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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |