ArticleEnvironmental health and preventive medicine2025
Japanese medical researchers' perceptions of quantitative research evaluation metrics and their psychological well-being: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Environmental health and preventive medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSupporting the mental health of researchers is essential to maintaining human resources and advancing science. This study investigated the association between Japanese medical researchers' perceptions of research evaluation processes and their psychological well-being.
methodsWe performed a web-based self-administered questionnaire survey. The questionnaires were distributed to each academic society through the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences from December 2022 to January 2023. These questionnaires targeted medical researchers. Exposure was the medical researchers' perceptions of quantitative indicators for evaluating medical research and researchers. The outcome was psychological well-being, measured using the Japanese version of the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regressions were conducted to investigate the association between individual attitudes toward research evaluation and psychological well-being. Stratified analyses by research fields, i.e., clinical, basic, and social medicine, were also performed.
resultsA total of 3,139 valid responses were collected. After excluding 176 responses from research fields of other than clinical, basic, or social medicine, 2,963 researchers (2,185 male, 737 female, and 41 other) were analyzed. Prevalence of poor well-being (WHO-5 score <13) was 28.3% in the researchers. The highest number of medical researchers was in clinical medicine (n = 500) followed by basic medicine (n = 217) and social medicine (n = 121). Medical researchers who considered research funding slightly important/not important for researcher evaluation had poorer psychological well-being than those who considered it especially important (slightly important: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.71; not important: aOR 1.53, 95%CI 1.10-2.12). This tendency was stronger among basic medical researchers than clinical or social medical researchers. The research field significantly modified the relationship between research funding received and interaction with poor psychological well-being both additively (P = 0.030) and multiplicatively (P = 0.024).
conclusionsThe discrepancy between medical researchers' attitudes toward research evaluation and the current state of research evaluation in their research community may worsen their psychological well-being. The influence of this discrepancy differs among clinical, basic, and social medicine. Appropriate evaluation of medical research and researchers in each field can facilitate improving their psychological well-being via the resolution of this discrepancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.