Department of Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Sep 3;20(1):828. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05624-5.
Health Services Research findings (HSR) reported in scientific publications may become part of the decision-making process on healthcare. This study aimed to explore associations between researcher's individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors and the occurrence of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific HSR publications.
We employed a mixed-methods study design. We identified factors possibly contributing to QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions through a literature review, 14 semi-structured interviews with HSR institutional leaders, and 13 focus-groups amongst researchers. A survey corresponding with these factors was developed and shared with 172 authors of 116 scientific HSR publications produced by Dutch research institutes in 2016. We assessed the included publications for the occurrence of QRPs. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify factors within individual, institutional, and environmental domains. Next, we conducted bivariate analyses using simple Poisson regression to explore factors' association with the number of QRPs in the assessed HSR publications. Factors related to QRPs with a p-value < .30 were included in four multivariate models tested through a multiple Poisson regression.
In total, 78 (45%) participants completed the survey (51.3% first authors and 48.7% last authors). Twelve factors were included in the multivariate analyses. In all four multivariate models, a higher score of "pressure to create societal impact" (Exp B = 1.28, 95% CI [1.11, 1.47]), was associated with higher number of QRPs. Higher scores on "specific training" (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.77-0.94]) and "co-author conflict of interest" (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.75-0.97]) factors were associated with a lower number of QRPs. Stratification between first and last authors indicated different factors were related to the occurrence of QRPs for these groups.
Experienced pressure to create societal impact is associated with more QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions in HSR publications. Specific training in reporting messages and conclusions and awareness of co-author conflict of interests are related to fewer QRPs. Our results should stimulate awareness within the field of HSR internationally on opportunities to better support reporting in scientific HSR publications.
发表在科学出版物中的卫生服务研究结果（HSR）可能成为医疗保健决策过程的一部分。本研究旨在探讨研究人员的个体、机构和科学环境因素与报告科学 HSR 出版物中信息和结论时出现可疑研究行为（QRPs）之间的关联。
我们采用混合方法研究设计。我们通过文献回顾、14 次与 HSR 机构领导者的半结构化访谈以及 13 次研究人员焦点小组，确定了可能导致报告信息和结论中出现 QRPs 的因素。我们针对这些因素开发了一项调查，并与 2016 年荷兰研究机构发表的 116 篇科学 HSR 出版物的 172 位作者共享。我们评估了所纳入出版物中 QRPs 的发生情况。进行了探索性因素分析，以确定个体、机构和环境领域内的因素。接下来，我们使用简单泊松回归进行了双变量分析，以探讨与评估的 HSR 出版物中 QRPs 数量相关的因素。与 QRPs 相关的 p 值<.30 的因素被纳入通过多项泊松回归测试的四个多变量模型。
共有 78 名（45%）参与者完成了调查（51.3%为第一作者，48.7%为最后作者）。12 个因素被纳入多变量分析。在所有四个多变量模型中，“创造社会影响的压力”得分较高（Exp B=1.28，95%CI [1.11，1.47]）与 QRPs 数量较多相关。“特定培训”得分较高（Exp B=0.85，95%CI [0.77-0.94]）和“共同作者利益冲突”得分较高（Exp B=0.85，95%CI [0.75-0.97]）与 QRPs 数量较少相关。第一作者和最后作者之间的分层表明，这些组中与 QRPs 发生相关的因素不同。
在 HSR 出版物中报告信息和结论时，经验丰富的创造社会影响的压力与更多的 QRPs 相关。在报告信息和结论方面的特定培训以及对共同作者利益冲突的认识与较少的 QRPs 相关。我们的研究结果应在国际 HSR 领域引起对更好地支持科学 HSR 出版物报告的机会的关注。
