Research for what?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5712/rbmfc15(42)2369Keywords:
Research, Research Design, Scholarly Communication, Preprint, Investigative TechniquesAbstract
To contribute to primary health care, research in family and community medicine needs to avoid four factors that have led to wasted biomedical research worldwide: irrelevant research questions; inadequate methods to achieve the research objectives; slow and inadequate publication of results; obscure and not transparent reporting. In this editorial, we introduce measures for authors to ensure the impact of their research, and new editorial policies from RBMFC.
Downloads
Metrics
References
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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918823863
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
By submitting a manuscript to the RBMFC, authors retain ownership of the copyright in the article, and authorize RBMFC to publish that manuscript under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license and identify itself as the vehicle of its original publication.
