Science Shops as key intermediary structures to respond to the current health research agenda bias: Evidence from the InSPIRES project.

INTRODUCTION: To increase the likelihood of research responding to societal needs, intermediary structures such as Science Shops are being created. Science Shops respond to research needs identified and prioritized through participatory processes involving civil society. However, these are not mainstream structures, and most research needs addressed by the scientific community are not defined by a diversity of stakeholders (including citizens) but are mostly prioritized by researchers and funders. Literature shows this often leads to bias between the research topics investigated and the research needs of other relevant stakeholders. This study analyses how 14 Science Shops contribute to decreasing bias in health research agenda setting. METHODOLOGY: We compare the research priorities identified through participatory processes by the Science Shops, which participated in the European Union-funded project InSPIRES (2017-2021), to the available research addressed in the literature (identified in Web of Science), which we use as a proxy for current research priorities. RESULTS: Science Shop projects contributed to decreasing the existing bias in health research agenda setting: (1) between drug and nondrug treatments and (2) between clinical trials of treatments for illnesses affecting high-income versus middle- and low-income countries, which leads to a lack of local strategies for high disease burdens in nonhigh-income regions. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first evidence of Science Shops' effectiveness in addressing current biases in health research agenda setting. We conclude they could play a key role in shaping local, national and international research policies.

Generational differences in international research collaboration: A bibliometric study of Norwegian University staff.

This paper addresses the relationship between age and international research collaboration. The main research question is: do younger researchers collaborate more internationally than their senior colleagues? A common assumption is that younger generations are generally more internationally oriented than older generations. On the other hand, senior researchers may have larger international networks compared to younger colleagues. The study is based on data for 5,600 Norwegian researchers and their publication output during a three-year period (44,000 publications). Two indicators for international collaboration are used: The share of researchers involved in international collaboration measured by co-authorship and the average proportion of publications with international collaboration per researcher. These indicators reflect two different dimensions of international collaboration. Although the findings are not consistent across age cohorts and indicators of internationalization, the overall trend is that international collaboration tends to decline with increasing age. This holds both at aggregate levels and within groups of academic positions. However, the generational differences are not very large, and other variables such as the field of research explain more of the differences observed at an individual level.

[Citation analysis of research articles from Norwegian health enterprises, 2005-2011]. / Siteringsanalyse av vitenskapelige artikler fra norske helseforetak 2005-11.

BACKGROUND: The citation frequency of a publication is often interpreted as an expression of its scientific impact. Previous citation analyses of Norwegian medical research have either focused on universities and university hospitals or on subject areas at the national level. Such analyses have paid little attention to other health enterprises, despite a strong increase in their research activity during the last decade. MATERIAL AND METHOD: For all health enterprises with more than 25 publications in the Web of Science during the period 2005-2011 we have calculated field normalized citation indexes at the institution and subject levels. RESULTS: On the whole, research undertaken by the health enterprises is frequently cited, and some medium-sized health enterprises stand out in terms of their high average citation indexes: Helse Stavanger Health Enterprise, Diakonhjemmet Hospital and Helse Nord-Trøndelag Health Enterprise, although Oslo University Hospital Health Enterprise and Helse Bergen Health Enterprise account for more than half of the most cited articles. INTERPRETATION: In citation analyses at the aggregated level, highly and infrequently cited research groups/departments may balance each other. This appears to be the case in the largest health enterprises. Some medium-sized health enterprises that have a more concentrated research portfolio will thus accumulate higher average citation indexes than the largest university hospitals.

A comparison of self reported air pollution problems and GIS-modeled levels of air pollution in people with and without chronic diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To explore various contributors to people's reporting of self reported air pollution problems in area of living, including GIS-modeled air pollution, and to investigate whether those with respiratory or other chronic diseases tend to over-report air pollution problems, compared to healthy people. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from the Oslo Health Study (2000-2001) were linked with GIS-modeled air pollution data from the Norwegian Institute of Air Research. Multivariate regression analyses were performed. 14 294 persons aged 30, 40, 45, 60 or 75 years old with complete information on modeled and self reported air pollution were included. RESULTS: People who reported air pollution problems were exposed to significantly higher GIS-modeled air pollution levels than those who did not report such problems. People with chronic disease, reported significantly more air pollution problems after adjustment for modeled levels of nitrogen dioxides, socio-demographic variables, smoking, depression, dwelling conditions and an area deprivation index, even if they had a non-respiratory disease. No diseases, however, were significantly associated with levels of nitrogen dioxides. CONCLUSION: Self reported air pollution problems in area of living are strongly associated with increased levels of GIS-modeled air pollution. Over and above this, those who report to have a chronic disease tend to report more air pollution problems in area of living, despite no significant difference in air pollution exposure compared to healthy people, and no associations between these diseases and NO2. Studies on the association between self reported air pollution problems and health should be aware of the possibility that disease itself may influence the reporting of air pollution.

Area deprivation and its association with health in a cross-sectional study: are the results biased by recent migration?

BACKGROUND: The association between area deprivation and health has mostly been examined in cross-sectional studies or prospective studies with short follow-up. These studies have rarely taken migration into account. This is a possible source of misclassification of exposure, i.e. an unknown number of study participants are attributed an exposure of area deprivation that they may have experienced too short for it to have any influence. The aim of this article was to examine to what extent associations between area deprivation and health outcomes were biased by recent migration. METHODS: Based on data from the Oslo Health Study, a cross-sectional study conducted in 2000 in Oslo, Norway, we used six health outcomes (self rated health, mental health, coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking and exercise) and considered migration nine years prior to the study conduct. Migration into Oslo, between the areas of Oslo, and the changes in area deprivation during the period were taken into account. Associations were investigated by multilevel logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: After adjustment for individual socio-demographic variables we found significant associations between area deprivation and all health outcomes. Accounting for migration into Oslo and between areas of Oslo did not change these associations much. However, the people who migrated into Oslo were younger and had lower prevalences of unfavourable health outcomes than those who were already living in Oslo. But since they were evenly distributed across the area deprivation quintiles, they had little influence on the associations between area deprivation and health. Evidence of selective migration within Oslo was weak, as both moving up and down in the deprivation hierarchy was associated with significantly worse health than not moving. CONCLUSION: We have documented significant associations between area deprivation and health outcomes in Oslo after adjustment for socio-demographic variables in a cross-sectional study. These associations were weakly biased by recent migration. From our results it still appears that migration prior to study conduct may be relevant to investigate even within a relatively short period of time, whereas changes in area deprivation during such a period is of limited interest.