Experience and awareness of research integrity among Japanese physicians: a nationwide cross-sectional study

Rie Nishimura; Jiro Takeuchi; Mio Sakuma; Kazutaka Uchida; Miki Higaonna; Norito Kinjo; Fumihiro Sakakibara; Tsukasa Nakamura; Shinji Kosaka; Shinichi Yoshimura; Shinichiro Ueda; Takeshi Morimoto

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052351

Experience and awareness of research integrity among Japanese physicians: a nationwide cross-sectional study

BMJ Open. 2021 Oct 21;11(10):e052351. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052351.

Authors

Rie Nishimura¹, Jiro Takeuchi¹, Mio Sakuma¹, Kazutaka Uchida^{1

2}, Miki Higaonna³, Norito Kinjo^{1

2}, Fumihiro Sakakibara^{1

2}, Tsukasa Nakamura⁴, Shinji Kosaka⁵, Shinichi Yoshimura², Shinichiro Ueda⁶, Takeshi Morimoto⁷

Affiliations

¹ Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan.
² Department of Neurosurgery, Hyogo college of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan.
³ School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara, Japan.
⁴ Department of Infectious Diseases, Shimane Prefectural Central Hospital, Izumo, Japan.
⁵ Shimane Prefectural Central Hospital, Izumo, Japan.
⁶ Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara, Japan.
⁷ Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan morimoto@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.

Abstract

Objectives: To explore the awareness and practice of clinical research integrity among Japanese physicians.

Design: A nationwide cross-sectional study conducted in March 2020.

Setting: All hospitals in Japan.

Participants: Physicians aged <65 years who work at hospitals participated in clinical research over the past 5 years. The sample was stratified according to geographical location and subspecialty, and 1100 physicians were proportionally selected.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: Knowledge and awareness of research integrity.

Results: Among the 1100 participants, 587 (53%) had the experience of being the first author, 299 (27%) had been co-authors only and 214 (19%) had no authorship. A total of 1021 (93%) had experienced learning research integrity, and 555 (54%) became aware of research integrity. The experience of learning about research integrity was highest among those with first authorship (95%) and lowest among those without authorship (89%) (p=0.003). The majority of participants learnt about research integrity for passive reasons such as it being 'required by the institution' (57%) or it being 'required to obtain approval of institutional review board (IRB)' (30%). Potentially inappropriate research behaviours were observed in participants, with 11% indulging in copying and pasting for writing the paper, 11% for gifted authorship and 5.8% for the omission of IRB approval. Factors significantly associated with copying and pasting were being below 40 years old (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.05 to 3.26), being the first presenter (OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.57) or having passive reasons for learning research integrity (OR: 2.96; 95% CI: 1.57 to 5.59). Furthermore, gifted authorship was significantly associated with being a co-author only (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.87) and having passive reasons for learning about research integrity (OR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.12).

Conclusions: Most physicians conducting clinical research have learnt about research integrity, but potentially inappropriate research behaviours are associated with passive reasons for learning.

Keywords: medical education & training; medical ethics; statistics & research methods.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Adult
Authorship
Biomedical Research*
Cross-Sectional Studies
Humans
Japan
Physicians*