Enhancing research quality and reporting: why the Journal of Comorbidity is now publishing study protocols

The Journal of Comorbidity was launched in 2011 and has since become established as a high-quality journal that publishes open-access, peer-reviewed articles, with a focus on advancing the clinical management of patients with comorbidity/multimorbidity. To further enhance research quality and reporting of studies in this field, the journal is now offering authors the opportunity to publish a summary of their study protocols – a move designed to generate interest and raise awareness in ongoing clinical research and to enable researchers to detail their methodologies in order that replication by scientific peers is possible

The Journal of Comorbidity affiliates with the Society for Academic Primary Care

No abstract available

The Journal of Comorbidity affiliates with the Scottish School of Primary Care

The Journal of Comorbidity is pleased to announce a new partnership with the Scottish School of Primary Care (SSPC). The SSPC is a virtual school comprising all Scottish academic departments with significant primary care research output. This currently includes the Universities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling, and St. Andrew’s. This is the second important partnership that the journal has formed to strengthen ties with professional primary care networks with an interest in comorbidity and multimorbidity research. It is anticipated that this new collaboration will increase the journal’s reach and help cultivate research, discussion, and knowledge about comorbidity and multimorbidity.The Scottish School of Primary CareSince its inception in 2000, the SSPC has established a reputation for research excellence, attracting new research funding to Scottish universities. The school aims to support the development of a sustainable, equitable, high-quality primary care service that meets the needs of the people of Scotland. Working towards this vision, the SSPC’s current strategic objectives are to:Inform key stakeholders by collating relevant available national and international evidence, as well as actively contributing to the growing evidence baseSupport the continuing growth of academic primary care in ScotlandPromote Scottish academic primary care internationally.Journal of Comorbidity 2017;7(1):112–11

Selective hypothesis reporting inpsychology:Comparing preregistrations and corresponding publications

This study assesses the extent of selective hypothesis reporting in psychological research by comparing the hypotheses found in a set of 459 preregistrations to the hypotheses found in the corresponding papers. We found that more than half of the preregistered studies we assessed contain omitted hypotheses (N = 224; 52.2%) or added hypotheses (N = 227; 56.8%), and about one-fifth of studies contain changed hypotheses (N = 82; 19%). We found only a small number of studies with demoted hypotheses (N = 2; 1%) and no studies with promoted hypotheses. In all, 59% of studies include at least one hypothesis in one or more of these categories, indicating a substantial bias in presenting and selecting hypotheses by researchers and/or reviewers/editors. Contrary to our expectations, we found that added hypotheses and changed hypotheses were not more likely to be statistically significant than non-selectively reported hypotheses. For the other types of selective hypothesis reporting, no powerful test of the relationship with statistical significance could be carried out. Finally, we found that replication studies were less likely to include selectively reported hypotheses than original studies. Thus, selective hypothesis reporting is problematically common in psychological research and may partly be explained by the fact that authors do not specifically and clearly enough formulate hypotheses in preregistrations and papers. We urge researchers, reviewers, and editors to ensure that hypotheses outlined in preregistrations are clearly formulated and accurately presented in the corresponding papers

Disease Combinations Associated with Physical Activity Identified: The SMILE Cohort Study

In the search of predictors of inadequate physical activity, an investigation was conducted into the association between multimorbidity and physical activity (PA). So far the sum of diseases used as a measure of multimorbidity reveals an inverse association. How specific combinations of chronic diseases are associated with PA remains unclear. The objective of this study is to identify clusters of multimorbidity that are associated with PA. Cross-sectional data of 3,386 patients from the 2003 wave of the Dutch cohort study SMILE were used. Ward's agglomerative hierarchical clustering was executed to establish multimorbidity clusters. Chi-square statistics were used to assess the association between clusters of chronic diseases and PA, measured in compliance with the Dutch PA guideline. The highest rate of PA guideline compliance was found in patients the majority of whom suffer from liver disease, back problems, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and inflammatory joint disease (62.4%). The lowest rate of PA guideline compliance was reported in patients with heart disease, respiratory disease, and diabetes mellitus (55.8%). Within the group of people with multimorbidity, those suffering from heart disease, respiratory disease, and/or diabetes mellitus may constitute a priority population as PA has proven to be effective in the prevention and cure of all three disorders

Health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity: the protocol for an evidence map

Introduction: Interaction of conditions and treatments, complicated care needs and substantial treatment burden make patient–physician encounters involving multimorbid older patients highly complex. To optimally integrate patients’ preferences, define and prioritise realistic treatment goals and individualise care, a patient-centred approach is recommended. However, the preferences of older patients, who are especially vulnerable and frequently multimorbid, have not been systematically investigated with regard to their health status. The purpose of this evidence map is to explore current research addressing health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity, and to identify the knowledge clusters and research gaps. Methods and analysis: To identify relevant research, we will conduct searches in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL, Social Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index Expanded and the Cochrane library from their inception. We will check reference lists of relevant articles and carry out cited reference research (forward citation tracking). Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, check full texts for eligibility and extract the data. Any disagreement will be resolved and consensus reached with the help of a third reviewer. We will include both qualitative and quantitative studies, and address preferences from the patients’ perspectives in a multimorbid population of 60 years or older. There will be no restrictions on the publication language. Data extraction tables will present study and patient characteristics, aim of study, methods used to identify preferences and outcomes (ie, type of preferences). We will summarise the data using tables and figures (ie, bubble plot) to present the research landscape and to describe clusters and gaps. Ethics and dissemination: Due to the nature of the proposed evidence map, ethics approval will not be required. Results from our research will be disseminated by means of specifically prepared materials for patients, at relevant (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals

The Journal of Comorbidity affiliates with the North American Primary Care Research Group

The Journal of Comorbidity is pleased to announce that it has extended its society collaborations by forming another important partnership with the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG), a renowned multidisciplinary organization for primary care researchers based in North America and beyond. The new partnership reflects an ongoing commitment of both the Journal of Comorbidity and NAPCRG to strengthen and broaden their ties with the primary care community and to foster the dissemination of innovative research in the field of comorbidity and multimorbidity.The partnership marks a celebration of the contribution of NAPCRG and its global members to conducting and reporting high-quality research on comorbidity/multimorbidity over the past 10 years. NAPCRG has been instrumental in growing awareness and developing the field of comorbidity/multimorbidity through various workshops, seminars, and plenaries at its annual meetings held in North America. Furthermore, in 2007, NAPCRG helped organize a meeting funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health on the theme of multimorbidity; attended by over 30 participants from eight countries, this led to the creation of the International Research Community on Multimorbidity (IRCMo) [1]. IRCMo now has almost 1,000 subscribers who are connected through a blog that showcases the most recent developments and publications on comorbidity/multimorbidity research. IRCMo also publishes regular updates on publications that are particularly important in terms of capacity building in research. Journal of Comorbidity 2017;7(1):114–11