Participation in paediatric cancer studies: timing and approach to recruitment

BACKGROUND: Participation in epidemiological studies has fallen significantly over the past 30 years; this has been attributed to a busier lifestyle and longer working hours. In case–control studies, participation among cases is usually higher than among controls due to the personal relevance. In Australia, between 2003 and 2011, we conducted three national population-based case–control studies of risk factors for childhood cancers; brain tumors, acute leukemia and neuroblastoma and Wilms’ tumor. In this sub-study, we aimed to investigate factors that may have influenced study participation and completeness of survey completion. FINDINGS: The proportion of incident cases that were eligible to participate was lowest in the brain tumor study (Aus-CBT) (83.1%), as was the proportion of eligible families that consented (57%). The percentage of eligible cases that consented was highest in the leukemia study (Aus-ALL) (80.2%). The mode of invitation used was associated with families’ consent in each of the studies. Families invited in person, at clinic appointments, were more likely to consent than families invited by letter or phone. Timing of invitation following the child’s diagnosis differed among studies but, the likelihood of consent did not appear to be directly related to this. The return of questionnaires, completion of interview, and provision of DNA (blood sample) was highest in Aus-ALL (93%) and lowest in Aus-CBT (81%). CONCLUSIONS: Studies of childhood cancer, and possibly other childhood diseases, should arrange for the family to be invited in person and, where possible, by a doctor with whom they are familiar. Whilst telephone interviews are time consuming and costly, particularly for large studies, they should be preferred over questionnaires for obtaining complete data

The effect of subject awareness and prior slip experience on tribometer-based predictions of slip probability

Prior knowledge of potentially slippery conditions has been shown to alter normal human gait in slip and fall experiments. We sought to quantify how the empirical relationship between slip probability and available floor friction was affected by subject awareness and prior slip experience. Sixty-eight subjects (40 females, 28 males) walked over three different low-friction surfaces inserted periodically between non-slip control trials. Three increasing levels of prior knowledge were used: deceived (unaware of the slippery surface), aware (20% chance of a slippery surface, but no prior slip experience) and experienced (aware with prior slip experience). Available friction was measured using a drag sled and a variable incidence tribometer. Of 620 low-friction trials, 124 generated slips greater than 27 mm. The proportion of slips, the slip distance and the required friction (taken from the control trial immediately before a low-friction trial) generally decreased with increasing levels of prior knowledge. These adaptations were accommodated by logistically regressing slip outcome (yes/no) against the normalized friction (available friction minus required friction) rather than against available friction alone. The regressions showed that subject awareness biased the slip probability curve toward a lower slip risk for a given normalized friction, but that the subsequent addition of slip experience generated a slip risk curve that was not significantly different from that of deceived (and presumably unprepared) subjects. These findings suggest that data to validate a tribometer's ability to predict the risk of slipping (but not falling) can be acquired from subjects with prior slip experience

A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we - a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe - argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for actio