Fusdahl Peter, Borda Miguel Germán, Baldera Jonathan Patricio, Aarsland Dag, Khachaturian Ara, Braut Geir Sverre
Centre for Age-Related Medicine, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Dec 20;11:1472479. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1472479. eCollection 2024.
Society commonly believes that research knowledge is complementary to public decision-making. This study aimed to understand the perspectives and implications of dementia researchers communicating with policymakers and public research decision-makers (public officials).
This study uses 24 questions from an anonymous, online survey, which was received by 392 members of nine European, Latin American, and United States medical researcher associations/networks in the fields of age-related neurological degeneration and dementia medicine. The data were analyzed via crosstab analysis, two group comparison analyses, and a logistic regression model.
In total, 91 (23.2%) respondents completed the questionnaire. Eight independent variables were related to researchers' research discipline, research remuneration, experience, authorship, H-index, and research grants. The statistically significant variables determining whether the respondents had contact with public officials were "Years of research experience" ( = 0.004), "Number of articles first-authored in the last 5 years" ( = 0.007), and "Average H-index in the last 5 years" ( = 0.048) [median (IQR)]; 47% of the surveyed researchers had been in contact with public officials in the last 12 months. The most frequently communicated topics were the importance of their own research to society (61%) and their own funding (60%); 87% ( = 79) of the researchers did not believe that public officials had a very good understanding of their dementia research.
Less than half (47%) of dementia researchers communicate with public officials, and they communicate mostly about the importance of their own research and funding their own research. Nine of 10 researchers do not believe that public officials understand their research well.
社会普遍认为研究知识对公共决策具有补充作用。本研究旨在了解痴呆症研究人员与政策制定者及公共研究决策者（政府官员）沟通的观点及影响。
本研究使用了一项匿名在线调查中的24个问题，该调查由九个欧洲、拉丁美洲和美国的医学研究人员协会/网络的392名成员收到，这些协会/网络涉及与年龄相关的神经退行性变和痴呆症医学领域。通过交叉表分析、两组比较分析和逻辑回归模型对数据进行了分析。
共有91名（23.2%）受访者完成了问卷。八个自变量与研究人员的研究领域、研究报酬、经验、署名、H指数和研究资助有关。决定受访者是否与政府官员有接触的具有统计学意义的变量为“研究经验年限”（=0.004）、“过去5年第一作者发表的文章数量”（=0.007）和“过去5年的平均H指数”（=0.048）[中位数（四分位间距）]；47%的受访研究人员在过去12个月内与政府官员有过接触。最常交流的话题是他们自己的研究对社会的重要性（61%）和他们自己的资金（60%）；87%（=79）的研究人员认为政府官员对他们的痴呆症研究了解不太好。
不到一半（47%）的痴呆症研究人员与政府官员沟通，他们主要交流自己研究的重要性以及研究资金问题。十分之九的研究人员认为政府官员对他们的研究了解不足。
