The role of clearinghouses in promoting transparent research: A methodological study of transparency practices for preventive interventions

Objective. Transparency of research methods is vital to science, though incentives are variable, with only some journals and funders adopting transparency policies. Clearinghouses are also important stakeholders; however, to date none have implemented formal procedures that facilitate transparent research. Using data from the longest standing clearinghouse, we examine transparency practices for preventive interventions to explore the role of online clearinghouses in incentivizing researchers to make their research more transparent. Methods. We conducted a descriptive analysis of 88 evaluation reports reviewed in 2018-19 by Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, when the clearinghouse began checking for trial registrations, and expanded on these efforts by applying broader transparency standards to interventions eligible for an endorsement on the Blueprints website during the study period. Reports were recent, with 84% published between 2010 and 2019. Results. We found few reports had data, code, or research materials that were publicly available. Meanwhile, 40% had protocols that were registered, but only 8% were registered prospectively, while one-quarter were registered before conducting analyses. About one-third included details in a registered protocol describing the treatment contrast and planned inclusions, and less than 5% had a registered statistical analysis plan (e.g., planned analytical methods, pre-specified covariates, etc.). Confirmatory research was distinguished from exploratory work in roughly 40% of reports. Reports published more recently (after 2015) had higher rates of transparency. Conclusions. Preventive intervention research needs to be more transparent. Since clearinghouses rely on robust findings to make well-informed decisions and researchers are incentivized to meet clearinghouse standards, clearinghouses should consider policies that encourage transparency to improve the credibility of evidence-based interventions.

Safety Talk and Check to Prevent Pesticide Toxicity among Farmer

The problem at informal sector in particular for farmer when used the pesticides. In Sumber Mufakat village the farmers always use the pesticides without using the safety equipment and have direct contact with the pesticides exposure. The purpose of this research was to apply the safety talk and check method as prevention method to solve the pesticides toxicity that asses from safety and health of pesticide use behaviour. This preventive intervention research was using Participatory Action Research (PAR) design.The data collected by observation, quetionaire, and health check list. The population was all holticultura farmers in Sumber Mufakat village that divide in nine farmer's group. The sample collected by using proportional random sampling. The data will analyze by using qualitative descriptive. The result showed that the implication of safety talk and check method could prevent of pesticide exposure that present from safety and health of pesticides use behaviour. To support the action of safety talk method needed to develop one community that care about the farmers with government endorsement. The check method was very helpful the farmers to identify and predict their health. Both of it could be to cultivate the farmer in safety of pesticide used and early discovery of health symptom cause pesticide used.

Translating Family-Focused Prevention Science Into Effective Practice

Family-focused preventive intervention research could serve as an exemplar for the translation of science into practice on a scale that achieves public health impact. This article outlines advances in the field and translational research that still is needed, presenting these within a heuristic framework. The framework is designed to guide a broad translational research agenda fostering a shift toward a paradigm of public health impact—called a translational impact paradigm. Current advances and needed research in the subfield are mapped onto a set of four translational impact factors: effectiveness of interventions; extensiveness of their population coverage; efficiency of interventions; and engagement of eligible populations or organizations, including widespread adoption and sustained, quality implementation (the “4 Es” of intervention impact). The article then highlights key tasks required to progress in this area: improving practitioner–scientist partnership networks embedded in systems for delivery of evidence-based interventions; application of research guidelines and standards that facilitate translational impact; and policy change that supports needed research.