Need and scope of global partnership on public health research

BACKGROUND:A large and growing body of "big data" is generated by internet search engines, such as Google. Because people often search for information about public health and medical issues, researchers may be able to use search engine data to monitor and predict public health problems, such as HIV. We sought to assess the feasibility of using Google search data to analyze and predict new HIV diagnoses cases in the United States. METHODS AND FINDINGS:From 2007 to 2014, we collected search volume data on HIV-related Google search keywords across the United States. State-level new HIV diagnoses data were collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and AIDSVu.org. We developed a negative binomial model to predict HIV cases using a subset of significant predictor keywords identified by LASSO. The Google search data were combined with state-level HIV case reports provided by the CDC. We use historical data to train the model and predict new HIV diagnoses from 2011 to 2014, with an average R2 value of 0.99 between predicted versus actual cases, and average root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 108.75. CONCLUSIONS:Results indicate that Google Trends is a feasible tool to predict new cases of HIV at the state level. We discuss the implications of integrating visualization maps and tools based on these models into public health and HIV monitoring and surveillance

The Interdisciplinary Research Team not the Interdisciplinarist

Worldwide there is a growing interest in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research.  This overview paper addresses some of the pitfalls and barriers to being an interdisciplinary researcher. Being involved in interdisciplinary research is not an easy option for an individual discipline expert. It requires individual skills, ability to see beyond one’s discipline and perhaps personality characteristics such as a great team player. Interdisciplinary research may involve a mixed-methods approach underpinned by conflicting, and according to some incommensurable, research philosophies. The paper uses some examples from our own experiences of working in interdisciplinary teams to illustrate its potential

Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.

BACKGROUND: The red tape and delays around research ethics and governance approvals frequently frustrate researchers yet, as the lesser of two evils, are largely accepted as unavoidable. Here we quantify aspects of the research ethics and governance approvals for one interview- and questionnaire-based study conducted in England which used the National Health Service (NHS) procedures and the electronic Integrated Research Application System (IRAS). We demonstrate the enormous impact of existing approvals processes on costs of studies, including opportunity costs to focus on the substantive research, and suggest directions for radical system change. MAIN TEXT: We have recorded 491 exchanges with 89 individuals involved in research ethics and governance approvals, generating 193 pages of email text excluding attachments. These are conservative estimates (e.g. only records of the research associate were used). The exchanges were conducted outside IRAS, expected to be the platform where all necessary documents are provided and questions addressed. Importantly, the figures exclude the actual work of preparing the ethics documentation (such as the ethics application, information sheets and consent forms). We propose six areas of work to enable system change: 1. Support the development of a broad range of customised research ethics and governance templates to complement generic, typically clinical trials orientated, ones; 2. Develop more sophisticated and flexible frameworks for study classification; 3. Link with associated processes for assessment, feedback, monitoring and reporting, such as ones involving funders and patient and public involvement groups; 4. Invest in a new generation IT infrastructure; 5. Enhance system capacity through increasing online reviewer participation and training; and 6. Encourage researchers to quantify the approvals processes for their studies. CONCLUSION: Ethics and governance approvals are burdensome for historical reasons and not because of the nature of the task. There are many opportunities to improve their efficiency and analytic depth in an age of innovation, increased connectivity and distributed working. If we continue to work under current systems, we are perpetuating, paradoxically, an unethical system of research approvals by virtue of its wastefulness and impoverished ethical debate

DISEASE PATTERN OF THE PATIENTS ATTENDING MEDICINE UNIT OF A FREE MOBILE SPECIALIST HEALTH CAMP

ABSTRAC