Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond

Health Research Policy and Systems

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Gerhardus, Ansgar ^a   Becher, Heiko ^b   Groenewegen, Peter ^c,d   Mansmann, Ulrich ^e   Meyer, Thorsten ^f   Pfaff, Holger ^g   Puhan, Milo ^h   Razum, Oliver ⁱ   Rehfuess, Eva ^e   Sauerborn, Rainer ^j   Strech, Daniel ^f   Wissing, Frank ^k   Zeeb, Hajo ^a   Hummers Pradier, Eva ^l  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

^c NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

^d UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^f HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^g UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^h UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

ⁱ BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^j UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^k German Medical Association   (Germany)

^l UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

more..

Author keywords

Funding; Grants peer review; Health services research; Health systems research; Public health; Research

Indexed keywords

CONSENSUS; FUNDING; GERMANY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION; PEER REVIEW; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENTIST; SKILL; WRITING; ETHICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; METHODOLOGY; PERSONNEL; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD;

CONSENSUS; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; FINANCIAL SUPPORT; FINANCING, ORGANIZED; GERMANY; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 84978101073     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14784505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0112-5     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Huang TT, Drewnowski A, Kumanyika SK, Glass TA. A systems-oriented multi-level framework for addressing obesity in the 21st century. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009;6:A82.
2. Taljaard M, Weijer C, Grimshaw JM, et al. The Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomised trials: precis for researchers and research ethics committees. BMJ. 2013;346:f2838.
3. Anderson ML, Califf RM, Sugarman J, et al. Ethical and regulatory issues of pragmatic cluster randomized trials in contemporary health systems. Clin Trials. 2015;12(3):276-86.
4. World Health Organization. Public Health. http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story076/en/. Accessed 19 August 2015.
5. Siebenhofer A, Jeitler K, Berghold A, Waltering A, Hemkens LG, Semlitsch T, et al. Long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in hypertensive patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;9, CD008274.
6. Detels R, Gulliford M, Karim QA, Tan CC, editors. Oxford Textbook of Global Public Health. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
7. Razum O, Gerhardus A. Methodological triangulation in public health research - advancement or mirage? Trop Med Int Health. 1999;4:243-4.
8. GEPRIS Database. http://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/OCTOPUS. Accessed 19 August 2015.
9. NIH Collaboratory. Regulatory/Ethics. https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/cores/Pages/regulatory-ethics.aspx. Accessed 8 June 2016.
10. WHO Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/news/2015/erczur/en/. Accessed 8 June 2016.
11. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Round-table discussion. Public Health Research in Germany: Criteria and Structures; 2014. http://www.dfg.eu/download/pdf/foerderung/grundlagen_dfg_foerderung/informationen_fachwissenschaften/lebenswissenschaften/rundgespraech_public_health/summary_round_table_discussion.pdf. Accessed 19 August 2015.
12. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:1655.
13. Melhuish E, Belsky J, Leyland AH, Barnes J, the National Evaluation of Sure Start Research Team. Effects of fully-established Sure Start Local Programmes on 3-year-old children and their families living in England: a quasi-experimental observational study. Lancet. 2008;372:1641-7.
14. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonnell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:1258.
15. Gray B. Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative leadership. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2Suppl):124-32.
16. O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:85.
17. Shadish WR. Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates: thirteen common errors. Eval Program Plan. 1995;18:63-75.
18. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks; 2005.
19. German National Cohort (GNC) Consortium. The German National Cohort: aims, study design and organization. Eur J Epidemiol. 2014;29:371-82.
20. Manson JE, Grobbee DE, Stampfer MJ, Taylor JO, Goldhaber SZ, Gaziano JM, et al. Aspirin in the primary prevention of angina pectoris in a randomized trial of United States physicians. Am J Med. 1990;89:772-6.
21. Smith KR, McCracken JP, Weber MW, Hubbard A, Jenny A, Thompson LM, et al. Effect of reduction in household air pollution on childhood pneumonia in Guatemala (RESPIRE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378:1717-26.
22. Taljaard M, Chaudhry SH, Brehaut JC, et al. Survey of consent practices in cluster randomized trials: improvements are needed in ethical conduct and reporting. Clin Trials. 2014;11:60-9.
23. Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, Haw S, Lawson K, Macintyre S, et al. Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:1182-6.
24. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. What study designs should be included in an EPOC review and what should they be called. EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2015. http://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/05%20What%20study%20designs%20should%20be%20included%20in%20an%20EPOC%20review%202013%2008%2012_1.pdf. Accessed 19 August 2015.
25. Faltermaier T. Why public health research needs qualitative methods. Eur J Publ Health. 1997;7:357-63.
26. Meyer T. Health Research, Qualitative. In: Wright JD, editor. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Elsevier; 2015. p. 692-7.
27. Dixon-Woods M, Williams SJ, Jackson CJ, Akkad A, Kenyon S, Habib M. Why do women consent to surgery, even when they do not want to? An interactionist and Bourdieusian analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:2742-53.
28. Economical and Social Research Council. Research Ethics. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics/. Acessed 23 March 2016.
29. Morgan DL. Paradigms and lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative data. J Mixed Methods Research. 2007;1:48.
30. Pluye P, Hong QN. Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:29-45.
31. Anderson LM, Oliver SR, Michie S, Rehfuess EA, Noyes J, Shemilt I. Using a spectrum of methods in systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1223-9.
32. Petticrew M, Rehfuess EA, Noyes J, Higgins J, Mayhew A, Pantoja T, et al. Synthesising evidence on complex interventions: the contribution of meta-analytic, qualitative and mixed-method approaches. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1230-43.
33. O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ. 2010;341:4587.
34. International Epidemiological Association. Good Epidemiological Practice (GEP). IEA Guidelines for Proper Conduct in Epidemiological Research. 2007. http://ieaweb.org/good-epidemiological-practice-gep/. Accessed 19 August 2015.
35. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Epidemiologie. Leitlinien und Empfehlungen zur Sicherung von Guter Epidemiologischer Praxis (GEP). 2008. http://dgepi.de/fileadmin/pdf/leitlinien/GEP_mit_Ergaenzung_GPS_Stand_24.02.2009.pdf. Accessed 19 August 2015.
36. Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence, Government Chief Social Researcher's Office, London: Cabinet Office. 2003. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/190986/Magenta_Book_quality_in_qualitative_evaluation__QQE_.pdf Accessed 8 June 2016.
37. Flick U. Managing quality in qualitative research. London: Sage; 2007.
38. Pluye P. Critical appraisal tools for assessing the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies included in systematic mixed studies reviews. J Eval Clin Prac. 2013;19:722.
39. Creswell JW, Klassen AC, Plano Clark VL, Smith KC, for the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences. National Institutes of Health. 2011. https://obssr-archive.od.nih.gov/mixed_methods_research/. Accessed 8 June 2016.
40. Equator Network. Reporting guidelines for main study types. http://www.equator-network.org/. Accessed 19 August 2015.
41. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349-57.
42. O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13:92-8.