Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 10/2022

30.07.2022 | Editorial

Introduction to the special section "Reducing research waste in (health-related) quality of life research"

verfasst von: Claudia Rutherford, Jan R. Boehnke

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 10/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Excerpt

In 2021, we issued a call for papers on reducing (health-related) quality of life ((HR)QL) research waste and optimizing patient-reported outcome (PRO)/(HR)QL data. As identified by Chalmers and Glasziou [1], research waste refers to avoidable inappropriate conduct and dissemination of research. It has multiple contributing factors and is likely a spectrum of impact rather than a dichotomous categorization (e.g., a question of how much of a given study could be considered research waste). In particular, Chalmers and Glasziou highlighted "the choice of research questions; the quality of research design and methods; the adequacy of publication practices; and the quality of reports of research" [2] as focal areas where decisions and actions of stakeholders in the research process could have negative impact. …
Nächster Artikel Reducing research wastage by starting off on the right foot: optimally framing the research question

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
1.
Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2018). Research waste is still a scandal—An essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ, 363, k4645.CrossRef
2.
Chalmers, I., & Glasziou, P. (2009). Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. The Lancet, 374(9683), 86–89.CrossRef
3.
Cruz Rivera, S., McMullan, C., Jones, L., Kyte, D., Slade, A., & Calvert, M. (2020). The impact of patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials: Perspectives from international stakeholders. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes., 4(1), 51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Mercieca-Bebber, R., Friedlander, M., Calvert, M., Stockler, M., Kyte, D., Kok, P.-S., et al. (2017). A systematic evaluation of compliance and reporting of patient-reported outcome endpoints in ovarian cancer randomised controlled trials: Implications for generalisability and clinical practice. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 1(1), 5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Haywood, K., Lyddiatt, A., Brace-McDonnell, S. J., Staniszewska, S., & Salek, S. (2017). Establishing the values for patient engagement (PE) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) research: An international, multiple-stakeholder perspective. Quality of Life Research, 26(6), 1393–1404.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rouette, J., Calvert, M., King, M. T., McLeod, L., Holch, P., et al. (2017). Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Quality of Life Research, 26(6), 1427–1437.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Haywood, K. L., Brett, J., Tutton, E., & Staniszewska, S. (2017). Patient-reported outcome measures in older people with hip fracture: A systematic review of quality and acceptability. Quality of Life Research, 26(4), 799–812.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Calvert, M., King, M., & Brundage, M. (2018). Minimising research waste and maximising the impact of patient reported outcome trial results. Quality of Life Research, 27, S3.
9.
Macleod, M. R., Michie, S., Roberts, I., Dirnagl, U., Chalmers, I., Ioannidis, J. P., et al. (2014). Biomedical research: Increasing value, reducing waste. The Lancet, 383(9912), 101–104.CrossRef
10.
Glasziou, P., Altman, D. G., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Clarke, M., Julious, S., et al. (2014). Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. The Lancet, 383(9913), 267–276.CrossRef
11.
12.
Ioannidis, J. P., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., et al. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet, 383(9912), 166–175.CrossRef
13.
Kyte, D., Duffy, H., Fletcher, B., Gheorghe, A., Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M., et al. (2014). Systematic evaluation of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of clinical trial protocols. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e110229.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Kyte, D., Retzer, A., Ahmed, K., Keeley, T., Armes, J., Brown, J. M., et al. (2019). Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in cancer trials. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 111(11), 1170–1178.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Mercieca-Bebber, R., Friedlander, M., Kok, P. S., Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Stockler, M., et al. (2016). The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols. Quality of Life Research, 25(10), 2457–2465.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Calvert, M., King, M., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Aiyegbusi, O., Kyte, D., Slade, A., et al. (2021). SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials. British Medical Journal Open, 11(6), e045105.
17.
Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Slade, A., Chan, A. W., King, M. T., et al. (2018). Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA, 319(5), 483–494.PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
20.
Calvert, M., Blazeby, J., Altman, D. G., Revicki, D. A., Moher, D., & Brundage, M. D. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA, 309(8), 814–822.PubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
Mercieca-Bebber, R., Friedlander, M., Calvert, M., Stockler, M., Kyte, D., Kok, P. S., et al. (2017). A systematic evaluation of compliance and reporting of patient-reported outcome endpoints in ovarian cancer randomised controlled trials: Implications for generalisability and clinical practice. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 1(1), 5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Mercieca-Bebber, R. L., Perreca, A., King, M., Macann, A., Whale, K., Soldati, S., et al. (2016). Patient-reported outcomes in head and neck and thyroid cancer randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of completeness of reporting and impact on interpretation. European Journal of Cancer, 56, 144–161.PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
26.
Chan, A. W., Song, F., Vickers, A., Jefferson, T., Dickersin, K., Gøtzsche, P. C., et al. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste: Addressing inaccessible research. The Lancet, 383(9913), 257–266.CrossRef
27.
Rutherford, C., Müller, F., Faiz, N., King, M. T., & White, K. (2020). Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the perspective of colorectal cancer survivors: Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. J Patient Reported Outcomes, 4(1), 27.CrossRef
28.
Rutherford, C., Patel, M. I., Tait, M. A., Smith, D. P., Costa, D. S. J., Sengupta, S., et al. (2021). Patient-reported outcomes in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: A mixed-methods systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 30(2), 345–366.PubMedCrossRef
29.
King, M. T., Winters, Z. E., Olivotto, I. A., Spillane, A. J., Chua, B. H., Saunders, C., et al. (2017). Patient-reported outcomes in ductal carcinoma in situ: A systematic review. European Journal of Cancer, 71, 95–108.PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Al-Shahi Salman, R., Beller, E., Kagan, J., Hemminki, E., Phillips, R. S., Savulescu, J., et al. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet, 383(9912), 176–185.PubMedCrossRef
35.
36.
Chalmers, I., Bracken, M. B., Djulbegovic, B., Garattini, S., Grant, J., Gülmezoglu, A. M., et al. (2014). How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet, 383(9912), 156–165.PubMedCrossRef
37.
38.
Costa, D. S. J., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rutherford, C., Tait, M.-A., & King, M. T. (2021). How is quality of life defined and assessed in published research? Quality of Life Research, 30(8), 2109–2121.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Skevington, S. M., & Böhnke, J. R. (2018). How is subjective well-being related to quality of life? Do we need two concepts and both measures? Social Science & Medicine, 206, 22–30.CrossRef
40.
Haraldstad, K., Wahl, A., Andenæs, R., Andersen, J. R., Andersen, M. H., Beisland, E., et al. (2019). A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences. Quality of Life Research, 28(10), 2641–2650.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
42.
Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA, 273(1), 59–65.PubMedCrossRef
43.
44.
Hays, R. D., & Fayers, P. M. (2021). Overlap of depressive symptoms with health-related quality-of-life measures. PharmacoEconomics, 39(6), 627–630.PubMedCrossRef
45.
van Zyl, L. E., & Rothmann, S. (2022). Grand challenges for positive psychology: Future perspectives and opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–8.
46.
Marsh, H. W. (1994). Sport motivation orientations: Beware of jingle-jangle fallacies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(4), 365–380.CrossRef
47.
Minogue, V., Cooke, M., Donskoy, A.-L., Vicary, P., & Wells, B. (2018). Patient and public involvement in reducing health and care research waste. Research Involvement and Engagement, 4(1), 5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Mercieca-Bebber, R., Palmer, M. J., Brundage, M., Calvert, M., Stockler, M. R., & King, M. T. (2016). Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: A systematic review. British Medical Journal Open, 6(6), e010938.
49.
Bell, M. L., & Fairclough, D. L. (2014). Practical and statistical issues in missing data for longitudinal patient-reported outcomes. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 23(5), 440–459.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Molenberghs, G., Fitzmaurice, G., Kenward, M. G., Tsiatis, A., & Verbeke, G. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of missing data methodology (1st ed.). Chapman and Hall CRC.
51.
van Buuren, S. (2018). Flexible imputation of missing data. Chapman and Hall/CRC.CrossRef
52.
Boehnke, J. R., & Rutherford, C. (2020). Registered Reports at “Quality of life research.” Quality of Life Research, 29(10), 2605–2607.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Coens, C., Pe, M., Dueck, A. C., Sloan, J., Basch, E., Calvert, M., et al. (2020). International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: Recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium. The Lancet Oncology, 21(2), e83–e96.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Qian, Y., Walters, S. J., Jacques, R., & Flight, L. (2021). Comprehensive review of statistical methods for analysing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used as primary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published by the UK’s Health Technology Assessment (HTA) journal (1997–2020). British Medical Journal Open, 11(9), e051673.
55.
Arnold, K. F., Harrison, W. J., Heppenstall, A. J., & Gilthorpe, M. S. (2018). DAG-informed regression modelling, agent-based modelling and microsimulation modelling: A critical comparison of methods for causal inference. International Journal of Epidemiology., 48(1), 243–253.PubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: Concepts and analytical approaches. Annual Review of Public Health., 21(1), 121–145.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Rubin, D. B. (2010). On the limitations of comparative effectiveness research. Statistics in Medicine, 29(19), 1991–1995.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeford University Press.CrossRef
59.
60.
Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M. T., Calvert, M. J., Stockler, M. R., & Friedlander, M. (2018). The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 9, 353–367.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Luckett, T., & King, M. T. (2010). Choosing patient-reported outcome measures for cancer clinical research–practical principles and an algorithm to assist non-specialist researchers. European Journal of Cancer, 46(18), 3149–3157.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Snyder, C. F., Watson, M. E., Jackson, J. D., Cella, D., & Halyard, M. Y. (2007). Patient-reported outcome instrument selection: Designing a measurement strategy. Value Health., 10(Suppl 2), S76-85.PubMedCrossRef
65.
66.
67.
Fang, F. C., Bowen, A., & Casadevall, A. (2016). NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. eLife, 5, e13323.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A. O. (2021). A billion-dollar donation: Estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review., 6(1), 14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
69.
70.
Ashuntantang, G., Luyckx, V., Naicker, S., & Venkatapuram, S. (2021). Reform of research funding processes could pave the way for progress in global health. The Lancet Global Health., 9(8), e1053–e1054.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Bekele, A., Chu, K., D’Ambruoso, L., Davies, J. I., Ferriolli, E., Greig, C., et al. (2022). Global health research funding applications: Brain drain under another name? The Lancet Global Health., 10(1), e22–e23.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Olusanya, J. O., Ubogu, O. I., Njokanma, F. O., & Olusanya, B. O. (2021). Transforming global health through equity-driven funding. Nature Medicine, 27(7), 1136–1138.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Rutherford, C., & Böhnke J.R. (2022). Introduction to the Special Section Reducing Research Waste in (Health-Related) Quality of Life Research. Retrieved from psyarxiv.com/879xp
Metadaten
Titel
Introduction to the special section "Reducing research waste in (health-related) quality of life research"
verfasst von
Claudia Rutherford
Jan R. Boehnke
Publikationsdatum
30.07.2022
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 10/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03194-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2022

Quality of Life Research 10/2022 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Longitudinal associations between perception of future time and subjective well-being among middle-aged and older people in China: the moderating roles of individual health and socioeconomic status

Correction

Correction to: Time trade‑off with someone to live for: impact of having significant others on time trade‑off valuations of hypothetical health states

OriginalPaper

“A fog that impacts everything”: a qualitative study of health-related quality of life in people living with HIV who have cognitive impairment

Special Section: Reducing Research Waste in (Health-Related) Quality of Life Research

Challenges and opportunities for using population health data to investigate cancer survivors’ quality of life in Australia

Special Section: Reducing Research Waste in (Health-Related) Quality of Life Research

Reducing waste in collection of quality-of-life data through better reporting: a case study

Correction

Correction: The effect of cognitive behavioral therapy on the quality of life of breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise