Search

Your search keyword '"706/689"' showing total 3 results
Start Over Descriptor "706/689"
3 results on '"706/689"'

1. Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences

Author

Ari Huusko, William J. Sutherland, Tyler D. Eddy, Doriane Stagnol, Deborah A. Buhl, Matt Rinella, Tatsuya Amano, Teppo Vehanen, Thomas R. Stanley, C. Roland Pitcher, David Abecasis, Ricardo S. Ceia, Anjali Pande, Brendan P. Kelaher, Shailesh Sharma, Juan C. Alonso, Adrià López-Baucells, Luciana Cibils-Martina, Heather L. Major, Jill A. Shaffer, Monica Montefalcone, Bradley P. Harris, Jake E. Bicknell, Annelies De Backer, Ian L. Jones, Aki Mäki-Petäys, Juan J. Schmitter-Soto, María C. Ruiz-Delgado, Corinne Watts, Oliver Tully, Norbertas Noreika, Kade Mills, Christoph F. J. Meyer, Just Cebrian, Michele Meroni, Qingyuan Zhao, Rafael Barrientos, Dominique Davoult, Michael D. Craig, Carlos Ponce, Mary K. Donovan, Alec P. Christie, Jonathan P. A. Gardner, Carlos Palacín, Alvaro Antón, Robert A. McConnaughey, Beatriz Martín, Aurora Torres, Daniel Mateos-Molina, Filipe França, Sarah Clarke, Kevin D. E. Stokesbury, Janne S. Kotiaho, Mehdi Adjeroud, Ricardo Rocha, Anna A. Sher, Barry P. Baldigo, Carlos A. Martín, Philip A. Martin, Joachim Claudet, Christie, Alec P [0000-0002-8465-8410], Abecasis, David [0000-0002-9802-8153], Alonso, Juan C [0000-0003-0450-7434], Amano, Tatsuya [0000-0001-6576-3410], Anton, Alvaro [0000-0003-4108-6122], Baldigo, Barry P [0000-0002-9862-9119], Barrientos, Rafael [0000-0002-1677-3214], Bicknell, Jake E [0000-0001-6831-627X], Cebrian, Just [0000-0002-9916-8430], Ceia, Ricardo S [0000-0001-7078-0178], Cibils-Martina, Luciana [0000-0002-2101-4095], Claudet, Joachim [0000-0001-6295-1061], De Backer, Annelies [0000-0001-9129-9009], Donovan, Mary K [0000-0001-6855-0197], França, Filipe M [0000-0003-3827-1917], Gardner, Jonathan PA [0000-0002-6943-2413], Kotiaho, Janne S [0000-0002-4732-784X], López-Baucells, Adrià [0000-0001-8446-0108], Major, Heather L [0000-0002-7265-1289], Mateos-Molina, Daniel [0000-0002-9383-0593], McConnaughey, Robert A [0000-0002-8537-3695], Meyer, Christoph FJ [0000-0001-9958-8913], Noreika, Norbertas [0000-0002-3853-7677], Pitcher, C Roland [0000-0003-2075-4347], Rocha, Ricardo [0000-0003-2757-7347], Schmitter-Soto, Juan J [0000-0003-4736-8382], Shaffer, Jill A [0000-0003-3172-0708], Sharma, Shailesh [0000-0002-7918-4070], Sher, Anna A [0000-0002-6433-9746], Vehanen, Teppo [0000-0003-3441-6787], Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository, Ecologie marine tropicale des océans Pacifique et Indien (ENTROPIE [Perpignan]), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Centre de recherches insulaires et observatoire de l'environnement (CRIOBE), Université de Perpignan Via Domitia (UPVD)-École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE), Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Perpignan Via Domitia (UPVD)-École pratique des hautes études (EPHE), Christie, Alec P. [0000-0002-8465-8410], Alonso, Juan C. [0000-0003-0450-7434], Baldigo, Barry P. [0000-0002-9862-9119], Bicknell, Jake E. [0000-0001-6831-627X], Ceia, Ricardo S. [0000-0001-7078-0178], Donovan, Mary K. [0000-0001-6855-0197], França, Filipe M. [0000-0003-3827-1917], Gardner, Jonathan P. A. [0000-0002-6943-2413], Kotiaho, Janne S. [0000-0002-4732-784X], Major, Heather L. [0000-0002-7265-1289], McConnaughey, Robert A. [0000-0002-8537-3695], Meyer, Christoph F. J. [0000-0001-9958-8913], Pitcher, C. Roland [0000-0003-2075-4347], Schmitter-Soto, Juan J. [0000-0003-4736-8382], Shaffer, Jill A. [0000-0003-3172-0708], Sher, Anna A. [0000-0002-6433-9746], and Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa

Subjects
0106 biological sciences, Research design, Scientific community, SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, Medio ambiente natural, sosiaalitieteet, Psychological intervention, General Physics and Astronomy, Social Sciences, QH75, 01 natural sciences, Environmental impact, purl.org/becyt/ford/1 [https], 010104 statistics & probability, 706/648, Credibility, Prevalence, Social science, ComputingMilieux_MISCELLANEOUS, GE, Multidisciplinary, Ecology, article, Sampling (statistics), Biodiversity, näyttöön perustuvat käytännöt, satunnaistetut vertailukokeet, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, Research Design, Scale (social sciences), [SDE]Environmental Sciences, H1, Science, Environment, 010603 evolutionary biology, General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Social sciences, Bias, tutkimusmenetelmät, QH541, 704/172/4081, Humans, 0101 mathematics, purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6 [https], ympäristötieteet, poliittinen päätöksenteko, Clinical study design, metodologia, 706/689, General Chemistry, 15. Life on land, Ecología, Literature, Pairwise comparison, Observational study, 631/158, luotettavuus
Abstract

Building trust in science and evidence-based decision-making depends heavily on the credibility of studies and their findings. Researchers employ many different study designs that vary in their risk of bias to evaluate the true effect of interventions or impacts. Here, we empirically quantify, on a large scale, the prevalence of different study designs and the magnitude of bias in their estimates. Randomised designs and controlled observational designs with pre-intervention sampling were used by just 23% of intervention studies in biodiversity conservation, and 36% of intervention studies in social science. We demonstrate, through pairwise within-study comparisons across 49 environmental datasets, that these types of designs usually give less biased estimates than simpler observational designs. We propose a model-based approach to combine study estimates that may suffer from different levels of study design bias, discuss the implications for evidence synthesis, and how to facilitate the use of more credible study designs., Randomised controlled experiments are the gold standard for scientific inference, but environmental and social scientists often rely on different study designs. Here the authors analyse the use of six common study designs in the fields of biodiversity conservation and social intervention, and quantify the biases in their estimates.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Members of the public in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia expressing genetic exceptionalism say they are more willing to donate genomic data

Author

Peter Goodhand, Claire Steed, Jason Bobe, Katherine I. Morley, Richard Milne, Christine Critchley, Danya F. Vears, Erick R. Scott, Jerome Atutornu, Adrian Thorogood, Anna Middleton, Paul Bevan, Emilia Niemiec, Erika Kleiderman, Barbara Prainsack, Heidi Carmen Howard, Laurens Robarts, James Smith, Dianne Nicol, Middleton, Anna [0000-0003-3103-8098], Milne, Richard [0000-0002-8770-2384], Nicol, Dianne [0000-0002-6553-2839], Vears, Danya F. [0000-0002-6290-545X], and Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository

Subjects
Adult, Male, Value (ethics), Canada, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, medicine.medical_specialty, Genomics, Social sciences, 03 medical and health sciences, 706/689/179, Genetics, medicine, Humans, Genetic Testing, Sociology, Genetik, Genetic Privacy, Genetics (clinical), Other Social Sciences, Medicinsk genetik, 030304 developmental biology, Ethics, 0303 health sciences, Participant Values Work Stream of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, Genome, Human, Information Dissemination, business.industry, Genetic exceptionalism, 030305 genetics & heredity, Australia, article, 706/689, Middle Aged, Public relations, Publics, United Kingdom, United States, Data sharing, Public Opinion, Donation, Scale (social sciences), Annan samhällsvetenskap, Medical genetics, Female, business, Medical Genetics
Abstract

Funder: State Government of Victoria (Victorian Government); doi: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100004752, Funder: Victorian State Government, Public acceptance is critical for sharing of genomic data at scale. This paper examines how acceptance of data sharing pertains to the perceived similarities and differences between DNA and other forms of personal data. It explores the perceptions of representative publics from the USA, Canada, the UK and Australia (n = 8967) towards the donation of DNA and health data. Fifty-two percent of this public held ‘exceptionalist’ views about genetics (i.e., believed DNA is different or ‘special’ compared to other types of medical information). This group was more likely to be familiar with or have had personal experience with genomics and to perceive DNA information as having personal as well as clinical and scientific value. Those with personal experience with genetics and genetic exceptionalist views were nearly six times more likely to be willing to donate their anonymous DNA and medical information for research than other respondents. Perceived harms from re-identification did not appear to dissuade publics from being willing to participate in research. The interplay between exceptionalist views about genetics and the personal, scientific and clinical value attributed to data would be a valuable focus for future research.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences

Author

Christie, Alec P., Abecasis, David, Adjeroud, Mehdi, Alonso, Juan C., Amano, Tatsuya, Anton, Alvaro, Baldigo, Barry P., Barrientos, Rafael, Bicknell, Jake E., Buhl, Deborah A., Cebrian, Just, Ceia, Ricardo S., Cibils-Martina, Luciana, Clarke, Sarah, Claudet, Joachim, Craig, Michael D., Davoult, Dominique, De Backer, Annelies, Donovan, Mary K., Eddy, Tyler D., França, Filipe M., Gardner, Jonathan P. A., Harris, Bradley P., Huusko, Ari, Jones, Ian L., Kelaher, Brendan P., Kotiaho, Janne S., López-Baucells, Adrià, Major, Heather L., Mäki-Petäys, Aki, Martín, Beatriz, Martín, Carlos A., Martin, Philip A., Mateos-Molina, Daniel, McConnaughey, Robert A., Meroni, Michele, Meyer, Christoph F. J., Mills, Kade, Montefalcone, Monica, Noreika, Norbertas, Palacín, Carlos, Pande, Anjali, Pitcher, C. Roland, Ponce, Carlos, Rinella, Matt, Rocha, Ricardo, Ruiz-Delgado, María C., Schmitter-Soto, Juan J., Shaffer, Jill A., Sharma, Shailesh, Sher, Anna A., Stagnol, Doriane, Stanley, Thomas R., Stokesbury, Kevin D. E., Torres, Aurora, Tully, Oliver, Vehanen, Teppo, Watts, Corinne, Zhao, Qingyuan, and Sutherland, William J.

Subjects
706/648, 704/172/4081, article, 706/689, 15. Life on land, 631/158
Abstract

Building trust in science and evidence-based decision-making depends heavily on the credibility of studies and their findings. Researchers employ many different study designs that vary in their risk of bias to evaluate the true effect of interventions or impacts. Here, we empirically quantify, on a large scale, the prevalence of different study designs and the magnitude of bias in their estimates. Randomised designs and controlled observational designs with pre-intervention sampling were used by just 23% of intervention studies in biodiversity conservation, and 36% of intervention studies in social science. We demonstrate, through pairwise within-study comparisons across 49 environmental datasets, that these types of designs usually give less biased estimates than simpler observational designs. We propose a model-based approach to combine study estimates that may suffer from different levels of study design bias, discuss the implications for evidence synthesis, and how to facilitate the use of more credible study designs.

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results