Searching the right database. A comparison of four databases for psychiatry journals

Journal coverage is one factor that affects the retrieval of relevant information from bibliographic databases. The aims of this study were to investigate the coverage of databases for psychiatry journals, and to assess the overlap between databases. Psychiatry journals were identified using Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory and then analysed to see which bibliographic databases indexed the most journals. A total of 213 abstracting and indexing services were listed as indexing at least one of the 977 psychiatry journals identified. The four most frequently cited databases (PsycLIT, EMBASE, BIOSIS and MEDLINE) indexed 506 (52%) of the psychiatry journals. Of these 506 journals, PsycLIT indexed 367 (73%), EMBASE 337 (67%), BIOSIS 243 (48%) and MEDLINE 236 (47%). Combining the databases with the highest yields (PsycLIT and EMBASE) increased the number of journals indexed to 461 (91%). The four databases combined accounted for 90% of all psychiatry journals found to be indexed by at least one abstracting and indexing service. More than 400 journals were not indexed at all. Variations in the overlap between PsycLIT, EMBASE, BIOSIS and MEDLINE, and the high proportion (35%) of journals indexed in only one of these four databases emphasize the importance of searching more than one or even two databases to ensure optimal coverage of the literature.     

Community participation in bureaucratic organizations: Principles and strategies

The present paper points out that there are tasks that primary groups perform better than bureaucracies and those that bureaucracies perform better than primary groups. Both types of tasks are very interdependent so that sometimes primary group tasks must be performed within the boundaries of the bureaucratic organization. The argument is made that when primary groups intervene in bureaucracies, they can do so directly in non-expert tasks without lowering the effectiveness of the bureaucratic organization. When they intervene in expert aspects, they should do so indirectly through an expert advocate. However, in all intervention the primary group must take into account that its structure is contradictory to that of the bureaucracy and, therefore, it must keep as much distance as possible—consistent with its ability to intervene. From this analysis we derive a series of hypotheses suggesting when the community might ideally use the bureaucracy's own experts, when the community must hire its own experts, when the community should use mass media, strikes, indigenous workers, etc. It is suggested that the multitudinous possibilities for linkages can all be derived from a few basic underlying dimensions of the situation.

---

Résumé Cet article montre qu'il existe certaines tâches que les groupes primaires accomplissent mieux que les bureaucraties, et certaines autres qu'accomplissent mieux les bureaucraties. Les deux sortes de tâches sont interdépendentes; donc parfois les tâches des groupes primaires doivent s'accomplir parmi les organisations bureaucratiques. Les auteurs soutiennent que les groupes primaires peuvent intervenir dans les bureaucraties en complétant les tâches non-expertes sans réduire l'efficacité de l'organisation bureaucratique. Quands ils participent à certains sujets experts, ils devraient se munir d'un agent expert. Mais dans toute intervention le groupe primaire doit se rendre compte que sa structure contredit celle de la bureaucratie et que, par conséquent, il doit se tenir autant à distance que possible par rapport à sa compétence d'intervention. De cette analyse proviennent des hypothèses qui indiquent quand une communauté peut se servir le mieux du personnel expert d'une bureaucratie, quand la communauté doit engager des experts, quand la communauté doit se servir des mass média, des grèves, des ouvriers indigènes, etc. Les nombreuses possibilités de liaisons proviennent toutes de quelques dimensions fondamentales de la situation.