Uptake and impact of priority setting exercises in nutrition research publications

Objective To assess how priority setting exercises for nutrition research are considered in publication. Design Cross-sectional design. Settings First, a citation analysis of priority setting exercises found in nutrition research until 2019 was conducted. The reasons for citation were extracted from the text of citing papers and the reasons were defined as: (i) acting on the research questions identified as priorities, (ii) acknowledging the priority setting exercise, (iii) using the same method, or (iv) previous knowledge to support evidence. Second, a survey with authors of the priority setting exercises was done to understand priority setters' perspectives on the impact and satisfaction of their work. Participants Twenty-one priority setting exercise papers were included. In all, 434 citing papers were found, of which 338 were considered in the citation analysis. A sample of 17 authors representing 13 priority setting exercise papers completed the impact and satisfaction survey. Results Half of the priority setting exercise papers were published by 2013. After excluding self-citations (n = 60), the priority setting papers had on average 18 citations. Priority setting exercises had a median of 1 (IQR = 0-1) citing manuscript that acted on the recommendations produced from priority setting exercises. Authors of the priority setting exercises expressed a desire for increased uptake of the results of the priority setting exercises by funding agencies. Key barriers for uptake were identified as challenges in involving stakeholders and the general public for participation in the priority setting exercise. Conclusions Priority settings exercises are important efforts to guide nutrition research toward effective allocation of resources. However, there seems to be a limited consideration of these priority setting exercises in research papers

Usefulness of applying research reporting guidelines as Writing Aid software : a crossover randomised controlled trial

Objectives: To assess the intention of using a Writing Aid software, which integrates four research reporting guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-nutritional epidemiology) and their Elaboration & Explanation (E&E) documents during the write-up of research in Microsoft Word compared with current practices. Design: Two-arms crossover randomised controlled trial with no blinding and no washout period. Setting: Face-to-face or online sessions. Participants: 54 (28 in arm 1 and 26 in arm 2) doctoral arid postdoctoral researchers. Interventions: Reporting guidelines and their E&E document were randomly administered as Writing Aid or as Word documents in a single 30 min to 1 hour session, with a short break before crossing over to the other study intervention. Primary and secondary outcomes: Using the Technology Acceptance Model, we assessed the primary outcome: the difference in the mean of intention of use; and secondary outcomes: the difference in mean perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. The three outcomes were measured using questions with a 7-point Likert-scale. Secondary analysis using structural equation modelling (SEM) was applied to explore the relationships between the outcomes. Results: No significant difference in reported intention of use (mean difference and 95% CI 0.25 (-0.05 to 0.55), p=0.10), and perceived usefulness (mean difference and 95% CI 0.19 (-0.04 to 0.41), p=0.10). The Writing Aid performed significantly better than the word document on researchers' perceived ease of use (mean difference and 95% CI 0.59 (0.29 to 0.89), p<0.001). In the SEM analysis, participants' intention of using the tools was indirectly affected by perceived ease of use (beta 0.53 p=0.002). Conclusions: Despite no significant difference in the intention of use between the tools, administering reporting guidelines as Writing Aid is perceived as easier to use, offering a possibility to further explore its applicability to enhance reporting adherence

Assessment of authors understanding of the STROBE-nut reporting guidelines

Objectives: To test authors’ experience of applying the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-nutritional epidemiology (STROBE-nut) on a recently published paper. Correct understanding of the items on the reporting guidelines could lead to appropriate use. Design: a cross sectional study, with a convenient sample. Setting: Participants were asked to return the STROBE-nut data collection template filled on recently published papers. Next, an interview was organised to collect feedback on the process of applying the guidelines. Two researchers involved in the development of STROBE-nut completed the template using the participant’s respective published papers. The filled templates were then compared to assess the measure of agreement of the STROBE-nut items as a proxy of understanding. Participants: Authors who recently published papers reporting dietary assessment or food intake data. Results: We recruited 12 participants between May 2018 and June 2019. Five participants never used reporting guidelines before, while ten reported intention of future use. Half of the participants reported that the use of filling STROBE nut was useful, but some modifications are needed. Agreement between participants and experts on items reporting was generally low. Only two items had moderate weighted kappa agreement nut 1 (Kappa= 0.4, P 0.02) and nut 22.1 (Kappa= 0.47, P 0.01). Conclusions: There is need to ensure correct understanding of STROBE-nut by authors. Revisions of STROBE-nut that make the items shorter and simpler can increase understanding. Training researchers at early stage on the aim of reporting guidelines could potentially increase proper use and decrease subjective interpretation

An ontology to standardize research output of nutritional epidemiology : from paper-based standards to linked content

Background: The use of linked data in the Semantic Web is a promising approach to add value to nutrition research. An ontology, which defines the logical relationships between well-defined taxonomic terms, enables linking and harmonizing research output. To enable the description of domain-specific output in nutritional epidemiology, we propose the Ontology for Nutritional Epidemiology (ONE) according to authoritative guidance for nutritional epidemiology. Methods: Firstly, a scoping review was conducted to identify existing ontology terms for reuse in ONE. Secondly, existing data standards and reporting guidelines for nutritional epidemiology were converted into an ontology. The terms used in the standards were summarized and listed separately in a taxonomic hierarchy. Thirdly, the ontologies of the nutritional epidemiologic standards, reporting guidelines, and the core concepts were gathered in ONE. Three case studies were included to illustrate potential applications: (i) annotation of existing manuscripts and data, (ii) ontology-based inference, and (iii) estimation of reporting completeness in a sample of nine manuscripts. Results: Ontologies for food and nutrition (n = 37), disease and specific population (n = 100), data description (n = 21), research description (n = 35), and supplementary (meta) data description (n = 44) were reviewed and listed. ONE consists of 339 classes: 79 new classes to describe data and 24 new classes to describe the content of manuscripts. Conclusion: ONE is a resource to automate data integration, searching, and browsing, and can be used to assess reporting completeness in nutritional epidemiology

Perspective: Consideration of values when setting priorities in nutrition research : guidance for transparency

Nutrition research can guide interventions to tackle the burden of diet-related diseases. Setting priorities in nutrition research, however, requires the engagement of various stakeholders with diverse insights. Consideration of what matters most in research from a scientific, social, and ethical perspective is therefore not an automatic process. Systematic ways to explicitly define and consider relevant values are largely lacking. Here, we review existing nutrition research priority-setting exercises, analyze how values are reported, and provide guidance for transparent consideration of values while setting priorities in nutrition research. Of the 27 (n=22 peer-reviewed manuscripts and 5 grey literature documents) studies reviewed, 40.7% used a combination of different methods, 59.3% described the represented stakeholders, and 49.1% reported on follow-up activities. All priority-setting exercises were led by research groups based in high-income countries. Via an iterative qualitative content analysis, reported values were identified (n = 22 manuscripts). Three clusters of values (i.e., those related to impact, feasibility, and accountability) were identified. These values were organized in a tool to help those involved in setting research priorities systematically consider and report values. The tool was finalized through an online consultation with 7 international stakeholders. The value-oriented tool for priority setting in nutrition research identifies and presents values that are already implicitly and explicitly represented in priority-setting exercises. It provides guidance to enable explicit deliberation on research priorities from an ethical perspective. In addition, it can serve as a reporting tool to document how value-laden choices are made during priority setting and help foster the accountability of stakeholders involved