Browsing by Author "Price, Lori Lyn"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Collaborative biostatistics and epidemiology in academic medical centres: A survey to assess relationships with health researchers and ethical implications
    (Wiley, 2022-06-14) Devick, Katrina L.; Gunn, Heather J.; Price, Lori Lyn; Meinzen-Derr, Jareen K.; Enders, Felicity T.; Perkins, Susan M.; Schulte, Phillip J.; Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health
    The role of collaborative biostatisticians and epidemiologists in academic medical centres and how their degree type, supervisor type and sex influences recognition and feelings of respect is poorly understood. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of self-identified biostatisticians and epidemiologists working in academic medical centres in the United States or Canada. The survey was sent to 341 contacts at 125 institutions who were asked to forward the survey invitation to faculty and staff at their institution and posted on Community sections of the American Statistical Association website. Participants were asked a variety of questions including if they felt pressured to produce specific results, whether they had intellectual and ethical freedom to pursue appropriate use of statistical methods in collaborative research and if they felt their contributions were appropriately recognized by collaborators. We received responses from 314 biostatisticians or related methodologists. A majority were female (59%), had a doctorate degree (52%) and reported to a statistician or biostatistician supervisor (69%). Overall, most participants felt valued by their collaborators, but that they did not have sufficient calendar time to meet deadlines. Doctoral-level participants reported more autonomy in their collaborations than master's level participants. Females were less likely to feel recognized and respected compared with males. The survey results suggest that while most respondents felt valued by their collaborators, they have too many projects and need more time to critically review research. Further research is needed to understand why response differs by sex and how these responses fluctuate over time.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Guidance for biostatisticians on their essential contributions to clinical and translational research protocol review
    (Cambridge University Press, 2021-07-12) Ciolino, Jody D.; Spino, Cathie; Ambrosius, Walter T.; Khalatbari, Shokoufeh; Messinger Cayetano, Shari; Lapidus, Jodi A.; Nietert, Paul J.; Oster, Robert A.; Perkins, Susan M.; Pollock, Brad H.; Pomann, Gina-Maria; Price, Lori Lyn; Rice, Todd W.; Tosteson, Tor D.; Lindsell, Christopher J.; Spratt, Heidi; Biostatistics and Health Data Science, School of Medicine
    Rigorous scientific review of research protocols is critical to making funding decisions, and to the protection of both human and non-human research participants. Given the increasing complexity of research designs and data analysis methods, quantitative experts, such as biostatisticians, play an essential role in evaluating the rigor and reproducibility of proposed methods. However, there is a common misconception that a statistician’s input is relevant only to sample size/power and statistical analysis sections of a protocol. The comprehensive nature of a biostatistical review coupled with limited guidance on key components of protocol review motived this work. Members of the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design Special Interest Group of the Association for Clinical and Translational Science used a consensus approach to identify the elements of research protocols that a biostatistician should consider in a review, and provide specific guidance on how each element should be reviewed. We present the resulting review framework as an educational tool and guideline for biostatisticians navigating review boards and panels. We briefly describe the approach to developing the framework, and we provide a comprehensive checklist and guidance on review of each protocol element. We posit that the biostatistical reviewer, through their breadth of engagement across multiple disciplines and experience with a range of research designs, can and should contribute significantly beyond review of the statistical analysis plan and sample size justification. Through careful scientific review, we hope to prevent excess resource expenditure and risk to humans and animals on poorly planned studies.