سنجش اثر مطالعات کوهورت حوزه پزشکی ایران از بُعد تولید و توسعه دانش

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی سبزوار

2 استادیارگروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، دانشگاه زابل

چکیده

هدف: مطالعات کوهورت یکی از روش‌های مهم پژوهش در حوزه علوم پزشکی به شمار می‌آیند که معمولاً هزینه‌بر و زمان‌بر هستند. برای توجیه سرمایه‌گذاری‌های انجام‌شده روی مطالعات کوهورت، اثرات و دستاوردهای این پژوهش‌‌ها باید مورد ارزیابی قرار گیرد. هدف مطالعه حاضر بررسی سنجش اثر مطالعات کوهورت ایران از بُعد تولید و توسعه دانش است.
روش‌شناسی: مطالعه حاضر یک مطالعه‌ کمی است که با رویکرد علم‌سنجی انجام شده است. 1374 تولید علمی حاصل از مطالعات کوهورت ایران که تا تاریخ 30 نوامبر 2017 در پایگاه وب ‌آو ‌ساینس نمایه شده بودند، جامعه آماری این پژوهش را تشکیل دادند. برای آمار توصیفی از نرم‌افزار اکسل و ترسیم نقشه‌های همکاری، از نرم‌افزارهای بیب‌اکسل، نت‌دراو و یو سی آی نت استفاده شد.
یافته‌ها: درمجموع 1374 مدرک بازیابی‌شده در 108 گروه موضوعی مختلف نمایه شده‌اند. گروه موضوعی پزشکی داخلی و عمومی با 243 مقاله در رتبه اول قرار داشت. 1374 مدرک بازیابی‌شده درمجموع 12953 استناد دریافت کرده بودند که 36.69 درصد از مقالات دارای استناد و نیم درصد از آنها معادل 7 مدرک جزء مقالات پراستناد بودند. 9685 نویسنده در نگارش مقالات نقش داشتند که هر مدرک به‌طور میانگین توسط 7 نویسنده نگاشته شده است. 506 مجله از مجموع 624 مجله منتشرکننده این مقالات دارای ضریب تأثیر بوده‌اند. 9.17 درصد مقالات در نشریات چارک اول منتشر شده‌اند. 110 کشور و 1389 سازمان ملی و بین‌المللی در نگارش مقالات کوهورت ایران نقش داشته‌اند که در میان کشورها، آمریکا، انگلستان و فرانسه، در بین سازمان‌های داخلی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تهران، علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی و علوم پزشکی اصفهان و در بین سازمان‌های بین‌المللی، آژانس بین‌المللی تحقیقات سرطان، مؤسسه کارولینسکا و مؤسسه ملی سرطان به‌ترتیب در رده‌های اول تا سوم قرار دارند.
نتیجه‌گیری: با توجه به روند رو به رشد مطالعات کوهورت، مدیران دانشگا‌ه‌ها و سرمایه‌گذاران پژوهشی باید به سنجش اثر این مطالعات توجه نمایند و درخصوص تمرکز بر همکاری‌های داخلی و خارجی اقدام نمایند. محققان نیز توجه بیشتری به انتشار و اشاعه نتایج پژوهش‌ها در مجلات باکیفیت و دارای مخاطب در سطح بین‌المللی نمایند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Impact of Iranian Cohort Studies on Knowledge Production and Development

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mansoureh FeyzabadI 1
  • Esmaeil Vaziri 2
1 Ph.D. in Information Science and Knowledge Studies, Medical Sciences University of Sabzevar
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Information Science and Knowledge Studies, University of Zabol
چکیده [English]

Purpose:Cohort studies are one of the most important research methods in the field of medical sciences that are usually costly and time-consuming. To justify the investments of these studies, their impacts and achievements should be evaluated. The purpose of this study was to investigate the status and impact of Iranian cohort studies on the production and development of knowledge.
Methodology: The present research was a descriptive applied study using bibliometric and Scientometrics methods. 1374 Iranian scientific productions from cohort studies, indexed up to November 30, 2017, in the web of science, formed the statistical population of this study. To analyze the data and descriptive statistics, Excel software and to draw up cooperation maps, Bibexcel, NET DREW and UCInet were used, respectively.
Findings: 1374 documents indexed in 108 different subject categories with “Medicine, General & Internal” consisted of the first group with 243 articles. These documents received 12953 citations. 69.36% of documents were cited, and 0.5% of them were highly cited. 9685 authors cooperated in writing these papers. Therefore, it was indicated that each paper, on average, contributed by 7 authors. Also, 506 out of 624 journals published cohort articles had an impact factor. 17.9% of papers were published in Q1 journals, and110 countries and 1389 national and international organizations contributed to publish Iranian cohort studies articles.
Conclustion: Considering the growing trend in cohort studies, university administrators, custodians, and research investors need to pay attention to the impact of these studies to plan for investing in these studies as well as focusing on domestic and foreign partnerships. Researchers should also pay more attention to the dissemination of research results in qualified magazines with an international audience.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Research impact
  • Cohort studies
  • bibliometric
  • Knowledge production
  • knowledge development
  • Scientometric
احسانی وحید، اعظمی موسی، نجفی سیّد محمدباقر، سهیلی فرامرز. (1395). اثربخشی پژوهش‌های ایران. پایان‌نامه دکترای تخصصی. دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بوعلی همدان.

جمالی‌مهموئی، حمید‌رضا. (1391). مقایسه الگوها و چارچوب‌های سنجش اثر پژوهش‌های پزشکی. مدیریت اطلاعات سلامت، 5، 757–767.

جمالی مهموئی، حمیدرضا؛ اسدی، سعید؛ و صدقی، شهرام. (1391). سنجش اثر پژوهش در علوم پزشکی: الگوها و روش‌ها. تهران: فرهنگستان علوم پزشکی جمهوری اسلامی ایران.

خردمند مطهره، عنایتی احمدعلی، رفیعی علیرضا، موسی‌زاده محمود. (1394). مروری بر مطالعات کوهورت مبتنی بر جمعیت در ایران. مجله دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مازندران. ۲۵ (۱۲۵) :۱۷۱-۱۸۵.

سلیمانی اردکانی، لیلا. (1393). ارزیابی رابطه میان هزینه‌های پژوهشی طرح‌های تحقیقاتی انجام‌شده و اثربخشی آنها در دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی. دانشگاه شیراز.

صالحی بهمن، قبله فریبا، زرین‌فر  نادر، رفیعی محمد، میرحسینی فریده، رضایی کورش و قربانی مجتبی. (1389). بررسی انتقال دانش حاصل از پژوهش در دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اراک. اراک: دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اراک.

فیض‌آبادی منصوره، فهیم‌نیا فاطمه، نقشینه نادر، موسوی جراحی علیرضا و توفیقی، شهرام. (1396). سنجش اثر مطالعات کارآزمایی بالینی ایران. پایان‌نامه دکترای تخصصی. دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران.

ملک افضلی حسین، مجدزاده رضا، فتوحی اکبر و توکلی، سامان. (1384). روش‌شناسی پژوهش‌های کاربردی در علوم پزشکی. چاپ اول. انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.

Abbasi, A., Chung, K. S. K., & Hossain, L. (2012). Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance. Information Processing & Management, 48(4), 671-679.

Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2015a). The relationship between the number of authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing journal: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 746-761.

Adam, P., Solans-Domenech, M., Pons, J. M. V., Aymerich, M., Berra, S., Guillamon, I., Sanchez, E., & Permanyer-Miralda, G. (2012a). Assessment of the impact of a clinical and health services research call in Catalonia. Research Evaluation, 21(4), 319-328.

Agarwal, A., Durairajanayagam, D., Tatagari, S., Esteves, S., Harlev, A., Henkel, R., Roychoudhury, S., Homa, S., Puchalt, N., Ramasamy, R., Majzoub, A., Ly, K., Tvrda, E., Assidi, M., Kesari, K., Sharma, R., Hani, S., Ko, E., Abu-Elmagd, M., Gosalvez, J., & Bashiri, A. (2015b). Bibliometrics - Tracking Research Impact By Selecting The Appropriate Metrics. Asian Journal of Andrology, 0(0), 0-0.

Agarwal, A., Durairajanayagam, D., Tatagari, S., Esteves, S., Harlev, A., Henkel, R., Roychoudhury, S., Homa, S., Puchalt, N., Ramasamy, R., Majzoub, A., Ly, K., Tvrda, E., Assidi, M., Kesari, K., Sharma, R., Hani, S., Ko, E., Abu-Elmagd, M., Gosalvez, J., & Bashiri, A. (2015). Bibliometrics - Tracking Research Impact By Selecting The Appropriate Metrics. Asian Journal of Andrology, 18(2), 296-309.

Boaz, A., Boaz, A., Fitzpatrick, S., Fitzpatrick, S., Shaw, B., & Shaw, B. (2008a). Assessing the impact of research on policy: A review of the literature for a project on bridging research and policy through outcome evaluation. (February), 394-394.

Borgatti, S. (2002). NetDraw Network Visualization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Analytic Technologies.

Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Freeman, L. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows:  Software for Social Network Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Analytic Technologies.

Bornmann, L. (2015). Measuring impact in research evaluations : A thorough discussion of methods for , effects of , and problems with impact measurements.   Retrieved 11/9/2015, 2015, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.1895

Bunn, F., Trivedi, D., Alderson, P., Hamilton, L., Martin, A., Pinkney, E., & Iliffe, S. (2015). The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 19(28), 1-99

Canadian Institute of Health Research. (2005). Developing a CIHR Framework to Measure The Impact of Health Research. Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Health Research.

Cohen, G., Schroeder, J., Newson, R., King, L., Rychetnik, L., Milat, A. J., Bauman, A. E., Redman, S., & Chapman, S. (2015c). Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13(1), 3-3.

Dembe, A. E., Lynch, M. S., Gugiu, P. C., & Jackson, R. D. (2014a). The Translational Research Impact Scale: Development, Construct Validity, and Reliability Testing. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 37(1), 50-70.

Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013a). Which Factors Help Authors Produce the Highest Impact Research? Collaboration, Journal and Document Properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 861-873.

Donovan, C., Butler, L., Butt, A. J., Jones, T. H., & Hanney, S. R. (2014b). Evaluation of the impact of National Breast Cancer Foundation-funded research. Medical Journal of Australia, 200(4), 214-218.

Engel-Cox, J. A., Van Houten, B., Phelps, J., & Rose, S. W. (2008). Conceptual Model of Comprehensive Research Metrics for Improved Human Health and Environment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(5), 583-592.

Falagas, M. E., Zarkali, A., Karageorgopoulos, D. E., Bardakas, V., & Mavros, M. N. (2013b). The impact of article length on the number of future citations: a bibliometric analysis of general medicine journals. Plos One, 8(2), e49476.

Feizabadi, M., Fahimnia, F., Naghshineh, N., Tofighi, S., & Mosavi Jarrahi, A. (2016). Impact Assessment of ایران's Clinical Trials on Knowledge Production and Development. Journal of Health Administration, 9(65), 85-100.

Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69-115.

Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research, 11, 257-279.

Gordon, L. G., & Bartley, N. (2016). Views from senior Australian cancer resarchers on evaluating the impact of theri research: results from a brief survey. Health research policy and systems2, 14(2), 1-8.

Guinea, J., Sela, E., Gomez-Nunez, a. J., Mangwende, T., Ambali, A., Ngum, N., Jaramillo, H., Gallego, J. M., Patino, A., Latorre, C., Srivanichakorn, S., & Thepthien, B. (2015). Impact oriented monitoring: A new methodology for monitoring and evaluation of international public health research projects. Research Evaluation, 24(February), 131-145.

Guthrie, S., Wamae, W., Diepeveen, S., Wooding, S., & Grant, J. (2013). Developing a research evaluation framework (Vol. 1, pp. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9716-http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9716). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Hanney, S., Boaz, A., Jones, T., & Soper, B. (2013c). Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for healthcare performance. Health Services and Delivery Research, 1(8), 1-172.

Hanney, S., Home, P., Frame, I., Grant, J., Green, P., & Buxton, M. (2006). Identifying the impact of diabetes research. Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 23(2), 176-184.

Hanney, S. R., Grant, J., Wooding, S., & Buxton, M. J. (2004). Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes of health research: the impact of funding by the UK's 'Arthritis Research Campaign'. Health Research Policy and Systems, 2(4), 1-11.

Hiney, M., & Curran, B. (2014c). Outputs and outcomes of HRB awards completed in 2012 and 2013.

Jamali, H. R. (2012b). Comparison of Models and Frameworks of Medical Research Impact Assessment. Health Information Management, 9(5), 757-767.

Kalucy, L., Owers, E. J., McIntyre, E., Hordacre, A.-L., & Reed, R. (2009). Exploring the impact of primary health care research. Final report stage 2: Primary health care research impact project (pp. 1-58). Adelaide:: Primary Health Care Research & Information Service.

Kheradmand, M., Enayati, A., Rafiei, A., & Moosazadeh, M. (2015d). Population Based Cohort Studies in ایران: A Review Article. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, 25(125), 171-185.

Langfeldt, L., Bloch, C. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2015e). Options and limitations in measuring the impact of research grants--evidence from Denmark and Norway. Research Evaluation, 24(3), 256-270.

Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015f). Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1323-1332.

Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(1), 28-32.

Ligthelm, R. J., Borzi, V., Gumprecht, J., Kawamori, R., Wenying, Y., & Valensi, P. (2007). Importance of observational studies in clinical practice. Clin Ther, 29(6 Pt 1), 1284-1292.

malekafzali, H., Majdzadeh, R., Fotoohi, A., & Tavakkoli, S. (2004). Methodology of applied researches in medical Sciences. Tehran: Tehran university of Medical Sciences.

Mann, C. J. (2012). Observational research methods—Cohort studies, cross sectional studies, and case–control studies. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2(1), 38-46.

Milat, A. J., Bauman, A. E., & Redman, S. (2006). A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. practice, 13, 14.

Milat, A. J., Bauman, A. E., & Redman, S. (2015). A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13(18), 1-7.

Nason, E., Curran, B., Hanney, S., Janta, B., Hastings, G., O'Driscoll, M., & Wooding, S. (2011). Evaluating health research funding in Ireland: assessing the impacts of the Health Research Board of Ireland's funding activities. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 193-200.

Nason, E., Janta, B., Hastings, G., & Hanney, S. (2008). Health research making an impact the economic and social benefits of HRB funded research. Dublin RAND corporation.

Newson, R., King, L., Rychetnik, L., Bauman, A. E., Redman, S., Milat, A. J., Schroeder, J., Cohen, G., & Chapman, S. (2015). A mixed methods study of the factors that influence whether intervention research has policy and practice impacts: perceptions of Australian researchers. BMJ open, 5(7), e008153-e008153.

Ortega, J. L. (2014). Influence of co-authorship networks in the research impact: Ego network analyses from Microsoft Academic Search. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 728-737.

Panel on Return on Investment in Health Research. (2009). Making an impact: A Preferred Framework and Indicators to Measure Returns on Investment in Health Research. Ottawa: Canadian Academy of Health Sciences.

Penfield, T., Baker, M. J., Scoble, R., & Wykes, M. C. (2014). Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23(1), 21-32.

Poustchi, H., Eghtesad, S., Kamangar, F., Etemadi, A., Keshtkar, A.-A., Hekmatdoost, A., Mohammadi, Z., Mahmoudi, Z., Shayanrad, A., Roozafzai, F., Sheikh, M., Jalaeikhoo, A., Hossein Somi, M., Mansour-Ghanaei, F., Najafi, F., Bahramali, E., Mehrparvar, A., Ansari-Moghaddam, A., Ali Enayati, A., Esmaeili Nadimi, A., Rezaianzadeh, A., Saki, N., Alipour, F., Kelishadi, R., Rahimi-Movaghar, A., Aminisani, N., Boffetta, P., & Malekzadeh, R. (2017). Prospective Epidemiological Research Studies in ایران (The PERSIAN Cohort): Rationale, Objectives and Design. American Journal of Epidemiology, kwx314-kwx314.

Raftery, J., Hanney, S., Green, C., & Buxton, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of England's National Health Service R&D Health Technology Assessment program using the "payback" approach. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 25(1), 1-5.

Reed, R. L., Kalucy, E. C., Jackson-Bowers, E., & McIntyre, E. (2011). What research impacts do Australian primary health care researchers expect and achieve? Health Research Policy and Systems, 9(1), 40-49.

Rosas, S. R., Kagan, J. M., Schouten, J. T., Slack, P. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2011). Evaluating research and impact: A bibliometric analysis of research by the NIH/NIAID HIV/AIDS clinical trials networks. Plos One, 6(3), 1-12.

Sainty, M. (2013). Research impact: a United Kingdom Occupational Therapy Research Foundation perspective. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(12), 528-537.

Silverman, S. L. (2009). From randomized controlled trials to observational studies. Am J Med, 122(2), 114-120.

Sin, S.-C. J. (2011). International coauthorship and citation impact: A bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980–2008. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9), 1770-1783.

Smith, K. M., Crookes, E., & Crookes, P. A. (2013). Measuring research 'impact' for academic promotion: Issues from the literature. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(4), 410-420.

Song, J. W., & Chung, K. C. (2010). Observational studies: cohort and case-control studies. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 126(6), 2234.

Svider, P. F., Husain, Q., Folbe, A. J., Couldwell, W. T., Liu, J. K., & Eloy, J. A. (2013d). Assessing National Institutes of Health funding and scholarly impact in neurological surgery. Journal of neurosurgery, 120(January), 1-6.

Swaminathan, M., Phillips-Bute, B. G., & Grichnik, K. P. (2007). A bibliometric analysis of global clinical research by anesthesia departments. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 105(6), 1741-1746.

Thomson Reuters. (2016). InCites Essential Science Indicators: Indicators  by Territories. 2016, from https://esi.incites.thomsonreuters.com/IndicatorsAction.action

Thomson Reuters. (2017). InCites Essential Science Indicators: Feild Baselines. 2016, from https://esi.incites.thomsonreuters.com/BaselineAction.action

Thonon, F., Boulkedid, R., Delory, T., Rousseau, S., Saghatchian, M., van Harten, W., O’Neill, C., & Alberti, C. (2015g). Measuring the Outcome of Biomedical Research: A Systematic Literature Review. Plos One, 10(4), e0122239-e0122239.

Tsay, M.-y., & Yang, Y.-h. (2005). Bibliometric analysis of the literature of randomized controlled trials. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 93(4), 450-458.

Tuitt, D., Knight, F., & Lipman, T. (2011). A bibliometric analysis of digestive health research in Canada. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology, 25(11), 609-614.

Vandenbroucke, J. P., Elm, E. v., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., & Egger, M. (2007). Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147(8), W-163.

Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2015h). Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 872-894.

Wooding, S., Hanney, S. R., Pollitt, A., Grant, J., & Buxton, M. J. (2014). Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: a multinational case study approach. Implementation science, 9(1), 47.

Zachariah, R., Guillerm, N., Berger, S., Kumar, A. M. V., Satyanarayana, S., Bissell, K., Edginton, M., Hinderaker, S. G., Tayler-Smith, K., Van den Bergh, R., Khogali, M., Manzi, M., Reid, A. J., Ramsay, A., Reeder, J. C., & Harries, A. D. (2014). Research to policy and practice change: is capacity building in operational research delivering the goods? Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH, 19(9), 1068-1075.