Drawings as tools to (re)imagine space in interdisciplinary global health research.

Understanding the role of space in infectious diseases' dynamics in urban contexts is key to developing effective mitigation strategies. Urbanism, a discipline that both studies and acts upon the city, commonly uses drawings to analyze spatial patterns and their variables. This paper revisits drawings as analytical and integrative tools for interdisciplinary research. We introduce the use of drawings in two interdisciplinary projects conducted in the field of global public health: first, a study about the heterogeneous burden of tuberculosis and COVID-19 in Lima, Peru, and second, a study about urban malaria in Jimma, Ethiopia. In both cases, drawings such as maps, plans, and sections were used to analyze spatial factors present in the urban context at different scales: from the scale of the territory, the city, and the district, to the neighborhood and the household. We discuss the methodological approaches taken in both cases, considering the nature of the diseases being investigated as well as the natural and social context in which the studies took place. We contend that the use of drawings helps to reimagine space in public health research by adding a multidimensional perspective to spatial variables and contexts. The processes and products of drawing can help to (a) identify systemic relations within the spatial context, (b) facilitate integration of quantitative and qualitative data, and (c) guide the formulation of policy recommendations, informing public and urban health planning.

Curating the Evidence About COVID-19 for Frontline Public Health and Clinical Care: The Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium.

The public health crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred a deluge of scientific research aimed at informing the public health and medical response to the pandemic. However, early in the pandemic, those working in frontline public health and clinical care had insufficient time to parse the rapidly evolving evidence and use it for decision-making. Academics in public health and medicine were well-placed to translate the evidence for use by frontline clinicians and public health practitioners. The Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium (NCRC), a group of >60 faculty and trainees across the United States, formed in March 2020 with the goal to quickly triage and review the large volume of preprints and peer-reviewed publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 and summarize the most important, novel evidence to inform pandemic response. From April 6 through December 31, 2020, NCRC teams screened 54 192 peer-reviewed articles and preprints, of which 527 were selected for review and uploaded to the NCRC website for public consumption. Most articles were peer-reviewed publications (n = 395, 75.0%), published in 102 journals; 25.1% (n = 132) of articles reviewed were preprints. The NCRC is a successful model of how academics translate scientific knowledge for practitioners and help build capacity for this work among students. This approach could be used for health problems beyond COVID-19, but the effort is resource intensive and may not be sustainable in the long term.

Ishmail Abdus-Saboor.

In an interview with Neuron, Ishmail Abdus-Saboor talks about the future of team science and how the pandemic has renewed faith in basic research, and he emphasizes the importance of humanity and diversity in science for fueling innovation and equal talent needing equal opportunity.

Transdisciplinary research and clinical priorities for better health.

Modern medicine makes it possible for many people to live with multiple chronic diseases for decades, but this has enormous social, financial, and environmental consequences. Preclinical, epidemiological, and clinical trial data have shown that many of the most common chronic diseases are largely preventable with nutritional and lifestyle interventions that are targeting well-characterized signaling pathways and the symbiotic relationship with our microbiome. Most of the research priorities and spending for health are focused on finding new molecular targets for the development of biotech and pharmaceutical products. Very little is invested in mechanism-based preventive science, medicine, and education. We believe that overly enthusiastic expectations regarding the benefits of pharmacological research for disease treatment have the potential to impact and distort not only medical research and practice but also environmental health and sustainable economic growth. Transitioning from a primarily disease-centered medical system to a balanced preventive and personalized treatment healthcare system is key to reduce social disparities in health and achieve financially sustainable, universal health coverage for all. In this Perspective article, we discuss a range of science-based strategies, policies, and structural reforms to design an entire new disease prevention-centered science, educational, and healthcare system that maximizes both human and environmental health.

Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Research: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Rapid increases in technology and data motivate the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to primary care, but no comprehensive review exists to guide these efforts. Our objective was to assess the nature and extent of the body of research on AI for primary care. METHODS: We performed a scoping review, searching 11 published or gray literature databases with terms pertaining to AI (eg, machine learning, bayes* network) and primary care (eg, general pract*, nurse). We performed title and abstract and then full-text screening using Covidence. Studies had to involve research, include both AI and primary care, and be published in Eng-lish. We extracted data and summarized studies by 7 attributes: purpose(s); author appointment(s); primary care function(s); intended end user(s); health condition(s); geographic location of data source; and AI subfield(s). RESULTS: Of 5,515 unique documents, 405 met eligibility criteria. The body of research focused on developing or modifying AI methods (66.7%) to support physician diagnostic or treatment recommendations (36.5% and 13.8%), for chronic conditions, using data from higher-income countries. Few studies (14.1%) had even a single author with a primary care appointment. The predominant AI subfields were supervised machine learning (40.0%) and expert systems (22.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Research on AI for primary care is at an early stage of maturity. For the field to progress, more interdisciplinary research teams with end-user engagement and evaluation studies are needed.

Animals, vaccines, and COVID-19.

Animals, especially mammals, have played a critical role in the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 virus originated in animals, and the virus can jump back and forth between humans and animals. Moreover, animals have been central to the development of the various vaccines against the virus now employed around the world, continuing a long history. The interrelationships between animals and humans in both disease transmission and its prevention call for an interdisciplinary approach to medicine.

EU health law and policy: shaping a future research agenda.

The relevance of the European Union (EU) for health has been widely recognised within the health community for some time, and is increasingly apparent to European policy-makers and publics. Despite being an area of policy that national governments would prefer to keep exclusive control of, and though in the past it has rarely been at the top of the agenda, many elements of health have been gradually 'Europeanised'. This special issue marks the culmination of a British Academy-funded project - EU Health Law and Policy: Shaping a Future Research Agenda - which sought to build on the growing web of expertise in this field and reflect upon the future of health as an EU competence, at a time when it appeared to be under threat.

Using the PhenX Toolkit to Select Standard Measurement Protocols for Your Research Study.

The goals of PhenX (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures) are to promote the use of standard measurement protocols and to help investigators identify opportunities for collaborative research and cross-study analysis, thus increasing the impact of individual studies. The PhenX Toolkit (https://www.phenxtoolkit.org/) offers high-quality, well-established measurement protocols to assess phenotypes and exposures in studies with human participants. The Toolkit contains protocols representing 29 research domains and 6 specialty collections of protocols that add depth to the Toolkit in specific research areas (e.g., COVID-19, Social Determinants of Health [SDoH], Blood Sciences Research [BSR], Mental Health Research [MHR], Tobacco Regulatory Research [TRR], and Substance Abuse and Addiction [SAA]). Protocols are recommended for inclusion in the PhenX Toolkit by Working Groups of domain experts using a consensus process that includes input from the scientific community. For each PhenX protocol, the Toolkit provides a detailed description, the rationale for inclusion, and supporting documentation. Users can browse protocols in the Toolkit, search the Toolkit using keywords, or use Browse Protocols Tree to identify protocols of interest. The PhenX Toolkit provides data dictionaries compatible with the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data submission compatibility, and data collection worksheets to help investigators incorporate PhenX protocols into their study design. The PhenX Toolkit provides resources to help users identify published studies that used PhenX protocols. © 2021 The Authors. Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol: Using the PhenX Toolkit to support or extend study design.

COVID-19 related interdisciplinary methods: Preventing errors and detecting research opportunities.

More than 130,000 peer-reviewed studies have been published within one year after COVID-19 emerged in many countries. This large and rapidly growing field may overwhelm the synthesizing abilities of both researchers and policy-makers. To provide a sinopsis, prevent errors, and detect cognitive gaps that may require interdisciplinary research methods, the literature on COVID-19 is summarized, twice. The overall purpose of this study is to generate a dialogue meant to explain the genesis of and/or find remedies for omissions and contradictions. The first review starts in Biology and ends in Policy. Policy is chosen as a destination because it is the setting where cognitive integration must occur. The second review follows the opposite path: it begins with stated policies on COVID-19 and then their assumptions and disciplinary relationships are identified. The purpose of this interdisciplinary method on methods is to yield a relational and explanatory view of the field -one strategy likely to be incomplete but usable when large bodies of literature need to be rapidly summarized. These reviews identify nine inter-related problems, research needs, or omissions, namely: (1) nation-wide, geo-referenced, epidemiological data collection systems (open to and monitored by the public); (2) metrics meant to detect non-symptomatic cases -e.g., test positivity-; (3) cost-benefit oriented methods, which should demonstrate they detect silent viral spreaders even with limited testing; (4) new personalized tests that inform on biological functions and disease correlates, such as cell-mediated immunity, co-morbidities, and immuno-suppression; (5) factors that influence vaccine effectiveness; (6) economic predictions that consider the long-term consequences likely to follow epidemics that growth exponentially; (7) the errors induced by self-limiting and/or implausible paradigms, such as binary and reductionist approaches; (8) new governance models that emphasize problem-solving skills, social participation, and the use of scientific knowledge; and (9) new educational programs that utilize visual aids and audience-specific communication strategies. The analysis indicates that, to optimally address these problems, disciplinary and social integration is needed. By asking what is/are the potential cause(s) and consequence(s) of each issue, this methodology generates visualizations that reveal possible relationships as well as omissions and contradictions. While inherently limited in scope and likely to become obsolete, these shortcomings are avoided when this 'method on methods' is frequently practiced. Open-ended, inter-/trans-disciplinary perspectives and broad social participation may help researchers and citizens to construct, de-construct, and re-construct COVID-19 related research.

Pivoting in Context: Using the Forging Alliances in Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Research Model to Collaborate During COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have been faced with challenges in maintaining interdisciplinary research collaborations. The purpose of this article is to apply and expand a previously introduced model to sustaining new interdisciplinary research collaborations: Forging Alliances in Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Research (FAIRR). FAIRR is a logic model that can be used as a guide to create interdisciplinary rehabilitation research teams. In this article, the authors propose expanding FAIRR by including strategies for sustaining interdisciplinary rehabilitation research collaborations: modifying inputs (resources needed to assemble a team and to conduct research activities), shifting activities (steps taken to move the interdisciplinary collaboration forward), and examining what impacts the fit between inputs and activities. Two examples are used to highlight the application of the FAIRR model to interdisciplinary collaborations during COVID-19.

The Need for Multidisciplinary Research within the History and Theory of Homeopathy.

The controversial issue of homeopathy's scientificity will, in all probability, not be settled by means of clinical trials alone, as long as uncertainty or ignorance about methodological, philosophical, and socio-economical essentials prevail on both sides of the argument. Rather than uncritically adopt the standards of the currently predominant paradigm, homeopathy should not forget its roots, peculiarities, and self-conception. Contrary to conventional medicine, it is based on a teleological image of humanity, a holistic and sustainable approach towards curing sickness, and an up-to-date concept of medical theory in terms of healing arts. However, under today's frameworked conditions of industrialisation, commercialisation and commodification, the strengths of homeopathy tend to be disregarded or even attacked, and a special kind of reductionist and materialist rationality, compatible with expanding markets and profits, is preferably facilitated. To reveal and demonstrate these developments and relationships on a scientific level, there is a need for multidisciplinary research on the part of the humanities, such as history and theory of medicine, history and theory of science, history of economics, sociology of scientific knowledge, and philosophy.

Reimagining the peer-review system for translational health science journals.

Retractions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) papers in high impact journals, such as The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, have been panned as major scientific fraud in public media. The initial reaction to this news was to seek out scapegoats and blame individual authors, peer-reviewers, editors, and journals for wrong doing. This paper suggests that scapegoating a few individuals for faulty science is a myopic approach to the more profound problem with peer-review. Peer-review in its current limited form cannot be expected to adequately address the scope and complexity of large interdisciplinary science research collaboration, which is central in translational research. In addition, empirical studies on the effectiveness of traditional peer-review reveal its very real potential for bias and groupthink; as such, expectations regarding the capacity and effectiveness of the current peer review process are unrealistic. This paper proposes a new vision of peer-review in translational science that, on the one hand, would allow for early release of a manuscript to ensure expediency, whereas also creating a forum or a collective of various experts to actively comment, scrutinize, and even build on the research under review. The aim would be to not only generate open discussion and oversight respecting the quality and limitations of the research, but also to assess the extent and the means for that knowledge to translate into social benefit.

Building brain capital.

Brains are indispensable drivers of human progress. Why not invest more heavily in them? We seek to place Brain Capital at the center of a new narrative to fuel economic and societal recovery and resilience.

COVID-19: Opportunities for interdisciplinary research to improve care for older people in Sweden.

The emergence of COVID-19 has changed the world as we know it, arguably none more so than for older people. In Sweden, the majority of COVID-19-related fatalities have been among people aged ⩾70 years, many of whom were receiving health and social care services. The pandemic has illuminated aspects within the care continuum requiring evaluative research, such as decision-making processes, the structure and organisation of care, and interventions within the complex public-health system. This short communication highlights several key areas for future interdisciplinary and multi-sectorial collaboration to improve health and social care services in Sweden. It also underlines that a valid, reliable and experiential evidence base is the sine qua non for evaluative research and effective public-health systems.