the likely impacts of that disease at the individual and herd level and explore methods of disease control or mitigation.

Prevalência de mordida aberta anterior em escolares de Porto Alegre

It was studied the open bite prevalence at four different steps of human dentition by epidemiological research in the school population in Porto Alegre. The open bite prevalence was bigger in the temporary dentition (38,11%) than in permanent or mixed dentition. ln the young permanent dentition the prevalence was 8,09% and 4,35% in the permanent one. It was verified by comparative study of the four evolution stages of human dentition, the great reduction of open bite prevalence from temporary to permanent dentition.