背景:新兴的流行病学犯罪学领域研究公共卫生和司法系统之间的交集。增加这方面研究活动的价值,减少浪费,考虑到研究受益者和最终用户的需求,进行透明的研究优先级设置,以及对现有研究活动进行系统评估,以弥补差距和利用机会,这一点很重要。
目的:在本研究中,我们旨在研究已发表的流行病学犯罪学研究结果,以评估已发表的结果与监狱利益相关者确定的当前研究重点之间的差距.
方法:将基于规则的方法应用于23,904份PubMed流行病学犯罪学摘要,以提取研究决定因素和结果(即,“主题”)。这些是根据澳大利亚监狱利益相关者确定的研究重点绘制的,以评估与研究成果的差异。还确定了第一作者所属国家的收入水平,以比较按收入水平分类的国家中研究重点的排名。
结果:在100个摘要的评估集上,主题的识别返回90%的F1得分,表明性能可靠。超过53.3%(11,927/22,361)的文章至少有一个提取主题;最常见的是物质使用(1533/11,814,12.97%),其次是HIV(1493/11,814,12.64%)。传染病类别(2949/11,814,24.96%)是最常见的研究优先类别,其次是精神健康(2840/11,814,24.04%)和酒精和其他药物使用(2433/11,814,20.59%)。提取的主题和利益相关者优先事项之间的比较显示了心理健康的一致性,传染病,酒精和其他药物的使用。尽管行为和青少年相关的主题很常见,他们没有作为监狱的优先事项。大多数研究是在高收入国家进行的(10,083/11,814,85.35%),而收入最低的国家一半的研究重点是传染病(47/91,52%)。
结论:通过应用基于规则的文本挖掘方法,可以从PubMed流行病学犯罪学研究摘要中确定研究主题。调查主题的频率可能反映了有关疾病患病率的历史发展。治疗进展,以及社会对疾病和被监禁人群的理解。收入状况群体之间的差异可能由当地的健康优先事项和直接的健康风险来解释。利益攸关方研究优先事项和研究产出之间的显著差距涉及更侧重于社会因素和系统的主题,可能反映出版偏见或自我出版选择,强调需要进一步研究监狱卫生服务和健康的社会决定因素。不同的司法管辖区,国家,区域应开展类似的系统和透明的研究优先事项设定进程。
BACKGROUND: The emerging field of epidemiological criminology studies the intersection between public health and justice systems. To increase the value of and reduce waste in research activities in this area, it is important to perform transparent research priority setting considering the needs of research beneficiaries and end users along with a systematic assessment of the existing research activities to address gaps and harness opportunities.
OBJECTIVE: In this
study, we aimed to examine published research outputs in epidemiological criminology to assess gaps between published outputs and current research priorities identified by prison stakeholders.
METHODS: A rule-based method was applied to 23,904
PubMed epidemiological criminology abstracts to extract the
study determinants and outcomes (ie, \"themes\"). These were mapped against the research priorities identified by Australian prison stakeholders to assess the differences from research outputs. The income level of the affiliation country of the first authors was also identified to compare the ranking of research priorities in countries categorized by income levels.
RESULTS: On an evaluation set of 100 abstracts, the identification of themes returned an F1-score of 90%, indicating reliable performance. More than 53.3% (11,927/22,361) of the articles had at least 1 extracted theme; the most common was substance use (1533/11,814, 12.97%), followed by HIV (1493/11,814, 12.64%). The infectious disease category (2949/11,814, 24.96%) was the most common research priority category, followed by mental health (2840/11,814, 24.04%) and alcohol and other drug use (2433/11,814, 20.59%). A comparison between the extracted themes and the stakeholder priorities showed an alignment for mental health, infectious diseases, and alcohol and other drug use. Although behavior- and juvenile-related themes were common, they did not feature as prison priorities. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (10,083/11,814, 85.35%), while countries with the lowest income status focused half of their research on infectious diseases (47/91, 52%).
CONCLUSIONS: The identification of research themes from
PubMed epidemiological criminology research abstracts is possible through the application of a rule-based text mining method. The frequency of the investigated themes may reflect historical developments concerning disease prevalence, treatment advances, and the social understanding of illness and incarcerated populations. The differences between income status groups are likely to be explained by local health priorities and immediate health risks. Notable gaps between stakeholder research priorities and research outputs concerned themes that were more focused on social factors and systems and may reflect publication bias or self-publication selection, highlighting the need for further research on prison health services and the social determinants of health. Different jurisdictions, countries, and regions should undertake similar systematic and transparent research priority-setting processes.