Explicit bias toward high-income- country research: A randomized, blinded, crossover experiment of English clinicians

Health Affairs

Volumn 36, Issue 11, 2017, Pages 1997-2004

  Harris, Matthew ^a   Marti, Joachim ^a   Watt, Hillary ^a   Bhatti, Yasser ^a   Macinko, James ^b   Darzi, Ara W ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIFFUSION; EGO DEVELOPMENT; FEMALE; HIGH INCOME COUNTRY; HUMAN; LOW INCOME COUNTRY; MALE; PATIENT REFERRAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; LITERATURE; PUBLISHING; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESEARCH; STANDARDS; UNITED KINGDOM;

DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; HUMANS; PUBLICATION BIAS; RESEARCH; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85032974875     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0773     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, et al. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA. 2006;295(14): 1675-80
2. Link AM. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA. 1998;280(3):246-7
3. Daniel H-D. An evaluation of the peer review process at Angewandte Chemie. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 1993;32(2):234-8
4. Ernst E, Kienbacher T. Chauvinism. Nature. 1991;352:560
5. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends Ecol Evol. 2002;17(8):349-50
6. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(1):2-17
7. Frey BS, Eichenberger R. American and European economics and economists. J Econ Perspect. 1993;7(4): 185-93
8. Peters DP, Ceci SJ. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of accepted, published articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci. 1982;5(2):187-95
9. Borsuk RM, Aarssen LW, Budden AE, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Tregenza T, et al. To name or not to name: the effect of changing author gender on peer review. Bioscience. 2009; 59(11):985-9
10. Harris M, Macinko J, Jimenez G, Mahfoud M, Anderson C. Does a research article's country of origin affect perception of its quality and relevance? A national trial of US public health researchers. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e008993
11. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280(3): 237-40
12. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):85
13. Clarke M, Dick J, Zwarenstein M, Lombard CJ, Diwan VK. Lay health worker intervention with choice of DOTsuperior to standard TB care for farm dwellers in South Africa: a cluster randomised control trial. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2005;9(6):673-9
14. Chabikuli NO, Awi DD, Chukwujekwu O, Abubakar Z, Gwarzo U, Ibrahim M, et al. The use of routine monitoring and evaluation systems to assess a referral model of family planning and HIV service integration in Nigeria. AIDS. 2009;23(Suppl 1):S97-103
15. Peters SA, Palmer MK, Grobbee DE, Crouse JR 3rd, O'Leary DH, Raichlen JS, et al. C-reactive protein lowering with rosuvastatin in the METEOR study. J Intern Med. 2010;268(2): 155-61
16. Mark HD, Nanda J, Davis-Vogel A, Navaline H, Scotti R, Wickrema R, et al. Profiles of self-reported HIVrisk behaviors among injection drug users in methadone maintenance treatment, detoxification, and needle exchange programs. Public Health Nurs. 2006;23(1):11-9
17. World Bank. GDP per capita (current US$) [Internet]. Washington (DC): World Bank; [cited 2017 Sep 11]. Available from: https://data .worldbank.org/indicator/ NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
18. Times Higher Education.World university rankings 2014-15 [Internet]. London: Times Higher Education; [cited 2017 Sep 11]. Available from: https://www .timeshighereducation.co.uk/worlduniversity-rankings/2014-15/worldranking
19. uniRank.World universities search engine [home page on the Internet]. Pyrmont (New South Wales, Australia): uniRank; [cited 2017 Sep 11]. Available from: http://www.4icu.org
20. New England Journal of Medicine. Author Center: home [Internet]. Boston (MA): NEJM; c 2017 [cited 2017 Oct 17]. Available from: http:// www.nejm.org/page/authorcenter/ home
21. Journal of Community Medicine and Health Information [home page on the Internet]. Henderson (NV): Omics International; c 2017 [cited 2017 Oct 12]. Available from: https://www.omicsonline.org/ community-medicine-healtheducation. php
22. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185(4157): 1124-31
23. Dinnie K. Country-of-origin 1965-2004: a systematic literature review. J Cust Behav. 2004;3(2):165-213
24. Bilkey W, Nes E. Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. J Int Bus Stud. 1982;13(1):89-100
25. Peterson RA, Jolibert A. A metaanalysis of country-of-origin effects. J Int Bus Stud. 1995;26(4):883-900
26. Kukull WA, Ganguli M. Generalizability: the trees, the forest, and the low-hanging fruit. Neurology. 2012; 78(23):1886-91
27. Steventon A, Grieve R, Bardsley M. An approach to assess generalizability in comparative effectiveness research: a case study of the Whole Systems Demonstrator Cluster Randomized Trial comparing telehealth with usual care for patients with chronic health conditions. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(8):1023-36
28. Cole SR, Stuart EA. Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: the ACTG 320 trial. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(1):107-15
29. Staa TP, Goldacre B, Gulliford M, Cassell J, Pirmohamed M, Taweel A, et al. Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test. BMJ. 2012;344:e55
30. Equator Network. Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research [Internet]. Oxford: University of Oxford, Centre for Statistics in Medicine; [cited 2017 Sep 11]. Available from: http://www.equatornetwork. org/
31. Rennie D. Let's make peer review scientific. Nature. 2016;535(7610): 31-3
32. Johnson C, Noyes J, Haines A, Thomas K, Stockport C, Harris M. Learning from the Brazilian community health worker model in North Wales. Global Health. 2013; 9:25
33. Harris M, Weisberger E, Silver D, Macinko J. "They hear 'Africa' and they think that there can't be any good services"-perceived context in cross-national learning: a qualitative study of the barriers to Reverse Innovation. Global Health. 2015;11:45
34. Kulasabanathan K, Issa H, Bhatti Y, Prime M, Del Castillo J, Darzi A, et al. Do international health partnerships contribute to reverse innovation? A mixed methods study of THET-supported partnerships in the UK. Global Health. 2017;13(1):25
35. Harris M, Bhatti Y, Prime M, del Castillo J, Parston G, Darzi A. Global diffusion of healthcare innovation: making the connections. Doha (Qatar): World Innovation Summit for Health; 2016
36. Hadengue M, de Marcellis-Warin N, Warin T. Reverse Innovation: a systematic literature review. International J Emerg Mark. 2017;12(2): 1-25
37. Tropical Health Education Trust. In our mutual interest. London: THET; 2017 Apr [cited 2017 Sep 12]. Available from: http://www.thet.org/ resource-library/in-our-mutualinterest
38. Heitmueller A, Bull A, Oh S. Looking in the wrong places: why traditional solutions to the diffusion of innovation will not work. BMJ Innov. 2016;2(2):41-7
39. Merton RK. The Matthew Effect in science. Science. 1968;159(3810):62
40. Bornmann L. Complex tasks and simple solutions: the use of heuristics in the evaluation of research. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66(8): 1738-9