Hidden effectiveness? Results of hand-searching Italian language journals for occupational health interventions: Table 1

Assessment of search strategies in Medline to identify studies on the impact of long COVID on workability

Objectives

Studies on the impact of long COVID on work capacity are increasing but are difficult to locate in bibliographic databases, due to the heterogeneity of the terms used to describe this new condition and its consequences. This study aims to report on the effectiveness of different search strategies to find studies on the impact of long COVID on work participation in PubMed and to create validated search strings.

Methods

We searched PubMed for articles published on Long COVID and including information about work. Relevant articles were identified and their reference lists were screened. Occupational health journals were manually scanned to identify articles that could have been missed. A total of 885 articles potentially relevant were collected and 120 were finally included in a gold standard database. Recall, Precision, and Number Needed to Read (NNR) of various keywords or combinations of keywords were assessed.

Results

Overall, 123 search-words alone or in combination were tested. The highest Recalls with a single MeSH term or textword were 23 and 90%, respectively. Two different search strings were developed, one optimizing Recall while keeping Precision acceptable (Recall 98.3%, Precision 15.9%, NNR 6.3) and one optimizing Precision while keeping Recall acceptable (Recall 90.8%, Precision 26.1%, NNR 3.8).

Conclusions

No single MeSH term allows to find all relevant studies on the impact of long COVID on work ability in PubMed. The use of various MeSH and non-MeSH terms in combination is required to recover such studies without being overwhelmed by irrelevant articles.

Precision and Recall of Search Strategies for Identifying Studies on Work-Related Psychosocial Risk Factors in PubMed

PURPOSE

This study aims to report on the effectiveness of various search strategies and keywords to find studies on work-related psychosocial risk factors (PRF) in the PubMed bibliographic database.

METHODS

We first selected by hand-searching 191articles published on PRF and indexed in PubMed. We extracted 30 relevant MeSH terms and 38 additional textwords. We then searched PubMed combining these 68 keywords and 27 general keywords on work-related factors. Among the 2953 articles published in January 2020, we identified 446 articles concerning exposure to PRF, which were gathered in a Gold Standard database. We then computed the Recall, Precision, and Number Needed to Read of each keyword or combination of keywords.

RESULTS

Overall, 189 search-words alone or in combination were tested. The highest Recall with a single MeSH term or textword was 43% and 35%, respectively. Subsequently, we developed two different search strings, one optimizing Recall while keeping Precision acceptable (Recall 98.2%, Precision 5.9%, NNR 16.9) and one optimizing Precision while keeping Recall acceptable (Recall 73.1%, Precision 25.5%, NNR 9.7).

CONCLUSIONS

No single MeSH term is available to identify relevant studies on PRF in PubMed. Locating these types of studies requires the use of various MeSH and non-MeSH terms in combination to obtain a satisfactory Recall. Nevertheless, enhancing the Recall of search strategies may lead to lower Precision, and higher NNR, although with a non-linear trend. This factor must be taken into consideration when searching PubMed.

The Professional Identity of Social Workers in Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review

Recent research into the role of mental health social work has identified a need for increased critical engagement with accounts of professional role and identity. Notably, a number of studies have found that social workers struggle to articulate their role within mental health teams and services. This study aimed to identify the ways in which social workers in mental health settings defined their professional identity and role. An international scoping review utilizing Arksey and O'Malley's method was conducted, identifying 35 papers published between 1997 and 2022. A thematic analysis grouped the findings into three predominant themes: (i) distinct social work approaches to mental health, (ii) organizational negotiations for mental health social workers, and (iii) professional negotiations for mental health social workers. These thematic findings are discussed in relation to existing research and critical perspectives, with particular emphasis on accounts of the bureaucratic and ideological functioning of professionalism in mental health services, as well as the global direction of mental health policy. This review finds that mental health social work embodies a coherent identity that aligns with international mental health policy agendas but faces significant challenges in developing and expressing this identity within mental health services.

Where to Find Evidence-Based Information on Occupational Safety and Health?

Background:

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) professionals must base their advice and interventions on evidence from science, in balance with their expertise, and with workers’ and other stakeholders’ values and preferences. Evidence-based professional practice is one of the remedies against misinformation creating confusion and distrust in the society.

Objectives:

To present, for OSH professionals, an overview and critical considerations about concepts, strategies, and tools needed for an accurate search for evidence-based information.

Methods:

Information sources have been collected and discussed as a base for a documented vision on knowledge questions, online information sources, search engines, databases, and tools.

Results:

Every search should start with a carefully phrased question. To help finding a reliable answer, potential evidence-based online sources are presented. Systematic reviews and original scientific articles are regarded as primary sources. Secondary and tertiary sources are discussed, such as practice guidelines, point-of-care summaries, advisory reports, quality websites or apps, Wikipedia, quality videos, and e-lessons. To find sources, adequate use of search engines and databases is required. Examples are discussed briefly, such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Virtual Health Library, NICE, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Work, Google (Scholar), and YouTube.

Conclusions:

Evidence-based practice in OSH must be stimulated, relying mainly on trusted online sources. The breadth of appropriate information sources is wider than described in most publications. Search engines facilitate the finding of quality reports, videos, e-courses, and websites. Such sources can be explored by well-trained professionals to complement the use of scientific articles, reviews, point-of-care summaries, and guidelines. Adequate use of online information sources requires awareness, motivation, and skills in professionals and educators. To date, the quality of skills in searching is low, thus a more adequate education is crucial. The quality of sources, search engines, and databases will be considered more thoroughly in another study. International collaboration is profitable and needs new drivers.

Quality assessment of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals in Spanish: An observational study through handsearching and evidence mapping

Few Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain are indexed in major databases; controlled clinical trials published in these journals cannot be exhaustively retrieved using electronic literature searches. We aimed to identify, describe and assess the quality of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain through handsearching and evidence mapping methods. We identified controlled clinical trials published in eligible Orthopaedics/Traumatology journals in Spanish until July 2017 by handsearching. Data were extracted for controlled clinical trials main characteristics and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the controlled clinical trials methodological quality. In addition, we mapped the main findings of these trials. As a result, we assessed 5631 references in 29 eligible journals of which 57 were controlled clinical trials (1.0%). Controlled clinical trials were published between 1995 and 2017 at a rate of 2.5 per year. Journals from Spain and Mexico published around 63% of the controlled clinical trials identified. The median sample size of patients enrolled was 60 (range = 30-300 participants). About conditions assessed, 38.5% of controlled clinical trials assessed issues related to knee conditions, 15.7% about hip and 10.5% about trauma or spine. The risk of bias domains most affected was selective reporting bias and random sequence generation. In addition, only two and seven trials had low risk of bias in all items related to participant/personnel and outcome assessment blindings, respectively. More than 40% of studies did not report differences on benefits/harms between the interventions assessed. As a conclusion, the number of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics/Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain is low. These controlled clinical trials had important methodological shortcomings and were judged as unclear or high risk of bias. These trials are now available in CENTRAL for their potential inclusion in systematic reviews and other documents of synthesis.

A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review

BACKGROUND

The purpose and contribution of supplementary search methods in systematic reviews is increasingly acknowledged. Numerous studies have demonstrated their potential in identifying studies or study data that would have been missed by bibliographic database searching alone. What is less certain is how supplementary search methods actually work, how they are applied, and the consequent advantages, disadvantages and resource implications of each search method. The aim of this study is to compare current practice in using supplementary search methods with methodological guidance.

METHODS

Four methodological handbooks in informing systematic review practice in the UK were read and audited to establish current methodological guidance. Studies evaluating the use of supplementary search methods were identified by searching five bibliographic databases. Studies were included if they (1) reported practical application of a supplementary search method (descriptive) or (2) examined the utility of a supplementary search method (analytical) or (3) identified/explored factors that impact on the utility of a supplementary method, when applied in practice.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were included in this review in addition to the four methodological handbooks. Studies were published between 1989 and 2016, and dates of publication of the handbooks ranged from 1994 to 2014. Five supplementary search methods were reviewed: contacting study authors, citation chasing, handsearching, searching trial registers and web searching.

CONCLUSIONS

There is reasonable consistency between recommended best practice (handbooks) and current practice (methodological studies) as it relates to the application of supplementary search methods. The methodological studies provide useful information on the effectiveness of the supplementary search methods, often seeking to evaluate aspects of the method to improve effectiveness or efficiency. In this way, the studies advance the understanding of the supplementary search methods. Further research is required, however, so that a rational choice can be made about which supplementary search strategies should be used, and when.