scholarly journals Assisting With Systematic Reviews Can Be Associated With Job-Related Burnout in Information Professionals

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-183
Author(s):  
Kimberly MacKenzie
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Demographic Groups ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Information Professionals

Demetres, M. R., Wright, D. N., & DeRosa, A. P. (2020). Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: An exploratory study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 108(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.665 Abstract Objective – This study explored reports of burnout among librarians who assist with systematic review preparation. Design – Electronic survey (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory). Setting – The survey was advertised via three email discussion lists based in the United States of America. Subjects – The study surveyed 198 librarians and information specialists who support the systematic review process. Of these, 166 completed the personal burnout scale, 159 completed the work burnout scale, and 151 completed the client burnout scale. Methods – The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) is a validated survey that includes three separate scales: personal burnout, work-related burnout, and client-related burnout. The end of the survey addressed demographics, including questions on the respondents’ involvement with systematic reviews. Survey questions use a 0 to 100 rating scale, with 0 indicating Never/To a Low Degree and 100 indicating Always/To a High Degree. The researchers shared the survey to the email discussion lists MEDLIB-L and DOCLINE and advertised it on the Medical Library Association (MLA) News. Survey answers were collected using Qualtrics Survey Software. Once emailed, the survey remained open for one month. Data was coded in Excel and analysis included scoring following the CBI metrics, as well as TukeyHSD and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine differences in demographic groups. Main Results – Reported burnout levels were significantly lower for those who spend more than 80% of their time helping with systematic reviews compared to those who spend less than 10%. The consistent use of a systematic review support tool was also associated with significantly lower burnout levels. Other comparisons were not significant. The average overall response score for personal burnout was 48.6. The average score for work-related burnout was 46.4 and the average score for client-related burnout was 32.5. Reference librarians reported the highest average total burnout scores (47.1), while research librarians had the lowest (37.7). Conclusion – Consistency, either in time spent dedicated to systematic reviews or in the use of a support tool, was associated with lower levels of burnout among librarians and information specialists. The authors suggest that these results could inform ways of improving burnout among those assisting with systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: an exploratory study

2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle R. Demetres ◽  
Drew N. Wright ◽  
Antonio P. DeRosa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Information Professionals ◽  
Job Duties

Objective: The aim of this exploratory study was to assess personal, work-related, and client-related burnout among information professionals who support systematic review (SR) work.Methods: The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, a validated tool for assessing burnout, was administered to information professionals who support SR work. A broad range of health sciences or medical librarians and information professionals were targeted via professional email discussion lists and news outlets. Questionnaire responses were captured electronically using Qualtrics Survey Software and quantitatively analyzed.Results: Respondents experienced an average personal burnout score of 48.6, work-related score of 46.4, and client-related score of 32.5 out of 100. Respondents who reported spending >80% of their job duties on SR work had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported spending <10% of their job duties on SR work (average, 31.5 versus 50.9, respectively). Also, respondents who reported using an SR support tool had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported sometimes using a tool (average, 43.7 versus 54.7, respectively).Conclusion: The results suggest that information professionals who dedicate more time to SR work or who consistently use an SR support tool experience less burnout. This study provides groundwork for further investigation with the aim of developing approaches to prevent or combat SR-related burnout among information professionals.

scholarly journals Learning while doing: program evaluation of the Medical Library Association Systematic Review Project

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Boden ◽  
Marie T. Ascher ◽  
Jonathan D. Eldredge
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Program Evaluation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Professional Growth ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Short Answer ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Review Team ◽  
Short Answer Questions

Objectives: The Medical Library Association (MLA) Systematic Review Project aims to conduct systematic reviews to identify the state of knowledge and research gaps for fifteen top-ranked questions in the profession. In 2013, fifteen volunteer-driven teams were recruited to conduct the systematic reviews. The authors investigated the experiences of participants in this large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to answering priority research questions and fostering professional growth among health sciences librarians.Methods: A program evaluation was conducted by inviting MLA Systematic Review Project team members to complete an eleven-item online survey. Multiple-choice and short-answer questions elicited experiences about outputs, successes and challenges, lessons learned, and future directions. Participants were recruited by email, and responses were collected over a two-week period beginning at the end of January 2016.Results: Eighty (8 team leaders, 72 team members) of 198 potential respondents completed the survey. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated that the MLA Systematic Review Project should be repeated in the future and were interested in participating in another systematic review. Team outputs included journal articles, conference presentations or posters, and sharing via social media. Thematic analysis of the short-answer questions yielded five broad themes: learning and experience, interpersonal (networking), teamwork, outcomes, and barriers.Discussion: A large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to performing systematic reviews shows promise as a model for answering key questions in the profession and demonstrates the value of experiential learning for acquiring synthesis review skills and knowledge. Our project evaluation provides recommendations to optimize this approach.

scholarly journals An Exploration of Systematic Review Publication Trends in Conservation Biology Journals

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jocelyn Boice
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conservation Biology ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Literature Searching ◽  
Publication Trends ◽  
Information Professionals ◽  
Search Quality

Researchers in conservation biology and other non-medical fields are adopting systematic review as a research methodology. Since this methodology requires extensive and well-documented literature searching, it is beneficial for information professionals to understand disciplinary developments in its use. This article investigates trends in systematic review publication in conservation biology journals between 1998 and 2017 and examines the prevalence of search reporting among these systematic reviews. Results show an increase in published systematic reviews over the study period, and the majority of these include a description of the literature search. However, evidence of variable search quality and reporting indicates an important role for librarians in improving literature search strategies and documentation.

scholarly journals Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela J. Spencer ◽  
Jonathan D. Eldredge
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Controlled Vocabulary ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Source Selection ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Other Information ◽  
Text Word ◽  
Information Professionals

Objective: What roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles that librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians’ systematic reviews services.Methods: For this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts.Results: We identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles.Conclusion: Librarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations.

Interventions to alleviate financial toxicity among patients with cancer: A systematic review.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18841-e18841
Author(s):  
Asad Arastu ◽  
Andrew Hamilton ◽  
Emerson Yu-sheng Chen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Financial Burden ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Financial Toxicity ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Assistance Programs

e18841 Background: Financial toxicity (FT) has become a recognized side effect associated with cancer diagnosis and treatment; however, there is little data on what interventions have proven to be effective at mitigating the financial burden patients might face. Methods: A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Met-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo. Broad terminology to capture FT and all possible interventions was used to identify articles published through June 25, 2020 in MEDLINE and July 31, 2020 in Embase and PsycInfo. We excluded systematic reviews, studies not conducted in the United States, with non-adult participants, or those that did not examine an intervention to directly alleviate FT. Two independent reviewers (AA and EYC) reviewed all abstracts to identify which articles met inclusion criteria. An inductive approach was used to thematically categorize unique intervention strategies. Results: A total of 1126 abstracts were identified from the initial search strategy, and 9 met final inclusion criteria. Across these studies, 12 distinct strategies were reported in 27 unique occurrences. They were mapped into four broad domains: 1) patient assistance programs (PAPs) through pharmaceutical company and/or charity sponsored programs, 2) financial navigators who provide counseling and community resources, 3) direct coverage through free medications or payments, and 4) indirect coverage for related services (e.g. transportation). Direct coverage was most commonly proposed, 15/27 (56%) of interventions, followed by PAPs 5/27 (18%), financial navigators 4/27 (15%), and indirect costs 3/27 (11%). These interventions led to outcomes including: cost savings to patients in 5/9 studies (56%), alleviated fears surrounding cost of treatment in 2/9 (22%), earlier medication fills in 1/9 (11%), and decreased anxiety on a self-reported Likert scale in 1/9 (11%). Conclusions: While potential solutions to FT from cancer care remain unclear, this systematic review demonstrates that particular implemented strategies have lessened patient expenses, improved therapy adherence, or helped patients live better. Additional resources could help equip providers and institutions on how to use existing infrastructure (PAPs) or how to deploy additional workforce to diminish FT.

A systematic review of evidence for cannabis and cannabinoids as adjuvant therapy in palliative and supportive oncology care.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12091-12091
Author(s):  
Sebastian Jugl ◽  
Shailina Keshwani ◽  
Lauren Adkins ◽  
Coy D. Heldermon ◽  
Almut Winterstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Medical Cannabis ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Oncology Care

12091 Background: Medical cannabis use is increasing significantly in the United States as states reduce restrictions. However, ambiguity concerning the evidence for medical cannabis efficacy and safety, especially in the field of oncology, is persistent. Clinicians therefore face challenges in examining benefits and risks of medical cannabis as adjuvant treatment for cancer patients. This study identifies and evaluates the most recent available evidence for the efficacy of cannabis and cannabinoids as adjuvant in supportive and/or palliative use in patients with cancer. Methods: Electronic databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify studies published following the latest available systematic review, between July 2016 through October 2019. Studies conducted outside the United States, studies not evaluating cannabis or cannabinoids in Oncology care, and preclinical studies were excluded. Findings were organized in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) framework. Lastly, qualitative synthesis was used to generate summary statements about the role of cannabis and cannabinoids as adjuvant in supportive and/or palliative cancer care. Results: We screened 2,267 articles and included 96 studies in our qualitative synthesis. Among those were 2 RCT’s (1 completed), 6 Systematic reviews with Meta-analysis, 4 Systematic reviews without Meta-analysis, 71 other types of reviews and 13 observational studies. The most frequently reported outcomes assessed were efficacy of cannabis and cannabinoids for: pain (40 of 96; 17 indicating improvement), nausea and vomiting (26 of 96; 20 indicating improvement), cachexia (22 of 96; 2 indicating improvement), and utilization patterns of cannabis and/or cannabinoids among cancer patients (8 of 96). Conclusions: Latest available prevalence estimates indicate that a significant proportion of patients in the United States with cancer use cannabis and/or cannabinoids (18.3-40.0%). There is substantial evidence for the effectiveness of cannabis and cannabinoids in treating cancer-related pain; specifically, oromucosal THC/CBD spray. There is conclusive evidence for the effectiveness of cannabis and cannabinoids in relieving chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; specifically, oral THC. There is inconclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of cannabis and cannabinoids in treating cancer-related cachexia.

scholarly journals The prevalence and risk factors of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among adults in Ethiopia: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsiwaye Gebreyesus ◽  
Kalkidan Nigussie ◽  
Moges Gashaw Getnet ◽  
Balamurugan Janakiraman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorders

Abstract Background: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders imposes a significant and most often underappreciated burden to the individual, nation, healthcare system, and society as a whole. A preliminary literature search suggests that there are at present no reliable estimates on the total prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in Ethiopia. Further, in Ethiopia, the cloud of infectious and other non-communicable diseases has led to a lack of attention towards work-related musculoskeletal disorders, empirical under-representation, and possible human capital loss. The objective of this protocol is to present a transparent process for how to review the existing literature on the prevalence rates and determinant factors of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in Ethiopia.Method: The proposed methodology is based on Preferred Reporting Systematic Reviews and Protocols (PRISMA-P) statements on the conduct of systematic review and meta-analysis and the MOOSE guidelines for Meta-analysis and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies. The electronic databases MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Science Direct index, SCOPUS, PEDro, PsyINFO, Embase, Ebsco, and Google Scholar will be systematically searched. Besides, the grey literature resources such as databases or websites of dissertations and theses will be searched. The reference list of screened articles will also be hand searched. All observational studies reporting on the prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal pain of any bodily region among adult Ethiopians will be included. Random and quality effects models will be used to calculate pooled prevalence with a 95 % confidence interval. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed. Publication bias and heterogeneity between the included studies will also be assessed and reported.Discussion: The proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will provide valid insight into the pooled prevalence of multi-regional work-related musculoskeletal pain and factors associated. The consensus of data from this review will surely help the policymakers in occupational health and health care sectors in identifying priority areas for interventions in work-related musculoskeletal disorders and will also serve as a baseline for the decision-making processes of musculoskeletal health promotion, work exposure implementations, and prevention programs in workplaces.

Evaluation of text mining to reduce screening workload for injury-focused systematic reviews

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melita J Giummarra ◽  
Georgina Lau ◽  
Belinda J Gabbe
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Text Mining ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
High Specificity ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Low Sensitivity ◽  
Injury Research

IntroductionText mining to support screening in large-scale systematic reviews has been recommended; however, their suitability for reviews in injury research is not known. We examined the performance of text mining in supporting the second reviewer in a systematic review examining associations between fault attribution and health and work-related outcomes after transport injury.MethodsCitations were independently screened in Abstrackr in full (reviewer 1; 10 559 citations), and until no more citations were predicted to be relevant (reviewer 2; 1809 citations, 17.1%). All potentially relevant full-text articles were assessed by reviewer 1 (555 articles). Reviewer 2 used text mining (Wordstat, QDA Miner) to reduce assessment to full-text articles containing ≥1 fault-related exposure term (367 articles, 66.1%).ResultsAbstrackr offered excellent workload savings: 82.7% of citations did not require screening by reviewer 2, and total screening time was reduced by 36.6% compared with traditional dual screening of all citations. Abstrackr predictions had high specificity (83.7%), and low false negatives (0.3%), but overestimated citation relevance, probably due to the complexity of the review with multiple outcomes and high imbalance of relevant to irrelevant records, giving low sensitivity (29.7%) and precision (14.5%). Text mining of full-text articles reduced the number needing to be screened by 33.9%, and reduced total full-text screening time by 38.7% compared with traditional dual screening.ConclusionsOverall, text mining offered important benefits to systematic review workflow, but should not replace full screening by one reviewer, especially for complex reviews examining multiple health or injury outcomes.Trial registration numberCRD42018084123.

scholarly journals Systematic Review on Healthcare and Societal Costs of Tinnitus

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (13) ◽  
pp. 6881
Author(s):  
Ilias Trochidis ◽  
Alessandra Lugo ◽  
Elisa Borroni ◽  
Christopher R. Cederroth ◽  
Rilana Cima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Economic Burden ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Productivity Loss ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Comprehensive Health

Tinnitus disability is a heterogeneous and complex condition, affecting more than 10% and compromising the quality of life of 2% of the population, with multiple contributors, often unknown, and enigmatic pathophysiology. The available treatment options are unsatisfactory, as they can, at best, reduce tinnitus severity, but not eliminate its perception. Given the spread of tinnitus and the lack of a standardized treatment, it is crucial to understand the economic burden of this condition. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Google Scholar, in order to identify all the articles published on the economic burden of tinnitus before 1 April 2021 (PROSPERO—International prospective register of systematic reviews—No: CRD42020180438). Out of 273 articles identified through our search strategy, only five articles from studies conducted in the United States of America (USA), the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (UK) provided data on tinnitus’s economic costs. Three studies provided mean annual estimates per patient ranging between EUR 1544 and EUR 3429 for healthcare costs, between EUR 69 and EUR 115 for patient and family costs and between EUR 2565 and EUR 3702 for indirect costs, including productivity loss. The other two studies reported an annual mean cost of EUR 564 per patient for tinnitus-related clinical visits, and total costs of EUR 1388 and EUR 3725 for patients treated with a sound generator and Neuromonics Tinnitus Treatment, respectively. Our comprehensive review shows a gap in the knowledge about the economic burden of tinnitus on healthcare systems, patients and society. The few available studies show considerable expenses due to healthcare and indirect costs, while out-of-pocket costs appear to be less financially burdensome. Comprehensive health economic evaluations are needed to fill the gaps in current knowledge, using a unified method with reliable and standardized tools.

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews Regarding the Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain with Opioids Analgesics

Pain Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Connor Polson ◽  
Parker Siex ◽  
J Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
Will Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Opioid Analgesics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Review Author ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Disclosure Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objective We sought to determine whether author conflict of interest (disclosed or undisclosed) or industry sponsorship influenced the favorability of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the use of opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Methods Our search included the MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases. Study sponsorship was determined using the funding statement provided in each systematic review. Author COI information was extracted from the COI disclosure statement. This information was cross-referenced with information available on the CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and previously published COI disclosures. Results Eight systematic reviews authored by 83 authors were included. Of these authors, 19 (23.0%) were found to have a COI, of which the majority (17/19; 89.5%) had at least one undisclosed COI. Despite nearly one-quarter of authors having a COI, we found no association between the presence of a COI and the favorability of results (P = 0.64) or conclusions (P = 0.07). Conclusions COI are common and frequently undisclosed among systematic review authors investigating opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Despite a high prevalence of COI, we did not find that these author-industry relationships had a significant influence on the favorability of results and conclusions; however, our findings should be considered a lower bound estimate of the true influence author COI have on outcomes of pain medicine systematic reviews secondary to the low sample size included in the present study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document