Japanese medical researchers' perceptions of quantitative research evaluation metrics and their psychological well-being: a cross-sectional study.
- Author:
Akira MINOURA
1
;
Keisuke KUWAHARA
2
;
Yuhei SHIMADA
3
;
Hiroko FUKUSHIMA
4
;
Makoto KONDO
5
;
Takehiro SUGIYAMA
6
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords: Basic medicine; Clinical medicine; Japanese; Medical researcher; Psychological well-being; Research evaluation; Social medicine
- MeSH: Humans; Japan; Female; Male; Cross-Sectional Studies; Adult; Research Personnel/statistics & numerical data*; Middle Aged; Biomedical Research; Surveys and Questionnaires; Mental Health; Psychological Well-Being; East Asian People
- From:Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 2025;30():74-74
- CountryJapan
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:Supporting the mental health of researchers is essential to maintaining human resources and advancing science. This study investigated the association between Japanese medical researchers' perceptions of research evaluation processes and their psychological well-being.
METHODS:We performed a web-based self-administered questionnaire survey. The questionnaires were distributed to each academic society through the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences from December 2022 to January 2023. These questionnaires targeted medical researchers. Exposure was the medical researchers' perceptions of quantitative indicators for evaluating medical research and researchers. The outcome was psychological well-being, measured using the Japanese version of the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regressions were conducted to investigate the association between individual attitudes toward research evaluation and psychological well-being. Stratified analyses by research fields, i.e., clinical, basic, and social medicine, were also performed.
RESULTS:A total of 3,139 valid responses were collected. After excluding 176 responses from research fields of other than clinical, basic, or social medicine, 2,963 researchers (2,185 male, 737 female, and 41 other) were analyzed. Prevalence of poor well-being (WHO-5 score <13) was 28.3% in the researchers. The highest number of medical researchers was in clinical medicine (n = 500) followed by basic medicine (n = 217) and social medicine (n = 121). Medical researchers who considered research funding slightly important/not important for researcher evaluation had poorer psychological well-being than those who considered it especially important (slightly important: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.71; not important: aOR 1.53, 95%CI 1.10-2.12). This tendency was stronger among basic medical researchers than clinical or social medical researchers. The research field significantly modified the relationship between research funding received and interaction with poor psychological well-being both additively (P = 0.030) and multiplicatively (P = 0.024).
CONCLUSIONS:The discrepancy between medical researchers' attitudes toward research evaluation and the current state of research evaluation in their research community may worsen their psychological well-being. The influence of this discrepancy differs among clinical, basic, and social medicine. Appropriate evaluation of medical research and researchers in each field can facilitate improving their psychological well-being via the resolution of this discrepancy.
