Remember to login before you can view the full description of a study, submit a study, or post topics to the discussion forum.
Added: March 8, 2023
Updated: March 8, 2023
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the potential significance of preprints in a public health emergency, and now with their continued use, preprints are considered within the context of open research. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. The purpose of this scoping review was to review the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research pathway.
Methods: A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature. Two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science on 24 August 2022.
Results: 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publication, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility and quality). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities).
Conclusions: Opportunities for rapid dissemination using preprints means that best practices through policies and guidelines are required from journals, publishers, and funders, to ensure preprints become embedded into practice. Cautionary measures to maintain quality are needed, both to be transparent with the public and to maintain credibility within social media, so care is recommended when reading and digesting research from preprints. Transparent guidelines by journals and funders are required to articulate to academia the role and purpose of preprints compared to a peer reviewed journal publication.
Added: March 7, 2023
Updated: March 7, 2023
Background: Adequately conducted systematic reviews with meta-analyses are considered the highest level of evidence and thus directly defines many clinical guidelines. However, the risks of type I and II errors in meta-analyses are substantial. Trial Sequential Analysis is a method for controlling these risks. Erroneous use of the method might lead to research waste or misleading conclusions.
Methods: The current protocol describes a systematic review aimed to identify common and major mistakes and errors in the use of Trial Sequential Analysis by evaluating published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include this method. We plan to include all studies using Trial Sequential Analysis published from January 2018 to January 2022, an estimated 400 to 600 publications. We will search Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, including studies with all types of participants, interventions, and outcomes. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, include relevant full text articles, extract data from the studies into a predefined checklist, and evaluate the methodological quality of the study using
the AMSTAR 2, assessing the methodological quality of the systematic reviews.
Discussion: This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). The identified mistakes and errors will be published in peer reviewed articles and form the basis of a reviewed guideline for the use of Trial Sequential Analysis. Appropriately controlling for type I and II errors might reduce research waste and improve quality and precision of the evidence that clinical guidelines are based upon.
Added: February 17, 2023
Updated: February 17, 2023
Relatively little is known about the practice and implications of using standardised research measures with people living with dementia at different degrees of severity. It is crucial that we learn more about the ways that dementia symptoms and their progression can affect both the quality (reliability and validity) of quantitative data, and the experiences of research participants.
I am investigating the quantitative data collection encounter from the perspectives of participants living with dementia and research workers administering standardised measures. I will consider the impact of dementia symptoms as they change over time, combined with the interview context and questionnaire content, on the types and quality of data collected.
Added: January 1, 2023
Updated: January 1, 2023
Background
The factors which influence participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials are under-researched. Retention may be more challenging due to child developmental stages, involving additional participants, and proxy-reporting of outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis explores the factors which may influence retention in paediatric trials.
Methods
Using the MEDLINE database, paediatric randomised controlled trials published between 2015 and 2019 were identified from six general and specialist medical journals. The review outcome was participant retention for each reviewed trial’s primary outcome. Context and design factors were extracted. Retention was examined for each context and design factor in turn, with evidence for an association being determined by a univariate random-effects meta-regression analysis.
Results
Ninety-four trials were included, and median total retention was 0.92 (inter-quartile range 0.83 to 0.98). Higher estimates of retention were seen for trials with five or more follow-up assessments before the primary outcome, and those less than six-months between randomisation and primary outcome. Trials involving children aged 11 and over had the higher estimated retention compared with those involving younger children. Those trials which did not involve other participants also had higher retention, than those where they were involved. There was also evidence that a trial which used an active or placebo control treatment had higher estimated retention, than treatment-as-usual. Retention increased if at least one engagement method was used. Unlike reviews of trials including all ages of participants, we did not find any association between retention and, number of treatment groups, size of trial, or type of treatment.
Conclusions
Published paediatric RCTs rarely report the use of specific modifiable factors that improve retention. Including multiple, regular follow-ups with participants before the primary outcome may reduce attrition. Retention may be highest when the primary outcome is collected up to six-months after a participant is recruited. Our findings suggest that primary research into improving retention when trials involve multiple participants such as young people, and their caregivers or teachers would be worthwhile. Those designing paediatric trials also need to consider the use of appropriate engagement methods such as incentives or reminders.
Added: November 8, 2022
Updated: November 16, 2022
The project is investigating how to best support career development conversations in academia. The project will test tools that could support career conversations by arranging for researchers to experience two different forms of development tool / experience (such as 360-degree feedback tool and career planning tool) and then asking them to provide a pairwise comparison.
We will also explore researcher's perceptions and experience of the barriers to career development conversations.
Added: November 8, 2022
Updated: November 16, 2022
This project investigates how Postdoc researchers value and trade off the different characteristics of (potential) research positions (length of position, salary, location, reputation of research group etc) using a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE); how Principal Investigators value and trade off the characteristics of Postdoc positions for different applicants (through interviews or a a separate DCE and examine longitudinal employment data on research positions in universities. We will combine these sources to explore what feasible options exist for improving the career stability of Postdoc researchers. Our initial research will identify the key drivers of position selection through interviews and focus groups. We will use then quantify these insights using discrete choice experiments and investigate whether the valuations and trade-offs are affected by demographic characteristics of the researchers and principal investigators.
Added: November 8, 2022
Updated: March 7, 2025
Using live recruitments at the University of Cambridge, this project investigates the effect of CV format on shortlisting decisions for Postdoc recruitment, and ithe causes of any differences. Applicants will be asked to submit a Narrative CV (in the Résumé for Research and Innovation format) alongside their standard academic CV. Two application packages (ie CV + covering letter + additional materials) will be produced for each candidate - one with the Narrative CV, one with the Standard CV. These packages will be independently ranked to test if the format of the CV affects the order of the ranking. The whole panel will then be given both application packages; repeat the shortlisting; and then follow the usual processes for interviewing and offering an appointment. To add depth to our observations, we will interview a sample of applicants and recruiting researchers to explore their experiences of preparing and reviewing the different CV formats.
Added: November 1, 2022
Updated: November 1, 2022
There has been a growing focus on improving the informed consent process for research. However, some people with problems with their memory or understanding may lack capacity to provide consent for themselves. In these situations, a proxy decision-maker (usually a family member) is needed to help make a decision about whether they take part or not. Involving proxies can be challenging, which contributes to people with incapacity being under-represented in research. Our previous study found that it was difficult for some family members to make a decision, and they experienced an emotional and decisional burden as a result. Families thought that greater support when making decisions about research would help. This led us to develop the first decision support tool for family members making decisions about research. This tool was found to be acceptable and we now need to test whether it is an effective form of support. We have also conducted further work to explore how to measure its effectiveness through establishing which outcomes matter, to whom, and why (COnSiDER Study). This project will explore whether the support tool is effective, what factors affect this, and how much it costs. This will be done using a Study Within a Trial (SWAT) which is a self contained research study that is embedded within a host trial/trials with the aim of evaluating a particular trial process.
Added: November 1, 2022
Updated: November 1, 2022
Trial participants need to represent those in society who are intended to benefit from the outcomes of the trial. The groups needing representation most will vary from trial to trial. An under-served group for one type of trial may be very different to that of another. Reasons for why under-served groups are not included in some research can be complex, but solutions to resolve inclusion barriers are easier to determine if considered from the outset of a trial. Intersectionality goes a step further in recognising that there may be multiple factors (for example ethnicity and gender) that combine and lead to disadvantage or discrimination. This theory describes how individuals may be affected by a range of different interlocking systems of power at the same time, which dictate their own unique experiences of discrimination. As researchers, we must consider everything and anything that can marginalise people from participating in a trial – gender, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, physical ability, migrant status, etc.
A few tools have recently been developed called the INCLUDE Frameworks (see https://www.trialforge.org/trial-forge-centre/diversity/) to help trial teams to think about how their design decisions might make it easy or difficult for some groups to take part. Each Framework focuses on an individual under-served group. At present there are ones focused on ethnicity, adults with impaired capacity to consent and socioeconomic disadvantage, and more are in development. However, there is a risk that trialists may become overwhelmed with the number of Frameworks available, and any intersectionality that exists between the groups may be missed if overlap is not thoughtfully considered.
Added: October 24, 2022
Updated: October 24, 2022
The review is intended to be a brief overview of practice and research within the academic-policy engagement space that includes principles around Equality/Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, with the aim to then delve deeper into the under-researched area of lived experience through a survey and series of interviews. The study has three objectives:
To conduct a rapid review and realist interviews
To highlight strategies that have successfully embedded EDI principles as well as identify those that need further development.
To develop a conceptual framework for policy engagement strategies that embed EDI principles based on the Standpoint, Intersectionality and Pluriverse theoretical approaches