Considerations In Health Research Research Articles

Qualitative Story Completion: Opportunities and Considerations for Health Research.

Qualitative story completion (QSC) is an innovative research method that offers researchers a range of unique opportunities for generating and analysing data. Participants are asked to write a 'story' in response to a hypothetical 'story stem', often in the third-person and involving fictional characters, rather than reporting on their direct experiences. QSC is being developed and increasingly taken up by researchers working across a range of fields; but it has been little used in health research, especially in the fields of nursing, health services research, medicine, and allied health. This means that health researchers have few examples to draw on when considering what QSC can offer them and how to rigorously design, conduct, and report a QSC study within health-related fields. We aim to address this gap and contribute to existing QSC literature by promoting increased use of QSC by health researchers and supporting them to produce rigorous QSC research. We outline three case examples illustrating how we have used QSC to conduct multidisciplinary health research relevant to nursing, medicine and nutrition. Drawing on these case examples, we reflect on challenges that we encountered, describe decision-making processes, and offer recommendations for conducting rigorous health research using QSC.

Sex, Gender and Health: Mapping the Landscape of Research and Policy.

Including sex and gender considerations in health research is considered essential by many funders and is very useful for policy makers, program developers, clinicians, consumers and other end users. While longstanding confusions and conflations of terminology in the sex and gender field are well documented, newer conceptual confusions and conflations continue to emerge. Contemporary social demands for improved health and equity, as well as increased interest in precision healthcare and medicine, have made obvious the need for sex and gender science, sex and gender-based analyses (SGBA+), considerations of intersectionality, and equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives (EDI) to broaden representation among participants and diversify research agendas. But without a shared and precise understanding of these conceptual areas, fields of study, and approaches and their inter-relationships, more conflation and confusion can occur. This article sets out these areas and argues for more precise operationalization of sex- and gender-related factors in health research and policy initiatives in order to advance these varied agendas in mutually supportive ways.

Sex and gender considerations in health research: a trainee and allied research personnel perspective

The first step in precision health is the incorporation of sex and gender-based considerations and increasingly, a number of national organizations have instituted policies to support and encourage this practice. However, perspectives of trainees and allied research personnel on incorporation of sex and gender into research is lacking. We assessed trainee (undergraduate and graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, clinical trainees) and allied research personnel (study nurses, laboratory managers) perspectives on the barriers to incorporating sex and gender into their own university-based health research and recommendations to improve the process. Two separate focus groups were completed, and a qualitative analysis was employed to derive themes within perceived barriers and solutions. Participants described three overarching themes consistent with barriers including, lack of knowledge and skill, lack of applicability and feasibility, and lack of funding agency and institutional culture. Participants recommended: (1) increasing awareness and skill of incorporation of sex and gender considerations into health research; (2) implementing practical education curricula to facilitate understanding; and (3) fostering greater transparency and accountability by funding organizations and journal editors. Sex and gender considerations in research contribute to precision health, drive innovation and foster breakthroughs in science and medicine.

Environmental Factors at Mass-Gathering Events: Considerations for Health Research and Evaluation

Introduction:This poster will document the environmental domain variables of a mass gathering. They include factors such as the nature of the event, availability of drugs or alcohol, venue characteristics and meteorological factors.Method: A systematic literature was used to develop a set of variables and evaluation regarding environmental factors that contribute to patient presentation rates.Results:Findings were grouped pragmatically into factors of crowd attendance, crowd density, venue, type of event, mobility, and meteorological factors.Discussion:This poster will outline a set of environmental variables for collecting data at mass gathering events. The authors have suggested that in addition to commonly used variables, air quality, wind speed, dew point, and precipitation could be considered as a data points to be added to the minimum standards for data collection.

Seeking Ethics Approval in Colombia: A Health Systems Research Case Study

There is no single institution responsible for research ethics in health sciences in Colombia and there is no specific procedure for securing research ethics approval in the country. However, the Ministry of Health and Social Protection's resolution on health research provides guidance on key ethical considerations in health research and indicates which institutions in Colombia could provide ethics approval. Ethics approval has to be provided either by the researcher's institution of affiliation, the institution in which the research will be conducted, or the health authority responsible for the communities participating in the project. Despite this guidance, our experience with a health systems research project showed that the implementation and practice of research ethics vary between institutions. Attention should be given to ensuring effective implementation of the ethics approval process.

Commentary on the new sex and gender editorial policy of the Canadian Journal of Public Health.

While the concepts of both "sex" and "gender" are widely recognized as important considerations in health research, the presence of these and other key determinants of health in research findings remains quite variable in the published literature. In an effort to close this knowledge gap in relation to the implications of both sex and gender in the public health research evidence base, the Canadian Journal of Public Health (CJPH) has recently adopted an editorial policy requiring authors to ensure that their manuscripts speak to these concepts, where applicable. In keeping with the international trend in sex and gender reporting in health research, the aim of this policy shift is for CJPH to continue to advance excellence in the field of public health research, policy and practice in Canada and internationally.

What does US$1.1 billion buy? An investment in the future.

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness ResearchVol. 3, No. 6 OpinionWhat does US$1.1 billion buy? An investment in the futureLisa A SimpsonLisa A SimpsonE-mail Address: Lisa.Simpson@academyhealth.orgAcademyHealth, 1150 17th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, USASearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:12 Dec 2014https://doi.org/10.2217/cer.14.74AboutSectionsView ArticleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail View articleKeywords: academicCERfundingimpactincentivespolicyresearch infrastructureworkforceReferences1 National Academies of Science. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA (2007).Google Scholar2 Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA (2007). www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html Google Scholar3 ResearchAmerica. America Speaks: poll data summary, Volume 10 (2009). www.researchamerica.org/uploads/AmericaSpeaksV10.pdfGoogle Scholar4 Wilensky GR. The policies and politics of creating a comparative clinical effectiveness research center. Health Aff. 28(4), w719–w729 (2009).Crossref, Google Scholar5 Orszag P. Time to act on health care costs. Issues in Science and Technology. 27 November 2013. http://issues.org/24–23/orszagGoogle Scholar6 Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA (2009).Google Scholar7 Conway PH, Clancy C. Comparative-effectiveness research – implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's report. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 328–330 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar8 Esposito D, Yong P, Rich E, Geonnotti K, Kimmey L. The ARRA investment in CER: a description of the midstream evaluation and how the funds were allocated and CER priorities addressed. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 3(6), 581–589 (2014).Link, Google Scholar9 Forrest C, Simpson L, Clancy C. Child health services research: challenges and opportunities. JAMA 277(22), 1787–1793 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar10 Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. Oxford University Press, UK (2012).Crossref, Google Scholar11 A National Research Agenda for Public Health Services and Systems. Am. J. Prev. Med. 42(5S1), S72–S78 (2012). www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/articles/journal_articles/2012/rwjf72691Medline, Google Scholar12 Halfon N, Schuster M, Valentine W, McGlynn E. Improving the quality of healthcare for children: implementing the results of the AHSR research agenda conference. Health Serv. Res. 33(4 Pt 2), 955–976 (1998).Medline, CAS, Google Scholar13 Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Baumann AA et al. The implementation research institute: training mental health implementation researchers in the United States. Implement. Sci. 8, 105 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar14 Hanson TA. Scientific communities of practice for learning – lessons from ethnographic fieldwork. www.academia.edu/1429397/Scientific_communities_of_practice_for_learning_-_lessons_from_ethnographic_fieldworkGoogle Scholar15 Holve E, Segal C, Rein A, Hamilton Lopez M, Johnson B. The Electronic Data Methods (EDM) Forum for comparative effectiveness research (CER). Med. Care 50, S7–S10 (2012).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar16 Wilcox A, Randhawa G, Embi P, Cao H, Kuperman G. Sustainability Considerations for Health Research and Analytic Data Infrastructures. eGEMs 2(2), doi:10.13063/2327-9214.1113 (2014).Crossref, Google Scholar17 The International School on Research Impact Assessment. www.theinternationalschoolonria.comGoogle Scholar18 Guthrie S, Wamae W, Diepeveen S, Wooding S, Grant J. Measuring Research: A Guide to Research Evaluation Frameworks and Tools. Prepared for the Association of American Medical Colleges. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/MG1217/RAND_MG1217.sum.pdf Google Scholar19 American Society for Cell Biology. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. http://am.ascb.org/dora Google Scholar20 Bladek M. DORA: San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. C & R L News April: 191–196. http://crln.acrl.org/content/75/4/191.full.pdf+htmlGoogle Scholar21 Priem J. Scholarship: Beyond the paper. Nature 495(7442), 437–440 (2013).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar22 AcademyHealth. AHRQ: 15 Years of transforming care and improving health (2014). www.academyhealth.org/files/AHRQReport2014.pdfGoogle Scholar23 Research Excellence Framework. Decisions on assessing research impact (2011). www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/decisionsonassessingresearchimpact/01_11.pdfGoogle Scholar24 Alivisatos P, Isaacs ED, Mason T. The sequester is going to devastate U.S. science research for decades. The Atlantic, March 2013. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-sequester-is-going-to-devastate-us-science-research-for-decades/273925 Google Scholar25 Stein S. The next frontier in the war over science. Huffington Post, 6 May 2014. www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/war-on-science_n_5269527.htmlGoogle Scholar26 Inside Health Policy. House republicans say increased NIH, FDA funding off table for medical innovation bill. 10 September 2014. http://insidehealthpolicy.com/house-republicans-nih-fda-funding-bump-table-innovation-billGoogle ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByA Half-Century of Change22 May 2017 | Health Services Research, Vol. 52, No. 3 Vol. 3, No. 6 Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics Downloaded 50 times History Published online 12 December 2014 Published in print November 2014 Information© Future Medicine LtdKeywordsacademicCERfundingimpactincentivespolicyresearch infrastructureworkforceFinancial & competing interests disclosureAcademyHealth received support from the ARRA funds, but these projects have since either ended or are now funded through other federal and non-federal sources. The author has no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.PDF download

Sustainability considerations for health research and analytic data infrastructures.

Introduction:The United States has made recent large investments in creating data infrastructures to support the important goals of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and comparative effectiveness research (CER), with still more investment planned. These initial investments, while critical to the creation of the infrastructures, are not expected to sustain them much beyond the initial development. To provide the maximum benefit, the infrastructures need to be sustained through innovative financing models while providing value to PCOR and CER researchers.Sustainability Factors:Based on our experience with creating flexible sustainability strategies (i.e., strategies that are adaptive to the different characteristics and opportunities of a resource or infrastructure), we define specific factors that are important considerations in developing a sustainability strategy. These factors include assets, expansion, complexity, and stakeholders. Each factor is described, with examples of how it is applied. These factors are dimensions of variation in different resources, to which a sustainability strategy should adapt.Summary Observations:We also identify specific important considerations for maintaining an infrastructure, so that the long-term intended benefits can be realized. These observations are presented as lessons learned, to be applied to other sustainability efforts. We define the lessons learned, relating them to the defined sustainability factors as interactions between factors.Conclusion and Next Steps:Using perspectives and experiences from a diverse group of experts, we define broad characteristics of sustainability strategies and important observations, which can vary for different projects. Other descriptions of adaptive, flexible, and successful models of collaboration between stakeholders and data infrastructures can expand this framework by identifying other factors for sustainability, and give more concrete directions on how sustainability can be best achieved.

Health research involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and their communities

Canadian and international guidelines address the ethical conduct of health research in general and the issues affecting Indigenous populations in particular. This statement summarizes, for clinicians and researchers, relevant ethical and practical considerations for health research involving Aboriginal children and youth. While not intended to duplicate findings arising from lengthy collaborative processes, it does highlight 'wise practices' that have successfully generated knowledge relevant to, respectful of and useful for Aboriginal children, youth and their communities. Further research on current health issues and inequities should lead to practical, effective and culturally relevant applications. Expanding our knowledge of ways to address the health disparities facing Canada's Aboriginal children and youth can inform health policy and the provision of services. Community-based participatory research is proposed as a means to achieve this goal.