21 research outputs found
Editors-in-chief perceptions of patients as (co) authors on publications and the acceptability of ICMJE authorship criteria: a cross-sectional survey
No full textPlain English summary In academia, authorship on a research publication is a central means to obtain credit for one’s contribution to a research project. In order to guide authorship decision making and facilitate transparent processes, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has produced recommendations for authorship. These recommendations are widely adopted by hundreds of medical journals. However, there is no research on whether the ICJME’s recommendations for authorship appropriately recognize the distinct contributions of patient partners to research. This survey study asked Editors-in-Chief about their perceptions of patient partners as authors and on the suitability of the ICMJE authorship criteria. We find that a 30.8%of medical journal Editors-in-chief do not view the inclusion of patient partners as authors on manuscripts as appropriate. Editors-in-chief reported wide ranging views on whether the ICMJE criteria for authorship were appropriate for patient partners. The implication of this work is that there is a need for education and for consensus building within the biomedical community to establish processes that will facilitate patient partners equitable inclusion in research, including on research outputs like publications
Does the ICMJE guideline for authorship need revising to support and recognize patient partnership?
No full textThe key aims of this study were to: 1) measure the medical journal Editor-in-Chiefs’ perceptions regarding acknowledging patients as (co-)authors on research publications; and 2) measure medical journal Editor-in-Chiefs views on the application of the ICMJE authorship criteria to patient partners
Does the ICMJE guideline for authorship need revising to support and recognize patient partnership? A cross-sectional survey of journal editor-in chief
No full textObjectives: To measure medical journal Editor-in-Chiefs’ perceptions regarding including patients as (co-)authors on research publications and to measure their views on the application of the ICMJE authorship criteria to patient partners.
Design: Cross-sectional survey co-developed with a patient partner
Participants: Editor-in-Chiefs of medical journals were identified via a random sample of journals obtained from the Scopus source list, which contains all MEDLINE and EMBASE content. We restricted the Scopus source list to journals with a classification code of ‘Medicine’ and that were listed as active. Editor-in-Chiefs contact names and contact details were manually extracted from journal websites or obtained via online searching.
Main outcome measures: The key outcome measures were whether Editor-in-Chiefs believed: 1) patient partners should be (co-)authors and; 2) whether they felt the ICMJE criteria for authorship required modification for use with patient partners. We also measured Editor-in-Chiefs description of how their journal’s operations incorporate patient partner perspectives.
Results: 112 Editor-in-Chiefs responded to our survey (18.7% response rate; 66.69% male). Participants were able to skip any questions they did not want to answer, so there is missing data for some items. 69.2% (N = 74) of Editor-in-Chiefs indicated it was acceptable for patient partners to be authors or co-authors on published biomedical research articles, with the remaining 30.8% (N = 33) indicating this would not be appropriate. When asked specifically about the ICMJE authorship criteria, and whether this should be revised to be more inclusive of patient partners, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should be revised, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should not be revised, and 28.4% (N = 31) were unsure about a revision. Acceptability of the individual components of the ICMJE authorship criteria by Editor-in-Chiefs varied. 67.9% (N=74) of Editor-in-Chiefs felt a patient partner would likely be able to “give final approval a manuscript to be published” but only 42.6% (N = 46) of Editor-in-chiefs felt patient partners could be “accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved”. 74.1% (N = 80) of Editor-in-Chiefs did not think patients should be required to have an academic affiliation to published while 16.7% (N = 18) and 9.3% (N = 10) indicated they should or were unsure, respectively. 3.6% (N = 4) of Editor-in-Chiefs indicated their journal had a policy that specifies how patients or patient partners should be considered as authors.
Conclusions: We found that a substantial proportion of medical journal Editor-in-Chiefs do not agree that patient partners should act as authors on publications, and that there is little consensus as to whether the ICMJE authorship criteria is appropriate for use with patient partners. Further, few journals involve patient or patient partners in the operations of their journal or have independent policy guidance around how authorship might apply to these groups. Access to, and awareness of, appropriate authorship criteria is an important right for patient partners to recognize contributions to research. Our findings highlight gaps that may act as barriers to patient partner participation in research
Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policymakers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study
No full textThis study explores the extent to which rapid reviews are a useful information-packaging mechanism based on criteria for communicating clearly to support healthcare policymaking
Facilitating and supporting the engagement of patients, families and caregivers in research: the “Ottawa model” for patient engagement in research
No full textBACKGROUND: Patient engagement is increasingly being recognized as a critical component of health research; however, institutional models for building infrastructure and capacity for patient engagement in research are limited. There is an opportunity to create reproducible and scalable models of patient engagement in research and share best and promising practices. MAIN BODY: In this article, we describe the development and features of the framework for the Ottawa Patient Engagement in Research Model at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH) and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI). Key components of the model include: a Patient and Family Engagement Program at TOH, which recruits, educates, and supports patients, families and caregivers to engage in clinical care, governance, and research; the Ottawa Methods Centre within the OHRI, which leads methodological research and provides support to investigators for patient engagement and patient-oriented research at TOH; and the Office of Patient Engagement in Research Activities, also within the OHRI, which facilitates collaborations between patients, researchers, clinicians and other stakeholders. Early success of this model can be attributed to aligned institutional priorities between TOH, OHRI and patients, the establishment of a patient engagement policy, ongoing education and support provided to patient partners and researchers, and innovative recruitment, tracking and evaluation procedures. Ongoing challenges and next steps include promoting diversity among patient partners, implementing an equitable compensation policy, engaging patients across a variety of roles and research areas, and developing resources to expand and sustain this program. CONCLUSION: This model represents a unique effort of patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers across disciplines and institutions to produce a harmonized strategy and infrastructure for meaningful collaboration with patients and families in health research, and capacity building in patient-oriented research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-022-00350-0
Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study
No full textAbstract
Background
Rapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice.
Methods
We assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere.
Results
Certain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n = 99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n = 94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n = 63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n = 68), yet only 32% (n = 33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n = 28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n = 24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n = 26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read.
Conclusions
Overall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored.
Protocol availability
The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at:
osf.io/68tj
Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports:A comparative study
No full textBACKGROUND: As production of rapid reviews (RRs) increases in healthcare, knowing how to efficiently convey RR evidence to various end-users is important given they are often intended to directly inform decision-making. Little is known about how often RRs are produced in the published or unpublished domains, and what and how information is structured. OBJECTIVES: To compare and contrast report format and content features of journal-published (JP) and non-journal published (NJP) RRs. METHODS: JP RRs were identified from key databases, and NJP RRs were identified from a grey literature search of 148 RR producing organizations and were sampled proportionate to cluster size by organization and product type to match the JP RR group. We extracted and formally compared 'how' (i.e., visual arrangement) and 'what' information was presented. RESULTS: We identified 103 RRs (52 JP and 51 NJP) from 2016. A higher percentage of certain features were observed in JP RRs compared to NJP RRs (e.g., reporting authors; use of a traditional journal article structure; section headers including abstract, methods, discussion, conclusions, acknowledgments, conflict of interests, and author contributions; and use of figures (e.g., Study Flow Diagram) in the main document). For NJP RRs, a higher percentage of features were observed (e.g., use non-traditional report structures; bannering of executive summary sections and appendices; use of typographic cues; and including outcome tables). NJP RRs were more than double in length versus JP RRs. Including key messages was uncommon in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This comparative study highlights differences between JP and NJP RRs. Both groups may benefit from better use of plain language, and more clear and concise design. Alternative innovative formats and end-user preferences for content and layout should be studied further with thought given to other considerations to ensure better packaging of RR results to facilitate uptake into policy and practice. STUDY REGISTRATION: The full protocol is available at: https://osf.io/29xvk/
2019 November 20-21st - EQUATOR Canada Publication School- Ottawa
No full textCourse slides from the 2019 EQUATOR Canada Publication Schoo
2019 November 20-21st - EQUATOR Canada Publication School- Ottawa
No full textCourse slides from the 2019 EQUATOR Canada Publication Schoo
Additional file 1 of Facilitating and supporting the engagement of patients, families and caregivers in research: the “Ottawa model” for patient engagement in research
No full textAdditional file 1. Checklist for engaging patients in research
