Due to the fast pace at which research reports in behaviour change are published, researchers, consultants and policymakers would benefit
from more automatic ways to process these reports. Automatic extraction of the reports’ intervention content, population, settings and
their results etc. are essential in synthesising and summarising the literature. However, to the best of our knowledge, no unique resource
exists at the moment to facilitate this synthesis. In this paper, we describe the construction of a corpus of published behaviour change
intervention evaluation reports aimed at smoking cessation. We also describe and release the annotation of 57 entities, that can be used
as an off-the-shelf data resource for tasks such as entity recognition, etc. Both the corpus and the annotation dataset are being made
available to the community.

/pdf/hbcp-corpus-a-new-resource-for-the-analysis-of-behavioural-b86ja6ylqa.pdf

HBCP Corpus: A New Resource for the Analysis of Behavioural Change Intervention Reports.

Concerns on the lack of reproducibility and transparency in science have led to a range of research practice reforms, broadly referred to as 'Open Science'. The extent that physical activity interventions are embedding Open Science practices is currently unknown. In this study, we randomly sampled 100 reports of recent physical activity randomised controlled trial behaviour change interventions to estimate the prevalence of Open Science practices.One hundred reports of randomised controlled trial physical activity behaviour change interventions published between 2018 and 2021 were identified, as used within the Human Behaviour-Change Project. Open Science practices were coded in identified reports, including: study pre-registration, protocol sharing, data, materials and analysis scripts sharing, replication of a previous study, open access publication, funding sources and conflict of interest statements. Coding was performed by two independent researchers, with inter-rater reliability calculated using Krippendorff's alpha.78 of the 100 reports provided details of study pre-registration and 41% provided evidence of a published protocol. 4% provided accessible open data, 8% provided open materials and 1% provided open analysis scripts. 73% of reports were published as open access and no studies were described as replication attempts. 93% of reports declared their sources of funding and 88% provided conflicts of interest statements. A Krippendorff's alpha of 0.73 was obtained across all coding.Open data, materials, analysis and replication attempts are currently rare in physical activity behaviour change intervention reports, whereas funding source and conflict of interest declarations are common. Future physical activity research should increase the reproducibility of their methods and results by incorporating more Open Science practices. 

/pdf/assessing-open-science-practices-in-physical-activity-39zz077k.pdf

Assessing Open Science practices in physical activity behaviour change intervention evaluations

Abstract The replication crisis has stimulated researchers around the world to adopt open science research practices intended to reduce publication bias and improve research quality. Open science practices include study pre-registration, open data, open access, and avoiding methods that can lead to publication bias and low replication rates. Although gambling studies uses similar research methods as behavioral research fields that have struggled with replication, we know little about the uptake of open science research practices in gambling-focused research. We conducted a scoping review of 500 recent (1/1/2016–12/1/2019) studies focused on gambling and problem gambling to examine the use of open science and transparent research practices. Our results showed that a small percentage of studies used most practices: whereas 54.6% (95% CI: [50.2, 58.9]) of studies used at least one of nine open science practices, each practice’s prevalence was: 1.6% for pre-registration (95% CI: [0.8, 3.1]), 3.2% for open data (95% CI: [2.0, 5.1]), 0% for open notebook, 35.2% for open access (95% CI: [31.1, 39.5]), 7.8% for open materials (95% CI: [5.8, 10.5]), 1.4% for open code (95% CI: [0.7, 2.9]), and 15.0% for preprint posting (95% CI: [12.1, 18.4]). In all, 6.4% (95% CI: [4.6, 8.9]) of the studies included a power analysis and 2.4% (95% CI: [1.4, 4.2]) were replication studies. Exploratory analyses showed that studies that used any open science practice, and open access in particular, had higher citation counts. We suggest several practical ways to enhance the uptake of open science principles and practices both within gambling studies and in science more generally. 

/pdf/open-science-practices-in-gambling-research-publications-27l5ripx.pdf

Open Science Practices in Gambling Research Publications (2016–2019): A Scoping Review

Abstract Open Science practices include some combination of registering and publishing study protocols (including hypotheses, primary and secondary outcome variables, and analysis plans) and making available preprints of manuscripts, study materials, de-identified data sets, and analytic codes. This statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council (BMRC) provides an overview of these methods, including preregistration; registered reports; preprints; and open research. We focus on rationales for engaging in Open Science and how to address shortcomings and possible objections. Additional resources for researchers are provided. Research on Open Science largely supports positive consequences for the reproducibility and reliability of empirical science. There is no solution that will encompass all Open Science needs in health psychology and behavioral medicine’s diverse research products and outlets, but the BMRC supports increased use of Open Science practices where possible.

https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/quant-table-1.pdf

Open Science in Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: A Statement From the Behavioral Medicine Research Council

OBJECTIVE
Research on Open Science practices in Health Psychology is lacking. This meta-research study aimed to identify research question priorities and obtain consensus on the Top 5 prioritised research questions for Open Science in Health Psychology.


METHODS AND MEASURES
An international Delphi consensus study was conducted. Twenty-three experts in Open Science and Health Psychology within the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS) suggested research question priorities to create a 'long-list' of items (Phase 1). Forty-three EHPS members rated the importance of these items, ranked their top five and suggested their own additional items (Phase 2). Twenty-four EHPS members received feedback on Phase 2 responses and then re-rated and re-ranked their top five research questions (Phase 3).


RESULTS
The top five ranked research question priorities were: 1. 'To what extent are Open Science behaviours currently practised in Health Psychology?', 2. 'How can we maximise the usefulness of Open Data and Open Code resources?', 3. 'How can Open Data be increased within Health Psychology?', 4. 'What interventions are effective for increasing the adoption of Open Science in Health Psychology?' and 5. 'How can we increase free Open Access publishing in Health Psychology?'.


CONCLUSION
Funding and resources should prioritise the research questions identified here.

Establishing open science research priorities in health psychology: a research prioritisation Delphi exercise.

Introduction. Activities promoting research reproducibility and transparency are crucial for generating trustworthy evidence. Evaluation of smoking interventions is one area where vested interests may motivate reduced reproducibility and transparency. Aims. Assess markers of transparency and reproducibility in smoking behaviour change intervention evaluation reports. Methods. One hundred evaluation reports of smoking behaviour change intervention randomised controlled trials published in 2018-2019 were identified. Reproducibility markers of pre-registration; protocol sharing; data, material, and analysis script sharing; replication of a previous study; and open access publication were coded in identified reports. Transparency markers of funding and conflict of interest declarations were also coded. Coding was performed by two researchers, with inter-rater reliability calculated using Krippendorff’s alpha. Results. Seventy-one percent of reports were open access, and 73% were pre-registered. However, there are only 13% provided accessible materials, 7% accessible data, and 1% accessible analysis scripts. No reports were replication studies. Ninety-four percent of reports provided a funding source statement, and eighty-eight percent of reports provided a conflict of interest statement. Conclusions. Open data, materials, analysis, and replications are rare in smoking behaviour change interventions, whereas funding source and conflict of interest declarations are common. Future smoking research should be more reproducible to enable knowledge accumulation. This study was pre-registered: https://osf.io/yqj5p .

/pdf/assessing-markers-of-reproducibility-and-transparency-in-2rm658vm3d.pdf

Assessing Markers of Reproducibility and Transparency in Smoking Behaviour Change Intervention Evaluations


 
 
 Within the Geriatric Medicine department at the Lister Hospital, Stevenage, the timeliness and quality of discharge summaries had become a source of complaints. Both primary care practitioners and families reported documentation was inadequate or incorrect. This project aimed to improve the quality of these discharge summaries in accordance with standards generated from previous audit data. Through improving communication it was clear that patient care could be enhanced.
 
 
 
 Each month 15 discharge summaries were selected at random for review. Alongside patient notes these summaries were appraised in regards to standard discharge summary requirements: timeliness of delivery; adequate description of admission; and documentation of the follow up plan. They were also appraised on documentation of specific requirements for older aged adults including cognitive status, mobility status, discharge destination, need for home help, Rockwood Frailty score and resuscitation and escalation plans. Interventions including informal communication with junior doctors, circulation of a ‘Top Tips’ sheet, generation of an information poster and dissemination of information at local teaching sessions, took place, and were assessed, over regular PDSA cycles.
 
 
 
 showed a clear, sustained improvement in the quality of the discharge summaries. At the end of data collection, 100% of discharge summaries contained an adequate description of admission and an appropriate follow up plan. There was also significant improvement in documentation of specific requirements. Where documentation was initially very limited, following interventions, most discharge summaries contained details pertaining to discharge destination, need for home support, mobility status and resuscitation and escalation plans.
 
 
 
 The relatively simple interventions have been found to have a sustained improvement in the quality of discharge summaries from the Geriatric Medicine Department at Lister Hospital, Stevenage. Whilst more work needs to be done it is hoped that this will already have enhanced patient care.


/pdf/662-enhancing-care-by-improving-discharge-summaries-2b8o4qx5.pdf

Rachel Loh

Papers

Assessing Markers of Reproducibility and Transparency in Smoking Behaviour Change Intervention Evaluations

662 enhancing care by improving discharge summaries