-
American Journal of Speech-language... Aug 2020Purpose To assess data collection variability in the voice range profile (VRP) across clinicians and researchers, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the...
Purpose To assess data collection variability in the voice range profile (VRP) across clinicians and researchers, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the extent of variability of specific data collection points that affect the determination of frequency range and sound level and determine next steps in standardization of a VRP protocol. Method A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis checklist. Full-text journal articles were identified through PubMed, Web of Science, Psych Info, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Google Scholar, and hand searching of journals. Results A total of 1,134 articles were retrieved from the search; of these, 463 were duplicates. Titles and abstracts of 671 articles were screened, with 202 selected for full-text review. Fifty-four articles were considered eligible for inclusion. The information extracted from these articles revealed the methodology used to derive the VRP was extremely variable across the data points selected. Additionally, there were eight common acoustic measures used for statistical analysis described in included studies that were added as a data point. Conclusions The data collection methods for the VRP varied considerably. Standardization of procedures was recommended for clinicians and researchers.
Topics: Checklist; Humans; Research Design; Voice
PubMed: 32579858
DOI: 10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00023 -
Perspectives in Psychiatric Care Oct 2022This study aimed to clarify the mixed conclusions regarding work engagement and job satisfaction in the nursing research literature by conducting a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This study aimed to clarify the mixed conclusions regarding work engagement and job satisfaction in the nursing research literature by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
DESIGN AND METHODS
This meta-analytic review synthesized 15 independent studies published between 2007 and 2021.
FINDINGS
An overall effect size of random-effect model was calculated as r = 0.47 (k = 15, N = 3,818, 95% confidence interval [0.43;0.51]). Data collection method and presence of control variable, as significant moderators, accounted for 43.6% and 43.8%, respectively, of the effect size heterogeneity.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS
While the positive relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction was higher in studies using the face-to-face data collection method, it was lower in studies using the control variable in their research models.
Topics: Humans; Job Satisfaction; Work Engagement; Nursing Research; Nursing Staff, Hospital; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35383388
DOI: 10.1111/ppc.13068 -
ANZ Journal of Surgery Oct 2023Multiple cancer registries in Australia are used to track the incidence of cancer and the outcomes of their treatment. These registries can be broadly classed into a few... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple cancer registries in Australia are used to track the incidence of cancer and the outcomes of their treatment. These registries can be broadly classed into a few types with an increasing number of registries comes a greater potential for collaboration and linkage. This article aims to critically review cancer registry types in Australia and evaluate the Australian Cancer registry landscape to identify these areas.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed through MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, updated to September 2022 using a predefined search strategy. Inclusion criteria were those that only analysed Australian and/or New Zealand based cancer registries, appraised the utility of cancer outcomes and/or incidence registries, and explored the utility of linked databases using cancer outcomes and/or incidence registries. The grey literature was searched for all operating cancer registries in Australia. Details of registry infrastructure was extracted for analysis and comparison.
RESULTS
Three thousand two hundred and sixteen articles identified from the three databases. Twelve met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-eight registries were identified using the grey literature. Strengths and weaknesses of Cancer Outcome Registries(COR) and Cancer Incidence Registries(CIR) were compared. Data linkage between registries or with other healthcare databases show great benefits in improving evidence for cancer research but are challenging to implement. Both registry types utilize differing modes of administration, influencing their accuracy and completeness.
CONCLUSION
Outcome registries provide detailed data but their weakness lies in incomplete data coverage. Incidence registries record a large dataset which contain inaccuracies. Improving coverage of quality outcome registries, and quality assurance of data in incidence registries is required to ensure collection of accurate, meaningful data. Areas for collaboration identified included establishment of defined definitions and outcomes, data linkage between registry types or with healthcare databases, and collaboration in logistical planning to improve clinical utility of cancer registries.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Australia; Neoplasms; Registries; Delivery of Health Care
PubMed: 37668278
DOI: 10.1111/ans.18678 -
Trials Apr 2021Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of interventions. Inclusion of participants from different... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of interventions. Inclusion of participants from different ethnic backgrounds is essential for generalisability of cancer trial results. PRO data collection should include appropriately translated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to minimise missing data and sample attrition.
METHODS
Protocols and/or publications from cancer clinical trials using a PRO endpoint and registered on the National Institute for Health Research Portfolio were systematically reviewed for information on recruitment, inclusion of ethnicity data, and use of appropriately translated PROMs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders to explore barriers and facilitators for optimal PRO trial design, diverse recruitment and reporting, and use of appropriately translated PROMs.
RESULTS
Eighty-four trials met the inclusion criteria, only 14 (17%) (n = 4754) reported ethnic group data, and ethnic group recruitment was low, 611 (13%). Although 8 (57%) studies were multi-centred and multi-national, none reported using translated PROMs, although available for 7 (88%) of the studies. Interviews with 44 international stakeholders identified a number of perceived barriers to ethnically diverse recruitment including diverse participant engagement, relevance of ethnicity to research question, prominence of PROs, and need to minimise investigator burden. Stakeholders had differing opinions on the use of translated PROMs, the impact of trial designs, and recruitment strategies on diverse recruitment. Facilitators of inclusive research were described and examples of good practice identified.
CONCLUSIONS
Greater transparency is required when PROs are used as primary or secondary outcomes in clinical trials. Protocols and publications should demonstrate that recruitment was accessible to diverse populations and facilitated by trial design, recruitment strategies, and appropriate PROM usage. The use of translated PROMs should be made explicit when used in cancer clinical trials.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Neoplasms; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Research Personnel
PubMed: 33902699
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05255-z -
Health-Related Data Sources Accessible to Health Researchers From the US Government: Mapping Review.Journal of Medical Internet Research Apr 2023Big data from large, government-sponsored surveys and data sets offers researchers opportunities to conduct population-based studies of important health issues in the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Big data from large, government-sponsored surveys and data sets offers researchers opportunities to conduct population-based studies of important health issues in the United States, as well as develop preliminary data to support proposed future work. Yet, navigating these national data sources is challenging. Despite the widespread availability of national data, there is little guidance for researchers on how to access and evaluate the use of these resources.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to identify and summarize a comprehensive list of federally sponsored, health- and health care-related data sources that are accessible in the public domain in order to facilitate their use by researchers.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic mapping review of government sources of health-related data on US populations and with active or recent (previous 10 years) data collection. The key measures were government sponsor, overview and purpose of data, population of interest, sampling design, sample size, data collection methodology, type and description of data, and cost to obtain data. Convergent synthesis was used to aggregate findings.
RESULTS
Among 106 unique data sources, 57 met the inclusion criteria. Data sources were classified as survey or assessment data (n=30, 53%), trends data (n=27, 47%), summative processed data (n=27, 47%), primary registry data (n=17, 30%), and evaluative data (n=11, 19%). Most (n=39, 68%) served more than 1 purpose. The population of interest included individuals/patients (n=40, 70%), providers (n=15, 26%), and health care sites and systems (n=14, 25%). The sources collected data on demographic (n=44, 77%) and clinical information (n=35, 61%), health behaviors (n=24, 42%), provider or practice characteristics (n=22, 39%), health care costs (n=17, 30%), and laboratory tests (n=8, 14%). Most (n=43, 75%) offered free data sets.
CONCLUSIONS
A broad scope of national health data is accessible to researchers. These data provide insights into important health issues and the nation's health care system while eliminating the burden of primary data collection. Data standardization and uniformity were uncommon across government entities, highlighting a need to improve data consistency. Secondary analyses of national data are a feasible, cost-efficient means to address national health concerns.
Topics: Humans; United States; Information Sources; Delivery of Health Care; Health Care Costs; Government; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 37103987
DOI: 10.2196/43802 -
PM & R : the Journal of Injury,... Sep 2021To carry out a systematic review to update the scientific evidence on the incidence and prevalence of injuries in the swimming discipline, as well as the location, type,...
OBJECTIVE
To carry out a systematic review to update the scientific evidence on the incidence and prevalence of injuries in the swimming discipline, as well as the location, type, and mechanism of the injuries, and to assess whether studies are meeting methodological recommendations for data collection and injury surveillance. TYPE: Analytical-Systematic review.
LITERATURE SURVEY
The databases of PubMed and Sportdiscus were used to search for studies that describe the epidemiology of injuries in adult swimmers between 2010 and March 2020.
METHODOLOGY
Of the 864 articles identified, 14 studies were finally included in this review. The methodological quality of the studies was analyzed with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) scale and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.
SYNTHESIS
The results showed a high prevalence of shoulder, knee, and lower back injuries among swimmers due to overuse. These injuries were mainly short-term tendon muscles; there were reported data differences between genders.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the publication of an injury surveillance single and multisport events document and a consensus on data collection and injury surveillance in swimming, there are huge methodological limitations that do not allow firm conclusions. As such, more epidemiological studies following guidelines for data collection and injury surveillance are needed to establish differences by gender, age group, and swimming stroke.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Swimming
PubMed: 33010194
DOI: 10.1002/pmrj.12503 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Poor retention of participants in randomised trials can lead to missing outcome data which can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Poor retention of participants in randomised trials can lead to missing outcome data which can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to improve retention but few have been formally evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention of participants in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection (SCI-expanded, SSCI, CPSI-S, CPCI-SSH and ESCI) either directly with a specified search strategy or indirectly through the ORRCA database. We also searched the SWAT repository to identify ongoing or recently completed retention trials. We did our most recent searches in January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included eligible randomised or quasi-randomised trials of evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on: the retention strategy being evaluated; location of study; host trial setting; method of randomisation; numbers and proportions in each intervention and comparator group. We used a risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to estimate the effectiveness of the strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials. We applied GRADE to determine the certainty of the evidence within each comparison.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 70 eligible papers that reported data from 81 retention trials. We included 69 studies with more than 100,000 participants in the final meta-analyses, of which 67 studies evaluated interventions aimed at trial participants and two evaluated interventions aimed at trial staff involved in retention. All studies were in health care and most aimed to improve postal questionnaire response. Interventions were categorised into broad comparison groups: Data collection; Participants; Sites and site staff; Central study management; and Study design. These intervention groups consisted of 52 comparisons, none of which were supported by high-certainty evidence as determined by GRADE assessment. There were four comparisons presenting moderate-certainty evidence, three supporting retention (self-sampling kits, monetary reward together with reminder or prenotification and giving a pen at recruitment) and one reducing retention (inclusion of a diary with usual follow-up compared to usual follow-up alone). Of the remaining studies, 20 presented GRADE low-certainty evidence and 28 presented very low-certainty evidence. Our findings do provide a priority list for future replication studies, especially with regard to comparisons that currently rely on a single study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most of the interventions we identified aimed to improve retention in the form of postal questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. None of the comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence. Comparisons in the review where the evidence certainty could be improved with the addition of well-done studies should be the focus for future evaluations.
Topics: Case Management; Correspondence as Topic; Humans; Patient Compliance; Patient Dropouts; Patient Selection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reward; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33675536
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000032.pub3 -
BMC Medicine Jul 2022Multimorbidity is a rising global phenomenon, placing strains on countries' population health and finances. This systematic review provides insight into the costs of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Multimorbidity is a rising global phenomenon, placing strains on countries' population health and finances. This systematic review provides insight into the costs of multimorbidity through addressing the following primary and secondary research questions: What evidence exists on the costs of multimorbidity? How do costs of specific disease combinations vary across countries? How do multimorbidity costs vary across disease combinations? What "cost ingredients" are most commonly included in these multimorbidity studies?
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020204871) of studies published from January 2010 to January 2022, which reported on costs associated with combinations of at least two specified conditions. Systematic string-based searches were conducted in MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Global Health, Web of Science, and Business Source Complete. We explored the association between costs of multimorbidity and country Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita using a linear mixed model with random intercept. Annual mean direct medical costs per capita were pooled in fixed-effects meta-analyses for each of the frequently reported dyads. Costs are reported in 2021 International Dollars (I$).
RESULTS
Fifty-nine studies were included in the review, the majority of which were from high-income countries, particularly the United States. (1) Reported annual costs of multimorbidity per person ranged from I$800 to I$150,000, depending on disease combination, country, cost ingredients, and other study characteristics. (2) Our results further demonstrated that increased country GDP per capita was associated with higher costs of multimorbidity. (3) Meta-analyses of 15 studies showed that on average, dyads which featured Hypertension were among the least expensive to manage, with the most expensive dyads being Respiratory and Mental Health condition (I$36,840), Diabetes and Heart/vascular condition (I$37,090), and Cancer and Mental Health condition in the first year after cancer diagnosis (I$85,820). (4) Most studies reported only direct medical costs, such as costs of hospitalization, outpatient care, emergency care, and drugs.
CONCLUSIONS
Multimorbidity imposes a large economic burden on both the health system and society, most notably for patients with cancer and mental health condition in the first year after cancer diagnosis. Whether the cost of a disease combination is more or less than the additive costs of the component diseases needs to be further explored. Multimorbidity costing studies typically consider only a limited number of disease combinations, and few have been conducted in low- and middle-income countries and Europe. Rigorous and standardized methods of data collection and costing for multimorbidity should be developed to provide more comprehensive and comparable evidence for the costs of multimorbidity.
Topics: Cost of Illness; Global Health; Health Care Costs; Humans; Income; Mental Disorders; Multimorbidity
PubMed: 35850686
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02427-9 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Oct 2023Reddit's (Reddit Inc) large user base, diverse communities, and anonymity make it a useful platform for substance use research. Despite a growing body of literature on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Reddit's (Reddit Inc) large user base, diverse communities, and anonymity make it a useful platform for substance use research. Despite a growing body of literature on substance use on Reddit, challenges and limitations must be carefully considered. However, no systematic scoping review has been conducted on the use of Reddit as a data source for substance use research.
OBJECTIVE
This review aims to investigate the use of Reddit for studying substance use by examining previous studies' objectives, reasons, limitations, and methods for using Reddit. In addition, we discuss the implications and contributions of previous studies and identify gaps in the literature that require further attention.
METHODS
A total of 7 databases were searched using keyword combinations including Reddit and substance-related keywords in April 2022. The initial search resulted in 456 articles, and 227 articles remained after removing duplicates. All included studies were peer reviewed, empirical, available in full text, and pertinent to Reddit and substance use, and they were all written in English. After screening, 60 articles met the eligibility criteria for the review, with 57 articles identified from the initial database search and 3 from the ancestry search. A codebook was developed, and qualitative content analysis was performed to extract relevant evidence related to the research questions.
RESULTS
The use of Reddit for studying substance use has grown steadily since 2015, with a sharp increase in 2021. The primary objective was to identify tendencies and patterns in various types of substance use discussions (52/60, 87%). Reddit was also used to explore unique user experiences, propose methodologies, investigate user interactions, and develop interventions. A total of 9 reasons for using Reddit to study substance use were identified, such as the platform's anonymity, its widespread popularity, and the explicit topics of subreddits. However, 7 limitations were noted, including the platform's low representativeness of the general population with substance use and the lack of demographic information. Most studies use application programming interfaces for data collection and quantitative approaches for analysis, with few using qualitative approaches. Machine learning algorithms are commonly used for natural language processing tasks. The theoretical, methodological, and practical implications and contributions of the included articles are summarized and discussed. The most prevalent practical implications are investigating prevailing topics in Reddit discussions, providing recommendations for clinical practices and policies, and comparing Reddit discussions on substance use across various sources.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic scoping review provides an overview of Reddit's use as a data source for substance use research. Although the limitations of Reddit data must be considered, analyzing them can be useful for understanding patterns and user experiences related to substance use. Our review also highlights gaps in the literature and suggests avenues for future research.
Topics: Humans; Algorithms; Data Collection; Databases, Factual; Language; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 37878361
DOI: 10.2196/48905 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jan 2021A population-level survey (PLS) is an essential and standard method used in public health research that supports the quantification of sociodemographic events, public...
BACKGROUND
A population-level survey (PLS) is an essential and standard method used in public health research that supports the quantification of sociodemographic events, public health policy development, and intervention designs. Data collection mechanisms in PLS seem to be a significant determinant in avoiding mistakes. Using electronic devices such as smartphones and tablet computers improves the quality and cost-effectiveness of public health surveys. However, there is a lack of systematic evidence to show the potential impact of electronic data collection tools on data quality and cost reduction in interviewer-administered surveys compared with the standard paper-based data collection system.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of the interviewer-administered electronic data collection methods on data quality and cost reduction in PLS compared with traditional methods.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Web of Science, EconLit, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CDSR to identify relevant studies from 2008 to 2018. We included randomized and nonrandomized studies that examined data quality and cost reduction outcomes, as well as usability, user experience, and usage parameters. In total, 2 independent authors screened the title and abstract, and extracted data from selected papers. A third author mediated any disagreements. The review authors used EndNote for deduplication and Rayyan for screening.
RESULTS
Our search produced 3817 papers. After deduplication, we screened 2533 papers, and 14 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. None of the studies were randomized controlled trials; most had a quasi-experimental design, for example, comparative experimental evaluation studies nested on other ongoing cross-sectional surveys. A total of 4 comparative evaluations, 2 pre-post intervention comparative evaluations, 2 retrospective comparative evaluations, and 4 one-arm noncomparative studies were included. Meta-analysis was not possible because of the heterogeneity in study designs, types, study settings, and level of outcome measurements. Individual paper synthesis showed that electronic data collection systems provided good quality data and delivered faster compared with paper-based data collection systems. Only 2 studies linked cost and data quality outcomes to describe the cost-effectiveness of electronic data collection systems. Field data collectors reported that an electronic data collection system was a feasible, acceptable, and preferable tool for their work. Onsite data error prevention, fast data submission, and easy-to-handle devices were the comparative advantages offered by electronic data collection systems. Challenges during implementation included technical difficulties, accidental data loss, device theft, security concerns, power surges, and internet connection problems.
CONCLUSIONS
Although evidence exists of the comparative advantages of electronic data collection compared with paper-based methods, the included studies were not methodologically rigorous enough to combine. More rigorous studies are needed to compare paper and electronic data collection systems in public health surveys considering data quality, work efficiency, and cost reduction.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.2196/10678.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Cross-Sectional Studies; Data Accuracy; Health Surveys; Humans; Public Health; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33480859
DOI: 10.2196/21382