Human vs machine: identifying ChatGPT-generated abstracts in Gynecology and Urogynecology.

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT, a publicly available artificial intelligence large language model, has allowed for sophisticated artificial intelligence technology on demand. Indeed, use of ChatGPT has already begun to make its way into medical research. However, the medical community has yet to understand the capabilities and ethical considerations of artificial intelligence within this context, and unknowns exist regarding ChatGPT's writing abilities, accuracy, and implications for authorship. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesize that human reviewers and artificial intelligence detection software differ in their ability to correctly identify original published abstracts and artificial intelligence-written abstracts in the subjects of Gynecology and Urogynecology. We also suspect that concrete differences in writing errors, readability, and perceived writing quality exist between original and artificial intelligence-generated text. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-five articles published in high-impact medical journals and a collection of Gynecology and Urogynecology journals were selected. ChatGPT was prompted to write 25 corresponding artificial intelligence-generated abstracts, providing the abstract title, journal-dictated abstract requirements, and select original results. The original and artificial intelligence-generated abstracts were reviewed by blinded Gynecology and Urogynecology faculty and fellows to identify the writing as original or artificial intelligence-generated. All abstracts were analyzed by publicly available artificial intelligence detection software GPTZero, Originality, and Copyleaks, and were assessed for writing errors and quality by artificial intelligence writing assistant Grammarly. RESULTS: A total of 157 reviews of 25 original and 25 artificial intelligence-generated abstracts were conducted by 26 faculty and 4 fellows; 57% of original abstracts and 42.3% of artificial intelligence-generated abstracts were correctly identified, yielding an average accuracy of 49.7% across all abstracts. All 3 artificial intelligence detectors rated the original abstracts as less likely to be artificial intelligence-written than the ChatGPT-generated abstracts (GPTZero, 5.8% vs 73.3%; P<.001; Originality, 10.9% vs 98.1%; P<.001; Copyleaks, 18.6% vs 58.2%; P<.001). The performance of the 3 artificial intelligence detection software differed when analyzing all abstracts (P=.03), original abstracts (P<.001), and artificial intelligence-generated abstracts (P<.001). Grammarly text analysis identified more writing issues and correctness errors in original than in artificial intelligence abstracts, including lower Grammarly score reflective of poorer writing quality (82.3 vs 88.1; P=.006), more total writing issues (19.2 vs 12.8; P<.001), critical issues (5.4 vs 1.3; P<.001), confusing words (0.8 vs 0.1; P=.006), misspelled words (1.7 vs 0.6; P=.02), incorrect determiner use (1.2 vs 0.2; P=.002), and comma misuse (0.3 vs 0.0; P=.005). CONCLUSION: Human reviewers are unable to detect the subtle differences between human and ChatGPT-generated scientific writing because of artificial intelligence's ability to generate tremendously realistic text. Artificial intelligence detection software improves the identification of artificial intelligence-generated writing, but still lacks complete accuracy and requires programmatic improvements to achieve optimal detection. Given that reviewers and editors may be unable to reliably detect artificial intelligence-generated texts, clear guidelines for reporting artificial intelligence use by authors and implementing artificial intelligence detection software in the review process will need to be established as artificial intelligence chatbots gain more widespread use.

Return on investment in science: twenty years of European Commission funded research in Alzheimer's dementia, breast cancer and prostate cancer.

Alzheimer's disease (AD), breast cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (PC) continue to be high in the research and innovation agenda of the European Commission (EC). This is due to their exceptionally large burden to the national health systems, the profound economic effects of opportunity costs attributable to decreased working ability, premature mortality and the ever-increasing demand for both hospital and home-based medical care. Over the last two decades, the EC has been steadily increasing both the number of proposals being funded and the amounts of financial resources being allocated to these fields of research. This trend has continued throughout four consecutive science funding cycles, namely framework programme (FP)5, FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 (H2020). We performed a retrospective assessment of the outputs and outcomes of EC funding in AD, BC and PC research over the 1999-2019 period by means of selected indicators. These indicators were assessed for their ability to screen the past, present and future for an array of causal relationships and long-term trends in clinical, epidemiological and public health sphere, while considering also the broader socioeconomic impact of funded research on the society at large. This analysis shows that public-private partnerships with large industry and university-based consortia have led to some of the most impactful proposals being funded over the analysed time period. New pharmaceuticals, small molecules and monoclonal antibodies alike, along with screening and prevention, have been the most prominent sources of innovation in BC and PC, extending patients' survival and enhancing their quality of life. Unlike oncology, dementia drug development has been way less successful, with only minor improvements related to the quality of supportive medical care for symptoms and more sensitive diagnostics, without any ground-breaking disease-modifying treatment(s). Significant progresses in imaging diagnostics and nanotechnology have been largely driven by the participation of medical device industry multinational companies. Clinical trials funded by the EC were conducted, leading to the development of brand-new drug molecules featuring novel mechanisms of action. Some prominent cases of breakthrough discoveries serve as evidence for the European capability to generate cutting-edge technological innovation in biomedicine. Less productive areas of research may be reconsidered as priorities when shaping the new agenda for forthcoming science funding programmes.

Research- vs. government-driven physical activity policy monitoring: a systematic review across different levels of government.

BACKGROUND: Even though the importance of physical activity policy monitoring has increased in the last decade, there is a lack of understanding what different approaches exist and which methodology they employ. In order to address this research gap, this review attempts to map existing approaches of physical activity policy monitoring and to analyse methodological aspects, especially with regards to the roles of governments and researchers. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in five scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, SportDiscus, Psycinfo, Web of Knowledge) in July 2021, and the identified records were screened independently by two reviewers. Records were included if they (a) focused on the monitoring of public policies to promote PA, (b) allowed to compare policies across time, across nations/regions or across policy sectors, and (c) were written in English, German or Russian. During full text analysis, information on methodological aspects was extracted and studies were categorized based on the level of government involvement. RESULTS: The search yielded in a total of 112 studies. 86 of these studies (76.8%) followed a research-driven approach (little or no government involvement) while only two studies (1.8%) were based on a government-driven approach (led by governments). The remaining 24 studies (21.4%) were based on a co-production approach (strong collaboration between researchers and governments). All in all, 18 different tools for physical activity policy monitoring were identified; key examples are the Report Cards on Physical Activity for Children and Youth (research-driven approach), the HEPA Monitoring Framework (government-driven approach) and the HEPA Policy Audit Tool (co-production approach). CONCLUSIONS: The level of government involvement in policy monitoring differs significantly, and research-driven, government-driven and co-production approaches can be distinguished. These approaches have different strengths and weaknesses, and can be linked to distinct theories of change and models on research-policy relations. Increasing awareness on the implications of these approaches is key to improve the understanding and further development of physical activity policy monitoring.

Evaluating official development assistance-funded granting mechanisms for global health and development research that is initiated in high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Several countries allocate official development assistance (ODA) for research on global health and development issues that is initiated in the donor country. The integration of such research within domestic research systems aligns with efforts to coordinate ODA investments with science, technology and innovation policies towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). METHODS: Through a document synthesis and interviews with research funders in ODA donor and recipient countries, we evaluated the performance of this funding approach across seven donor-country programmes from five donor countries and examined the institutional design elements that increase its chances of advancing development goals and addressing global challenges. RESULTS: We found that carefully designed programmes provide a promising pathway to producing valuable and contextually relevant knowledge on global health and development issues. To achieve these outcomes and ensure they benefit ODA-receiving countries, programmes should focus on recipient-country priorities and absorptive capacity; translate research on global public goods into context-appropriate technologies; plan and monitor pathways to impact; structure equitable partnerships; strengthen individual and institutional capacity; and emphasize knowledge mobilization. CONCLUSIONS: Global health and development research programmes and partnerships have an important role to play in achieving the SDGs and addressing global challenges. Governments should consider the potential of ODA-funded research programmes to address gaps in their global health and development frameworks. In the absence of concrete evidence of development impact, donor countries should consider making increases in ODA allocations for research additional to more direct investments that have demonstrated effectiveness in ODA-receiving countries.

A research intelligence approach to assess the research impact of the Dutch university medical centres.

BACKGROUND: The way in which research impact is evaluated and assessed has long been under debate. In recent years the focus is moving away from the use of numerical indicators, towards an emphasis on narratives. The Dutch university medical centres (UMCs) have a long-standing tradition of using bibliometric indicators. Because of the declining interest in indicators alone, this study was designed to repurpose bibliometrics to answer specific strategic questions. In this article we discuss the strategic and policy-based questions, the methodology we used in uncovering relevant information and conclusions we draw from the analyses we performed. The aim of this article is to inform a broader audience about the potential applications of bibliometric information to support a new form of research intelligence. METHODS: In this study we used a curated set of publications from the UMCs. We performed different bibliometric analyses and used bibliometric visualization tools to shed light on research focus, open science practices, collaboration, societal impact and scientific impact. RESULTS: The analyses allowed us to visualize and contextualize the research focus of the UMCs as a whole, but also to show specific focus areas of each UMC. The UMCs are active in the full spectrum of biomedical research, and at the same time are very complementary to each other. Furthermore, we were able to show the development of open access of UMC publications over time, to support the national mission. Visualizing collaboration is a powerful way of showing both the international orientation and the regional and national engine function of UMCs in research. We were able to assess societal impact by looking at the different channels in which publications find their way to societally relevant sources such as news media, policy documents and guidelines. Finally, we assessed scientific impact and put this into an international perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Research intelligence is able to transform bibliometric information by interpretation and annotation into highly relevant insights that can be used for several different strategic purposes and for research impact assessment in general.

Nurses as agents for achieving environmentally sustainable health systems: A bibliometric analysis.

AIM: To analyse the current scientific knowledge and research lines focused on environmentally sustainable health systems, including the role of nurses. BACKGROUND: There seem to be differences between creating interventions focused on environmentally sustainable health systems, including nurses, and the scarcity of research on this topic, framed on the Sustainable Development Goals. METHODS: A bibliometric analysis was carried out, via three databases (Web of Science, Scopus and Pubmed), and the guideline recommendations were followed to select bibliometric data. RESULTS: The search resulted in 159 publications, significantly increasing the trends from 2017 to 2021 (p = .028). The most relevant countries in this area were the United States, the United Kingdom and Sweden. Also, the top articles were from relevant journals, indexed in Journal Citation Report, and the first and the second quartiles linked to the nursing field and citations (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Education is key to achieving environmentally sustainable health systems via institutions and policies. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: There is a lack of experimental data and policies on achieving or maintaining environmentally sustainable health care systems, indicating that nurses have an important role and should be consulted and included in decision-making policies regarding sustainability in the health care systems.

Research priorities for oral healthcare: agenda setting from the practitioners' perspective.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop a research agenda based on the most important information needs concerning the effects and outcomes of oral healthcare provided by oral healthcare professionals (OHPs). METHODS: A two-stage survey study was used to identify and prioritise topics for future research. The first survey generated topics based on information needs by OHPs. Topics were clustered thematically and overlapping topics were merged in 84 research themes. In the second survey, respondents selected their top 5 from the 84 research themes. Themes were sorted by the rank number based on rank sum. RESULTS: In the first survey, 937 topics were suggested. Almost half (n = 430, 46%) were identified as topics related to endodontology, cariology, oral medicine/surgery or tooth restoration. Topics were grouped in 84 research themes, covering 10 research domains. These were prioritised by 235 OHPs. Behaviour change for oral health and oral healthcare for geriatric patients ranked as most important. CONCLUSIONS: Consultation of OHPs has resulted in a research agenda, which can be used to inform programming future oral health research. The highest prioritised research themes have an interdisciplinary nature, mainly concern oral disease prevention and are under-represented in the current oral healthcare research portfolio.

The north-south policy divide in transnational healthcare: a comparative review of policy research on medical tourism in source and destination countries.

Medical tourism occupies different spaces within national policy frameworks depending on which side of the transnational paradigm countries belong to, and how they seek to leverage it towards their developmental goals. This article draws attention to this policy divide in transnational healthcare through a comparative bibliometric review of policy research on medical tourism in select source (Canada, United States and United Kingdom) and destination countries (Mexico, India, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore), using a systematic search of the Web of Science (WoS) database and review of grey literature. We assess cross-national differences in policy and policy research on medical tourism against contextual policy landscapes and challenges, and examine the convergence between research and policy. Our findings indicate major disparities in development agendas and national policy concerns, both between and among source and destination countries. Further, we find that research on medical tourism does not always address prevailing policy challenges, just as the policy discourse oftentimes neglects relevant policy research on the subject. Based on our review, we highlight the limited application of theoretical policy paradigms in current medical tourism research and make the case for a comparative policy research agenda for the field.

Knowledge translation in health: how implementation science could contribute more.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing interest in research on how to translate knowledge into practice and improve healthcare, the accumulation of scientific knowledge in this field is slow. Few substantial new insights have become available in the last decade. MAIN BODY: Various problems hinder development in this field. There is a frequent misfit between problems and approaches to implementation, resulting in the use of implementation strategies that do not match with the targeted problems. The proliferation of concepts, theories and frameworks for knowledge transfer - many of which are untested - has not advanced the field. Stakeholder involvement is regarded as crucial for successful knowledge implementation, but many approaches are poorly specified and unvalidated. Despite the apparent decreased appreciation of rigorous designs for effect evaluation, such as randomized trials, these should remain within the portfolio of implementation research. Outcome measures for knowledge implementation tend to be crude, but it is important to integrate patient preferences and the increased precision of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the research enterprise be redesigned in several ways to address these problems and enhance scientific progress in the interests of patients and populations. It is crucially important to establish substantial programmes of research on implementation and improvement in healthcare, and better recognize the societal and practical benefits of research.

Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

Previous research on the determinants of effectiveness in knowledge systems seeking to support sustainable development has highlighted the importance of "boundary work" through which research communities organize their relations with new science, other sources of knowledge, and the worlds of action and policymaking. A growing body of scholarship postulates specific attributes of boundary work that promote used and useful research. These propositions, however, are largely based on the experience of a few industrialized countries. We report here on an effort to evaluate their relevance for efforts to harness science in support of sustainability in the developing world. We carried out a multicountry comparative analysis of natural resource management programs conducted under the auspices of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. We discovered six distinctive kinds of boundary work contributing to the successes of those programs-a greater variety than has been documented in previous studies. We argue that these different kinds of boundary work can be understood as a dual response to the different uses for which the results of specific research programs are intended, and the different sources of knowledge drawn on by those programs. We show that these distinctive kinds of boundary work require distinctive strategies to organize them effectively. Especially important are arrangements regarding participation of stakeholders, accountability in governance, and the use of "boundary objects." We conclude that improving the ability of research programs to produce useful knowledge for sustainable development will require both greater and differentiated support for multiple forms of boundary work.

An inductive exploration of the implementation knowledge of research funders.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare research funders may undertake various roles to facilitate implementation of research findings. Their ability to enact such roles depends on several factors, knowledge of implementation being one essential requirement. However, previous studies do not assess the type or level of knowledge about implementation that research funders possess. This paper therefore presents findings from a qualitative, inductive study of the implementation knowledge of research funders. Three aspects of this knowledge are explored, namely how research funders define implementation, their level of self-assessed implementation knowledge and the factors influencing their self-assessment of implementation knowledge. METHODS: Research funders (n = 18) were purposefully selected from a sample of research funding organisations in Sweden (n = 10). In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive method using a systematic coding procedure was employed to derive the findings. RESULTS: The research funders defined implementation as either an outcome or a process, with the majority believing that implementation of healthcare research results demands a process, although its complexity varied in the research funders' view. They perceived their own level of implementation knowledge as either limited or substantial, with a majority regarding it as limited. Clinical research experience, clinical experience and task relevance were singled out as the clearest factors affecting the self-assessment of their own implementation knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: This study, the first to focus on implementation knowledge of research funders, demonstrates that they are a category of policy-makers who may possess knowledge, based on their previous professional experience, that is comparable to some important findings from implementation research. Consequently, the findings not only pinpoint the relevance of professional experience, but also reveal a lack of awareness and knowledge of the results of implementation research among research funders in charge of healthcare research.

Family Caregiving: A Vision for the Future.

The authors of this review both served on the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine Committee that produced the report, "Caring for an Aging America". In this commentary we summarize key findings and recommendations most relevant to clinicians and researchers in geriatric psychiatry and related disciplines. The report notes the growing prevalence of family caregiving in the United States, especially those caring for high-need patients with multiple chronic conditions, disability, and/or cognitive impairment. To support the capacity of family caregivers to perform critical caregiving tasks, the report recommends a major shift in healthcare policy toward collaborative partnerships among patients, their defined family, and providers of care. Optimizing the role of family caregivers will minimally require systematic attention to the identification, assessment, and support of family caregivers throughout the care delivery process. Research is needed to develop the tools and protocols to efficiently assess caregivers, and identify ways in which they can be integrated into existing clinical practices. We also need research to identify how to best implement, maintain, and evaluate caregiver support programs within clinical and community settings. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should be charged with developing, testing, and implementing provider payment reforms that motivate providers to engage and support family caregivers. Payment reforms should include clearly articulated performance standards that hold providers accountable for caregiver engagement, training, and support by explicitly including caregiver outcomes in quality measures.

A roadmap to advance dementia research in prevention, diagnosis, intervention, and care by 2025.

OBJECTIVE: National and global dementia plans have focused on the research ambition to develop a cure or disease-modifying therapy by 2025, with the initial focus on investment in drug discovery approaches. We set out to develop complementary research ambitions in the areas of prevention, diagnosis, intervention, and care and strategies for achieving them. METHODS: Alzheimer's Society facilitated a taskforce of leading UK clinicians and researchers in dementia, UK funders of dementia research, people with dementia, and carer representatives to develop, using iterative consensus methodology, goals and recommendations to advance dementia research. RESULTS: The taskforce developed 5 goals and 30 recommendations. The goals focused on preventing future cases of dementia through risk reduction, maximising the benefit of a dementia diagnosis, improving quality of life, enabling the dementia workforce to improve practice, and optimising the quality and inclusivity of health and social care systems. Recommendations addressed gaps in knowledge and limitations in research methodology or infrastructure that would facilitate research in prioritised areas. A 10-point action plan provides strategies for delivering the proposed research agenda. CONCLUSIONS: By creating complementary goals for research that mirror the need to find effective treatments, we provide a framework that enables a focus for new investment and initiatives. This will support a broader and more holistic approach to research on dementia, addressing prevention, surveillance of population changes in risk and expression of dementia, the diagnostic process, diagnosis itself, interventions, social support, and care for people with dementia and their families.

Public involvement in health research systems: a governance framework.

BACKGROUND: Growing interest in public involvement in health research has led to organisational and policy change. Additionally, an emerging body of policy-oriented scholarship has begun to identify the organisational and network arrangements that shape public involvement activity. Such developments suggest the need to clearly conceptualise and characterise public involvement in health research in terms of governance. METHODS: We drew on an established health research system framework to analyse governance functions related to public involvement, adapting scoping review methods to identify evidence from a corpus of journal papers and policy reports. We drew on the logics of aggregation and top down configuration, using a qualitative interpretive approach to combine and link findings from different studies into framework categories. RESULTS: We identified a total of 32 scholarly papers and 13 policy reports (n = 45 included papers) with relevance to governance for public involvement. Included papers were broadly consonant in identifying the need for activity to specify and support public involvement across all four governance functions of stewardship, financing, creating and sustaining resources, and research production and use. However, different visions for public involvement, and the activity required to implement it and achieve impact, were particularly evident with respect to the stewardship function, which seeks to set overall directions for research while addressing the potentially competing demands of a system's many constituents. CONCLUSIONS: A governance perspective has considerable value for public involvement in health research systems, supporting efforts to coordinate and institutionalise the burgeoning public involvement enterprise. Furthermore, it highlights challenges for what is, ultimately, a highly political intervention, suggesting that diverse publics must be both involved within health research systems and enrolled as governors of them.

Public involvement and health research system governance: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Interest in public involvement in health research projects has led to increased attention on the coordination of public involvement through research organisations, networks and whole systems. We draw on previous work using the 'health research system' framework to explore organisational actors and stewardship functions relevant to governance for public involvement. METHODS: To inform efforts in Ontario, Canada, to mobilise public involvement across the provincial health research enterprise, we conducted an exploratory, qualitative descriptive study of efforts in two jurisdictions (England, United Kingdom, and Alberta, Canada) where there were active policy efforts to support public involvement, alongside jurisdiction-wide efforts to mobilise health research. Focusing on the efforts of public sector organisations with responsibility for funding health research, enabling public involvement, and using research results, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 26 expert informants and used a qualitative thematic approach to explore how the involvement of publics in health research has been embedded and supported. RESULTS: We identified three sets of common issues in efforts to advance public involvement. First, the initial aim to embed public involvement leveraged efforts to build self-conscious research 'systems', and mobilised policy guidance, direction, investment and infrastructure. Second, efforts to sustain public involvement aimed to deepen involvement activity and tackle diversity limitations, while managing the challenges of influencing research priorities and forging common purpose on the evaluation of public involvement. Finally, public involvement was itself an influential force, with the potential to reinforce - or complicate - the ties that link actors within research systems, and to support - or constrain - the research system's capacity to serve and strengthen health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in the two jurisdictions analysed and in the organisation of public involvement within them, the supporters and stewards of public involvement sought to leverage research systems to advance public involvement, anticipated similar opportunities for improvement in involvement processes and identified similar challenges for future involvement activities. This suggests the value of a health research system framework in governance for public involvement, and the importance of public involvement for the success of health research systems and the health systems they aim to serve.

Healthy bi-regional connection: The EU-LAC Health initiative has promoted equitable and collaborative health research and innovation.

The European Union and Latin America and the Caribbean regions have enjoyed privileged relations since the first bi-regional Summit of Heads of State and Government, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1999, and the lunching of a Strategic Partnership. Health research stands as one of the major areas of research and development expenditure in both regions and has also been the focus of roughly 30% of all bilateral cooperation agreements and programmes.EU-LAC Health, a project funded by the European Union from 2011 to 2017, had the main objective to develop a consensus roadmap to enhance and coordinate the bi-regional collaboration between the European Union member states and Latin America and Caribbean countries in health research. From April 2013, EU-LAC Health has also supported the Working Group on Health created and designated by decision-makers at the highest political level to implement a bi-regional Join Initiative on Research and Innovation.This article collects and summarises the context, methodology (series of workshops, surveys and iterative deskwork by multiple bi-regional stakeholders) of this project, as well as the main outputs of (1) definition of a strategic roadmap, containing a scientific research agenda, to guide policy-makers in equitable and collaborative health research and innovation; (2) launching of the Joint Initiative on Health Research and Innovation, with the vision of being the reference body on the bi-regional health research and innovation collaboration; and (3) funding of 13 bi-regional health research and innovation projects.EU-LAC Health represents a successful example of bi-regional collaboration and the emerging networks and expertise gathered during the lifetime of the project have the potential to tackle common health challenges affecting the quality of life of citizens from the two regions and beyond. The project has also paved the way for more specific bi-regional initiatives such as a new initiative for bi-regional collaboration in personalised medicine that is being arranged by the partnership. Furthermore, it can inspire future initiatives for bi-regional research collaboration on other fields.

Involving the public in health research in Latin America: making the case for mental health.

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) has been increasingly encouraged in health services and research over the last two decades. Particularly strong evidence has been presented with regard to the impact that PPIE has in certain research areas, such as mental health. Involving the public in mental health research has the potential to improve the quality of research and reduce the power imbalance between researchers and participants. However, limitations can be frequent and include tokenistic involvement and lack of infrastructure and support. Nevertheless, PPIE has the potential to impact mental health research in the Latin American context, where existing policies already support public involvement in health research and where the burden of mental disorders is significant. There are many lessons to learn from the evidence of PPIE in other regions. Latin America now has the opportunity to tackle one of today's most important issues: effective health care service delivery for all, based on evidence from comprehensive health research.

En los últimos 20 años, se ha fomentado cada vez más la participación y el compromiso de los pacientes y el público en los servicios de salud y las investigaciones en el campo de la salud. Se ha presentado evidencia parti­cularmente contundente con respecto a la repercusión de esta participación y compromiso en ciertas áreas de investigación, como la salud mental. Incluir al público en las investigaciones sobre salud mental tiene el potencial de mejorar la calidad de las investigaciones y reducir el desequilibrio de poder entre los investigadores y los participantes. Sin embargo, con frecuencia hay limitaciones, entre las cuales se encuentran la participación simbólica y la falta de infraestructura y apoyo. No obstante, la participa­ción y el compromiso de los pacientes y el público pueden tener una repercusión importante en las investigaciones sobre salud mental en América Latina, donde las políticas vigentes ya apoyan la participación del público en las investigaciones de salud y la carga de los trastornos mentales es significativa. Se puede aprender mucho de la evidencia acerca de este tipo de participación y compromiso en otras regiones. Actualmente América Latina tiene la oportunidad de abordar uno de los problemas más importantes de hoy: cómo prestar servicios eficaces de atención de salud que estén al alcance de todos y se basen en la evidencia derivada de investigaciones en el ámbito de la salud.

O envolvimento e a participação dos pacientes e do público (EPPP) vêm sendo incentivados cada vez mais nos serviços de saúde e em pesquisas nas duas últimas décadas. Existem evidências sólidas que demonstram a repercussão do EPPP em certas áreas de pesquisa como saúde mental. Envolver o público em pesquisa de saúde mental tem o potencial de melhorar a qua­lidade das pesquisas e reduzir o desequilíbrio de poder entre ­pesquisadores e participantes. Porém, frequentemente são observadas limitações como o envolvimento simbólico e a falta de infraestrutura e de apoio. Contudo, o EPPP podem ter impacto na pesquisa em saúde mental no contexto latino-americano, onde existem políticas que apoiam o envolvimento do público em pesquisa em saúde e onde o ônus dos transtornos mentais é considerável. Muitos ensinamentos podem ser tirados das evidências obtidas com o EPPP em outras regiões. A América Latina tem agora a oportunidade de lidar com uma das questões atuais mais importantes: a prestação eficiente de serviços de saúde para todos, com base em evidências obtidas de pesquisas abrangentes de saúde.

Assessing the impact of health research on health policies: a study of the Dodowa Health Research Centre, Ghana.

BACKGROUND: The importance of assessing research impact is increasingly recognised. Ghana has a long tradition of research dating from the 1970s. In the Ghana Health Service there are three health research centres under the Research and Development Division. Dodowa Health Research Centre (DHRC) is the youngest in the country dating from the 1990s. The objective of this study is to analyse the influence of the research conducted in DHRC on national and local health policies. METHODS: The study used the Research Impact Framework. Six projects were selected based on a set of criteria. Thirteen interviews were conducted with researchers and policy makers using a semi-structured interview guide. RESULTS: DHRC had numerous policy impacts in terms of researchers participating in policy networks, increasing political capital and influencing policy documents. Factors identified to be associated with policy impact included collaboration with policy makers at the design stage, addressing health priorities, and communicating results mainly through the participation in annual review meetings. CONCLUSIONS: DHRC was successful in influencing health policies. Recommendations were made that could be included in the DHRC strategic planning to improve the research process and its policy impact.

In Defense of a Social Value Requirement for Clinical Research.

Many guidelines and commentators endorse the view that clinical research is ethically acceptable only when it has social value, in the sense of collecting data which might be used to improve health. A version of this social value requirement is included in the Declaration of Helsinki and the Nuremberg Code, and is codified in many national research regulations. At the same time, there have been no systematic analyses of why social value is an ethical requirement for clinical research. Recognizing this gap in the literature, recent articles by Alan Wertheimer and David Resnik argue that the extant justifications for the social value requirement are unpersuasive. Both authors conclude, contrary to almost all current guidelines and regulations, that it can be acceptable across a broad range of cases to conduct clinical research which is known prospectively to have no social value. The present article assesses this conclusion by critically evaluating the ethical and policy considerations relevant to the claim that clinical research must have social value. This analysis supports the standard view that social value is an ethical requirement for the vast majority of clinical research studies and should be mandated by applicable guidelines and policies.

Research capacity building integrated into PHIT projects: leveraging research and research funding to build national capacity.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate research capacity impedes the development of evidence-based health programming in sub-Saharan Africa. However, funding for research capacity building (RCB) is often insufficient and restricted, limiting institutions' ability to address current RCB needs. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's African Health Initiative (AHI) funded Population Health Implementation and Training (PHIT) partnership projects in five African countries (Ghana, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia) to implement health systems strengthening initiatives inclusive of RCB. METHODS: Using Cooke's framework for RCB, RCB activity leaders from each country reported on RCB priorities, activities, program metrics, ongoing challenges and solutions. These were synthesized by the authorship team, identifying common challenges and lessons learned. RESULTS: For most countries, each of the RCB domains from Cooke's framework was a high priority. In about half of the countries, domain specific activities happened prior to PHIT. During PHIT, specific RCB activities varied across countries. However, all five countries used AHI funding to improve research administrative support and infrastructure, implement research trainings and support mentorship activities and research dissemination. While outcomes data were not systematically collected, countries reported holding 54 research trainings, forming 56 mentor-mentee relationships, training 201 individuals and awarding 22 PhD and Masters-level scholarships. Over the 5 years, 116 manuscripts were developed. Of the 59 manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals, 29 had national first authors and 18 had national senior authors. Trainees participated in 99 conferences and projects held 37 forums with policy makers to facilitate research translation into policy. CONCLUSION: All five PHIT projects strongly reported an increase in RCB activities and commended the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation for prioritizing RCB, funding RCB at adequate levels and time frames and for allowing flexibility in funding so that each project could implement activities according to their trainees' needs. As a result, many common challenges for RCB, such as adequate resources and local and international institutional support, were not identified as major challenges for these projects. Overall recommendations are for funders to provide adequate and flexible funding for RCB activities and for institutions to offer a spectrum of RCB activities to enable continued growth, provide adequate mentorship for trainees and systematically monitor RCB activities.