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

被引:0
作者
Zarghani, Maryam [1 ]
Nemati-Anaraki, Leila [2 ,3 ]
Sedghi, Shahram [2 ,4 ]
Chakoli, Abdolreza Noroozi [5 ]
Rowhani-Farid, Anisa [6 ]
机构
[1] Iran Univ Med Sci, Sch Hlth Management & Med Informat Sci, Med Lib & Informat Sci, Tehran, Iran
[2] Iran Univ Med Sci, Sch Hlth Management & Med informat Sci, Dept Med Lib & Informat Sci, Rashid Yasmin St,Upper Mirdamad St, Tehran, Iran
[3] Iran Univ Med Sci, Hlth Management & Econ Res Ctr, Tehran, Iran
[4] Iran Univ Med Sci, Hlth Management Res Inst, Hlth Management & Econ Res Ctr, Tehran, Iran
[5] Shahed Univ, Dept Informat Sci & Knowledge Studies, Tehran, Iran
[6] Univ Maryland, Sch Pharm, Dept Pharmaceut Hlth Serv Res, Baltimore, MD USA
关键词
Conceptual model; Open science; Open research; Openness in science; Openness in research; Validation; DELPHI METHOD;
D O I
10.1186/s12913-024-10764-z
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction The 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. Methods This 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. Findings From 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. Conclusion To 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.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 38 条
  • [1] Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science
    Aguinis, Herman
    Banks, George C.
    Rogelberg, Steven G.
    Cascio, Wayne F.
    [J]. ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 2020, 158 : 27 - 35
  • [2] Agumba Justus N., 2015, Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, V7, P14, DOI [10.22610/jebs.v7i3(J).578, DOI 10.22610/JEBS.V7I3(J).578]
  • [3] Key components of data publishing: using current best practices to develop a reference model for data publishing
    Austin C.C.
    Bloom T.
    Dallmeier-Tiessen S.
    Khodiyar V.K.
    Murphy F.
    Nurnberger A.
    Raymond L.
    Stockhause M.
    Tedds J.
    Vardigan M.
    Whyte A.
    [J]. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 2017, 18 (2) : 77 - 92
  • [4] Ayris P., 2019, MK. Open science and its role in universities: a roadmap for cultural change
  • [5] Answers to 18 Questions About Open Science Practices
    Banks, George C.
    Field, James G.
    Oswald, Frederick L.
    O'Boyle, Ernest H.
    Landis, Ronald S.
    Rupp, Deborah E.
    Rogelberg, Steven G.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 34 (03) : 257 - 270
  • [6] Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic
    Besancon, Lonni
    Peiffer-Smadja, Nathan
    Segalas, Corentin
    Jiang, Haiting
    Masuzzo, Paola
    Smout, Cooper
    Billy, Eric
    Deforet, Maxime
    Leyrat, Clemence
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [7] "Ethics When You Least Expect It": A Modular Approach to Short Course Data Ethics Instruction
    Bezuidenhout, Louise
    Quick, Robert
    Shanahan, Hugh
    [J]. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2020, 26 (04) : 2189 - 2213
  • [8] Bhattacharya K., 2017, Fundamentals of qualitative research: A practical guide, V1st, DOI 10.4324/9781315231747
  • [9] Consensus methods in prescribing research
    Campbell, SM
    Cantrill, JA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS, 2001, 26 (01) : 5 - 14
  • [10] A Delphi-based approach to developing expert systems with the cooperation of multiple experts
    Chu, Hui-Chun
    Hwang, Gwo-Jen
    [J]. EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2008, 34 (04) : 2826 - 2840