Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38454424›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Design and validation of a conceptual model regarding impact of open science on healthcare research processes.

Maryam Zarghani, Leila Nemati-Anaraki, Shahram Sedghi, Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, Anisa Rowhani-Farid

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Maryam ZarghaniMedical Library and Information Sciences, School of Health Management and Medical Information Science, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6693-7785
Leila Nemati-AnarakiDepartment of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Health Management and Medical Information Science, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Rashid Yasmin Street, Upper than Mirdamad St., Tehran, Iran. nematianaraki.l@iums.ac.ir.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9436-2533
Shahram SedghiDepartment of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Health Management and Medical Information Science, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Rashid Yasmin Street, Upper than Mirdamad St., Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6457-7464
Abdolreza Noroozi ChakoliDepartment of Information Science & Knowledge Studies, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0088-9159
Anisa Rowhani-FaridDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3637-2423
Iran University of Medical Sciences · IRShahed University · IRUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe development and use of digital tools in various stages of research highlight the importance of novel open science methods for an integrated and accessible research system. The objective of this study was to design and validate a conceptual model of open science on healthcare research processes.

methodsThis research was conducted in three phases using a mixed-methods approach. The first phase employed a qualitative method, namely purposive sampling and semi-structured interview guides to collect data from healthcare researchers and managers. Influential factors of open science on research processes were extracted for refining the components and developing the proposed model; the second phase utilized a panel of experts and collective agreement through purposive sampling. The final phase involved purposive sampling and Delphi technique to validate the components of the proposed model according to researchers' perspectives.

findingsFrom the thematic analysis of 20 interview on the study topic, 385 codes, 38 sub-themes, and 14 main themes were extracted for the initial proposed model. These components were reviewed by expert panel members, resulting in 31 sub-themes, 13 main themes, and 4 approved themes. Ultimately, the agreed-upon model was assessed in four layers for validation by the expert panel, and all the components achieved a score of > 75% in two Delphi rounds. The validated model was presented based on the infrastructure and culture layers, as well as supervision, assessment, publication, and sharing.

conclusionTo effectively implement these methods in the research process, it is essential to create cultural and infrastructural backgrounds and predefined requirements for preventing potential abuses and privacy concerns in the healthcare system. Applying these principles will lead to greater access to outputs, increasing the credibility of research results and the utilization of collective intelligence in solving healthcare system issues.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchDelphi TechniqueHumansResearch DesignConceptual modelOpenness in researchOpenness in scienceOpen researchOpen scienceValidation

Identifiers

PMID38454424
PMCPMC10921571
OpenAlexW4392562655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.