Phillips AC, Lewis LK, McEvoy MP, Galipeau J, Glasziou P, Hammick M, Moher D, Tilson J, Williams MT. Protocol for development of the guideline for reporting evidence based practice educational interventions and teaching (GREET) statement. BMC Medical Education 2013, 13:9 doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-9ABSTRACT
Background: There are an increasing number of studies reporting the efficacy of educational strategies to facilitate the development of knowledge and skills underpinning evidence based practice (EBP). To date there is no standardised guideline for describing the teaching, evaluation, context or content of EBP educational strategies. The heterogeneity in the reporting of EBP educational interventions makes comparisons between studies difficult. The aim of this program of research is to develop the Guideline for Reporting EBP Educational interventions and Teaching (GREET) statement and an accompanying explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper.
Methods: Three stages are planned for the development process. Stage one will comprise a systematic review to identify features commonly reported in descriptions of EBP educational interventions. In stage two, corresponding authors of articles included in the systematic review and the editors of the journals in which these studies were published will be invited to participate in a Delphi process to reach consensus on items to be considered when reporting EBP educational interventions. The final stage of the project will include the development and pilot testing of the GREET statement and E&E paper.
Outcome: The final outcome will be the creation of a Guideline for Reporting EBP Educational interventions and Teaching (GREET) statement and E&E paper.Discussion: The reporting of health research including EBP educational research interventions, have been criticised for a lack of transparency and completeness. The development of the GREET statement will enable the standardised reporting of EBP educational research. This will provide a guide for researchers, reviewers and publishers for reporting EBP educational interventions.
Hofmann B, Myhr AI, Holm S. Scientific dishonesty—a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway. BMC Medical Ethics 2013, 14:3 doi:10.1186/1472-6939-14-3
Background: The knowledge of scientific dishonesty is scarce and heterogeneous. Therefore this study investigates the experiences with and the attitudes towards various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD-students at the medical faculties of all Norwegian universities.
Method: Anonymous questionnaire distributed to all post graduate students attending introductory PhD-courses at all medical faculties in Norway in 2010/2011. Descriptive statistics.Results: 189 of 262 questionnaires were returned (72.1%). 65% of the respondents had not, during the last year, heard or read about researchers who committed scientific dishonesty. One respondent had experienced pressure to fabricate and to falsify data, and one had experienced pressure to plagiarize data. On average 60% of the respondents were uncertain whether their department had a written policy concerning scientific conduct. About 11% of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure concerning the order of authors during the last 12 months. 10% did not find it inappropriate to report experimental data without having conducted the experiment and 38% did not find it inappropriate to try a variety of different methods of analysis to find a statistically significant result. 13% agreed that it is acceptable to selectively omit contradictory results to expedite publication and 10% found it acceptable to falsify or fabricate data to expedite publication, if they were confident of their findings. 79% agreed that they would be willing to report misconduct to a responsible official.
Conclusion: Although there is less scientific dishonesty reported in Norway than in other countries, dishonesty is not unknown to doctoral students. Some forms of scientific misconduct are considered to be acceptable by a significant minority. There was little awareness of relevant policies for scientific conduct, but a high level of willingness to report misconduct.
Charity M, French SD, Forsdike K, Britt H, Polus B, Gunn J. Extending ICPC-2 PLUS terminology to develop a classification system specific for the study of chiropractic encounters. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2013, 21:4 doi:10.1186/2045-709X-21-4ABSTRACT
Background: Typically a large amount of information is collected during healthcare research and this information needs to be organised in a way that will make it manageable and to facilitate clear reporting. The Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (COAST) was a cross sectional observational study that described the clinical practices of chiropractors in Victoria, Australia. To code chiropractic encounters COAST used the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2) with the PLUS general practice clinical terminology to code chiropractic encounters. This paper describes the process by which a chiropractic-profession specific terminology was developed for use in research by expanding the current ICPC-2 PLUS system.Methods: The coder referred to the ICPC-2 PLUS system when coding chiropractor recorded encounter details (reasons for encounter, diagnoses/problems and processes of care). The coder used rules and conventions supplied by the Family Medicine Research Unit at the University of Sydney, the developers of the PLUS system. New chiropractic specific terms and codes were created when a relevant term was not available in ICPC-2 PLUS.
Results: Information was collected from 52 chiropractors who documented 4,464 chiropractor-patient encounters. During the study, 6,225 reasons for encounter and 6,491 diagnoses/problems were documented, coded and analysed; 169 new chiropractic specific terms were added to the ICPC-2 PLUS terminology list. Most new terms were allocated to diagnoses/problems, with reasons for encounter generally well covered in the original ICPC 2 PLUS terminology: 3,074 of the 6,491 (47%) diagnoses/problems and 274 of the 6,225 (4%) reasons for encounter recorded during encounters were coded to a new term. Twenty nine new terms (17%) represented chiropractic processes of care.Conclusion: While existing ICPC-2 PLUS terminology could not fully represent chiropractic practice, adding terms specific to chiropractic enabled coding of a large number of chiropractic encounters at the desired level. Further, the new system attempted to record the diversity among chiropractic encounters while enabling generalisation for reporting where required. COAST is ongoing, and as such, any further encounters received from chiropractors will enable addition and refinement of ICPC-2 PLUS (Chiro). More research is needed into the diagnosis/problem descriptions used by chiropractors.