LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 3 of total 3

Search options

  1. Article ; Online: Reporting of conflicts of interest by authors of primary studies on health policy and systems research

    Gordon Guyatt / Arnav Agarwal / Elie A Akl / Assem M Khamis / Maram B Hakoum / Lama Bou-Karroum / Mounir Al-Gibbawi / Abdul Sattar Raslan / Sanaa Badour / Fadel Alturki / Fadi El-Jardali

    BMJ Open, Vol 10, Iss

    a cross-sectional survey

    2020  Volume 7

    Abstract: Objectives The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and types of conflict of interest (COI) disclosed by authors of primary studies of health policy and systems research (HPSR).Design We conducted a cross-sectional survey using standard ... ...

    Abstract Objectives The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and types of conflict of interest (COI) disclosed by authors of primary studies of health policy and systems research (HPSR).Design We conducted a cross-sectional survey using standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data extraction. We conducted descriptive analyses.Setting We collected data from papers published in 2016 in ‘health policy and service journals’ category in Web of Science database.Participants We included primary studies (eg, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, qualitative studies) of HPSR published in English in 2016 peer-reviewed health policy and services journals.Outcome measures Reported COI disclosures including whether authors reported COI or not, form in which COI disclosures were provided, number of authors per paper who report any type of COI, number of authors per paper who report specific types and subtypes of COI.Results We included 200 eligible primary studies of which 132 (66%) included COI disclosure statements of authors. Of the 132 studies, 19 (14%) had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI and the most frequently reported type was individual financial COI (n=15, 11%). None of the authors reported individual intellectual COIs or personal COIs. Financial and individual COIs were reported more frequently compared with non-financial and institutional COIs.Conclusion A low percentage of HPSR primary studies included authors reporting COI. Non-financial or institutional COIs were the least reported types of COI.
    Keywords Medicine ; R
    Subject code 001
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-07-01T00:00:00Z
    Publisher BMJ Publishing Group
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    Full text online

    More links

    Kategorien

    Inter-library loan at ZB MED

    Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

  2. Article ; Online: The reporting of funding in health policy and systems research

    Assem M. Khamis / Lama Bou-Karroum / Maram B. Hakoum / Mounir Al-Gibbawi / Joseph R. Habib / Fadi El-Jardali / Elie A. Akl

    Health Research Policy and Systems, Vol 16, Iss 1, Pp 1-

    a cross-sectional study

    2018  Volume 8

    Abstract: Abstract Background Major research-reporting statements, such as PRISMA and CONSORT, require authors to provide information about funding. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the reporting of funding in health policy and systems research ( ... ...

    Abstract Abstract Background Major research-reporting statements, such as PRISMA and CONSORT, require authors to provide information about funding. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the reporting of funding in health policy and systems research (HPSR) papers and (2) to assess the funding reporting policies of journals publishing on HPSR. Methods We conducted two cross-sectional surveys for papers published in 2016 addressing HPSR (both primary studies and systematic reviews) and for journals publishing on HPSR (both journals under the ‘Health Policy and Services’ (HPS) category in the Web of Science, and non-HPS journals that published on HPSR). Teams of two reviewers selected studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We conducted descriptive analyses and a regression analysis to investigate the association between reporting of funding by papers and the journal’s characteristics. Results We included 400 studies (200 systematic reviews and 200 primary studies) that were published in 198 journals. Approximately one-third (31%) of HPSR papers did not report on funding. Of those that did, only 11% reported on the role of funders (15% of systematic reviews and 7% of primary studies). Of the 198 journals publishing on HPSR, 89% required reporting of the source of funding. Of those that did, about one-third (34%) required reporting of the role of funders. Journals classified under the HPS category (n = 72) were less likely than non-HPS journals that published HPSR studies (n = 142) to require information on the role of funders (15% vs. 32%). We did not find any of the journals’ characteristics to be associated with the reporting of funding by papers. Conclusions Despite the majority of journals publishing on HPSR requiring the reporting of funding, approximately one-third of HPSR papers did not report on the funding source. Moreover, few journals publishing on HPSR required the reporting of the role of funders, and few HPSR papers reported on that role.
    Keywords Funding ; Systematic review ; Health policy ; Health systems ; Public aspects of medicine ; RA1-1270
    Subject code 333
    Language English
    Publishing date 2018-08-01T00:00:00Z
    Publisher BMC
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    Full text online

    More links

    Kategorien

    Inter-library loan at ZB MED

    Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

  3. Article ; Online: Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research

    Lama Bou-Karroum / Maram B. Hakoum / Mira Z. Hammoud / Assem M. Khamis / Mounir Al-Gibbawi / Sanaa Badour / Divina Justina Hasbani / Luciane Cruz Lopes / Hebah M. El-Rayess / Fadi El-Jardali / Gordon Guyatt / Elie A. Akl

    International Journal of Health Policy and Management, Vol 7, Iss 8, Pp 711-

    A Cross Sectional Survey

    2018  Volume 717

    Abstract: Background Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public ... ...

    Abstract Background Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report. Methods We conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses. Results Eighty percent of systematic reviews included authors’ COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document. Conclusion A fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.
    Keywords Conflict of Interest ; Systematic Review ; Health Policy ; Health Systems ; Public aspects of medicine ; RA1-1270
    Subject code 360
    Language English
    Publishing date 2018-08-01T00:00:00Z
    Publisher Kerman University of Medical Sciences
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    Full text online

    More links

    Kategorien

    Inter-library loan at ZB MED

    Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

To top