Searching for religion and mental health studies required health, social science, and grey literature databases

Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence

Rapid review (RR) could accelerate the traditional systematic review (SR) process by simplifying or omitting steps using various shortcuts. With the increasing popularity of RR, numerous shortcuts had emerged, but there was no consensus on how to choose the most appropriate ones. This study conducted a literature search in PubMed from inception to December 21, 2023, using terms such as "rapid review" "rapid assessment" "rapid systematic review" and "rapid evaluation". We also scanned the reference lists and performed citation tracking of included impact studies to obtain more included studies. We conducted a narrative synthesis of all RR approaches, shortcuts and studies assessing their effectiveness at each stage of RRs. Based on the current evidence, we provided recommendations on utilizing certain shortcuts in RRs. Ultimately, we identified 185 studies focusing on summarizing RR approaches and shortcuts, or evaluating their impact. There was relatively sufficient evidence to support the use of the following shortcuts in RRs: limiting studies to those published in English-language; conducting abbreviated database searches (e.g., only searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL); omitting retrieval of grey literature; restricting the search timeframe to the recent 20 years for medical intervention and the recent 15 years for reviewing diagnostic test accuracy; conducting a single screening by an experienced screener. To some extent, the above shortcuts were also applicable to SRs. This study provided a reference for future RR researchers in selecting shortcuts, and it also presented a potential research topic for methodologists.

Efficient searching for NICE public health guidelines: Would using fewer sources still find the evidence?

Systematic searches are integral to identifying the evidence that is used in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guidelines (PHGs). This study analyses the sources, including bibliographic databases and other techniques, required for PHGs. The aims were to analyse the sources used to identify the publications included in NICE PHGs; and to assess whether fewer sources could have been searched to retrieve these publications. Data showing how the included publications had been identified was collated using search summary tables. Three scenarios were created to test various combinations of sources to determine whether fewer sources could have been used. The sample included 29 evidence reviews, compiled using 13 searches, to support 10 PHG topics. Across the PHGs, 23 databases and six other techniques retrieved included publications. A mean reduction in total results of 6.5% could have been made if the minimum set of sources plus Cochrane Library, Embase, and MEDLINE were searched. On average, Cochrane Library, Embase, and MEDLINE contributed 76.8% of the included publications, with other databases adding 11% and other techniques 12.2%. None of the searches had a minimum set that was comprised entirely of databases. There was not a core set of sources for PHGs. A range of databases and techniques, covering a multi-disciplinary evidence base, was required to identify all included publications. It would be possible to reduce the number of sources searched and make some gains in productivity. It is important to create a tailored set of sources to do an efficient search.

Database selection and data gathering methods in systematic reviews of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus - an explorative study

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered one of the most reliable types of studies in evidence-based medicine. SRs rely on a comprehensive and systematic data gathering, including the search of academic literature databases. This study aimed to investigate which combination of databases would result in the highest overall recall rate of references when conducting SRs of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the current use of databases and other sources for data collection.

METHODS

Twenty-six SRs (published between 2010 and 2020) of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus, located through PubMed, met the inclusion criteria. References of the SRs were systematically hand searched in the six academic literature databases CINAHL, MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus and the academic search engine Google Scholar. Recall rates were calculated using the total number of included references retrieved by the database or database combination divided by the total number of included references, given in percentage.

RESULTS

The SRs searched five databases on average (range two to nine). MEDLINE/PubMed was the most commonly searched database (100% of SRs). In addition to academic databases, 18 of the 26 (69%) SRs hand searched the reference lists of included articles. This technique resulted in a median (IQR) of 2.5 (one to six) more references being included per SR than by database searches alone. 27 (5.4%) references were found only in one of six databases (when Google Scholar was excluded), with CINAHL retrieving the highest number of unique references (n = 15). The combinations of MEDLINE/PubMed and CINAHL (96.4%) and MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase (98.8%) yielded the highest overall recall rates, with Google Scholar excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the combinations of MEDLINE/PubMed and CINAHL and MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase yielded the highest overall recall rates of references included in SRs of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus. However, other combinations of databases yielded corresponding recall rates and are expected to perform comparably. Google Scholar can be a useful supplement to traditional scientific databases to ensure an optimal and comprehensive retrieval of relevant references.

Culturally adapted psychotherapies for depressed adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is current debate about the effectiveness and generalizability of evidence-based psychological therapies in treatment of depression for diverse ethno-cultural groups. This has led to increasing interest in culturally adapted psychotherapies (CAPs).

METHODS

Studies on CAPs for face-to-face treatment of depressed adults were identified using nine electronic database searches. Data on the process of adaptation was analysed using thematic analysis and treatment efficacy was assessed through meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in the review, of which eight were included in a meta-analysis. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Behavioural Activation were commonly selected approaches for CAPs, mainly based on their strong evidence base for effectiveness. Twelve studies reported the adaptation process that follows all or some phases recommended by the Medical Research Council Framework for developing complex interventions. A meta-analysis of 16 RCTs, which included eight studies from the current review and eight studies from an earlier review (Chowdhary et al. (2014), demonstrated a statistically significant benefit in favour of CAPs, reducing symptom burden [standardized mean difference -0.63, 95% confidence interval -0.87 to -0.39]. Subgroup analysis showed a larger effect when the intervention was for the majority ethnic group in a population, rather than a minority group.

LIMITATIONS

Some studies did not report all relevant information, and in the subgroup analysis only three studies were of minority groups.

CONCLUSIONS

CAPs were confirmed to be more efficacious than control treatments. This supports the continued development and evaluation of culturally adapted psychotherapies for depression.

Searching for Programme theories for a realist evaluation: a case study comparing an academic database search and a simple Google search

BACKGROUND

Realist methodologies are increasingly being used to evaluate complex interventions in health and social care. Programme theory (ideas and assumptions of how a particular intervention works) development is the first step in a realist evaluation or a realist synthesis, with literature reviews providing important evidence to support this. Deciding how to search for programme theories is challenging and there is limited guidance available. Using an example of identifying programme theories for a realist evaluation of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments in clinical practice, the authors explore and compare several different approaches to literature searching and highlight important methodological considerations for those embarking on a programme theory review.

METHODS

We compared the performance of an academic database search with a simple Google search and developed an optimised search strategy for the identification primary references (i.e. documents providing the clearest examples of programme theories) associated with the use of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments (PU-RAIs). We identified the number of primary references and the total number of references retrieved per source. We then calculated the number needed to read (NNR) expressed as the total number of titles and abstracts screened to identify one relevant reference from each source.

RESULTS

The academic database search (comprising CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, HMIC, Medline) identified 2 /10 primary references with a NNR of 1395.The Google search identified 7/10 primary references with a NNR of 10.1. The combined NNR was 286.3. The optimised search combining Google and CINAHL identified 10/10 primary references with a NNR of 40.2.

CONCLUSION

The striking difference between the efficiency of the review's academic database and Google searches in finding relevant references prompted an in-depth comparison of the two types of search. The findings indicate the importance of including grey literature sources such as Google in this particular programme theory search, while acknowledging the need for transparency of methods. Further research is needed to facilitate improved guidance for programme theory searches to enhance practice in the realist field and to save researcher time and therefore resource.

Searching for qualitative health research required several databases and alternative search strategies: a study of coverage in bibliographic databases

OBJECTIVE

Retrieving the qualitative literature can be challenging, but the number and specific choice of databases are key factors. The aim of the present study is to provide guidance for the choice of databases for retrieving qualitative health research.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Seventy-one qualitative systematic reviews, from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and JBI database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, including 927 qualitative studies, were used to analyze the coverage of the qualitative literature in nine bibliographic databases.

RESULTS

The results show that 94.4% of the qualitative studies are indexed in at least one database, with a lower coverage for publication types other than journal articles. Maximum recall with two databases is 89.1%, with three databases recall increases to 92% and maximum recall with four databases is 93.1%. The remaining 6.9% of the publications consists of 1.3% scattered across five databases and 5.6% that are not indexed in any of the nine databases used in this study.

CONCLUSION

Retrieval in one or a few-although well selected-databases does not provide all the relevant qualitative studies. The remaining studies needs to be located using several other databases and alternative search strategies.

Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews - are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders?

BACKGROUND

When conducting systematic reviews, it is essential to perform a comprehensive literature search to identify all published studies relevant to the specific research question. The Cochrane Collaborations Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) guidelines state that searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL should be considered mandatory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the MECIR recommendations to use MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL combined, and examine the yield of using these to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the area of musculoskeletal disorders.

METHODS

Data sources were systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group, including at least five RCTs, reporting a search history, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and adding reference- and hand-searching. Additional databases were deemed eligible if they indexed RCTs, were in English and used in more than three of the systematic reviews. Relative recall was calculated as the number of studies identified by the literature search divided by the number of eligible studies i.e. included studies in the individual systematic reviews. Finally, cumulative median recall was calculated for MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL combined followed by the databases yielding additional studies.

RESULTS

Deemed eligible was twenty-three systematic reviews and the databases included other than MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was AMED, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, MANTIS, OT-Seeker, PEDro, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, SportDISCUS and Web of Science. Cumulative median recall for combined searching in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was 88.9% and increased to 90.9% when adding 10 additional databases.

CONCLUSION

Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was not sufficient for identifying all effect studies on musculoskeletal disorders, but additional ten databases did only increase the median recall by 2%. It is possible that searching databases is not sufficient to identify all relevant references, and that reviewers must rely upon additional sources in their literature search. However further research is needed.

Specialist Bibliographic Databases

Specialist bibliographic databases offer essential online tools for researchers and authors who work on specific subjects and perform comprehensive and systematic syntheses of evidence. This article presents examples of the established specialist databases, which may be of interest to those engaged in multidisciplinary science communication. Access to most specialist databases is through subscription schemes and membership in professional associations. Several aggregators of information and database vendors, such as EBSCOhost and ProQuest, facilitate advanced searches supported by specialist keyword thesauri. Searches of items through specialist databases are complementary to those through multidisciplinary research platforms, such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Familiarizing with the functional characteristics of biomedical and nonbiomedical bibliographic search tools is mandatory for researchers, authors, editors, and publishers. The database users are offered updates of the indexed journal lists, abstracts, author profiles, and links to other metadata. Editors and publishers may find particularly useful source selection criteria and apply for coverage of their peer-reviewed journals and grey literature sources. These criteria are aimed at accepting relevant sources with established editorial policies and quality controls.

Adapted behavioural activation for the treatment of depression in Muslims

BACKGROUND

Incorporating religious beliefs into mental health therapy is associated with positive treatment outcomes. However, evidence about faith-sensitive therapies for minority religious groups is limited.

METHODS

Behavioural Activation (BA), an effective psychological therapy for depression emphasising client values, was adapted for Muslim patients using a robust process that retained core effective elements of BA. The adapted intervention built on evidence synthesised from a systematic review of the literature, qualitative interviews with 29 key informants and findings from a feasibility study involving 19 patients and 13 mental health practitioners.

RESULTS

Core elements of the BA model were acceptable to Muslim patients. Religious teachings could potentially reinforce and enhance BA strategies and concepts were more familiar to patients and more valued than the standard approaches. Patients appreciated therapist professionalism and empathy more than shared religious identity but did expect therapist acceptance that Islamic teachings could be helpful. Patients were generally enthusiastic about the approach, which proved acceptable and feasible to most participants; however, therapists needed more support than anticipated to implement the intervention.

LIMITATIONS

The study did not re-explore effectiveness of the intervention within this specific population. Strategies to address implementation issues highlighted require further research.

CONCLUSIONS

The adapted intervention may be more appropriate for Muslim patients than standard therapies and is feasible in practice. Therapist comfort is an important issue for services wishing to introduce the adapted therapy. The fusion of conceptual frameworks within this approach provides increased choice to Muslim patients, in line with policy and research recommendations.

Faith-adapted psychological therapies for depression and anxiety: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Incorporating faith (religious or spiritual) perspectives into psychological treatments has attracted significant interest in recent years. However, previous suggestion that good psychiatric care should include spiritual components has provoked controversy. To try to address ongoing uncertainty in this field we present a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of faith-based adaptations of bona fide psychological therapies for depression or anxiety.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials were performed.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 2274 citations of which 16 studies were eligible for inclusion. All studies used cognitive or cognitive behavioural models as the basis for their faith-adapted treatment (F-CBT). We identified statistically significant benefits of using F-CBT. However, quality assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool revealed methodological limitations that reduce the apparent strength of these findings.

LIMITATIONS

Whilst the effect sizes identified here were statistically significant, there were relatively a few relevant RCTs available, and those included were typically small and susceptible to significant biases. Biases associated with researcher or therapist allegiance were identified as a particular concern.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some suggestion that faith-adapted CBT may out-perform both standard CBT and control conditions (waiting list or "treatment as usual"), the effect sizes identified in this meta-analysis must be considered in the light of the substantial methodological limitations that affect the primary research data. Before firm recommendations about the value of faith-adapted treatments can be made, further large-scale, rigorously performed trials are required.