Refining Established Practices for Research Question Definition to Foster Interdisciplinary Research Skills in a Digital Age: Consensus Study With Nominal Group Technique
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The increased use of digital data in health research demands interdisciplinary collaborations to address its methodological complexities and challenges. This often entails merging the linear deductive approach of health research with the explorative iterative approach of data science. However, there is a lack of structured teaching courses and guidance on how to effectively and constructively bridge different disciplines and research approaches. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide a set of tools and recommendations designed to facilitate interdisciplinary education and collaboration. Target groups are lecturers who can use these tools to design interdisciplinary courses, supervisors who guide PhD and master's students in their interdisciplinary projects, and principal investigators who design and organize workshops to initiate and guide interdisciplinary projects. METHODS: Our study was conducted in 3 steps: (1) developing a common terminology, (2) identifying established workflows for research question formulation, and (3) examining adaptations of existing study workflows combining methods from health research and data science. We also formulated recommendations for a pragmatic implementation of our findings. We conducted a literature search and organized 3 interdisciplinary expert workshops with researchers at the University of Zurich. For the workshops and the subsequent manuscript writing process, we adopted a consensus study methodology. RESULTS: We developed a set of tools to facilitate interdisciplinary education and collaboration. These tools focused on 2 key dimensions- content and curriculum and methods and teaching style-and can be applied in various educational and research settings. We developed a glossary to establish a shared understanding of common terminologies and concepts. We delineated the established study workflow for research question formulation, emphasizing the "what" and the "how," while summarizing the necessary tools to facilitate the process. We propose 3 clusters of contextual and methodological adaptations to this workflow to better integrate data science practices: (1) acknowledging real-life constraints and limitations in research scope; (2) allowing more iterative, data-driven approaches to research question formulation; and (3) strengthening research quality through reproducibility principles and adherence to the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) data principles. CONCLUSIONS: Research question formulation remains a relevant and useful research step in projects using digital data. We recommend initiating new interdisciplinary collaborations by establishing terminologies as well as using the concepts of research tasks to foster a shared understanding. Our tools and recommendations can support academic educators in training health professionals and researchers for interdisciplinary digital health projects.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,042 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».