Criteria for the selection,evaluation and application of traditional knowledge in contemporary health practice,education, research and policy: A systematic review

Background

Traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) is highly utilised and draws on traditional knowledge (TK) as evidence, raising a need to explore how TK is currently used.

Objectives

Examine criteria used to select, evaluate and apply TK in contemporary health contexts.

Methods

Systematic search utilising academic databases (AMED , CINAHL , MEDLINE , EMBASE , SSCI , ProQuest Dissertations Theses Global ), Trip clinical database and Google search engine . Citations and reference lists of included articles were searched. Reported use of TK in contemporary settings was mapped against a modified ‘Exploration-Preparation-Implementation-Sustainment’ (EPIS) implementation framework.

Results

From the 54 included articles, EPIS mapping found TK is primarily used in the Exploration phase of implementation (n = 54), with little reporting on Preparation (n = 16), Implementation process (n = 6) or Sustainment (n = 4) of TK implementation. Criteria used in selection, evaluation and application of TK commonly involved validation with other scientific/traditional evidence sources, or assessment of factors influencing knowledge translation.

Discussion

One of the difficulties in validation of TK (as a co-opted treatment) against other evidence sources is comparing like with like as TK often takes a holistic approach. This complicates further planning and evaluation of implementation.

Conclusion

This review identifies important criteria for evaluating current and potential contemporary use of TK, identifying gaps in research and practice for finding, appraising and applying relevant TK studies for clinical care.     

The decisions and processes involved in a systematic search strategy: a hierarchical framework

Objective:The decisions and processes that may compose a systematic search strategy have not been formally identified and categorized. This study aimed to (1) identify all decisions that could be made and processes that could be used in a systematic search strategy and (2) create a hierarchical framework of those decisions and processes.Methods:The literature was searched for documents or guides on conducting a literature search for a systematic review or other evidence synthesis. The decisions or processes for locating studies were extracted from eligible documents and categorized into a structured hierarchical framework. Feedback from experts was sought to revise the framework. The framework was revised iteratively and tested using recently published literature on systematic searching.Results:Guidance documents were identified from expert organizations and a search of the literature and Internet. Data were extracted from 74 eligible documents to form the initial framework. The framework was revised based on feedback from 9 search experts and further review and testing by the authors. The hierarchical framework consists of 119 decisions or processes sorted into 17 categories and arranged under 5 topics. These topics are “Skill of the searcher,” “Selecting information to identify,” “Searching the literature electronically,” “Other ways to identify studies,” and “Updating the systematic review.”Conclusions:The work identifies and classifies the decisions and processes used in systematic searching. Future work can now focus on assessing and prioritizing research on the best methods for successfully identifying all eligible studies for a systematic review.     

Implementation of Web 2.0 services in academic, medical and research libraries: a scoping review

Background: Academic, medical and research libraries frequently implement Web 2.0 services for users. Several reports notwithstanding, characteristics and effectiveness of services are unclear. Objectives: To find out: the Web 2.0 services implemented by medical, academic and research libraries; study designs, measures and types of data used in included articles to evaluate effectiveness; whether the identified body of literature is amenable to a systematic review of results. Methods: Scoping review mapping the literature on the topic. Searches were performed in 19 databases. Inclusion criteria: research articles in English, Italian, German, French and Spanish (publication date ≥2006) about Web 2.0 services for final users implemented by academic, medical and research libraries. Reviewers’ agreement was measured by Cohen’s kappa. From a data set of 6461 articles, 255 (4%) were coded and analysed. Results: Conferencing/chat/instant messaging, blogging, podcasts, social networking, wikis and aggregators were frequently examined. Services were mainly targeted at general academic users of English‐speaking countries. Conclusions: Data prohibit a reliable estimate of the relative frequency of implemented Web 2.0 services. Case studies were the prevalent design. Most articles evaluated different outcomes using diverse assessment methodologies. A systematic review is recommended to assess the effectiveness of such services.     

Supporting the health library and information workforce

As a prelude to his keynote speech at the forthcoming Health Libraries Group conference, Sean McNamara, Head of CILIP Scotland, provides an insight into the work being undertaken with health librarians in Scotland and considers how CILIP Scotland might support the health information sector in the coming years.     

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews

Background:Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration.Methods:The checklist was developed using a three-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.Results:The final checklist includes sixteen reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.Conclusions:The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and, therefore, reproducible.     

The Map of Medicine: a review of evidence for its impact on healthcare

Objectives: Map of Medicine is an evidence‐based online clinical knowledge resource. Procured at significant cost by healthcare providers in the UK, Sweden and Denmark, it is important to establish the beneficial impact that investment has had on healthcare practise and, ultimately, on patient outcomes. The objective of this study is to review the evidence for the impact of the Map of Medicine on clinical practice. Methods: A systematic review of peer‐reviewed and grey literature was conducted. Nine healthcare databases, Google Scholar and Google were searched for articles containing the terms ‘map of medicine’. Results: The search identified 133 articles. Eleven of the articles identified met the inclusion criteria. The main finding of the study is the paucity of evidence available on the impact of the Map of Medicine and the variable quality of that which does exist. There are some encouraging early indications for the Map of Medicine as a tool within service redesign, leading to an increase in appropriate referrals to secondary care, decreased patient waiting times and considerable cost savings. Conclusion: Further research with study designs that can generate high quality evidence for the impact of Map of Medicine is essential in order to support policy decisions.     

Peer teaching and information retrieval: the role of the NICE Evidence search student champion scheme in enhancing students’ confidence

Background

This research reports on the NICE Evidence search (ES) student champion scheme (SCS) first five years of activity (2011–2016) in terms of its impact on health care undergraduate students’ information search skills and search confidence.

Objectives

A review of students’ evaluation of the scheme was carried out to chart the changes in attitude towards NICE Evidence search as an online health care information source and to monitor students’ approach to information seeking.

Methods

This study is based on the results of questionnaires distributed to students before and after attending a training session on NICE Evidence search delivered by their own peers. The exercise was implemented in health related universities in England over a period of five consecutive academic years.

Results

(i) Students’ search confidence improved considerably after the training; (ii) ES was perceived as being an increasingly useful resource of evidence based information for their studies; (iii) the training helped students develop discerning search skills and use evidence based information sources more consistently and critically.

Conclusions

The NICE SCS improves confidence in approaching information tasks amongst health care undergraduate students. Future developments could involve offering the training at the onset of a course of study and adopting online delivery formats to expand its geographical reach.     

Evidence based library and information practice in Australia: defining skills and knowledge

This guest feature from Suzanne Lewis, a long-time advocate of evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) in Australia, discusses a current trend within the movement that focuses on the skills, knowledge and competencies of health librarians. In particular, the feature describes three specific Australia-based research projects, on expert searching, indigenous health and future skills requirements for the health library workforce respectively, that exemplify this trend. These projects illustrate how the evidence base can be strengthened around the skills and knowledge required to deliver services that continue to meet the changing needs of health library and information users.     

The application and value of information sources in clinical practice: an examination of the perspective of naturopaths

Background: The approach of evidence‐based medicine (EBM), providing a paradigm to validate information sources and a process for critiquing their value, is an important platform for guiding practice. Researchers have explored the application and value of information sources in clinical practice with regard to a range of health professions; however, naturopathic practice has been overlooked. Objectives: An exploratory study of naturopaths’ perspectives of the application and value of information sources has been undertaken. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews with 12 naturopaths in current clinical practice, concerning the information sources used in clinical practice and their perceptions of these sources. Results: Thematic analysis identified differences in the application of the variety of information sources used, depending upon the perceived validity. Internet databases were viewed as highly valid. Textbooks, formal education and interpersonal interactions were judged based upon a variety of factors, whilst validation of general internet sites and manufacturers information was required prior to use. Conclusions: The findings of this study will provide preliminary aid to those responsible for supporting naturopaths’ information use and access. In particular, it may assist publishers, medical librarians and professional associations in developing strategies to expand the clinically useful information sources available to naturopaths.     

Preliminary comparison of the performance of the National Library of Medicine's systematic review publication type and the sensitive clinical queries filter for systematic reviews in PubMed

Objective:The National Library of Medicine (NLM) inaugurated a “publication type” concept to facilitate searches for systematic reviews (SRs). On the other hand, clinical queries (CQs) are validated search strategies designed to retrieve scientifically sound, clinically relevant original and review articles from biomedical literature databases. We compared the retrieval performance of the SR publication type (SR[pt]) against the most sensitive CQ for systematic review articles (CQrs) in PubMed.Methods:We ran date-limited searches of SR[pt] and CQrs to compare the relative yield of articles and SRs, focusing on the differences in retrieval of SRs by SR[pt] but not CQrs (SR[pt] NOT CQrs) and CQrs NOT SR[pt]. Random samples of articles retrieved in each of these comparisons were examined for SRs until a consistent pattern became evident.Results:For SR[pt] NOT CQrs, the yield was relatively low in quantity but rich in quality, with 79% of the articles being SRs. For CQrs NOT SR[pt], the yield was high in quantity but low in quality, with only 8% being SRs. For CQrs AND SR[pt], the quality was highest, with 92% being SRs.Conclusions:We found that SR[pt] had high precision and specificity for SRs but low recall (sensitivity), whereas CQrs had much higher recall. SR[pt] OR CQrs added valid SRs to the CQrs yield at low cost (i.e., added few non-SRs). For searches that are intended to be exhaustive for SRs, SR[pt] can be added to existing sensitive search filters.     

Developing a generic tool to routinely measure the impact of health libraries

Background

Health libraries contribute to many activities of a health care organisation. Impact assessment needs to capture that range of contributions.

Objectives

To develop and pilot a generic impact questionnaire that: (1) could be used routinely across all English NHS libraries; (2) built on previous impact surveys; and (3) was reliable and robust.

Methods

This collaborative project involved: (1) literature search; (2) analysis of current best practice and baseline survey of use of current tools and requirements; (3) drafting and piloting the questionnaire; and (4) analysis of the results, revision and plans for roll out.

Findings

The framework selected was the International Standard Methods And Procedures For Assessing The Impact Of Libraries (ISO 16439). The baseline survey (n = 136 library managers) showed that existing tools were not used, and impact assessment was variable. The generic questionnaire developed used a Critical Incident Technique. Analysis of the findings (n = 214 health staff and students), plus comparisons with previous impact studies indicated that the questionnaire should capture the impact for all types of health libraries.

Conclusions

The collaborative project successfully piloted a generic impact questionnaire that, subject to further validation, should apply to many types of health library and information services.     

Assessing journal author guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: findings from an institutional sample

Objectives:Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) are designed to be rigorous research methodologies that synthesize information and inform practice. An increase in their publication runs parallel to quality concerns and a movement toward standards to improve reporting and methodology. With the goal of informing the guidance librarians provide to SR/MA teams, this study assesses online journal author guidelines from an institutional sample to determine whether these author guidelines address SR/MA methodological quality.Methods:A Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) search identified SRs/MAs published in 2014–2019 by authors affiliated with a single institution. The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to develop an assessment tool of closed questions specific to measures for SR/MA methodological quality in author guidelines, with questions added about author guidelines in general. Multiple reviewers completed the assessment.Results:The author guidelines of 141 journals were evaluated. Less than 20% addressed at least one of the assessed measures specific to SR/MA methodological quality. There was wide variation in author guidelines between journals from the same publisher apart from the American Medical Association, which consistently offered in-depth author guidelines. Normalized Eigenfactor and Article Influence Scores did not indicate author guideline breadth.Conclusions:Most author guidelines in the institutional sample did not address SR/MA methodological quality. When consulting with teams embarking on SRs/MAs, librarians should not expect author guidelines to provide details about the requirements of the target journals. Librarians should advise teams to follow established SR/MA standards, contact journal staff, and review SRs/MAs previously published in the journal.