TY - GEN
T1 - Advice Giving in Medical Research Literature
AU - Li, Yingya
AU - Yu, Bei
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Evidence-based health advice, i.e., clinical or policy recommendations, contributes greatly to guiding medical practice and public health policies. However, whether to give health advice, especially based on individual study results, is a controversial issue: on the one hand, such advice may lack a comprehensive review of all evidence and alternative practices; on the other hand, researchers have been encouraged to translate research findings to actionable practice. To date, limited attention has been given to understanding how and where health researchers give advice in their publications, which could be critical for assessing the quality of health advice in medical literature. In this study, we conducted a content analysis of all 4,866 sentences in the abstract and discussion sections in 100 individual study papers (both randomized controlled trials and observational studies), labeling each sentence as either “strong advice”, “weak advice”, or “no advice”. We found that most authors gave advice in individual studies, but they rarely gave advice in abstract only. The common practice is either to give advice in discussion sections only, or in both abstracts and discussions. When giving advice in both sections, authors tended to give weak and non-specific advice in abstracts, while using more sentences in the discussion sections to give strong and more specific advice, adding conditions required for the recommendations. The result suggests that most researchers support giving advice in individual studies, but they are generally cautious in giving advice in abstracts.
AB - Evidence-based health advice, i.e., clinical or policy recommendations, contributes greatly to guiding medical practice and public health policies. However, whether to give health advice, especially based on individual study results, is a controversial issue: on the one hand, such advice may lack a comprehensive review of all evidence and alternative practices; on the other hand, researchers have been encouraged to translate research findings to actionable practice. To date, limited attention has been given to understanding how and where health researchers give advice in their publications, which could be critical for assessing the quality of health advice in medical literature. In this study, we conducted a content analysis of all 4,866 sentences in the abstract and discussion sections in 100 individual study papers (both randomized controlled trials and observational studies), labeling each sentence as either “strong advice”, “weak advice”, or “no advice”. We found that most authors gave advice in individual studies, but they rarely gave advice in abstract only. The common practice is either to give advice in discussion sections only, or in both abstracts and discussions. When giving advice in both sections, authors tended to give weak and non-specific advice in abstracts, while using more sentences in the discussion sections to give strong and more specific advice, adding conditions required for the recommendations. The result suggests that most researchers support giving advice in individual studies, but they are generally cautious in giving advice in abstracts.
KW - Content analysis
KW - Health advice
KW - Medical research literature
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126251634&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85126251634&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-030-96960-8_18
DO - 10.1007/978-3-030-96960-8_18
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85126251634
SN - 9783030969592
T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
SP - 261
EP - 272
BT - Information for a Better World
A2 - Smits, Malte
PB - Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH
T2 - 17th International Conference on Information for a Better World: Shaping the Global Future, iConference 2022
Y2 - 28 February 2022 through 4 March 2022
ER -