Cargando…

Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate what percentage of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme-funded projects have published their final reports in the programme's journal HTA and to explore reasons for non-publication. DESIGN: Retrosp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Turner, S, Wright, D, Maeso, R, Cook, A, Milne, R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3646183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23645914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002521
_version_ 1782268573535698944
author Turner, S
Wright, D
Maeso, R
Cook, A
Milne, R
author_facet Turner, S
Wright, D
Maeso, R
Cook, A
Milne, R
author_sort Turner, S
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate what percentage of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme-funded projects have published their final reports in the programme's journal HTA and to explore reasons for non-publication. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Failure to publish findings from research is a significant area of research waste. It has previously been suggested that potentially over 50% of studies funded are never published. PARTICIPANTS: All NIHR HTA projects with a planned submission date for their final report for publication in the journal series on or before 9 December 2011 were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The projects were classified according to the type of research, whether they had been published or not; if not yet published, whether they would be published in the future or not. The reasons for non-publication were investigated. RESULTS: 628 projects were included: 582 (92.7%) had published a monograph; 19 (3%) were expected to publish a monograph; 13 (2.1%) were discontinued studies and would not publish; 12 (1.9%) submitted a report which did not lead to a publication as a monograph; and two (0.3%) did not submit a report. Overall, 95.7% of HTA studies either have published or will publish a monograph: 94% for those commissioned in 2002 or before and 98% for those commissioned after 2002. Of the 27 projects for which there will be no report, the majority (21) were commissioned in 2002 or before. Reasons why projects failed to complete included failure to recruit; issues concerning the organisation where the research was taking place; drug licensing issues; staffing issues; and access to data. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of HTA projects for which a monograph is published is high. The advantages of funding organisations requiring publication in their own journal include avoidance of publication bias and research waste.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3646183
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36461832013-05-07 Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study Turner, S Wright, D Maeso, R Cook, A Milne, R BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate what percentage of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme-funded projects have published their final reports in the programme's journal HTA and to explore reasons for non-publication. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Failure to publish findings from research is a significant area of research waste. It has previously been suggested that potentially over 50% of studies funded are never published. PARTICIPANTS: All NIHR HTA projects with a planned submission date for their final report for publication in the journal series on or before 9 December 2011 were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The projects were classified according to the type of research, whether they had been published or not; if not yet published, whether they would be published in the future or not. The reasons for non-publication were investigated. RESULTS: 628 projects were included: 582 (92.7%) had published a monograph; 19 (3%) were expected to publish a monograph; 13 (2.1%) were discontinued studies and would not publish; 12 (1.9%) submitted a report which did not lead to a publication as a monograph; and two (0.3%) did not submit a report. Overall, 95.7% of HTA studies either have published or will publish a monograph: 94% for those commissioned in 2002 or before and 98% for those commissioned after 2002. Of the 27 projects for which there will be no report, the majority (21) were commissioned in 2002 or before. Reasons why projects failed to complete included failure to recruit; issues concerning the organisation where the research was taking place; drug licensing issues; staffing issues; and access to data. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of HTA projects for which a monograph is published is high. The advantages of funding organisations requiring publication in their own journal include avoidance of publication bias and research waste. BMJ Publishing Group 2013-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC3646183/ /pubmed/23645914 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002521 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Turner, S
Wright, D
Maeso, R
Cook, A
Milne, R
Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study
title Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study
title_full Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study
title_fullStr Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study
title_short Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study
title_sort publication rate for funded studies from a major uk health research funder: a cohort study
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3646183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23645914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002521
work_keys_str_mv AT turners publicationrateforfundedstudiesfromamajorukhealthresearchfunderacohortstudy
AT wrightd publicationrateforfundedstudiesfromamajorukhealthresearchfunderacohortstudy
AT maesor publicationrateforfundedstudiesfromamajorukhealthresearchfunderacohortstudy
AT cooka publicationrateforfundedstudiesfromamajorukhealthresearchfunderacohortstudy
AT milner publicationrateforfundedstudiesfromamajorukhealthresearchfunderacohortstudy