• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

利益相关者对具有负责任研究指标的机构仪表板的看法。

Stakeholders' views on an institutional dashboard with metrics for responsible research.

机构信息

Berlin Institute of Health at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin, Germany.

Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Institut für Ethik, Geschichte und Philosophie der Medizin, Hannover, Germany.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2022 Jun 24;17(6):e0269492. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269492. eCollection 2022.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0269492
PMID:35749396
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9231768/
Abstract

Concerns about research waste have fueled debate about incentivizing individual researchers and research institutions to conduct responsible research. We showed stakeholders a proof-of-principle dashboard with quantitative metrics of responsible research practices at University Medical Centers (UMCs). Our research question was: What are stakeholders' views on a dashboard that displays the adoption of responsible research practices on a UMC-level? We recruited stakeholders (UMC leadership, support staff, funders, and experts in responsible research) to participate in online interviews. We applied content analysis to understand what stakeholders considered the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the dashboard and its metrics. Twenty-eight international stakeholders participated in online interviews. Stakeholders considered the dashboard helpful in providing a baseline before designing interventions and appreciated the focus on concrete behaviors. Main weaknesses concerned the lack of an overall narrative justifying the choice of metrics. Stakeholders hoped the dashboard would be supplemented with other metrics in the future but feared that making the dashboard public might put UMCs in a bad light. Our findings furthermore suggest a need for discussion with stakeholders to develop an overarching framework for responsible research evaluation and to get research institutions on board.

摘要

人们对研究浪费的担忧引发了关于激励个体研究人员和研究机构开展负责任研究的争论。我们向利益攸关方展示了一个带有大学医学中心(UMC)负责任研究实践的定量指标的原理验证仪表板。我们的研究问题是:利益攸关方对展示 UMC 层面负责任研究实践采用情况的仪表板有何看法?我们招募了利益攸关方(UMC 领导层、支持人员、资助者和负责任研究方面的专家)参与在线访谈。我们应用内容分析法来了解利益攸关方认为仪表板及其指标的优势、劣势、机会和威胁是什么。28 名国际利益攸关方参与了在线访谈。利益攸关方认为仪表板有助于在设计干预措施之前提供基准,并赞赏其对具体行为的关注。主要弱点是缺乏整体叙述来证明指标选择的合理性。利益攸关方希望仪表板将来能补充其他指标,但担心将仪表板公开可能会使 UMC 陷入困境。我们的研究结果还表明,需要与利益攸关方进行讨论,以制定负责任的研究评估的总体框架,并让研究机构参与进来。

相似文献

1
Stakeholders' views on an institutional dashboard with metrics for responsible research.利益相关者对具有负责任研究指标的机构仪表板的看法。
PLoS One. 2022 Jun 24;17(6):e0269492. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269492. eCollection 2022.
2
Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study.医疗机构临床试验透明化机构仪表板:案例研究。
PLoS Med. 2023 Mar 21;20(3):e1004175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004175. eCollection 2023 Mar.
3
Preclinical efficacy in investigator's brochures: Stakeholders' views on measures to improve completeness and robustness.研究者手册中的临床前疗效:利益相关者对提高完整性和稳健性措施的看法。
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2023 Jan;89(1):340-350. doi: 10.1111/bcp.15503. Epub 2022 Aug 31.
4
Assessing stakeholders' opinions on sharing antimicrobial susceptibility testing data from animals is key to developing a centralized database and dashboard tool.评估利益相关者对于分享动物抗菌药物敏感性测试数据的意见,是开发集中数据库和仪表板工具的关键。
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2023 Nov 9;262(2):216-225. doi: 10.2460/javma.23.07.0426. Print 2024 Feb 1.
5
Perceptions of an automated benchmarking dashboard for antimicrobial stewardship programs among antimicrobial stewards within the veterans' health administration: a multicenter qualitative study.退伍军人健康管理局内抗菌药物管理项目的抗菌药物管理者对自动化基准仪表盘的认知:一项多中心定性研究
Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol. 2023 Jul 10;3(1):e118. doi: 10.1017/ash.2023.203. eCollection 2023.
6
Evaluating Research Centers in Minority Institutions: Framework, Metrics, Best Practices, and Challenges.评估少数民族院校研究中心:框架、指标、最佳实践和挑战。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 12;17(22):8373. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228373.
7
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
8
Healthcare stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of critical care telemedicine (CCT): qualitative evidence synthesis.医疗保健利益相关者对影响重症监护远程医疗(CCT)实施因素的看法和经验:定性证据综合分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Feb 18;2(2):CD012876. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012876.pub2.
9
A research roadmap for complementary and alternative medicine - what we need to know by 2020.补充和替代医学研究路线图——到2020年我们需要了解的内容。
Forsch Komplementmed. 2014;21(2):e1-16. doi: 10.1159/000360744. Epub 2014 Mar 24.
10
Education quality for future doctors: a case study of the introduction of an Education Quality Dashboard (EQD) in a UK teaching hospital.
Clin Teach. 2019 Oct;16(5):479-484. doi: 10.1111/tct.12952. Epub 2018 Oct 28.

引用本文的文献

1
Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study.医疗机构临床试验透明化机构仪表板:案例研究。
PLoS Med. 2023 Mar 21;20(3):e1004175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004175. eCollection 2023 Mar.
2
[Transparency in clinical research: What contribution does the new EU Regulation 536/2014 make?].[临床研究中的透明度:欧盟新法规536/2014有何贡献?]
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2023 Jan;66(1):52-59. doi: 10.1007/s00103-022-03631-x. Epub 2022 Dec 13.

本文引用的文献

1
Incorporating equity, diversity, and inclusiveness into the Hong Kong Principles.将公平、多样性和包容性纳入香港原则。
PLoS Biol. 2021 Apr 27;19(4):e3001140. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001140. eCollection 2021 Apr.
2
Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: How open is open?评估生物医学文献中的透明度指标:开放有多开放?
PLoS Biol. 2021 Mar 1;19(3):e3001107. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001107. eCollection 2021 Mar.
3
The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity.
《评估研究人员的香港原则:促进研究诚信》
PLoS Biol. 2020 Jul 16;18(7):e3000737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737. eCollection 2020 Jul.
4
Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities.生物医学科学教师晋升和终身教职的学术标准:对国际大学样本的横断面分析。
BMJ. 2020 Jun 25;369:m2081. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2081.
5
Improving the trustworthiness, usefulness, and ethics of biomedical research through an innovative and comprehensive institutional initiative.通过创新和全面的机构举措,提高生物医学研究的可信度、有用性和伦理性。
PLoS Biol. 2020 Feb 11;18(2):e3000576. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000576. eCollection 2020 Feb.
6
What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity.研究机构可以采取哪些措施来培养研究诚信
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Aug;26(4):2363-2369. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5. Epub 2020 Jan 21.
7
Reproducibility and Rigor in Animal-Based Research.基于动物的研究中的可重复性和严谨性。
ILAR J. 2019 Dec 31;60(1):17-23. doi: 10.1093/ilar/ilz015.
8
Result dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers was delayed and incomplete.德国大学医学中心进行的临床试验的结果发布延迟且不完整。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Nov;115:37-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.002. Epub 2019 Jun 10.
9
Shifting Perspectives on Research Integrity.对研究诚信的观念转变。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018 Dec;13(5):459-460. doi: 10.1177/1556264618813737.
10
Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource.遵守在欧盟临床试验注册库中报告结果的要求:队列研究与网络资源
BMJ. 2018 Sep 12;362:k3218. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k3218.