Bias in research

The aim of this article is to outline types of ‘bias’ across research designs, and consider strategies to minimise bias. Evidence-based nursing, defined as the “process by which evidence, nursing theory, and clinical expertise are critically evaluated and considered, in conjunction with patient involvement, to provide the delivery of optimum nursing care,”1 is central to the continued development of the nursing professional. Implementing evidence into practice requires nurses to critically evaluate research, in particular assessing the rigour in which methods were undertaken and factors that may have biased findings.

Biomarkers in nutrition: new frontiers in research and application

Nutritional biomarkers-biochemical, functional, or clinical indices of nutrient intake, status, or functional effects--are needed to support evidence-based clinical guidance and effective health programs and policies related to food, nutrition, and health. Such indices can reveal information about biological or physiological responses to dietary behavior or pathogenic processes, and can be used to monitor responses to therapeutic interventions and to provide information on interindividual differences in response to diet and nutrition. Many nutritional biomarkers are available; yet there has been no formal mechanism to establish consensus regarding the optimal biomarkers for particular nutrients and applications.

State of the art in research into the risk of low dose radiation exposure-findings of the fourth MELODI workshop

The fourth workshop of the Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (MELODI) was organised by STUK-Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland. It took place from 12 to 14 September 2012 in Helsinki, Finland. The meeting was attended by 179 scientists and professionals engaged in radiation research and radiation protection. We summarise the major scientific findings of the workshop and the recommendations for updating the MELODI Strategic Research Agenda and Road Map for future low dose research activities.

Rewarding Merit in Judicial Appointments?: A research project undertaken by the School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast for the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission

This research involved carrying out an online survey using a number of vignettes/scenarios to explore understandings and attitudes to judicial appointments. This sort of survey is relatively novel in this context and provided a useful way of understanding how a range of factors such as merit and seniority, career paths and connections, as well as gender and visibility, are perceived as operating within the appointments system. The research also involved a series of focus group interviews with a number of individuals with various professional backgrounds and at different levels of seniority. These, and a limited number of individual interviews, afforded an opportunity to explore more closely some of the themes arising from the scenarios as well as a chance to look in some depth at some of the views and concerns of a range of members of the legal professions.

Building upon the previous research project, this work was less concerned with revisiting earlier themes and more interested in exploring how the idea of “merit” as a governing factor in judicial appointment is seen as working in practice, and whether it is perceived as being most likely to be found within particular career profiles. We also investigated issues such as the possible development of formal and informal pathways to a judicial career and practical problems such as how an applicant might become known to the senior judiciary, and the importance of this. Overall our interest was primarily in developing an understanding of how gender is perceived to operate in the appointments process and how any barriers to recruiting women, particularly to the senior judiciary, could be further broken down.

Identifying research priorities on infections in older adults:Proceedings of an interdisciplinary workshop

Background: Infections pose a substantial burden to the health of older adults. In this report, we describe the proceedings of a workshop to formulate and prioritize research questions about infections in older adults using an interdisciplinary approach. Methods: Researchers from four sectors (basic science, clinical sciences, health services and epidemiology/determinants of health) and representatives from various Canadian local, provincial, and federal stakeholder groups were invited to a two-day workshop. Five multi-disciplinary groups and stakeholders from each of three healthcare settings (long term, acute care and community) discussed research priorities for each of the settings. Five to ten research questions were identified for each setting. Results: The research questions proposed ranged from risk factors and outcomes for different infections to the effect of nutrition on infection and the role of alternative and complementary medicine in treating infections. Health service issues included barriers to immunization, prolongation of hospital length of stay by infection, use of care paths for managing infections, and decision-making in determining the site of care for individuals with infections. Clinical questions included risk factor assessment for infection, the effectiveness of preventative strategies, and technology evaluation. Epidemiologic issues included the challenge of achieving a better understanding of respiratory infections in the community and determining the prevalence of colonization with multi-resistant bacteria. Conclusions: The questions are of direct relevance to researchers in a wide variety of fields. Bringing together a multi-disciplinary group of researchers to frame and prioritize research questions about aging is feasible, participants valued the opinions of people working in other areas.

Finding Your Feet in the Field: Critical Reflections of Early Career Researchers on Field Research in Transitional Societies

Fieldwork that takes place in conflict or transitional regions is becoming increasingly popular amongst early-career and more seasoned researchers, but is an area that retains an air of mystery and remains an exotic form of knowledge gathering. There exists a paucity of personal reflection on the challenges associated with conducting fieldwork in conflicted or transitional regions and a limited amount of insight into the practical steps taken in advance of and when immersed in the field. Such reticence to share honest fieldwork experiences, particularly the more challenging research that takes place in conflict or transitional settings aids in creating a culture of silence. This paper attempts to counteract this silence by drawing on the challenges experienced by two early career researchers conducting fieldwork in Uganda and Palestine, focusing on the practical steps taken in advance of entering the field, and the challenges faced whilst engaged in fieldwork. Specific challenges are highlighted throughout, including: physical access to areas in conflict; engaging with reluctant research participants; the emotional impact of fieldwork on the researcher; maintaining confidentiality; researching with vulnerable victims; and ensuring appropriate knowledge exchange between researchers and participants. The paper concludes by emphasising the requirement for greater reflection on the inherently personal challenges associated with conducting fieldwork in conflicted or transitional settings and highlights the view that fieldwork is a privileged position that carries great responsibilities which must be upheld to ensure the sustainability of future research. This paper hopes to contribute to the wider debate on conducting fieldwork and the challenges associated with working in conflicted or transitional regions.

An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER. Copyright © 2013 by the American Thoracic Society.