Naheed Ali, MD, PhD
The veracity of social publications that are based on scientific work (such as professional journals, internet postings or press releases) is not well recognized. Inconsistencies between peer-reviewed scientific publications on health services research (HSR) and non-scientific societal publications are examined in this study, as well as the replication of inadequate reporting from these scientific papers to similar society articles.
Thirteen Dutch HSR institutions contributed to 116 publications in 2016, from which a sample of HSR papers was selected. A methodical internet search was used to find societal publications that correspond to scientific papers. In order to evaluate reporting deficiencies and identify contradictions, we conducted a qualitative, focused content analysis on social publications derived from the scientific papers. For all variables, descriptive frequencies were calculated. We tested the hypothesis that the presence of the first scientific writer reduced the likelihood of contradictions in societal writings.
Forty-three scientific and 156 sociocultural publications were found. Thirty-two scientific papers (74.4%) and 94 social publications (60.3%) both had messages that weren't consistent with the research. In 22 scientific articles, or 51.2%, we discovered inadequate reporting. We discovered replications of similar reporting deficiencies in 45 social papers (28.9%). When societal publications explicitly included the first scientific writer (OR = 1.44, CI: 0.76- 2.74), were posted on the website of the institute or funder (OR = 1.32, CI: 0.57-3.06), or were published without the participation of a scientific writer (OR = 0.52, CI: 0.25-1.07), the likelihood of inconsistencies between scientific and societal publications did not differ.
Scientific research papers are a crucial source of knowledge and a channel for the communication of research in academia [1]. However, outside of the research community, the majority of people learn about research findings from non-scientific, societal sources such as newspapers, trade journals, internet postings, press releases or social media [2-4]. The variety of social publications influences patients, medical practitioners, and legislators in addition to the general public's thinking, discussions, and decisions [4-6]. In order to reach wider, frequently non-academic audiences, researchers who publish a scholarly publication are increasingly encouraged to translate their findings into a related social publication [7].
The authors of societal articles must condense scientific arguments and conclusions for their lay audience [8] Although this can be done responsibly, there is a chance that the research findings will be misrepresented and interpreted [9]. Previous research on biomedical publications found that 40% of news pieces give readers more explicit health advice than was provided in the underlying scientific paper, and 20% to 33% of press releases contain unsupported causal assertions [10-14].
Less is known regarding potential evidence falsification or misinterpretation in societal publishing in health services research (HSR). HSR seeks to offer relevant data that can be used to control health and medical policies [5]. The significance of accuracy in all communications and conclusions communicated in societal publications is amplified by this practice-oriented goal [15].
Beyond their scientific contribution, researchers are frequently expected to have a positive social impact. Funders of HSR are requesting more and more initiatives that will have an influence on society. Impact measurement techniques are being created and improved [16–18]. However, it's possible that researchers lack the knowledge or skills necessary to produce social papers that fairly represent their scientific findings [10, 19]. Previous studies have found no correlation between a researcher's involvement and better societal publications [10]. Researchers could struggle to communicate with media or struggle to communicate their findings clearly [19]. Additionally, colleagues who spend a lot of time pursuing media attention may be viewed negatively by their peers, who may therefore be dissuaded from making considerable attempts to write sociological writings [20].
In scientific papers, messages and conclusions are all too frequently reported inadequately [21, 22]. A median of 6 out of 35 potential "questionable research procedures" were identified in the reporting of findings and messages in a prior analysis of peer reviewed HSR papers written in the Netherlands for an international academic audience [23]. These dubious research methods will be referred to as "reporting deficiencies" in the current study. They consist of conclusions that the research's findings do not adequately support, recommendations that are not supported, and limits that are not sufficiently explained [23]. The researcher attempts to prevent contradictions in a subsequent societal release because disclosing flaws in the initial work may easily reach a wider audience. When a scientific publication is utilized as the benchmark, reporting flaws are likely to be ‘replicated' or duplicated into social publications.
This study's objectives are to help one to ascertain:
For the HSR community, understanding ethical reporting in sociocultural publications and how researchers might achieve it is crucial given the potential influence of societal publications on policy and practice [24]. Currently, this understanding is insufficient [10, 14]. A wider understanding of the complete range of social publications from HSR, such as information sources like fact sheets, web pages, and newspapers, is required because prior studies in the field of biomedicine have primarily concentrated on press releases and newspapers.
Thirteen academic and non-academic HSR institutions in the Netherlands (a listing is provided in the acknowledgements section) participated in a partnership financed by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) in a number of research intended to encourage responsible reporting. The results of a prior study that pointed out inadequate reporting in scientific journals were built upon in the current study [23].
In this investigation, no patients or human subjects were included. The Amsterdam Medical Ethics Review Committee UMC granted a waiver of ethical review for this investigation.
We used a mixed-methods approach to look into gaps in study reporting and discrepancies between scientific and social publications. Prior to that, we performed a targeted qualitative content study of scientific HSR articles and relevant sociocultural publications that were followed by quantitative results.