日本医学研究人员对定量研究评价指标的看法及其心理健康:一项横断面研究。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Akira Minoura, Keisuke Kuwahara, Yuhei Shimada, Hiroko Fukushima, Makoto Kondo, Takehiro Sugiyama
{"title":"日本医学研究人员对定量研究评价指标的看法及其心理健康:一项横断面研究。","authors":"Akira Minoura, Keisuke Kuwahara, Yuhei Shimada, Hiroko Fukushima, Makoto Kondo, Takehiro Sugiyama","doi":"10.1265/ehpm.25-00194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Supporting the mental health of researchers is essential to maintaining human resources and advancing science. This study investigated the association between Japanese medical researchers' perceptions of research evaluation processes and their psychological well-being.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a web-based self-administered questionnaire survey. The questionnaires were distributed to each academic society through the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences from December 2022 to January 2023. These questionnaires targeted medical researchers. Exposure was the medical researchers' perceptions of quantitative indicators for evaluating medical research and researchers. The outcome was psychological well-being, measured using the Japanese version of the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regressions were conducted to investigate the association between individual attitudes toward research evaluation and psychological well-being. Stratified analyses by research fields, i.e., clinical, basic, and social medicine, were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3,139 valid responses were collected. After excluding 176 responses from research fields of other than clinical, basic, or social medicine, 2,963 researchers (2,185 male, 737 female, and 41 other) were analyzed. Prevalence of poor well-being (WHO-5 score <13) was 28.3% in the researchers. The highest number of medical researchers was in clinical medicine (n = 500) followed by basic medicine (n = 217) and social medicine (n = 121). Medical researchers who considered research funding slightly important/not important for researcher evaluation had poorer psychological well-being than those who considered it especially important (slightly important: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.71; not important: aOR 1.53, 95%CI 1.10-2.12). This tendency was stronger among basic medical researchers than clinical or social medical researchers. The research field significantly modified the relationship between research funding received and interaction with poor psychological well-being both additively (P = 0.030) and multiplicatively (P = 0.024).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The discrepancy between medical researchers' attitudes toward research evaluation and the current state of research evaluation in their research community may worsen their psychological well-being. The influence of this discrepancy differs among clinical, basic, and social medicine. Appropriate evaluation of medical research and researchers in each field can facilitate improving their psychological well-being via the resolution of this discrepancy.</p>","PeriodicalId":11707,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine","volume":"30 ","pages":"74"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12483756/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Japanese medical researchers' perceptions of quantitative research evaluation metrics and their psychological well-being: a cross-sectional study.\",\"authors\":\"Akira Minoura, Keisuke Kuwahara, Yuhei Shimada, Hiroko Fukushima, Makoto Kondo, Takehiro Sugiyama\",\"doi\":\"10.1265/ehpm.25-00194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Supporting the mental health of researchers is essential to maintaining human resources and advancing science. This study investigated the association between Japanese medical researchers' perceptions of research evaluation processes and their psychological well-being.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a web-based self-administered questionnaire survey. The questionnaires were distributed to each academic society through the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences from December 2022 to January 2023. These questionnaires targeted medical researchers. Exposure was the medical researchers' perceptions of quantitative indicators for evaluating medical research and researchers. The outcome was psychological well-being, measured using the Japanese version of the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regressions were conducted to investigate the association between individual attitudes toward research evaluation and psychological well-being. Stratified analyses by research fields, i.e., clinical, basic, and social medicine, were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3,139 valid responses were collected. After excluding 176 responses from research fields of other than clinical, basic, or social medicine, 2,963 researchers (2,185 male, 737 female, and 41 other) were analyzed. Prevalence of poor well-being (WHO-5 score <13) was 28.3% in the researchers. The highest number of medical researchers was in clinical medicine (n = 500) followed by basic medicine (n = 217) and social medicine (n = 121). Medical researchers who considered research funding slightly important/not important for researcher evaluation had poorer psychological well-being than those who considered it especially important (slightly important: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.71; not important: aOR 1.53, 95%CI 1.10-2.12). This tendency was stronger among basic medical researchers than clinical or social medical researchers. The research field significantly modified the relationship between research funding received and interaction with poor psychological well-being both additively (P = 0.030) and multiplicatively (P = 0.024).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The discrepancy between medical researchers' attitudes toward research evaluation and the current state of research evaluation in their research community may worsen their psychological well-being. The influence of this discrepancy differs among clinical, basic, and social medicine. Appropriate evaluation of medical research and researchers in each field can facilitate improving their psychological well-being via the resolution of this discrepancy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine\",\"volume\":\"30 \",\"pages\":\"74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12483756/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1265/ehpm.25-00194\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1265/ehpm.25-00194","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:支持研究人员的心理健康对于维持人力资源和促进科学发展至关重要。本研究旨在探讨日本医学研究人员对研究评估过程的认知与心理健康之间的关系。方法:采用基于网络的自我问卷调查。调查问卷于2022年12月至2023年1月通过日本医学科学协会分发给各学术团体。这些问卷调查的对象是医学研究人员。暴露是医学研究人员对评价医学研究和研究人员的定量指标的看法。结果是心理健康,使用日本版的世界卫生组织五幸福指数(WHO-5)来衡量。本研究采用多变量调整逻辑回归,探讨个体对研究评价态度与心理健康的关系。按研究领域(即临床医学、基础医学和社会医学)进行分层分析。结果:共收集有效问卷3139份。剔除临床、基础、社会医学以外研究领域的176份问卷后,对2963名研究人员(男性2185人,女性737人,其他41人)进行了分析。结论:医学科研人员对科研评价的态度与所在科研群体的科研评价现状存在差异,可能导致其心理健康状况恶化。这种差异的影响在临床医学、基础医学和社会医学中是不同的。对每个领域的医学研究和研究人员进行适当的评估,可以通过解决这种差异来促进他们的心理健康。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Japanese medical researchers' perceptions of quantitative research evaluation metrics and their psychological well-being: a cross-sectional study.

Japanese medical researchers' perceptions of quantitative research evaluation metrics and their psychological well-being: a cross-sectional study.

Japanese medical researchers' perceptions of quantitative research evaluation metrics and their psychological well-being: a cross-sectional study.

Background: Supporting the mental health of researchers is essential to maintaining human resources and advancing science. This study investigated the association between Japanese medical researchers' perceptions of research evaluation processes and their psychological well-being.

Methods: We performed a web-based self-administered questionnaire survey. The questionnaires were distributed to each academic society through the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences from December 2022 to January 2023. These questionnaires targeted medical researchers. Exposure was the medical researchers' perceptions of quantitative indicators for evaluating medical research and researchers. The outcome was psychological well-being, measured using the Japanese version of the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regressions were conducted to investigate the association between individual attitudes toward research evaluation and psychological well-being. Stratified analyses by research fields, i.e., clinical, basic, and social medicine, were also performed.

Results: A total of 3,139 valid responses were collected. After excluding 176 responses from research fields of other than clinical, basic, or social medicine, 2,963 researchers (2,185 male, 737 female, and 41 other) were analyzed. Prevalence of poor well-being (WHO-5 score <13) was 28.3% in the researchers. The highest number of medical researchers was in clinical medicine (n = 500) followed by basic medicine (n = 217) and social medicine (n = 121). Medical researchers who considered research funding slightly important/not important for researcher evaluation had poorer psychological well-being than those who considered it especially important (slightly important: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.71; not important: aOR 1.53, 95%CI 1.10-2.12). This tendency was stronger among basic medical researchers than clinical or social medical researchers. The research field significantly modified the relationship between research funding received and interaction with poor psychological well-being both additively (P = 0.030) and multiplicatively (P = 0.024).

Conclusions: The discrepancy between medical researchers' attitudes toward research evaluation and the current state of research evaluation in their research community may worsen their psychological well-being. The influence of this discrepancy differs among clinical, basic, and social medicine. Appropriate evaluation of medical research and researchers in each field can facilitate improving their psychological well-being via the resolution of this discrepancy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine
Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.10%
发文量
44
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Japanese Society for Hygiene, Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine (EHPM) brings a comprehensive approach to prevention and environmental health related to medical, biological, molecular biological, genetic, physical, psychosocial, chemical, and other environmental factors. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine features definitive studies on human health sciences and provides comprehensive and unique information to a worldwide readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信