Pesquisar para quê?

Palavras-chave: Pesquisa, Projetos de Pesquisa, Comunicação Acadêmica, Pré-Publicação, Técnicas de Pesquisa

Resumo

Para contribuir com a atenção primária à saúde, a pesquisa em medicina de família e comunidade precisa evitar quatro fatores que têm levado ao desperdício da pesquisa biomédica em nível mundial: questões de pesquisa irrelevantes; métodos inadequados para alcançar os objetivos da pesquisa; lentidão e inadequação da publicação dos resultados; relato da pesquisa obscuro e pouco transparente. Neste editorial, introduzimos medidas para os autores garantirem o impacto de sua pesquisa, e apresentamos novas políticas editoriais da RBMFC.

Metrics

Carregando Métricas ...

Referências

Maeseneer JMD, Sutter AD. Why Research in Family Medicine? A Superfluous Question. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(suppl 2):S17–22. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.148

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9

Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Research waste is still a scandal—an essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ. 2018;363:k4645. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4645

Green LW. Making research relevant: if it is an evidence-based practice, where’s the practice-based evidence? Fam Pract.2008;25(suppl_1):i20–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmn055

Orlandin EAS, Moscovici L, Franzon ACA, Passos ADC, Fabbro ALD, Vieira EM, et al. Uma agenda de pesquisa para a Atenção Primária à Saúde no estado de São Paulo, Brasil: o estudo ELECT. Interface - Comun Saúde Educ. 2017;21(61):349–61. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-57622016.0103

MacFarlane A, Galvin R, O’Sullivan M, McInerney C, Meagher E, Burke D, et al. Participatory methods for research prioritization in primary care: an analysis of the World Café approach in Ireland and the USA. Fam Pract. 2017;34(3):278–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmw104

O’Neill B, Aversa V, Rouleau K, Lazare K, Sullivan F, Persaud N. Identifying top 10 primary care research priorities from international stakeholders using a modified Delphi method. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(10):e0206096. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206096

Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, Hirst JA, Chant A, Petit-Zeman S, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;363:k4738. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4738

Nyanchoka L, Tudur-Smith C, Thu VN, Iversen V, Tricco AC, Porcher R. A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;109:99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.005

Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2019;22(4):785–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888

Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8

Chan A-W, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5

Brown T. It’s time for AllTrials registered and reported. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):ED000057. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000057

Oakden-Rayner L, Beam AL, Palmer LJ. Medical journals should embrace preprints to address the reproducibility crisis. Int J Epidemiol.2018;47(5):1363–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy105

Peiperl L, on behalf of the PLOS Medicine Editors. Preprints in medical research: Progress and principles. PLOS Med. 2018;15(4):e1002563. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002563

Rawlinson C, Bloom T. New preprint server for medical research. BMJ. 2019;365:l2301. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2301

Davis PM. Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. FASEB J Off Publ Fed Am Soc Exp Biol. 2011;25(7):2129–34. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.11-183988

Davis PM, Lewenstein BV, Simon DH, Booth JG, Connolly MJL. Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;337:a568. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a568

Gunaratne K, Haghbayan H, Coomes EA. Tweeting Authors: Impact on Research Publicity and Downstream Citations. J Gen Intern Med. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05454-0

Taylor J. Reporting research findings to participants is an ethical imperative. BMJ. 2019;367:l6324. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6324

Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X

Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IjJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3:160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Chauvette A, Schick-Makaroff K, Molzahn AE. Open Data in Qualitative Research. Int J Qual Methods. 2019;18:1609406918823863. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918823863

Publicado
2020-01-31
Como Citar
Fontenelle, L. F., & Dias Sarti, T. (2020). Pesquisar para quê?. Revista Brasileira De Medicina De Família E Comunidade, 15(42), 2319. https://doi.org/10.5712/rbmfc15(42)2369
Seção
Editorial