Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 10/2022

21-03-2022 | Special Section: Reducing Research Waste in (Health-Related) Quality of Life Research

Reducing research wastage by starting off on the right foot: optimally framing the research question

Auteurs: Nancy E. Mayo, Nikki Ow, Miho Asano, Sorayya Askari, Ruth Barclay, Sabrina Figueiredo, Melanie Hawkins, Stanley Hum, Mehmet Inceer, Navaldeep Kaur, Ayse Kuspinar, Kedar K. V. Mate, Ana Maria Moga, Maryam Mozafarinia

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2022

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

Strongly framed research questions are clear as to the population (P), the exposures or interventions (E/I), comparison groups (C), outcomes (O), time when relevant (T), and what the investigator wants to know. A solid framework sets up the measurement model, analysis, and anticipated results. The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent to which research questions in journals that focused on patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and quality of life (QOL) are clear.

Methods

All 440 research articles published in four PROM journals in 2020. excluding reviews, psychometric, and qualitative papers, were reviewed. Research questions were classified as: (i) adequately framed (ii) poorly framed; or (iii) unframed based on clarity criteria. Examples from each journal were presented and reframed to match results in the article.

Results

Of 440 articles, 195 (44.3%) were classified as adequately framed; 230 (52.2%) as poorly framed; and 15 (3.4%) as unframed. There was heterogeneity across journals (Chi-square: 20.8; 6 df; p = 0.002). Only 29% were framed according to what the investigators wanted to know; 72% were framed like a “to do” list; and 6% were framed as a research agenda.

Conclusion

Almost half of the questions were poorly framed or unframed a practice that could contribute to research wastage. Even “adequately framed” questions rarely stated what they wanted to know a priori, increasing the risk of biased reporting. Researchers, reviewers, and editors should encourage the use established frameworks for research questions.
vorige artikel Introduction to the special section "Reducing research waste in (health-related) quality of life research"
volgende artikel Improving the patient-reported outcome sections of clinical trial protocols: a mixed methods evaluation of educational workshops
Literatuur
1.
Mayo, N. E., Asano, M., & Barbic, S. P. (2013). When is a research question not a research question? Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 45(6), 513–518.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Birch, D. W., Eady, A., Robertson, D., De Pauw, S., Tandan, V., Evidence-Based Surgery Working G. (2003). Users’ guide to the surgical literature: How to perform a literature search. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 46(2), 136–141.PubMedCentral
4.
Thabane, L., Thomas, T., Ye, C., & Paul, J. (2008). Posing the research question: Not so simple. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d’anesthésie, 56(1), 71.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club, 123(3), A12–A13.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice., 6(2), 6.CrossRef
7.
Sackett, D. L., & Wennberg, J. E. (1997). Choosing the best research design for each question. It’s time to stop squabbling over the “best” methods. BMJ, 315(7123), 1636.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Antonoff, M. B., Nguyen, S., Nguyen, T. C., & Odell, D. D. (2019). Conducting high-quality research in cardiothoracic surgical education: Recommendations from the Thoracic Education Cooperative Group. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 157(2), 820–7.e1.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Mattick, K., Johnston, J., & de la Croix, A. (2018). How to…write a good research question. The Clinical Teacher, 15(2), 104–108.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889–896.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Bailar, J. C., III., & Mosteller, F. (1992). Medical uses of statistics Massachusetts Medical Society (p. 146). Wiley.
12.
13.
Chalmers, I., & Glasziou, P. (2009). Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet, 374(9683), 86–89.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Medical Research Methodology., 18(1), 5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Barile, J. P., Binder, S. B., & Baker, C. K. (2020). Recovering after a natural disaster: Differences in quality of life across three communities after hurricane sandy. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(4), 1151–1159.CrossRef
16.
Wang, D., & Li, D. (2020). Social capital, policy fairness, and subjective life satisfaction of earthquake survivors in Wenchuan, China: A longitudinal study based on post-earthquake survey data. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 350.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Cohee, A., Storey, S., Winger, J. G., Cella, D., Stump, T., Monahan, P. O., et al. (2020). A cohort study of quality of life in partners of young breast cancer survivors compared to partners of healthy controls. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 4(1), 19.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Vyas, A., Kang, F., & Barbour, M. (2020). Association between polypharmacy and health-related quality of life among US adults with cardiometabolic risk factors. Quality of Life Research, 29(4), 977–986.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kivijärvi, A., Aaltonen, S., Forma, L., Partanen, J., Myllylä, M., & Rissanen, P. (2020). Quality of life among young Finnish adults not in employment or education. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(3), 757–774.CrossRef
20.
Andersen, J., Thomsen, J., Enes, Å. R., Sandberg, S., & Aarsand, A. K. (2020). Health-related quality of life in porphyria cutanea tarda: A cross-sectional registry based study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 84.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Oreel, T. H., Delespaul, P., Hartog, I. D., Henriques, J. P. S., Netjes, J. E., Vonk, A. B. A., et al. (2020). Ecological momentary assessment versus retrospective assessment for measuring change in health-related quality of life following cardiac intervention. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 4(1), 98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Nutakor, J. A., Dai, B., Gavu, A. K., & Antwi, O. A. (2020). Relationship between chronic diseases and sleep duration among older adults in Ghana. Quality of Life Research, 29(8), 2101–2110.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Ludwigs, K., Haese, P., Sivy, K., Weber, S., & Schrömgens, R. (2020). Trivago flowlab—a case study on how to improve employees’ well-being in a corporate environment. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(5), 1353–1374.CrossRef
24.
Sorbye, H., Meyer, L. S., Mordal, K. E., Myhre, S., & Thiis-Evensen, E. (2020). Patient reported symptoms, coping and quality of life during somatostatin analogue treatment for metastatic small- intestinal neuroendocrine tumours. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 188.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Jonsson, Å., Orwelius, L., Dahlstrom, U., & Kristenson, M. (2020). Evaluation of the usefulness of EQ-5D as a patient-reported outcome measure using the Paretian classification of health change among patients with chronic heart failure. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 4(1), 50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Wu, Y., Al-Janabi, H., Mallett, A., Quinlan, C., Scheffer, I. E., Howell, K. B., et al. (2020). Parental health spillover effects of paediatric rare genetic conditions. Quality of Life Research, 29(9), 2445–2454.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Garrido, D., Carballo, G., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2020). Siblings of children with autism spectrum disorders: Social support and family quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 29(5), 1193–1202.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Shan, X., Chen, Y., Liu, K., Zhang, S., Yu, J., Yin, J., et al. (2020). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with echinococcosis patients in Tibetan communities in Shiqu County, China: A case-control study. Quality of Life Research, 29(6), 1559–1565.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Sánchez-Ferrer, M. L., Adoamnei, E., Prieto-Sánchez, M. T., Mendiola, J., Corbalán-Biyang, S., Moñino-García, M., et al. (2020). Health-related quality of life in women with polycystic ovary syndrome attending to a tertiary hospital in Southeastern Spain: A case-control study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 232.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
Khalifa, N., Rahman, B., Gaintantzopoulou, M. D., Al-Amad, S., & Awad, M. M. (2020). Oral health status and oral health-related quality of life among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Arab Emirates: A matched case-control study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 182.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Chapman, S. J., Aldaffaa, M., Downey, C. L., & Jayne, D. G. (2019). Research waste in surgical randomized controlled trials. British Journal of Surgery, 106(11), 1464–1471.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Blencowe, N. S., Boddy, A. P., Harris, A., Hanna, T., Whiting, P., Cook, J. A., et al. (2015). Systematic review of intervention design and delivery in pragmatic and explanatory surgical randomized clinical trials. British Journal of Surgery, 102(9), 1037–1047.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Meneses-Echavez, J. F., Rodriguez-Prieto, I., Elkins, M., Martínez-Torres, J., Nguyen, L., & Bidonde, J. (2019). Analysis of reporting completeness in exercise cancer trials: A systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 220.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Johnson, A. L., Fladie, I., Anderson, J. M., Lewis, D. M., Mons, B. R., & Vassar, M. (2020). Rates of discontinuation and nonpublication of head and neck cancer randomized clinical trials. JAMA Otolaryngology. Head & Neck Surgery, 146(2), 176–182.CrossRef
35.
Scott, J., Cooper, C. M., Checketts, J. X., Cutler, J., Boose, M., Morris, J., et al. (2018). An observational analysis of discontinuation and non-publication of osteoarthritis trials. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 26(9), 1162–1169.PubMedCrossRef
36.
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. Lancet, 383(9912), 166–175.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Hennedige, O. (2014). Reducing waste in dental research. Indian Journal of Dental Research, 25(3), 277.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Harron, K., & Gilbert, R. (2014). Research: Increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet, 383(9923), 1124.PubMedCrossRef
39.
40.
41.
Chan, A. W., Song, F., Vickers, A., Jefferson, T., Dickersin, K., Gotzsche, P. C., et al. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste: Addressing inaccessible research. Lancet, 383(9913), 257–266.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Breznau, N., Rinke, E., Wuttke, A., Nguyen, H. H. V., Adem, M., Adriaans, J., et al. (2021). How many replicators does it take to achieve reliability? Investigating researcher variability in a crowdsourced replication. SocArXiv.
43.
Brady, D., & Finnigan, R. (2014). Does immigration undermine public support for social policy? American Sociological Review, 79(1), 17–42.CrossRef
44.
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. Lancet, 383(9913), 267–276.PubMedCrossRef
45.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Reproducibility and replicability in science (p. 256). National Academies Press.
46.
Mayo, N. E., & Goldberg, M. S. (2009). When is a case-control study not a case-control study? Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 41(4), 209–216.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Kicielinski, K. P., Dupepe, E. B., Gordon, A. S., Mayo, N. E., & Walters, B. C. (2019). What isn’t a case-control study? Neurosurgery, 84(5), 993–999.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Esene, I. N., Mbuagbaw, L., Dechambenoit, G., Reda, W., & Kalangu, K. K. (2018). Misclassification of case-control studies in neurosurgery and proposed solutions. World Neurosurgery, 112, 233–242.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Grimes, D. A. (2009). “Case-control” confusion: Mislabeled reports in obstetrics and gynecology journals. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 114(6), 1284–1286.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Schlosser, R. W., Koul, R., & Costello, J. (2007). Asking well-built questions for evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Communication Disorders, 40(3), 225–238.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Hays, M., Andrews, M., Wilson, R., Callender, D., Malley, P. G., & Douglas, K. (2016). Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: A review and analysis. British Medical Journal Open, 6(7), e011082.
52.
Hopewell, S., Ravaud, P., Baron, G., & Boutron, I. (2012). Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: Interrupted time series analysis. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 344, e4178.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
Mbuagbaw, L., Thabane, M., Vanniyasingam, T., Debono, V. B., Kosa, S., Zhang, S., et al. (2014). Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: A systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 38(2), 245–250.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Hopewell, S., Clarke, M., Moher, D., Wager, E., Middleton, P., Altman, D. G., et al. (2008). CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. The Lancet, 371(9609), 281–283.CrossRef
55.
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
Metagegevens
Titel
Reducing research wastage by starting off on the right foot: optimally framing the research question
Auteurs
Nancy E. Mayo
Nikki Ow
Miho Asano
Sorayya Askari
Ruth Barclay
Sabrina Figueiredo
Melanie Hawkins
Stanley Hum
Mehmet Inceer
Navaldeep Kaur
Ayse Kuspinar
Kedar K. V. Mate
Ana Maria Moga
Maryam Mozafarinia
Publicatiedatum
21-03-2022
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03117-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2022

Quality of Life Research 10/2022 Naar de uitgave

Editorial

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

OriginalPaper

Multidimensional frailty and quality of life: data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing

OriginalPaper

Utility values and its time to deterioration in breast cancer patients after diagnosis and during treatments

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

Improving the patient-reported outcome sections of clinical trial protocols: a mixed methods evaluation of educational workshops

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

Supporting researchers in knowledge translation and dissemination of their research to increase usability and impact