Dear HIFA colleagues,
We do not yet have any examples where open access to original research (or lack of it) has directly impacted on quality of health care, although I am sure such examples exist. If you can help, please email: hifa@hifaforums.org
We may also consider the extent to which open access increases the availability and use of reliable healthcare information, which is a proxy indicator for evidence-informed health care. To help explore this question I reviewed the benefits of open access as described by the Open Access Network open-access.net - a platform that 'provides comprehensive information on the subject of Open Access (OA) and offers practical advice on its implementation'. https://open-access.network/en/information/open-access-primers/arguments...
It describes 12 benefits of open access:
1. Faster and Cost-Free Access to Scholarly Information
2. Fair Use of Taxpayers’ Money, Research Funders’ Guidelines
3. Open Access to Results of Publicly Funded Research
4. Greater Visibility and Citation Frequency of Publications
5. Promotion of International and Inter-Disciplinary Cooperation
6. Authors Retain the Right to Exploit their Works
7. Long-Term Availability of the Documents
8. Promotion of Research Efficiency
9. Improvement of the Information Supply and a Way Out of the Serials Crisis
10. Advantages in Networked, IT-Supported Work Environments
11. Establishing Priority
12. Good Findability via Search Engines and Indexing Services
For each of the above there is a short description.
I think 1, 4, 10 and 12 would potentially have a direct impact on the availability and use of reliable healthcare information, and therefore potential impact on health care. Some of the others might have an indirect impact.
That said, the full text of original research is not the most important requirement for most health professionals and patients in most circumstances. A health professional (or patient) would not normally be advised to make a healthcare decision on the basis of a single research paper. Typically their information needs are met by derivative publications, developed rigorously on the basis of evidence synthesis/systematic reviews.
What do you think? I invite your thoughts on any of the above points.
Best wishes, Neil
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org