Dataset Information

A Roadmap for conducting psychosocial research in epidemiological studies: perspectives of cohort study principal investigators.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Psychosocial adversity disproportionately affects racial/ethnic and socioeconomic minorities in the USA, and therefore understanding the mechanisms through which psychosocial stress and resilience influence human health can provide meaningful insights into addressing US health disparities. Despite this promise, psychosocial factors are infrequently and unsystematically collected in the US prospective cohort studies.

Methods

We sought to understand prospective cohort principal investigators' (PIs') attitudes regarding the importance of psychosocial influences on disease aetiology, in order to identify barriers and opportunities for greater inclusion of these domains in high-quality epidemiological research. One-hour, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 PIs representing 24 US prospective cohort studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), collectively capturing health data on 1.25 of every 100 American adults. A hypothesis-free, grounded theory approach was used to analyse and interpret interview data.

Results

Most cohort PIs view psychosocial factors as an important research area to further our understanding of disease aetiology and agree that this research will be crucial for future public health innovations. Virtually all PIs emphasised that future psychosocial research will need to elucidate biological and behavioural mechanisms in order to be taken seriously by the epidemiological community more broadly. A lack of pertinent funding mechanisms and a lack of consensus on optimal scales and measures of psychosocial factors were identified as additional barriers to advancing psychosocial research.

Conclusions

Our interviews emphasised the need for: (1) high-quality, longitudinal studies that investigate biological mechanisms and pathways through which psychosocial factors influence health, (2) effort among epidemiological cohorts to broaden and harmonise the measures they use across cohorts, to facilitate replication of results and (3) the need for targeted funding opportunities from NIH and other grant-making institutions to study these domains.

SUBMITTER: Argentieri MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7389745 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Roadmap for conducting psychosocial research in epidemiological studies: perspectives of cohort study principal investigators.

Argentieri M Austin MA Seddighzadeh Bobak B Noveroske Philbrick Sarah S Balboni Tracy T Shields Alexandra A

BMJ open 20200728 7

<h4>Background</h4>Psychosocial adversity disproportionately affects racial/ethnic and socioeconomic minorities in the USA, and therefore understanding the mechanisms through which psychosocial stress and resilience influence human health can provide meaningful insights into addressing US health disparities. Despite this promise, psychosocial factors are infrequently and unsystematically collected in the US prospective cohort studies.<h4>Methods</h4>We sought to understand prospective cohort pri ...[more]

PMID: 32723742

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe goal of this study was to understand prospective cohort study Principal Investigators' (PIs') attitudes regarding the importance of religion and spirituality (R/S) on disease etiology in order to identify barriers and opportunities for greater inclusion of these domains in high-quality epidemiological research.MethodsOne-hour, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 PIs, who represent 24 different National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded prospective cohort studies in the U.S. Collectively, these PIs collect detailed health data on approximately 1.25 of every 100 adult Americans. Sample size was calculated to achieve thematic saturation.ResultsThe majority of PIs we interviewed viewed R/S as potentially important factors influencing disease etiology, particularly among minority communities that report higher levels of religiosity. Yet nearly all PIs interviewed felt there was not yet a compelling body of evidence elucidating R/S influences on health, and the potential mechanisms through which R/S may be operating to affect health outcomes. PIs identified 5 key areas that would need to be addressed before they would be persuaded to collect more R/S measures in their cohorts: (1) high-quality, prospective studies that include all appropriate covariates for the outcome under study; (2) studies that posit a plausible biological mechanism of effect; (3) well-validated R/S measures, collected in common across multiple cohorts; (4) the need to address bias against R/S research among investigators; and (5) NIH funding for R/S research.ConclusionsResults of this study provide a roadmap for future R/S research investigating the impact of R/S influences on disease etiology within the context of U.S. prospective cohort studies. Identifying significant R/S influences on health could inform novel interventions to improve population health. Given the higher levels of religiosity/spirituality among minority communities, R/S research may also provide new leverage points for reducing health disparities.

Project description:IntroductionConducting rigorous scientific inquiry within the bounds of research regulation and acceptable practice requires a principal investigator to lead and manage research processes and personnel. This study explores the practices used by investigators nominated as exemplars of research excellence and integrity to produce rigorous, reproducible research and comply with research regulations.MethodsUsing a qualitative research design, we interviewed 52 principal investigators working in the United States at top research universities and the National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program. We solicited nominations of researchers meeting two criteria: (1) they are federally-funded researchers doing high-quality, high-impact research, and (2) have reputations for professionalism and integrity. Each investigator received an initial nomination addressing both criteria and at least one additional endorsement corroborating criteria 2. A panel of researchers and our research team reviewed the nominations to select finalists who were invited to participate. The cohort of "Research Exemplars" includes highly accomplished researchers in diverse scientific disciplines. The semi-structured interview questions asked them to describe the routine practices they employ to foster rigor and regulatory compliance. We used inductive thematic analysis to identify common practices.ResultsThe exemplars identified a core set of 8 practices and provided strategies for employing them. The practices included holding regular team meetings, encouraging shared ownership, providing supervision, ensuring adequate training, fostering positive attitudes about compliance, scrutinizing data and findings, and following standard operating procedures. Above all, the use of these practices aim to create a psychologically safe work environment in which lab members openly collaborate to scrutinize their work and share in accountability for rigorous, compliant research.ConclusionsResearchers typically receive limited systematic training in how to lead and manage their research teams. Training and education for principal investigators should include essential leadership and management practices and strategies that support doing high-quality research with integrity.

Project description:ImportanceEarly-stage and established investigators compete for a limited supply of funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Regardless of their previous funding success, many principal investigators (PIs) encounter a funding gap in which they no longer receive ongoing funding from the NIH.ObjectiveTo determine incidence rates of PI-level funding gaps, the mean funding gap length, and whether these 2 metrics are associated with previous funding success.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was conducted using data from NIH RePORTER. Historical datafiles for fiscal year (FY) 2011 to FY 2021 were aggregated to generate 2 master datafiles for this period: all NIH awards and only R01 awards. PIs with no funding in FY 2011 or FY 2021 were removed. PIs were sorted by FY 2011 total funding amounts and grouped by quarter of amount.ResultsA total of 39 944 unique researchers were awarded 220 131 NIH awards, of which 103 753 were R01 awards. For all NIH awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (from 27% to 75%), percentage of these gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (from 56% to 68%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.2 years to 3.1 years). For only R01 awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (50% to 74%), percentage of gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (59% to 71%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.4 years to 3.1 years).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of NIH-funded investigators, PIs with higher NIH funding were less likely to experience a funding gap. Additionally, when these PIs encountered a funding gap, this period without funding was shorter; however, among all PIs, funding gaps typically lasted 2 to 3 years. These associations were found inclusive of all NIH awards and when analysis was limited to only R01 awards. These findings may be useful to PIs and academic institutions as they prepare, structure, and project research resource allocations.

Dataset Information

A Roadmap for conducting psychosocial research in epidemiological studies: perspectives of cohort study principal investigators.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Roadmap for conducting psychosocial research in epidemiological studies: perspectives of cohort study principal investigators.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets