Culturally diverse expert teams have yet to bring comprehensive linguistic diversity to intergovernmental ecosystem assessments

Multicultural representation is a stated goal of many global scientific assessment processes. These processes aim to mobilize a broader, more diverse knowledge base and increase legitimacy and inclusiveness of these assessment processes. Often, enhancing cultural diversity is encouraged through involvement of diverse expert teams and sources of knowledge in different languages. In this article, we examined linguistic diversity, as one representation of cultural diversity, in the eight published assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Our results show that the IPBES assessment outputs are disproportionately filtered through English-language literature and authors from Anglophone countries. To incorporate more linguistic diversity into global ecosystem assessment processes, we present actionable steps for global science teams to recognize and incorporate non-English-language literature and contributions from non-Anglophones. Our findings highlight the need for broad-scale actions that enhance inclusivity in knowledge-synthesis processes through balanced representation of different knowledge holders and sources.

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Meta-research examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation

Introduction Authors of knowledge syntheses make many subjective decisions during their review process. Those decisions, which are guided in part by author characteristics, can impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses, which assimilate much of the evidence base in medical education. To better understand the evidence base, this study describes the characteristics of knowledge synthesis authors, focusing on gender, geography, and institution. Methods In 2020, the authors conducted meta-research to examine authors of 963 knowledge syntheses published between 1999 and 2019 in 14 core medical education journals. Results The authors identified 4,110 manuscript authors across all authorship positions. On average there were 4.3 authors per knowledge synthesis (SD = 2.51, Median = 4, Range = 1–22); 79 knowledge syntheses (8%) were single-author publications. Over time, the average number of authors per synthesis increased (M = 1.80 in 1999; M = 5.34 in 2019). Knowledge syntheses were authored by slightly more females (n = 2047; 50.5%) than males (n = 2005; 49.5%) across all author positions. Authors listed affiliations in 58 countries, and 58 knowledge syntheses (6%) included authors from low- or middle-income countries. Authors from the United States (n = 366; 38%), Canada (n = 233; 24%), and the United Kingdom (n = 180; 19%) published the most knowledge syntheses. Authors listed affiliation at 617 unique institutions, and first authors represented 362 unique institutions with greatest representation from University of Toronto (n = 55, 6%). Across all authorship positions, the large majority of knowledge syntheses (n = 753; 78%) included authors from institutions ranked in the top 200 globally. Conclusion Knowledge synthesis author teams have grown over the past 20 years, and while there is near gender parity across all author positions, authorship has been dominated by North American researchers located at highly ranked institutions. This suggests a potential overrepresentation of certain authors with particular characteristics, which may impact the conduct and conclusions of medical education knowledge syntheses.

What's Stopping Knowledge Synthesis? A Systematic Review of Recent Practices in Research on Smallholder Diversity

A systematic review of recent publications was conducted to assess the extent to which contemporary micro-level research on smallholders facilitates data re-use and knowledge synthesis. Following PRISMA standards for systematic review, 1,182 articles were identified (published between 2018 and 2020), and 261 articles were selected for review in full. The themes investigated were: (i) data management, including data source, variables collected, granularity, and availability of the data; (ii) the statistical methods used, including analytical approach and reproducibility; and (iii) the interpretation of results, including the scope and objectives of the study, development issues addressed, scale of recommendations made relative to the scale of the sample, and the audience for recommendations. It was observed that household surveys were the most common data source and tended to be representative at the local (community) level. There was little harmonization of the variables collected between studies. Over three quarters of the studies (77%) drew on data which was not in the public domain, 14% published newly open data, and 9% drew on datasets which were already open. Other than descriptive statistics, linear and logistic regression methods were the most common analytical method used (64% of articles). In the vast majority of those articles, regression was used as an explanatory tool, as opposed to a predictive tool. More than half of the articles (59%) made claims or recommendations which extended beyond the coverage of their datasets. In combination these two common practices may lead to erroneous understanding: the tendency to rely upon simple regressions to explain context-specific and complex associations; and the tendency to generalize beyond the remit of the data collected. We make four key recommendations: (1) increased data sharing and variable harmonization would enable data to be re-used between studies; (2) providing detailed meta-data on sampling frames and study-context would enable more powerful meta-analyses; (3) methodological openness and predictive modeling could help test the transferability of approaches; (4) more precise language in study conclusions could help decision makers understand the relevance of findings for policy planning. Following these practices could leverage greater benefits from the substantial investment already made in data collection on smallholder farms.

International health library associations urge the ICMJE to seek information specialists as peer reviewers for knowledge synthesis publications

N/A

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Majority Population, Ethno-Racial Minorities, and Immigrants

The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an unprecedented threat for individuals and societies, revealing stark inequalities in preparedness, exposure, and consequences. The present systematic literature review complements extant knowledge on disasters and pandemic diseases with programmatic research on the COVID-19 pandemic. Building upon an integrative definition of threat, we merge intra-personal threat regulation with group dynamics and inter-group relations. Via streamlined methods of knowledge synthesis, we first map out a broad taxonomy of threats, as appraised by the majority population and ethno-racial and immigrant minorities. Second, we delve into research linking threat appraisals with either conflict or prosociality within and across group boundaries. To conclude, we propose some guidelines for researchers to involve ethno-racial and immigrant minorities actively and for societies to cope cohesively with the impact of COVID-19.

Needs Assessment of Safe Medicines Management for Older People With Cognitive Disorders in Home Care: An Integrative Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: The global trend of healthcare is to improve the quality and safety of care for older people with cognitive disorders in their own home. There is a need to identify how medicines management for these older people who are cared by their family caregivers can be safeguarded. This integrative systematic review aimed to perform the needs assessment of medicines management for older people with cognitive disorders who receive care from their family caregivers in their own home.Methods: An integrative systematic review of the international literature was conducted to retrieve all original qualitative and quantitative studies that involved the family caregivers of older people with cognitive disorders in medicines management in their own home. MeSH terms and relevant keywords were used to search four online databases of PubMed (including Medline), Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science and to retrieve studies published up to March 2021. Data were extracted by two independent researchers, and the review process was informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Given that selected studies were heterogeneous in terms of the methodological structure and research outcomes, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Therefore, narrative data analysis and knowledge synthesis were performed to report the review results.Results: The search process led to retrieving 1,241 studies, of which 12 studies were selected for data analysis and knowledge synthesis. They involved 3,890 older people with cognitive disorders and 3,465 family caregivers. Their methodologies varied and included cohort, randomised controlled trial, cross-sectional studies, grounded theory, qualitative framework analysis, and thematic analysis. The pillars that supported safe medicines management with the participation of family caregivers in home care consisted of the interconnection between older people's needs, family caregivers' role, and collaboration of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals.Conclusion: Medicines management for older people with cognitive disorders is complex and multidimensional. This systematic review provides a comprehensive image of the interconnection between factors influencing the safety of medicines management in home care. Considering that home-based medicines management is accompanied with stress and burden in family caregivers, multidisciplinary collaboration between healthcare professionals is essential along with the empowerment of family caregivers through education and support.

Mapping the research on museums and the public sphere: a scoping review

PurposeIn museum research, museums are held as vital in maintaining the public sphere. This scoping review takes stock of the present status of museum–public sphere research by providing an overview of the existing literature as a point of departure for future research. In short, it maps the research aims, theoretical concepts, research methods and findings within the field and identifies research gaps.Design/methodology/approachA scoping review methodology is used to provide a knowledge synthesis of the museum–public sphere literature. This approach is instrumental for researching multi-disciplinary, fragmented or underdeveloped research fields. Reviews can help identify otherwise easily overlooked gaps in the research literature and are an essential tool.FindingsOverwhelmingly, the published literature consists of case studies, some of which are theoretically ambitious. Still, cases are selected without explicit goals regarding analytical or theoretical generalization, and the studies are not placed within a theory-building framework. Moreover, the museum–public sphere research primarily focuses on museums in the core Anglosphere countries and is conducted by researchers affiliated with institutions in those countries. The museum–community relationship is a common research theme addressing engagement with the public through either visitor participation or community participation.Originality/valueThis is the first published scoping review or systematically conducted review and knowledge synthesis of the museum–public sphere research literature to our knowledge. The article finds and discusses a range of research gaps that need to be addressed theoretically and empirically.