Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers' perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schroter S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC381324 | biostudies-literature | 2004 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers' perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial.
Schroter Sara S Morris Julie J Chaudhry Samena S Smith Richard R Barratt Helen H
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20040223 7442
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate how different competing interest (COI) statements affect clinical readers' perceptions of education articles.DesignRandomised controlled trial.Setting and participantsRandom sample of UK doctors.InterventionsWe created four permutations of each of two clinical reviews (on gout or dyspepsia), which varied only in terms of the COI statement. Volunteers were blinded and randomised to receive one review and asked to complete a questionnaire after reading it. Blinded factorial analyses of variance and analyses of covariance were carried out to assess the influence of each review and type of COI on outcomes.Primary and secondary outcomesConfidence in the article's conclusions (primary outcome), its importance, their level of interest in the article and their likelihood to change practice after reading it.ResultsOf 10 889 doctors invited to participate, 1065 (10%) volunteered. Of these, 749 (70%) completed the survey. Analysis of covariance (adjusting for age, sex, job type, years since qualification) showed no significant difference between the groups in participants' confidence in the article (gout: p=0.32, dyspepsia: p=0.78) or their rating of its importance (gout: p=0.09, dyspepsia: p=0.79). For the gout review, participants rated articles with advisory board and consultancies COI as significantly less interesting than those with no COI (p=0.028 with Bonferroni correction). Among participants indicating that they treat the condition and that the article's recommendations differed from their own practice, there was no significant difference in likelihood to change practice between groups (gout: p=0.59, n=59; dyspepsia: p=0.56, n=80).ConclusionsDoctors' confidence in educational articles was not influenced by the COI statements. Further work is required to determine if doctors do not perceive these COIs as important in educational articles or if they do not pay attention to these statements. More meaningful COI disclosure practices may be needed, which highlight context-specific potential sources of bias to readers.Trial registration numberNCT02548312; Results.
| S-EPMC6377520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile the impact of conflicts-of-interest (COI) is of increasing concern in academic medicine, there is little research on the reaction of practicing clinicians to the disclosure of such conflicts. We developed two research vignettes presenting a fictional antidepressant medication study, one in which the principal investigator had no COI and another in which there were multiple COI disclosed. We confirmed the face validity of the COI vignette through consultation with experts. Hospital-based clinicians were randomly assigned to read one of these two vignettes and then administered a credibility scale.FindingsPerceived credibility ratings were much lower in the COI group, with a difference of 11.00 points (31.42%) on the credibility scale total as calculated through the Mann-Whitney U test (95% CI = 6.99 - 15.00, p < .001). Clinicians in the COI group were also less likely to recommend the antidepressant medication discussed in the vignette (Odds Ratio = 0.163, 95% CI = .03 = 0.875).ConclusionsIn this study, increased disclosure of COI resulted in lower credibility ratings.
| S-EPMC3037872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although there is general consensus concerning the importance and function of interest in our daily lives, there is little agreement about its nature. Four studies of increasing ecological validity (total N = 993) were carried out to compare two different characterizations of interest in terms of the key appraisals involved. The findings indicate that while a two-appraisal model is suitable to explain the interest we can feel towards simple stimuli, a more complex model may better capture the nature of interest in the real world. Further analysis suggested the contrasting previous results could be resolved by arguing that previous models of interest capture different types of interest. This novel finding represents a promising first step towards a more definitive definition of interest, and suggests that while interest may always be related to motivating exploration, learning and general well-being, researchers should be more precise about the type of interest to which they refer.
| S-EPMC11358424 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The impression of trustworthiness based on someone's facial appearance biases our subsequent behavior toward that subject in a variety of contexts. In this study, we investigated whether facial trustworthiness also biases the credibility of utterances associated with that face (H1). We explored whether this bias is mitigated by utterances eliciting reasoning, i.e. explanations (as opposed to factual statements; H2). Moreover, we hypothesized that overimposing facemasks on those faces could enhance/reduce utterance credibility due to social value of mask-wearing (H3), and that facemasks could counter the putative credibility bias introduced by facial trustworthiness (H4). If so, this may be either because facemasks remove the visual information necessary for trustworthiness impression (H4a), or because information is less salient, although it can be retrieved under different circumstances (H4b). An online study (N = 159) was conducted to test these hypotheses. In the first task, subjects saw 48 facial pictures coupled with one utterance and judged the truthfulness/falsity of this utterance. In the second task, they saw again 16 of the faces from the previous tasks and were asked to recall whether the associated utterance was true or false. Findings from the first task support H1 and H4, but not H2 and H3. However, in the second task, where the face is the only available cue, the credibility-mitigation bias exerted by facemask disappears, supporting H4b over H4a. Our results confirm the pervasivity of facial trustworthiness impressions in social cognition, and suggest that facemask can mitigate them, or at least their salience.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-03277-7.
| S-EPMC9178339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During investigative interviews, police practice can influence key aspects of child credibility, namely the accuracy, competency, reliability, and truthfulness of their testimony. To date, police interviewers' perceptions of how best to assess child credibility at interview, and how practice impacts upon credibility, have been overlooked. We conducted a qualitative study that examined data from focus groups with 16 English police officers who regularly interview children. The focus group transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, and four main themes were identified - the 4Es: eliciting information, evaluating credibility, empowering the interviewee, and a high-quality end product. Within these themes, police officers acknowledged some responsibility for the perceived credibility of child victims. Poor interviewing practice could decrease the accuracy of the information elicited and cross-examined in court. Registered intermediaries could empower child interviewees and increase their competency. A lack of reliability contributed to evaluating credibility, but this relationship was not straightforward. Finally, obtaining the most truthful account from child victims was not always possible, because there are many barriers to overcome. Our findings suggest the need for a continued focus on interview protocols that facilitate disclosure from child victims and a review of the professional relationship between those who interview children and prosecutors.
| S-EPMC7144289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Amidst a worldwide vaccination campaign, trust in science plays a significant role when addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Given current concerns regarding research standards, we were interested in how Spanish scholars perceived COVID-19 research and the extent to which questionable research practices and potentially problematic academic incentives are commonplace. We asked researchers to evaluate the expected quality of their COVID-19 projects and other peers' research and compared these assessments with those from scholars not involved in COVID-19 research. We investigated self-admitting and estimated rates of questionable research practices and attitudes towards current research status. Responses from 131 researchers suggested that COVID-19 evaluations followed partisan lines, with scholars being more pessimistic about others' colleagues' research than their own. Additionally,researchers not involved in COVID-19 projects were more negative than their participating peers. These differences were particularly notable for areas such as the expected theoretical foundations or overall quality of the research, among others. Most Spanish scholars expected questionable research practices and inadequate incentives to be widespread. In these two aspects, researchers tended to agree regardless of their involvement in COVID-19 research. We provide specific recommendations for improving future meta-science studies, such as redefining QRPs as inadequate research practices (IRP). This change could help avoid key controversies regarding QRPs' definition while highlighting their detrimental impact. Lastly, we join previous calls to improve transparency and academic career incentives as a cornerstone for generating trust in science.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-02797-6.
| S-EPMC8884412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2017, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) added a voluntary field for conflict of interest (COI) statements ("posted COI") on the abstract page of PubMed, but the extent to which it is used is unknown. This repeated cross-sectional study examined journals and articles indexed on PubMed from 2016 through 2021. We described the proportion of all journals with at least one article that included a posted COI and the percentage of all articles that included a posted COI over time. We also examined 100 randomly selected articles published between June 2021 and May 2022 from each of the 40 highest impact journals. For these, we established whether the articles had published COIs, and, of these, the proportion that included a posted COI. Among approximately 7,000 journals publishing articles each year, the proportion of journals with at least one article with a posted COI statement increased from 25.9% in 2016 to 33.2% in 2021. Among nearly 400,000 articles published each year, the proportion of articles that included a posted COI also increased from 9.0% in 2016 to 43.0% in 2021. Among 3,888 articles published in the 40 highest impact journals in 2021-2022, 30.2% (95% CI: 28.7%-31.6%) had published COIs; of these, 63.3% (95% CI: 60.4%-66.0%) included a posted COI. Use of the PubMed COI statement has increased since it became available in 2017, but adoption is still limited, even among high impact journals. NLM should carry out additional outreach to journals that are not using the statement to promote greater transparency of COIs.
| S-EPMC11524491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study examined the effect of message source credibility on e-cigarette harm perceptions among U.S. young adults. An online experimental study was conducted where young adults (n = 302, Mage = 23.7) were randomized to an e-cigarette public health education message from an expert or a peer young adult. Then, participants answered questions about their perceptions about the message source and e-cigarettes. Results suggest that young adults rated experts as a more credible source (vs. peer) (b = -0.39, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.67, -0.10], p < 0.01). Young adults reported greater perceived credibility of the expert message (vs. peer), which was associated with increased e-cigarette harm perceptions. Increased perceived source credibility mediated the association of increased e-cigarette absolute harm perceptions from viewing an expert message (b = -0.11, SE = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.20, -0.02). Source credibility should be considered when designing e-cigarette education messages for young adults.
| S-EPMC9329714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were threefold: to estimate people's interest in health-related research, to understand to what extent people appreciate being actively informed about current local health-related research and to investigate whether their interest can be influenced by advertising local current health-related research using large TV monitors.DesignRandomised controlled trial using a stepped wedge design.SettingThe emergency department waiting room at two public hospitals in northern Queensland, Australia.ParticipantsWaiting patients and their accompanying friends and relatives in the emergency department waiting room not requiring immediate medical attention.InterventionsA TV monitor advertising local current health-related research.Main outcome measuresOR for the effect of intervention on changing the interest in health-related research compared with a control group while adjusting for gender, age and socioeconomic standard.ResultsThe intervention significantly increased the short-term interest in health-related research with an OR of 1.3 (1.1-1.7, p=0.0063). We also noted that being female and being older was correlated to a higher interest in health-related research CONCLUSIONS: This study found that proactive information significantly increased the general populations' interest in health-related research. There are reasonable set up costs involved but the costs for maintaining the system were very low. Hence, it seems reasonable that research-active organisations should give much higher priority to this type of activity.Trial registration numberACTRN12617001085369.
| S-EPMC6688744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The science on controversial topics is often heatedly discussed on social media, a potential problem for social-media-based science communicators. Therefore, two exploratory studies were performed to investigate the effects of science-critical user comments attacking Facebook posts containing scientific claims. The claims were about one of four controversial topics (homeopathy, genetically modified organisms, refugee crime, and childhood vaccinations). The user comments attacked the claims based on the thematic complexity, the employed research methods, the expertise, or the motivations of the researchers. The results reveal that prior attitudes determine judgments about the user comments, the attacked claims, and the source of the claim. After controlling for attitude, people agree most with thematic complexity comments, but the comments differ in their effect on perceived claim credibility only when the comments are made by experts. In addition, comments attacking researchers' motivations were more effective in lowering perceived integrity while scientists' perceived expertise remained unaffected.
| S-EPMC7323766 | biostudies-literature