Encontro nacional de Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa - ENCEP bloco 1

Heteroptera research in Latin America and the Caribbean (Insecta, Hemiptera): status and perspectives in the 21st century.

Latin American and the Caribbean regions (LAC) harbor one of the most biodiverse areas of the world, the Neotropics. True bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) are a diverse lineage of insects, with more than 45,000 species, particularly speciose in the Neotropical region. True bugs are fundamental in the dynamics of natural and modified ecosystems, with several species critical to agriculture and public health. We compiled Heteroptera research in LAC from 1998-2022 using bibliographic databases. Productivity, collaborative networks, and the main topics studied were analyzed. A total of 1,651 Heteroptera studies from LAC were found, with continuous growth being 2021 the most prolific. Four categories (Taxonomy of extant species, Faunistic inventories and new records, Pest species biology, and Community ecology) represent most of the published research. About 60 percent of the records evaluated correspond to five families (Pentatomidae, Reduviidae, Coreidae, Miridae, and Rhyparochromidae). We emphasize the need to keep working on Heteroptera taxonomy because it will allow further advances in other areas such as phylogenetic analyses, biogeography, ecology, and natural history, among others. The results of our analyses characterize the current state of heteropterology in the region, establishing a baseline for future studies and efforts to broaden the knowledge of the group.

Impact through research in education and studies in human society: A review of Australian Research Council 'high-for-impact' case studies.

Research impact is an important measure of the effective transmission and ongoing contribution of research beyond the scope of initial research publication outputs; however, determining what constitutes 'high-for-impact' research can be difficult for specific fields of study. This review of the Australian Research Council's Engagement and Impact Assessment 2018 analyses high-for-impact case studies submitted in the fields of Education (n = 17) and Studies in Human Society (n = 11) with the aim of understanding and explicating how high impact research has been evidenced in these fields. The review was guided by three research questions that concern the identification of the key characteristics of high-for-impact case studies, their reported impacts, and the evidence researchers cite to support claims of impact. The review highlights an important limitation in how impact is defined and understood by researchers, particularly cultural and social impact. Half of the analysed case studies involved international engagement, with minimal partner collaboration in the global south and countries in the Indo-Pacific, despite the region's strategic geo-political importance for Australia. Our findings draw into question the distribution of funding to universities and where investment might best be made for the highest potential return on research impact. Another key finding is that reported impacts across the domains of economy, society, culture, national security, public service, health, environment and quality of life offer little satisfactory evidence of impact, despite affording valuable insights into the nature of impact claimed. Accordingly, we conclude that to enhance the value of research and demonstrate impact in Education and Social Sciences, improved impact literacy is required among researchers. We assert that a better understanding of what constitutes impact and how it can be evidenced will support more impactful research designs. Wider adoption of the holistic anthropological definition of culture, which integrates values, practices and products, would enhance impact case studies by expanding their focus to include the broader cultural changes that underpin sustained social change. While the ARC engagement and impact agenda is a step in the right direction, improving the value of research for society will require a radical reconceptualisation of research and its funding, well beyond the current assessment framework. The Lowitja Institute's research-for-impact framework [1] is proposed as an alternative approach to research priority-setting based on explicit evidence gap analysis.

Inclusive Research Environments for Deaf and Hard of Hearing English Speakers.

In recent years, an increasing number of deaf and hard of hearing (D/HH) undergraduates have chosen to study in STEM fields and pursue careers in research. Yet, very little research has been undertaken on the barriers and inclusive experiences often faced by D/HH undergraduates who prefer to use spoken English in research settings, instead of American Sign Language (ASL). To identify barriers and inclusive strategies, we studied six English speaking D/HH undergraduate students working in research laboratories with their eight hearing mentors, and their three hearing peers sharing their experiences. Three researchers observed the interactions between all three groups and conducted interviews and focus groups, along with utilizing the Communication Assessment Self-Rating Scale (CASS). The main themes identified in the findings were communication and environmental barriers in research laboratories, creating accessible and inclusive laboratory environments, communication strategies, and self-advocating for effective communication. Recommendations for mentors include understanding the key elements of creating an inclusive laboratory environment for English speaking D/HH students and effectively demonstrating cultural competence to engage in inclusive practices.

A CURE Lab in Introductory Biology at a Regional Comprehensive University Negatively Impacts Student Success in the Associated Lecture Course Among Students from Groups Underrepresented in Science.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been proposed as a mechanism to democratize access to the benefits of apprentice-style scientific research to a broader diversity of students, promoting inclusivity and increasing student success and retention. As we evaluate CUREs, it is essential to explore their effectiveness within the environments of regional comprehensive universities and community colleges, because they are important access points for a wide variety of students. It is also important to address the potential influence of volunteer bias, where students can opt to enroll in either the CURE or a traditional lab, on the outcomes of CUREs. We evaluated a CURE at a regional comprehensive university under conditions both with and without volunteer bias. We find that nonvolunteer students report a lower sense of discovery and relevance of the CURE compared with students who volunteered for the course. Importantly, we also find that our replacement of the traditional lab class with a CURE resulted in lower scores on exams in the associated lecture course among students who are both BIPOC and Pell eligible. We call for additional research on the effects of CUREs at nonresearch-intensive institutions and without volunteer bias, to better understand the impact of these classes.

Development of the Mentoring in Undergraduate Research Survey.

Here we present the development of the Mentoring in Undergraduate Research Survey (MURS) as a measure of a range of mentoring experienced by undergraduate science researchers. We drafted items based on qualitative research and refined the items through cognitive interviews and expert sorting. We used one national dataset to evaluate the internal structure of the measure and a second national dataset to examine how responses on the MURS related to theoretically relevant constructs and student characteristics. Our factor analytic results indicate seven lower order forms of mentoring experiences: abusive supervision, accessibility, technical support, psychosocial support, interpersonal mismatch, sexual harassment, and unfair treatment. These forms of mentoring mapped onto two higher-order factors: supportive and destructive mentoring experiences. Although most undergraduates reported experiencing supportive mentoring, some reported experiencing absence of supportive as well as destructive experiences. Undergraduates who experienced less supportive and more destructive mentoring also experienced lower scientific integration and a dampening of their beliefs about the value of research. The MURS should be useful for investigating the effects of mentoring experienced by undergraduate researchers and for testing interventions aimed at fostering supportive experiences and reducing or preventing destructive experiences and their impacts.

The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on the research portfolio and approval turnaround time at the Kenya Medical Research Institute.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented impact on many sectors globally including research. We assessed the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the research portfolio, and on the approval turnaround time for research protocols submitted to the Scientific and Ethics Review Unit (SERU), at the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI). METHODS: We compared research protocols submitted between October 01, 2019 and March 31, 2020 (Period 1), to those submitted between April 1 and September 30, 2020 (Period 2). A document review tool was used to extract data from the 198 research protocols reviewed and approved over the two periods. RESULTS: In the two periods under review, the single largest percentage of protocols (89/198, 45.4%) involved infectious and parasitic diseases, and the single largest percentage of study designs was cross-sectional (75/198, 38%). Before the pandemic, the median time taken to review KEMRI-linked protocols was 87 days and for non-KEMRI linked protocols it was 121 days. During the pandemic, approval turnaround time dropped for both KEMRI and non-KEMRI protocols to 66 days and 92 days, respectively, due to the streamlined processes at the KEMRI SERU. CONCLUSION: The research portfolio was minimally affected by the pandemic. The adoption of email submission, and faster-than-usual processing and review protocols during the pandemic reduced the approval turnaround time.

Research priorities for the management of major trauma: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine research priorities for the management of major trauma, representing the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals. DESIGN/SETTING: An international research priority-setting partnership. PARTICIPANTS: People who have experienced major trauma, their carers and relatives, and healthcare professionals involved in treating patients after major trauma. The scope included chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries as well as major bleeding, multiple injuries and those that threaten life or limb. METHODS: A multiphase priority-setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 24 months (November 2021-October 2023). An international survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second international survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 19 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities. RESULTS: A total of 1572 uncertainties, submitted by 417 respondents (including 132 patients and carers), were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 53 unique indicative questions, of which all 53 were judged to be true uncertainties after reviewing the existing evidence. 373 people (including 115 patients and carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 19 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10 research priorities for major trauma include patient-centred questions regarding pain relief and prehospital management, multidisciplinary working, novel technologies, rehabilitation and holistic support. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research major trauma around the globe.

Expanding research impact through engaging the maker community and collaborating with digital content creators.

This paper proposes a method for increasing the impact of academic research by providing materials for public use, thus engaging the maker community, and by collaborating with internet content creators to extend the reach. We propose a framework for engagement and report a multi-year study that evaluates short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes, with a second effort to demonstrate repeatability of the short-term outcomes. In the first study, we posted forty-one 3D printable compliant mechanisms on public repositories and collaborated with physicist and content creator Derek Muller (Veritasium YouTube channel). Outputs and outcomes from this interaction were measured over 3 years. The framework was exercised again with four new 3D printable mechanisms in collaboration with engineer and STEM influencer Mark Rober. The proposed methods aim to help researchers extend the reach of their work to broader audiences, including professional engineers, hardware designers, educators, students, researchers, and hobbyists. This work demonstrates promising impacts of the framework, including (1) extending public awareness of research findings to broader audiences by engaging the maker community and collaborating with content creators, (2) accelerating the pace of innovation and further hardware-based research through public application of research findings, (3) fostering a culture of open-source design and collaboration among other researchers, engineers, educators, and makers, and (4) increasing utilization of peer-reviewed published content. These outreach practices can be valuable tools for researchers to increase impact of and excitement for their research.

[Awareness of issues in research and educational activities and expectations for young researchers' activities and supporting].

OBJECTIVES: To understand the actual situation and needs of young researchers and to provide reference for the management of Young Researchers Association (YRA) and the Japanese Society for Hygiene activities in the future. METHODS: An Internet survey was conducted on 67 members registered in YRA of the Japanese Society for Hygiene. The questions included those on basic information, research content and impressions about the activities of the society. RESULTS: Although members of YRA differ in backgrounds, research method used, and years of research experience, the respondents rated the organization as highly useful and participated continuously. In particular, they considered that participation in the planning of academic conferences and summer gatherings of YRA not only helped improve interpersonal relationships and expertise, but also provided opportunities to consult regarding educational activities and collect information. Regarding the format of conferences, it was shown that the majority of requests were for a hybrid format. It was also shown that most of the respondents expected opportunities for collaboration and joint research through participation in YRA. CONCLUSION: Through YRA, we would like to contribute to the further revitalization of young researchers and the Japanese Society for Hygiene by understanding and responding to the needs of diverse young researchers.

A Research Agenda to Support Families of People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities With Intersectional Identities.

Family members provide significant practical and emotional support to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) across the lifespan. In September 2022, the State of the Science Conference on Community Living: Engaging Persons With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities From Underserved Racial, Ethnic, Linguistic, and Cultural Groups in Research was held. This article summarizes the efforts of the workgroup that developed research goals related to supporting families of people with IDD. The focus was on families with intersectional identities and minoritized communities. Recommended areas of future research include exploratory research to better understand the experiences of these families, perspectives of families with intersectional identities about the formal support system, funding for family support and services, and inclusive research strategies.

Patients' and carers' views on research priorities in prehabilitation for cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The views of patients and carers are important for the development of research priorities. This study aimed to determine and compare the top research priorities of cancer patients and carers with those of multidisciplinary clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study surveyed patients recovering from cancer surgery at a major tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia, and/or their carers between March and July 2023. Consenting patients and carers were provided a list of research priorities according to clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation, as determined in a recent International Delphi study. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each research priority using a 5-item Likert scale (ranging from 1 = very high research priority to 5 = very low research priority). RESULTS: A total of 101 patients and 50 carers participated in this study. Four areas were identified as research priorities, achieving consensus of highest importance (> 70% rated as "high" or "very high" priority) by patients, carers, and clinical experts. These were "optimal composition of prehabilitation programs" (77% vs. 82% vs. 88%), "effect of prehabilitation on surgical outcomes" (85% vs. 90% vs. 95%), "effect of prehabilitation on functional outcomes" (83% vs. 86% vs. 79%), and "effect of prehabilitation on patient reported outcomes" (78% vs. 84% vs. 79%). Priorities that did not reach consensus of high importance by patients despite reaching consensus of highest importance by experts included "identifying populations most likely to benefit from prehabilitation" (70% vs. 76% vs. 90%) and "defining prehabilitation core outcome measures" (66% vs. 74% vs. 87%). "Prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapies" reached consensus of high importance by patients but not by experts or carers (81% vs. 68% vs. 69%). CONCLUSION: This study delineated the primary prehabilitation research priorities as determined by patients and carers, against those previously identified by clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation. It is recommended that subsequent high-quality research and resource allocation be directed towards these highlighted areas of importance.

Does repetition equal more of the same? tie strength and thematic orientation in R&D networks.

Despite organizations' documented tendency to repeat research collaborations with prior partners, scholarly understanding on the implications of recurring interactions for the content of the collaboration has been fairly limited. This paper investigates whether and under what conditions organizations use repeated research partnerships to explore new topics, as opposed to deepening their expertise in a single one (exploitation). The empirical analysis is based on the Spanish region of Valencia and its publicly funded R&D network. Employing lexical similarity to compare the topic and content of project abstracts, we find that strong ties are not always associated with the exploitation of the same topic. Yet, exploration is more likely when at least one of the partners mobilizes a network of distinct contacts and can access novel knowledge.

Assessing the evolution of research topics in a biological field using plant science as an example.

Scientific advances due to conceptual or technological innovations can be revealed by examining how research topics have evolved. But such topical evolution is difficult to uncover and quantify because of the large body of literature and the need for expert knowledge in a wide range of areas in a field. Using plant biology as an example, we used machine learning and language models to classify plant science citations into topics representing interconnected, evolving subfields. The changes in prevalence of topical records over the last 50 years reflect shifts in major research trends and recent radiation of new topics, as well as turnover of model species and vastly different plant science research trajectories among countries. Our approaches readily summarize the topical diversity and evolution of a scientific field with hundreds of thousands of relevant papers, and they can be applied broadly to other fields.

Establishing the Top 10 Research Priorities for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Cancer in Canada: A Protocol for a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15-39 years) diagnosed with cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs. These needs could be better addressed through research that is focused on the topics that matter most to them. However, there is currently no patient-oriented research agenda for AYA cancer in Canada. This manuscript describes the early development and project protocol for a priority-setting partnership (PSP) for establishing the top 10 research priorities for AYA cancer in Canada. This project follows the PSP methodology outlined by the James Lind Alliance (JLA) to engage patients, caregivers, and clinicians in research prioritization. The steps of a JLA PSP include establishing a steering group and project partners, gathering uncertainties, data processing and verifying uncertainties, interim priority setting, and a final priority setting workshop. The AYA cancer PSP will result in a top 10 list of research priorities identified by Canadian AYA patients, caregivers, and clinicians that will be published and shared broadly with the research community. The first steering group meeting was held in April 2023, and the project is ongoing. The establishment of a patient-oriented research agenda for AYA cancer will catalyze a long-term and impactful research focus and ultimately improve outcomes for AYA patients with cancer in Canada.

The SkillsCenter: Creating scalable research opportunities for STEM students.

Undergraduate students generally need laboratory skills and experience to be accepted into a position within an academic lab or a company. However, those settings are traditionally where students would develop that necessary expertise. We developed a laboratory course paradigm to equip students with the skills they need to access future opportunities.