Suppr超能文献

医疗保健领域的高质量研究:研究人员是否获得了足够的统计支持?

Quality research in healthcare: are researchers getting enough statistical support?

作者信息

Omar Rumana Z, McNally Nick, Ambler Gareth, Pollock Allyson M

机构信息

Research and Development, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Maple House, London W1P 9LL, UK.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Jan 12;6:2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Reviews of peer-reviewed health studies have highlighted problems with their methodological quality. As published health studies form the basis of many clinical decisions including evaluation and provisions of health services, this has scientific and ethical implications. The lack of involvement of methodologists (defined as statisticians or quantitative epidemiologists) has been suggested as one key reason for this problem and this has been linked to the lack of access to methodologists. This issue was highlighted several years ago and it was suggested that more investments were needed from health care organisations and Universities to alleviate this problem.

METHODS

To assess the current level of methodological support available for health researchers in England, we surveyed the 25 National Health Services Trusts in England, that are the major recipients of the Department of Health's research and development (R&D) support funding.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The survey shows that the earmarking of resources to provide appropriate methodological support to health researchers in these organisations is not widespread. Neither the level of R&D support funding received nor the volume of research undertaken by these organisations showed any association with the amount they spent in providing a central resource for methodological support for their researchers.

CONCLUSION

The promotion and delivery of high quality health research requires that organisations hosting health research and their academic partners put in place funding and systems to provide appropriate methodological support to ensure valid research findings. If resources are limited, health researchers may have to rely on short courses and/or a limited number of advisory sessions which may not always produce satisfactory results.

摘要

背景

对同行评审的健康研究的综述突出了其方法学质量方面的问题。由于已发表的健康研究构成了许多临床决策(包括卫生服务的评估和提供)的基础,这具有科学和伦理意义。有人认为缺乏方法学家(定义为统计学家或定量流行病学家)的参与是导致这一问题的一个关键原因,并且这与难以获得方法学家的帮助有关。这个问题在几年前就被凸显出来,有人建议医疗保健机构和大学需要更多投资来缓解这一问题。

方法

为了评估英格兰健康研究人员可获得的方法学支持的当前水平,我们对英格兰的25个国民健康服务信托基金进行了调查,这些信托基金是卫生部研发(R&D)支持资金的主要接受者。

结果与讨论

调查显示,在这些机构中为健康研究人员提供适当方法学支持的资源专项分配并不普遍。这些机构获得的研发支持资金水平以及开展的研究数量,均与它们为研究人员提供方法学支持的中央资源投入金额没有任何关联。

结论

高质量健康研究的推广和实施要求开展健康研究的机构及其学术伙伴设立资金和体系,以提供适当的方法学支持,确保研究结果有效。如果资源有限,健康研究人员可能不得不依赖短期课程和/或有限的咨询会议,而这可能并不总能产生令人满意的结果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8704/1352355/ef87e8d59b97/1472-6963-6-2-1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验