Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education
Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s40037-019-0501-x
复制
发表时间：
2019-04-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Artino, Anthony, Jr.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Maggio, Lauren;Dong, Ting;Artino, Anthony, Jr.
从事科学不端行为和有问题的研究实践（qrp）是一个跨领域的突出问题，包括卫生专业教育（HPE）。为了减轻这些做法，其他学科根据研究人员的特点和实践因素制定了策略。因此，为了告知HPE，本研究试图确定哪些研究者的特征和实践因素，如果有的话，可能解释不负责任的研究实践的频率。方法2017年对HPE研究人员进行横断面调查。该调查包括66个项目，改编自三个已发表的调查：两个已发表的QRP调查和一个出版压力量表。结果变量是自我报告的不当行为得分，这是每个受访者在所有不当行为和QRP项目上的加权平均得分。统计分析包括描述性统计、信度及相关分析、多元线性回归模型。结果与讨论共有590名研究人员完成了调查。最终回归模型结果显示，研究人员年龄与不端行为评分呈负相关（b = -0.01, beta = -0.22, t = -2.91, p < 0.05），表明年龄较大的研究人员报告的不端行为较少。另一方面，发表论文越多，不端行为得分越高（b = 0.001, beta = 0.17, t = 3.27, p < 0.05），与北美地区的研究人员相比，亚洲研究人员的不端行为得分越高（b = 0.21, beta = 0.12, t = 2.84, p < 0.01）。此外，与将自己的工作角色定义为临床医生的人相比，将自己的工作角色定义为研究人员的人往往有更高的不当行为得分（b = 0.12, beta = 0.13, t = 2.15, p < 0.05）。最后，出版压力是学术不端行为的最强个体预测因子（b = 0.20, beta = 0.34, t = 7.82, p < 0.01）；出版压力越大，报道的不当行为就越多。总体而言，解释变量占不端行为得分方差的21%，发表压力占结果方差的10%，高于其他解释变量。尽管存在相关性，但这些发现表明，研究人员的一些特征和实践因素可能是解决HPE中科学不端行为和qrp的目标。
Introduction Engaging in scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) is a noted problem across fields, including health professions education (HPE). To mitigate these practices, other disciplines have enacted strategies based on researcher characteristics and practice factors. Thus, to inform HPE, this study seeks to determine which researcher characteristics and practice factors, if any, might explain the frequency of irresponsible research practices.Method In 2017, a cross-sectional survey of HPE researchers was conducted. The survey included 66 items adapted from three published surveys: two published QRP surveys and a publication pressure scale. The outcome variable was a self-reported misconduct score, which is a weighted mean score for each respondent on all misconduct and QRP items. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, reliability and correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression modelling.Results and Discussion In total, 590 researchers completed the survey. Results from the final regression model indicated that researcher age had a negative association with the misconduct score (b = -0.01, beta = -0.22, t = -2.91, p < 0.05), suggesting that older researchers tended to report less misconduct. On the other hand, those with more publications had higher misconduct scores (b = 0.001, beta = 0.17, t = 3.27, p < 0.05) and, compared with researchers in the region of North America, researchers in Asia tended to have higher misconduct scores (b = 0.21, beta = 0.12, t = 2.84, p < 0.01). In addition, compared with those who defined their work role as clinician, those who defined their role as researcher tended to have higher misconduct scores (b = 0.12, beta = 0.13, t = 2.15, p < 0.05). Finally, publication pressure emerged as the strongest individual predictor of misconduct (b = 0.20, beta = 0.34, t = 7.82, p < 0.01); the greater the publication pressure, the greater the reported misconduct. Overall, the explanatory variables accounted for 21% of the variance in the misconduct score, with publication pressure accounting for 10% of the variance in the outcome, above and beyond the other explanatory variables. Although correlational, these findings suggest several researcher characteristics and practice factors that could be targeted to address scientific misconduct and QRPs in HPE.