A group approach to growing as a principal investigator.

Greco et al. describe their experience learning to be more effective and humane PIs. The key to their growth was regular and consistent work with a diverse group of their peers aided by the guidance of an organizational psychologist.

Commentary: Developing Relationships through Trust in Indigenous Health Research.

Developing strong relationships between researchers and Indigenous partners and communities is crucial for mutually beneficial and appropriate Indigenous health research. However, explanations on the need for strong relationships and how they may be achieved are not often found within the research literature. Given the history of mistrust, exploitation and even unethical research practices with Indigenous populations, collaborative research partnerships necessitate good relationships. For our long-standing community-based participatory research partnership, trust in our relationships has been foundational. Several key elements are central to developing this trust, including coming together in ceremony, practising humility and becoming personally and emotionally invested in each other's lives. We also prioritize time, effort and flexibility to actively work on our relationships. To make effective and beneficial change within Indigenous health research compels reframing western perspectives and overcoming long-standing institutional barriers, such that enduring and trusting relationships are the focus and not a means to an end.

Prioritising child health and maternity evidence-based interventions or service models: a stakeholder-driven process.

AIM: A UK programme, led by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ( https://www.nihr.ac.uk ) and coordinated by Applied Research Collaborations (ARC), ( https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/support/collaborating-in-applied-health-research.htm ) aimed to identify and select evidence-based, implementation-ready service innovations for evaluation. The programme focused on seven areas of health provision. We report on a prioritisation process designed to identify and assess innovations in one of these areas: child and maternal health (CH&M). METHODS: We developed a three-stage, online, stakeholder driven process to 1) identify, 2) assess and prioritise and 3) select evidence-based interventions or service models, using crowdsourcing to identify projects and the APEASE criteria to assess and select projects. A brief evidence review was conducted for all initial suggestions to identify those with the largest evidence-base to take forward for ranking by stakeholders. Stakeholder workshops considered and ranked these suggestions using the APEASE criteria. We then conducted in-depth evidence reviews for the highest ranked suggestions. The Project Management Group and Advisory Board used these reviews and the APEASE criteria to select the final projects. RESULTS: We received 32 initial suggestions from a range of clinicians, practitioners and researchers. Fourteen of the most evidence-based suggestions were considered and ranked at four themed stakeholder workshops. Nine suggestions were ranked for further in-depth evidence review and a final four projects were selected for implementation evaluation using the APEASE criteria. These were: 1. Maternal Mental Health Services Multidisciplinary Teams 2. Early years tooth brushing programme 3. Trauma-focused CBT for young people in care and 4. Independent Domestic Violence Advisors in maternity settings. Feedback from participants suggested that having public representatives participating in all stakeholder meetings, rather than being consulted separately, focused discussions clearly on patient benefit rather than research aims. CONCLUSIONS: The stakeholder-driven process achieved its aim of identifying, prioritising and assessing and selecting, evidence-based projects for wider implementation and evaluation. The concurrent process could be adapted by other researchers or policy makers.

Publication practice in Taxonomy: Global inequalities and potential bias against negative results.

There is broad recognition by practicing taxonomists that the field is going through a crisis, which has been dubbed the "taxonomic impediment". There are many aspects involved in said crisis, but publication practices in taxonomy are often neglected or relegated to the backseat. We provide an initial foray into this topic via a worldwide survey with taxonomists, spanning all botanical and zoological groups, and career stages. Demographically, most of the respondents identified themselves as males (70%), working in Europe or North America (68%), in universities (50%) or museums (27%). Over half of the respondents are established/late-career researchers (only about 25% of full professors were female), with a low number of early-career researchers and graduate students (i.e., taxonomists in training). Nearly 61% of the men acquired their highest title at least eleven years ago, while only 41% of the women did so. Nearly 92% of the respondents have published new species descriptions, while around 60% and 26% have synonymized, respectively, species-level or subspecies-level taxa. In general, respondents perceive the act of describing new species to be easier than synonymizing species (p = 0.05). Established/late-career researchers and male researchers, particularly in Oceania and North America, found it easier to publish nomenclatural acts such as new species descriptions, while early-career researchers had their acts contested more often. Our results reaffirm the low academic recognition of the field, the lack of funding for research and publishing charges especially in the Global South, and the difficulty in finding specialized outlets (and the low impact factor of those journals) as persistent issues in taxonomy. Other significant problems raised by respondents include ethical issues in the peer-review process, a bias against newcomers in the field coming either from established researchers or committees, and taxonomic vandalism.

Assessing researchers' capabilities, opportunities, and motivation to conduct equity-oriented dissemination and implementation research, an exploratory cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: A recent paradigm shift has led to an explicit focus on enhancing health equity through equity-oriented dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. However, the integration and bidirectional learning across these two fields is still in its infancy and siloed. This exploratory study aimed to examine participants' perceived capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to conduct equity-oriented D&I research. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional survey distributed online from December 2020 to April 2021. Participants were recruited at either D&I or health disparities-oriented conferences, meetings, through social media, or personal outreach via emails. Informed by the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model (COM-B), the survey queried respondents about different aspects of engaging in and conducting equity-oriented D&I research. All analyses were conducted in SPSS Version 27.0. RESULTS: A total of 180 participants responded to the survey. Most participants were women (81.7%), white (66.1%), academics (78.9%), and faculty members (53.9%). Many reported they were advanced (36.7%) or advanced beginners (27.8%) in the D&I field, and a substantial proportion (37.8%) reported being novice in D&I research that focused on health equity. Participants reported high motivation (e.g., 62.8% were motivated to apply theories, models, frameworks for promoting health equity in D&I research), but low capability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research (e.g., 5% had the information needed for promoting health equity in D&I research). Most participants (62.2%) reported not having used measures to examine equity in their D&I projects, and for those who did use measures, they mainly used individual-level measures (vs. organizational- or structural-level measures). When asked about factors that could influence their ability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research, 44.4% reported not having the skills necessary, and 32.2% stated difficulties in receiving funding for equity-oriented D&I research. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings provide empirical insight into the perspectives of researchers from different backgrounds on what is needed to conduct equity-oriented D&I research. These data suggest the need for a multi-pronged approach to enhance the capability and opportunities for conducting equity-oriented D&I work, such as: training specifically in equity-oriented D&I, collaboration between D&I researchers with individuals with expertise and lived experience with health equity research, funding for equity-oriented D&I research, and recognition of the value of community engaged research in promotion packages.

Addressing health in psychotherapy: Future directions from a community wellness lens.

Building off insight provided by authors in this special section and in the broader literature, this closing article describes future directions in health in psychotherapy. We use the community wellness model (CWM; Prilleltensky, 2005) sites of personal, relational, and collective to highlight psychotherapy constructs that offer future directions for more fully embracing a community and social justice perspective in health in psychotherapy. Within each level, we describe implications for researchers and clinicians: the personal level focuses on individual psychotherapy, including theoretical orientation, interventions, and feedback-informed treatment; the relational level covers clinician-client dynamics and group psychotherapy; the collective level addresses the scope and innovation of our interventions as well as advocacy efforts. Our hope is that these psychotherapy constructs and processes offer researchers and clinicians future directions for more fully integrating health into psychotherapy in a way that embeds a social justice perspective. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Exploring Determinants of Longevity of Biomedical Databases.

The maintenance of biomedical databases requires ongoing and systematic efforts in keeping them up-to-date which may affect long-term sustainability. Since research has become more reliant on publicly available biomedical data collections, it is important to understand factors affecting their longevity. The aim of this article was to explore potential determinants of biomedical database longevity. To build an analytical dataset, we used Database journal that have been created as an open access platform for presenting biological databases. A stratified analysis of all the original databases published in Database journal between 2009 and 2016 was conducted depending on their accessibility status. Overall, 35% of 518 analyzed databases were not accessible in 2020. We showed that databases with higher citation counts from institutions with higher scientific output were significantly more likely to be currently accessible. Databases from researchers with higher h-index were more likely to be accessible. Further investigation is warranted to identify factors affecting longevity of high impact databases.

Being reflexive in research and clinical practice: a practical example.

BACKGROUND: Reflexivity is an invaluable skill for nurses and researchers, as it assists in closing the gap between research and practice and improves nursing practice. However, there is some doubt about how well reflexivity is implemented in nursing. There has also been little published showing how reflexivity can be applied in research and nursing. AIM: To provide an example of reflexivity in research to demonstrate that knowledge and experiences are transferable to nursing practice. DISCUSSION: Reflexivity is an important tool for research and nursing in finding the meeting points or interface of research and practice. This article provides an example of being reflexive that identified how the research skills of 'listening to understand' and 'finding meaning' filtered into nursing practice. CONCLUSION: Reflexivity helped to generate knowledge about research skills filtering across a research project into clinical practice. Being reflexive as a researcher and a nurse can transform the care of patients and families. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article provides an example of how reflexivity can be applied to research and nursing practice. It also suggests reframing the gap between research and practice as an interface between the two. This could encourage nurses to think of research skills and knowledge as transferable into real-time nursing practice.

Tolerating bad health research: the continuing scandal.

BACKGROUND: At the 2015 REWARD/EQUATOR conference on research waste, the late Doug Altman revealed that his only regret about his 1994 BMJ paper 'The scandal of poor medical research' was that he used the word 'poor' rather than 'bad'. But how much research is bad? And what would improve things? MAIN TEXT: We focus on randomised trials and look at scale, participants and cost. We randomly selected up to two quantitative intervention reviews published by all clinical Cochrane Review Groups between May 2020 and April 2021. Data including the risk of bias, number of participants, intervention type and country were extracted for all trials included in selected reviews. High risk of bias trials was classed as bad. The cost of high risk of bias trials was estimated using published estimates of trial cost per participant. We identified 96 reviews authored by 546 reviewers from 49 clinical Cochrane Review Groups that included 1659 trials done in 84 countries. Of the 1640 trials providing risk of bias information, 1013 (62%) were high risk of bias (bad), 494 (30%) unclear and 133 (8%) low risk of bias. Bad trials were spread across all clinical areas and all countries. Well over 220,000 participants (or 56% of all participants) were in bad trials. The low estimate of the cost of bad trials was £726 million; our high estimate was over £8 billion. We have five recommendations: trials should be neither funded (1) nor given ethical approval (2) unless they have a statistician and methodologist; trialists should use a risk of bias tool at design (3); more statisticians and methodologists should be trained and supported (4); there should be more funding into applied methodology research and infrastructure (5). CONCLUSIONS: Most randomised trials are bad and most trial participants will be in one. The research community has tolerated this for decades. This has to stop: we need to put rigour and methodology where it belongs - at the centre of our science.

Perspectives of general practitioners towards their supervisors over the past ten years in China.

OBJECTIVES: Doctors who wish to become general practitioners (GPs) in China are required to attend and complete general practice resident training. In the early stages of the standardized GP training system, GP training supervisors play important roles. This study aims to explore how GP residents perceive their GP supervisors, factors that affect GP residents' satisfaction level, as well as to offer suggestions based on the implications of this study. DESIGN: We conducted a mixed quantitative and qualitative study. Firstly, with respect to the quantitative research, we conducted a survey to investigate training satisfaction through questionnaires, then extracted and analyzed the factors that influence training satisfaction. In the qualitative study, we conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews using qualitative research criteria (COREQ)--a 32-item checklist for interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Participants in the quantitative survey included 1172 GPs whose training time wasbetween 2008 and 2017. Afterwards, 100 participants were selected from this sample , filtered by stratified random sampling and by having provided extreme answers on the quantitative survey (less than 5% of the total sample). They were chosen for the qualitative research to conduct a more detailed investigation., This stratified random sampling was based on residents' grades, regions, and training levels (city level or county level). Extreme answers were identified as answers of "extremely good" or "extremely bad" to questions from the initial comprehensive survey of 1172 participants. Consequently, 30 participants with extreme answers were found, while the remaining 70 participants in the interviews were selected by stratified random sampling. Ultimately, this sample of participants met our information collection and sample estimation requirements. RESULTS: The results show that satisfaction with GP theoretical training supervisors, GP hospital-based training supervisors, and GP community-based training supervisors differed. Considering long-term averages, the hierarchy of satisfaction is as follows: GP theoretical training supervisors > GP community-based training supervisors > GP hospital-based training supervisors. GP hospital-based training supervisors need to improve their conception of GPs, teaching methods and conscientiousness. GP community-based training supervisors need to improve their teaching methods, knowledge of clinical theory and practice ability. CONCLUSIONS: On the one hand, teams of GP supervisors in China have gradually been established over time. On the other hand,the satisfaction tendencies of residents with respect to their GP supervisors are quite different, and teams of GP supervisors must be promoted and improved.

[Oral history and ethics: a comparative gaze on Brazil, Canada, and Italy]. / História oral e ética: um olhar comparativo entre Brasil, Canadá e Itália.

This article presents a dialogue between the experiences of Brazil, Canada, and Italy in addressing the challenges posed by ethical evaluations, both "external" (by ethics committees and related bodies) and "internal" (in debates among researchers themselves), of oral history. It attempts to demonstrate the different ways impositions from outside the area have been handled, the action strategies adopted, and issues central to responsible work in the sphere of oral history. It is written with the spirit of rethinking one's own experiences and learning from those of others.

O artigo apresenta um diálogo entre as experiências brasileiras, canadenses e italianas quanto aos desafios colocados por avaliações éticas "externas" (feitas por comitês de ética e órgãos correlatos) e "internas" (resultante dos debates dos/as próprios/as pesquisadores/as) à história oral. Pretende demonstrar as diferentes maneiras de lidar com as imposições estranhas à área, revelar as estratégias de ação colocadas em prática e destacar questões centrais para o trabalho responsável com história oral. O espírito que anima a escrita é o de repensar as próprias experiências e de aprender com as alheias.

Open science at the science-policy interface: bringing in the evidence?

Part of the current enthusiasm about open science stems from its promises to reform scientific practice in service of the common good, to ensure that scientific outputs will be found and reused more easily, and to enhance scientific impact on policy and society. With this article, we question this optimism by analysing the potential for open science practices to enhance research uptake at the science-policy interface. Science advice is critical to help policy-makers make informed decisions. Likewise, some interpretations of open science hold that making research processes and outputs more transparent and accessible will also enhance the uptake of results by policy and society at large. However, we argue that this hope is based on an unjustifiably simplistic understanding of the science-policy interface that leaves key terms ("impact", "uptake") undefined. We show that this understanding-based upon linear models of research uptake-likewise grounds the influential "evidence-policy gap" diagnosis which holds that to improve research uptake, communication and interaction between researchers and policy-makers need to be improved. The overall normative stance of both discussions has sidelined empirical description of the science-policy interface, ignoring questions about the underlying differences between the policy domain and academia. Importantly, both open science and literature on closing the evidence-policy gap recommend improving communication (in terms of either the content or the means) as a viable strategy. To correct some of these views, we combine insights from policy theory with a narrative review of the literature on the evidence-policy gap in the health domain and find that removing barriers to access by itself will not be enough to foster research uptake.

Utilizing Causal Loop Diagramming to Explore a Research and Evaluation Capacity Building Partnership.

The capacity to engage in research, evaluation and evidence-informed decision-making supports effective public health policy and practice. Little is known about partnership-based approaches that aim to build capacity across a system or how to evaluate them. This study examines the impacts of a research and evaluation capacity building partnership called the Western Australian Sexual Health and Blood-borne Virus Applied Research and Evaluation Network (hereafter, SiREN). SiREN aims to strengthen capacity across a system of clinical and medical services and government and non-government organizations. These organizations are connected through their shared aim of preventing and managing sexually transmissible infections and blood-borne viruses. To examine SiREN, systems concepts and methods were used. Data were collected from SiREN organizational documents (n = 42), a survey tool (n = 104), in-depth interviews (n = 17), a workshop and three meetings with SiREN stakeholders and used to develop two causal loop diagrams. Findings show engagement with SiREN was influenced by a complex interplay of contextual (e.g., organizational capacity) and process (e.g., presence of trusting relationships) factors. SiREN contributed to system level changes, including increased resources for research and evaluation, the development of networks and partnerships that led to more efficient responses to emerging health issues, evidence sharing, and sustainable research and evaluation practice. The use of causal loop diagrams enabled the identification of key leverage points that SiREN can use for continuous improvement or evaluation. The focus on how contextual factors influenced SiREN's ability to create change provides valuable information for researchers, policymakers or practitioners seeking to develop a similar partnership.

Should Children Be Enrolled in Clinical Research in Conflict Zones?

This commentary examines 4 ethical issues in a case of clinicians considering conducting research on children in conflict zones: (1) whether any time or resources should be taken away from treating acute injuries in order to conduct research; (2) obtaining consent for children to participate in research, which is particularly challenging given that children can be separated from parents or guardians; (3) whether the research is feasible at the moment, since starting research that stands little chance of being completed is ethically questionable; and (4) maintaining neutrality, impartiality, and humanity. Research that puts participants and researchers at risk of additional harm must be considered carefully. Here, we propose that both research and clinical care might occur simultaneously when researchers engage humbly with involved communities as the research is being designed, conducted, and reported in order to understand and resolve ethical issues involved.

Acceptability of donor funding for clinical trials in the UK: a qualitative empirical ethics study using focus groups to elicit the views of research patient public involvement group members, research ethics committee chairs and clinical researchers.

OBJECTIVES: The Plutocratic Proposal is a novel method of funding early phase clinical trials where a single donor funds the entire trial and in so doing secures a place on it. The aim of this study was to identify and explore concerns that may be raised by UK research ethics committees (RECs) when reviewing clinical trials funded in this way. DESIGN: Empirical ethics combining ethical analysis and qualitative data from three focus groups held online using Frith's symbiotic approach. Data were analysed using inductive thematic approach informed by the study aims and ethical analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 22 participants were recruited: 8 research patient public involvement group members, 7 REC chairs and 7 clinical researchers. All were based in the UK. RESULTS: With one exception, participants thought the Plutocratic Proposal may be 'all things considered' acceptable, providing their concerns were met, primary of which was upholding scientific integrity. Other concerns discussed related to the acceptability of the donor securing a place on the trial including: whether this was an unfair distribution of benefits, disclosing the identity of the donor as the funder, protecting the donor from exploitation and funding a single study with multiple donors on the same terms. Some misgivings fell outside the usual REC purview: detrimental impact of donors of bad character, establishing the trustworthiness of the matching agency and its processes and optimising research funding and resources. Despite their concerns, participants recognised that because the donor funds the whole trial, others would also potentially benefit from participating. CONCLUSIONS: We identified concerns about the Plutocratic Proposal. UK RECs may be open to approving studies if these can be addressed. Existing governance processes will do some of this work, but additional REC guidance, particularly in relation to donors securing a place on the trial, may be necessary to help RECs navigate ethical concerns consistently.