Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation Einführung für das Seminar zur Gesundheitsökonomie Wolf Rogowski

Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation Übersicht Der Prozess empirischer Forschung Die Erstellung wissenschaftlicher Reviews Ergebnispräsentation Literatur / Quellen Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Der Prozess empirischer Forschung Wahl des Forschungsproblems Theoriebildung Konzeptspezifikation Operationalisierung Forschungsdesign Auswahl der Untersuchungsobjekte Datenerhebung Datenerfassung Datenanalyse Publikation Der Inhalt dieser Präsentation entspricht dem einleitenden Kapitel im Schnell / Hill / Esser: Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, ab S. 7 Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Wahl des Forschungsproblems Auftragsforschung Forschungsproblem durch Auftraggeber vorgegeben Spielraum der Forscher: Engere Definition des Forschungsgegenstandes Selbst initiierte Forschung Entscheidung basiert meist auf Betroffenheit oder Forschungstradition Konkrete Wahl des Forschungsproblems abhängig von aktueller Forschungssituation in der Fachliteratur Selbst initiierte Forschung Entscheidung basiert meist auf Betroffenheit (z.B. Armut, Jugenddelinquenz) oder Forschungstradition (z.B. soziale Schichtung) Konkrete Wahl des Forschungsproblems abhängig von aktueller Forschungssituation in der Fachliteratur Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Theoriebildung & Konzeptspezifikation Theoriebildung: Literaturanalyse zur Verwendung bereits ausgearbeiteter Theorie Adaption von Theorien verwandter Gegenstandsbereiche Konzeptspezifikation Präzision der verwendeten Konzepte und Begriffe Beispiel: „Identität eines Unternehmens“ Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Operationalisierung & Forschungsdesign Zuordnung beobachtbarer Sachverhalte zu theoretischen Begriffen und Konstrukten Messanweisungen & Konstruktion der Messinstrumente Pretests Forschungsdesign (Untersuchungsform) Ein oder mehrere Messzeitpunkte? Personenkreis? Befragung oder Laborexperiment? Sachverhalte = Indikatoren Messanweisungen: Anweisungen, wie Messungen vorgenommen werden sollen; Messinstrumente z.B. Fragebögen Pretests für Reliabilität & Validität Forschungsdesign (Untersuchungsform) Erhebung an einem oder mehreren Messzeitpunkte an denselben oder unterschiedlichen Personen? Befragung oder Laborexperiment? Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Untersuchungsobjekte, Datenerhebung & -erfassung Auswahl der Untersuchungsobjekte Vollerhebung? Stichprobe? Welches Auswahlverfahren? Datenerhebung Fragebogen? Interview? Nicht-reaktive Verfahren? Datenerfassung Datenspeicherung Aufbereitung Datenspeicherung (Bsp. Übertrag von Fragebogen in Datei / Codierung von Beobachtungen) Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Datenanalyse & Publikation Prüfung, ob theoretisch vorhergesagte Zusammenhänge (statistisch) nachweisbar sind Je klarer zu prüfende Theorie spezifiziert wurde, desto einfacher Publikation Endbericht für den Auftraggeber Buch- / Zeitschriftenveröffentlichung(en) Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation Übersicht Der Prozess empirischer Forschung Die Erstellung wissenschaftlicher Reviews Ergebnispräsentation Literatur / Quellen Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Die Erstellung wissenschaftlicher Reviews Inhaltsanforderung an Abstracts für JAMA Kontext Forschungsfrage Datenquellen Auswahl der Studien Datenextraktion Datensynthese Schlussfolgerungen JAMA = Journal of the American Medical Association Systematic Reviews/Meta-analyses Manuscripts reporting the results of meta-analyses should include an abstract of no more than 300 words using the following headings: Context, Objective, Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction, Data Synthesis, and Conclusions. The text of the manuscript should also include a section describing the methods used for data sources, study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis. Each heading should be followed by a brief description: 1. Context. A sentence or 2 explaining the importance of the review question. 2. Objective. State the precise primary objective of the review. Indicate whether the review emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being reviewed. 3. Data Sources. Succinctly summarize data sources, including years searched. Potential sources include computerized databases and published indexes, registries, abstract booklets, conference proceedings, references identified from bibliographies of pertinent articles and books, experts or research institutions active in the field, and companies or manufacturers of tests or agents being reviewed. If a bibliographic database is used, state the exact indexing terms used for article retrieval, including any constraints (for example, English language or human subjects). If abstract space does not permit this level of detail, summarize sources in the abstract including databases and years searched, and place the remainder of the information in the Methods section. 4. Study Selection. Describe inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies for detailed review from among studies identified as relevant to the topic. Details of selection should include particular populations, interventions, outcomes, or methodological designs. The method used to apply these criteria should be specified (for example, blinded review, consensus, multiple reviewers). State the proportion of initially identified studies that met selection criteria. 5. Data Extraction. Describe guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity (such as criteria for causal inference). The method by which the guidelines were applied should be stated (for example, independent extraction by multiple observers). 6. Data Synthesis. State the main results of the review, whether qualitative or quantitative, and outline the methods used to obtain these results. Meta-analyses should state the major outcomes that were pooled and include odds ratios or effect sizes and, if possible, sensitivity analyses. Numerical results should be accompanied by confidence intervals, if applicable, and exact levels of statistical significance. Evaluations of screening and diagnostic tests should include sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curves, and predictive values. Assessments of prognosis should summarize survival characteristics and related variables. Major identified sources of variation between studies should be stated, including differences in treatment protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, length of follow-up, and dropout rates. 7. Conclusions. The conclusions and their applications (clinical or otherwise) should be clearly stated, limiting interpretation to the domain of the review. Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Kontext & Forschungsfrage Ein – zwei Sätze zur Bedeutung der Fragestellung im Review Forschungsfrage Präzise Forschungsfrage Information über untersuchte Population, Intervention, Exposition, Tests und Ergebnisse Systematic Reviews/Meta-analyses Manuscripts reporting the results of meta-analyses should include an abstract of no more than 300 words using the following headings: Context, Objective, Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction, Data Synthesis, and Conclusions. The text of the manuscript should also include a section describing the methods used for data sources, study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis. Each heading should be followed by a brief description: 1. Context. A sentence or 2 explaining the importance of the review question. 2. Objective. State the precise primary objective of the review. Indicate whether the review emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being reviewed. 3. Data Sources. Succinctly summarize data sources, including years searched. Potential sources include computerized databases and published indexes, registries, abstract booklets, conference proceedings, references identified from bibliographies of pertinent articles and books, experts or research institutions active in the field, and companies or manufacturers of tests or agents being reviewed. If a bibliographic database is used, state the exact indexing terms used for article retrieval, including any constraints (for example, English language or human subjects). If abstract space does not permit this level of detail, summarize sources in the abstract including databases and years searched, and place the remainder of the information in the Methods section. 4. Study Selection. Describe inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies for detailed review from among studies identified as relevant to the topic. Details of selection should include particular populations, interventions, outcomes, or methodological designs. The method used to apply these criteria should be specified (for example, blinded review, consensus, multiple reviewers). State the proportion of initially identified studies that met selection criteria. 5. Data Extraction. Describe guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity (such as criteria for causal inference). The method by which the guidelines were applied should be stated (for example, independent extraction by multiple observers). 6. Data Synthesis. State the main results of the review, whether qualitative or quantitative, and outline the methods used to obtain these results. Meta-analyses should state the major outcomes that were pooled and include odds ratios or effect sizes and, if possible, sensitivity analyses. Numerical results should be accompanied by confidence intervals, if applicable, and exact levels of statistical significance. Evaluations of screening and diagnostic tests should include sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curves, and predictive values. Assessments of prognosis should summarize survival characteristics and related variables. Major identified sources of variation between studies should be stated, including differences in treatment protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, length of follow-up, and dropout rates. 7. Conclusions. The conclusions and their applications (clinical or otherwise) should be clearly stated, limiting interpretation to the domain of the review. Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation Datenquellen Datenquellen: Digital verfügbare Datenbanken, publizierte Indizes, Register, Abstractsammlungen, Tagungsberichte, ... Vorgehen bei Datenbankrecherchen: Angabe von Suchbegriffen und Begriffskombinationen Systematic Reviews/Meta-analyses Manuscripts reporting the results of meta-analyses should include an abstract of no more than 300 words using the following headings: Context, Objective, Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction, Data Synthesis, and Conclusions. The text of the manuscript should also include a section describing the methods used for data sources, study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis. Each heading should be followed by a brief description: 1. Context. A sentence or 2 explaining the importance of the review question. 2. Objective. State the precise primary objective of the review. Indicate whether the review emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being reviewed. 3. Data Sources. Succinctly summarize data sources, including years searched. Potential sources include computerized databases and published indexes, registries, abstract booklets, conference proceedings, references identified from bibliographies of pertinent articles and books, experts or research institutions active in the field, and companies or manufacturers of tests or agents being reviewed. If a bibliographic database is used, state the exact indexing terms used for article retrieval, including any constraints (for example, English language or human subjects). If abstract space does not permit this level of detail, summarize sources in the abstract including databases and years searched, and place the remainder of the information in the Methods section. 4. Study Selection. Describe inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies for detailed review from among studies identified as relevant to the topic. Details of selection should include particular populations, interventions, outcomes, or methodological designs. The method used to apply these criteria should be specified (for example, blinded review, consensus, multiple reviewers). State the proportion of initially identified studies that met selection criteria. 5. Data Extraction. Describe guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity (such as criteria for causal inference). The method by which the guidelines were applied should be stated (for example, independent extraction by multiple observers). 6. Data Synthesis. State the main results of the review, whether qualitative or quantitative, and outline the methods used to obtain these results. Meta-analyses should state the major outcomes that were pooled and include odds ratios or effect sizes and, if possible, sensitivity analyses. Numerical results should be accompanied by confidence intervals, if applicable, and exact levels of statistical significance. Evaluations of screening and diagnostic tests should include sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curves, and predictive values. Assessments of prognosis should summarize survival characteristics and related variables. Major identified sources of variation between studies should be stated, including differences in treatment protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, length of follow-up, and dropout rates. 7. Conclusions. The conclusions and their applications (clinical or otherwise) should be clearly stated, limiting interpretation to the domain of the review. Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Studienselektion & Datenextraktion Selektionskriterien: Populationen, Interventionen, Ergebnisse oder Forschungsdesign Vorgehen bei Selektion: z.B. „blinded review“, Konsens verschiedener Reviewer Datenextraktion: Richtlinien für Datenextraktion sowie Prüfung von Datenqualität und Validität Systematic Reviews/Meta-analyses Manuscripts reporting the results of meta-analyses should include an abstract of no more than 300 words using the following headings: Context, Objective, Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction, Data Synthesis, and Conclusions. The text of the manuscript should also include a section describing the methods used for data sources, study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis. Each heading should be followed by a brief description: 1. Context. A sentence or 2 explaining the importance of the review question. 2. Objective. State the precise primary objective of the review. Indicate whether the review emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being reviewed. 3. Data Sources. Succinctly summarize data sources, including years searched. Potential sources include computerized databases and published indexes, registries, abstract booklets, conference proceedings, references identified from bibliographies of pertinent articles and books, experts or research institutions active in the field, and companies or manufacturers of tests or agents being reviewed. If a bibliographic database is used, state the exact indexing terms used for article retrieval, including any constraints (for example, English language or human subjects). If abstract space does not permit this level of detail, summarize sources in the abstract including databases and years searched, and place the remainder of the information in the Methods section. 4. Study Selection. Describe inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies for detailed review from among studies identified as relevant to the topic. Details of selection should include particular populations, interventions, outcomes, or methodological designs. The method used to apply these criteria should be specified (for example, blinded review, consensus, multiple reviewers). State the proportion of initially identified studies that met selection criteria. 5. Data Extraction. Describe guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity (such as criteria for causal inference). The method by which the guidelines were applied should be stated (for example, independent extraction by multiple observers). 6. Data Synthesis. State the main results of the review, whether qualitative or quantitative, and outline the methods used to obtain these results. Meta-analyses should state the major outcomes that were pooled and include odds ratios or effect sizes and, if possible, sensitivity analyses. Numerical results should be accompanied by confidence intervals, if applicable, and exact levels of statistical significance. Evaluations of screening and diagnostic tests should include sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curves, and predictive values. Assessments of prognosis should summarize survival characteristics and related variables. Major identified sources of variation between studies should be stated, including differences in treatment protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, length of follow-up, and dropout rates. 7. Conclusions. The conclusions and their applications (clinical or otherwise) should be clearly stated, limiting interpretation to the domain of the review. Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Datensynthese & Schlussfolgerungen Hauptergebnisse (qualitativ oder quanitativ) mit ergänzenden Informationen wie: Methoden Ergänzende Daten: Konfidenzintervalle, Signifikanzniveau, Sensitivität & Spezifität untersuchter Tests Quellen von Unterschieden zwischen Studien Schlussfolgerungen Präzise Schlussfolgerungen ohne Interpretationsspielräume Anwendung der Ergebnisse (klinisch und nicht-klinisch) Systematic Reviews/Meta-analyses Manuscripts reporting the results of meta-analyses should include an abstract of no more than 300 words using the following headings: Context, Objective, Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction, Data Synthesis, and Conclusions. The text of the manuscript should also include a section describing the methods used for data sources, study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis. Each heading should be followed by a brief description: 1. Context. A sentence or 2 explaining the importance of the review question. 2. Objective. State the precise primary objective of the review. Indicate whether the review emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being reviewed. 3. Data Sources. Succinctly summarize data sources, including years searched. Potential sources include computerized databases and published indexes, registries, abstract booklets, conference proceedings, references identified from bibliographies of pertinent articles and books, experts or research institutions active in the field, and companies or manufacturers of tests or agents being reviewed. If a bibliographic database is used, state the exact indexing terms used for article retrieval, including any constraints (for example, English language or human subjects). If abstract space does not permit this level of detail, summarize sources in the abstract including databases and years searched, and place the remainder of the information in the Methods section. 4. Study Selection. Describe inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies for detailed review from among studies identified as relevant to the topic. Details of selection should include particular populations, interventions, outcomes, or methodological designs. The method used to apply these criteria should be specified (for example, blinded review, consensus, multiple reviewers). State the proportion of initially identified studies that met selection criteria. 5. Data Extraction. Describe guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity (such as criteria for causal inference). The method by which the guidelines were applied should be stated (for example, independent extraction by multiple observers). 6. Data Synthesis. State the main results of the review, whether qualitative or quantitative, and outline the methods used to obtain these results. Meta-analyses should state the major outcomes that were pooled and include odds ratios or effect sizes and, if possible, sensitivity analyses. Numerical results should be accompanied by confidence intervals, if applicable, and exact levels of statistical significance. Evaluations of screening and diagnostic tests should include sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curves, and predictive values. Assessments of prognosis should summarize survival characteristics and related variables. Major identified sources of variation between studies should be stated, including differences in treatment protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, length of follow-up, and dropout rates. 7. Conclusions. The conclusions and their applications (clinical or otherwise) should be clearly stated, limiting interpretation to the domain of the review. Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation Übersicht Der Prozess empirischer Forschung Die Erstellung wissenschaftlicher Reviews Ergebnispräsentation Literatur / Quellen Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Ergebnispräsentation Inhalt Foliengestaltung Struktur Sprache & Formatierung Graphik Der Folien- TÜV Vortrag Grundsätzliches zur Rhetorik Einstieg & Rede Tipps & Tricks Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation Inhalt Ziel des Vortrags? Am Zuhörer orientieren (Vorwissen, Interessen) „In case of doubt, leave it out“ (Details ins Backup) Vorbereiten: 4 * so viel wissen, wie man sagt Überblick behalten: Botschaft der Präsentation in ½ Minute zusammenfassen Fragen antizipieren Am Zuhörer orientieren (Vorwissen, Interessen) Was will ich mitteilen? Warum ist es interessant für sie? Wo liegen die Knackpunkte? „In case of doubt, leave it out“ Nicht alles zeigen, was man weiß Man unterschätzt die Informationsmenge meistens keine unnötige Animation Gefahr, Zuhörer abzuhängen Vorbereiten & Üben! 4* so viel wissen, wie man sagt! Welche Fragen könnten kommen? Probevortrag Zeitmanagement Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Foliengestaltung – Struktur Eine Kernaussage pro Folie Titel = Logik der Folie Titel / Agenda sollten eine schlüssige Geschichte ergeben Mit dem Problem / der Fragestellung beginnen „Übersicht“ oder „Agenda“ bei längeren Präsentationen (>20 min.) auch zwischendurch „Make things as simple as possible – but not simpler“ Pyramidenprinzip erläutern: Präsentationstitel als Zusammenfassung der Agenda als Übersicht der Folientitel als Zusammenfassung der Folien Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Foliengestaltung – Sprache & Formatierung Man kann mit Animationen arbeiten aber zu viel Animation lenkt nur ab... Kleine Schrift ist schlecht lesbar, und wenn man dann noch die Gliederung weglässt, und anstelle dessen einen langen Fließtext auflegt, kann man sich sicher sein, dass die Aufmerksamkeit der Zuhörer bei den Folien und nicht beim Redner ist. Man könnte jedoch, um völlige Unleserlichkeit zu erreichen, noch einen bunten Hintergrund wählen oder schwer lesbar kopierte Artikel auflegen. Hervorhebungen sind hilfreich für den Zuhörer, jedoch in Maßen und, wenn möglich, nicht durcheinander. Wichtig ist auch zusammenhängende Dinge zusammenhängend zu schreiben – dieser Punkt gehört z.B. eigentlich zur oben erwähnten „Gliederung“. Ausreichende Schriftgröße (hier: 20 Pt.) Wichtiges hervorheben Stichpunkte statt langer Sätze Gewähltes Format beibehalten (Schrift, Rahmen, Stil,...) Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Foliengestaltung – Graphik I Motivation Begeisterung Präsentation Commitment Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Foliengestaltung – Graphik II Sag`s in Bildern, aber: Keine inhaltsleeren Cliparts, kein Firlefanz Graphiken für Diagramme & zur Verdeutlichung einer Struktur Korrekte Beschriftung (Achsenbeschriftung, Skalierung, Quelle) Viele Farben, Hintergrundmuster, 3D- Darstellung, ... lenkt ab Ggf. Rahmen mit Seitennummer, Datum, Namen, Logo Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation Der Folien- TÜV Ist diese Folie wirklich notwendig? Ist sie einfach und einleuchtend aufgebaut? Passt sie ins Zeitmanagement (> 2 Min. pro Folie)? Stimmt die Mathematik? Zahlen, Inhalt, Überschriften konsistent? Passt Achsenbeschriftung, Einheiten, Jahreszahlen, Abkürzungen? Ist die Quelle angegeben? Ist die Präsentation spätestens am Vorabend fertig? Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Vortrag – Grundsätzliches zur Rhetorik Wer reden will, muss verstanden werden wollen. Wer reden will, muss ein Bild von dem haben, was er sagen will. Reden lernt man nur durch Reden (üben). Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Vortrag – Einstieg & Rede Auf Aufmerksamkeit warten Kontakt mit Auditorium aufnehmen (evtl. „Teaser“ vorab) Rede: Laut, deutlich, nicht zu schnell Pausen, Wiederholungen (~ 20% bleibt hängen) Frei sprechen, nicht ablesen Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation Vortrag – Tips & Tricks Prinzip „Raketenstart“: Aufmerksamkeit bei Anfang & Schluss Evtl. Stift in die Hand (Zeigen & Handbeschäftigung) Notizen ggf. in Ppt.- Notizenblattansicht / auf Karteikarten Blickkontakt mit Zuhörern suchen, nicht mit Leinwand Auf Signale achten, nachfragen Locker bleiben – behalten Sie Ihren Stil bei Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation Literatur / Quellen Zur Methodik empirischen Arbeitens: Rainer Schnell, Paul B. Hill, Elke Esser: Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. 6. Aufl. Oldenbourg Verlag München; Wien, 1999 Zur Methodik wissenschaftlicher Reviews: Website des Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): http://jama.ama-assn.org/ifora_current.dtl#SEC12 Zu Präsentationstechniken: Siehe Stadtbibliothek (z.B. Say It With Charts: The Executive's Guide to Visual Communication, Gene Zelazny) Wolf Rogowski Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten & Ergebnispräsentation

Vielen Dank! Wolf Rogowski