TY - JOUR
T1 - Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications
AU - Gerrits, Reinie G.
AU - Mulyanto, Joko
AU - Wammes, Joost D.
AU - van den Berg, Michael J.
AU - Klazinga, Niek S.
AU - Kringos, Dionne S.
N1 - Funding Information: We are grateful for the participation of researchers in the interviews, focus groups and survey and the support from their affiliated HSR institutions to perform this study, which include: Erasmus MC, Department of Public Health; Erasmus University, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management; Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Medical Decision Making and the Department of Public Health and Primary Care; University Maastricht, Health Services Research group; the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL); Radboud UMC, IQ healthcare; the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM); University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business; Tilburg University, Social and Behavioural Sciences, Tranzo; Trimbos Institute; University Medical Centre Utrecht, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care; Amsterdam UMC – Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and the Amsterdam UMC - University of Amsterdam. Furthermore, we also would like to thank project adviser Anton Kunst for his valuable feedback on the study design. Funding Information: This study was funded by grant number 445001003 from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). The funder had no role in the study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit the paper for publication. All authors had full access to the data during the conduct of the study and they take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the analysis. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/9/3
Y1 - 2020/9/3
N2 - Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.
AB - Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.
KW - Health services research
KW - Questionable research practices
KW - Reporting checklist
KW - Reporting guidelines
KW - Scientific reporting
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090318616&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05624-5
DO - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05624-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 32883306
SN - 1472-6963
VL - 20
SP - 828
JO - BMC Health Services Research
JF - BMC Health Services Research
IS - 1
M1 - 828
ER -