Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) statement: guidelines for good epidemiological practice.
epidemiology
Journal
BMJ global health
ISSN: 2059-7908
Titre abrégé: BMJ Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101685275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
26
06
2020
revised:
02
09
2020
accepted:
03
09
2020
entrez:
29
10
2020
pubmed:
30
10
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Research integrity and research fairness have gained considerable momentum in the past decade and have direct implications for global health epidemiology. Research integrity and research fairness principles should be equally nurtured to produce high-quality impactful research-but bridging the two can lead to practical and ethical dilemmas. In order to provide practical guidance to researchers and epidemiologist, we set out to develop good epidemiological practice guidelines specifically for global health epidemiology, targeted at stakeholders involved in the commissioning, conduct, appraisal and publication of global health research. We developed preliminary guidelines based on targeted online searches on existing best practices for epidemiological studies and sought to align these with key elements of global health research and research fairness. We validated these guidelines through a Delphi consultation study, to reach a consensus among a wide representation of stakeholders. A total of 45 experts provided input on the first round of e-Delphi consultation and 40 in the second. Respondents covered a range of organisations (including for example academia, ministries, NGOs, research funders, technical agencies) involved in epidemiological studies from countries around the world (Europe: 19; Africa: 10; North America: 7; Asia: 5; South-America: 3 Australia: 1). A selection of eight experts were invited for a face-to-face meeting. The final guidelines consist of a set of 6 standards and 42 accompanying criteria including study preparation, protocol development, data collection, data management, data analysis, dissemination and communication. While guidelines will not by themselves guard global health from questionable and unfair research practices, they are certainly part of a concerted effort to ensure not only mutual accountability between individual researchers, their institutions and their funders but most importantly their joint accountability towards the communities they study and society at large.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Research integrity and research fairness have gained considerable momentum in the past decade and have direct implications for global health epidemiology. Research integrity and research fairness principles should be equally nurtured to produce high-quality impactful research-but bridging the two can lead to practical and ethical dilemmas. In order to provide practical guidance to researchers and epidemiologist, we set out to develop good epidemiological practice guidelines specifically for global health epidemiology, targeted at stakeholders involved in the commissioning, conduct, appraisal and publication of global health research.
METHODS
We developed preliminary guidelines based on targeted online searches on existing best practices for epidemiological studies and sought to align these with key elements of global health research and research fairness. We validated these guidelines through a Delphi consultation study, to reach a consensus among a wide representation of stakeholders.
RESULTS
A total of 45 experts provided input on the first round of e-Delphi consultation and 40 in the second. Respondents covered a range of organisations (including for example academia, ministries, NGOs, research funders, technical agencies) involved in epidemiological studies from countries around the world (Europe: 19; Africa: 10; North America: 7; Asia: 5; South-America: 3 Australia: 1). A selection of eight experts were invited for a face-to-face meeting. The final guidelines consist of a set of 6 standards and 42 accompanying criteria including study preparation, protocol development, data collection, data management, data analysis, dissemination and communication.
CONCLUSION
While guidelines will not by themselves guard global health from questionable and unfair research practices, they are certainly part of a concerted effort to ensure not only mutual accountability between individual researchers, their institutions and their funders but most importantly their joint accountability towards the communities they study and society at large.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33115859
pii: bmjgh-2020-003236
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003236
pmc: PMC7594207
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):156-65
pubmed: 24411644
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021 Jan 14;6(1):1
pubmed: 33441187
Implement Sci. 2018 May 29;13(1):72
pubmed: 29843737
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Feb;31(1):129-35
pubmed: 25887561
BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30
pubmed: 10024268
J Adv Nurs. 2003 Feb;41(4):376-82
pubmed: 12581103
Lancet. 2009 Jun 6;373(9679):1993-5
pubmed: 19493564
Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(3):i-iv, 1-88
pubmed: 9561895
Gates Open Res. 2018 Nov 15;2:58
pubmed: 30706057
Nurse Educ Today. 2013 Nov;33(11):1322-8
pubmed: 23510701
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509
PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124
pubmed: 16060722
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Oct 18;4(5):e002068
pubmed: 31750005
Lancet. 2011 Jan 1;377(9759):85-95
pubmed: 20619886
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Apr;13(2):92-8
pubmed: 18416914
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Mar;107:71-76
pubmed: 30500404
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2008 Jul;56 Spec No 1:S121-75
pubmed: 18841590
Sci Eng Ethics. 2006 Jan;12(1):53-74
pubmed: 16501647
CMAJ. 2010 Dec 14;182(18):E839-42
pubmed: 20603348
Sci Data. 2016 Mar 15;3:160018
pubmed: 26978244
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 13;11(10):e0163579
pubmed: 27737006
PeerJ. 2017 Jul 7;5:e3544
pubmed: 28698825
Lancet. 2014 Jan 18;383(9913):257-66
pubmed: 24411650
Psychol Sci. 2012 May 1;23(5):524-32
pubmed: 22508865
BMJ. 1994 Jan 29;308(6924):283-4
pubmed: 8124111
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Aug;100:111-119
pubmed: 29432862
Health Policy Plan. 2000 Sep;15(3):338-45
pubmed: 11012410
JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):135-136
pubmed: 27923072
Am J Public Health. 1981 Apr;71(4):409-12
pubmed: 7468883
Am J Public Health. 2009 Oct;99(10):1792-8
pubmed: 19696375
Implement Sci. 2016 Dec 9;11(1):161
pubmed: 27938400
Eur J Epidemiol. 2019 Mar;34(3):301-317
pubmed: 30830562
PLoS Med. 2010 Feb 16;7(2):e1000217
pubmed: 20169112
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
Lancet. 2015 Apr 4;385(9975):1293-4
pubmed: 25890912
Bull Med Ethics. 2002 Oct;(182):17-23
pubmed: 14983848
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021 Jan 14;6(1):3
pubmed: 33441167
BMJ. 2017 Mar 6;356:i6795
pubmed: 28264797
Nat Hum Behav. 2017 Jan 10;1:0021
pubmed: 33954258
Soz Praventivmed. 2005;50(1):12-27
pubmed: 15773018
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15
pubmed: 11095242
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 5;158(3):200-7
pubmed: 23295957
Clin Invest Med. 2006 Dec;29(6):351-64
pubmed: 17330451
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Oct 2;3(5):e001019
pubmed: 30294463
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Oct;5(10):
pubmed: 33115860
PLoS One. 2009 May 29;4(5):e5738
pubmed: 19478950
BMJ. 2000 Sep 30;321(7264):827-9
pubmed: 11009530