Iranian experts' perspectives on facilitators and barriers influencing the infectious disease knowledge network: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge networks, such as Communities of Practice (CoP), are essential elements of knowledge management. They play a crucial role in assimilating various knowledge domains and converting individual knowledge into collective knowledge. This study aimed to assess the concept of knowledge networks and identify facilitators and barriers influencing knowledge sharing in infectious diseases, according to Iranian experts. METHODS: This qualitative study employed content analysis and used purposive and snowball sampling. The data were collected via online or face-to-face interviews with 25 participants with diverse expertise in infectious diseases (both clinical and non-clinical), epidemiology, knowledge management, and knowledge-based business management in Iran. The thematic analysis technique was used to code the interviews, and the collected data were analyzed using MAXQDA 20 software. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of the interviews led to 437 codes. These codes were categorized into two groups: facilitators and barriers. The facilitators shaping the knowledge network for infectious diseases were classified into three main categories: individual factors, organizational factors, and communication mechanisms. Individual factors involved two themes: strengthening knowledge exchange between experts in infectious diseases and personal characteristics such as the criteria for network membership. Organizational factors comprised three themes: organizational and trans-organizational factors, management strategies, and interactions with non-governmental sectors. Communication mechanisms included two themes: the use of information technology and knowledge brokers. In addition, three important challenges were identified as barriers influencing the knowledge network: administration and policy-making, organizational and trans-organizational, and personal challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Several facilitators and barriers influence the formation of an infectious disease knowledge network, which must be addressed to ensure its effectiveness, development, and long-term sustainability. Addressing these factors will enable the network to effectively integrate diverse knowledge and contribute to advancing infectious disease management.

Forty-seven years of Iranian cardiovascular disease scientific publication: A bibliometric and altmetric analysis.

BACKGROUND: The present study was conducted to investigate the scientific contributions of Iranians in the field of cardiovascular research, as indexed in the Scopus database, using bibliometric and altmetric methods. METHODS: This applied study was conducted with a scientometric approach, utilizing bibliometric and altmetric indicators. The research population consisted of the scientific works of Iranian researchers in the field of cardiovascular diseases, indexed in the Scopus database over a period of 47 years. For bibliometric analysis and the generation of co-citation, co-occurrence, and co-authorship maps, the authors employed VOS Viewer software and the bibliometrix package in the R programming language. In the final stage, articles mentioned on social media were analyzed and evaluated using an altmetric approach. RESULTS: The results indicated that the commencement point for the publication of documents was 1975, and there has been a steep increase in recent years. Moreover, the documents were primarily research articles out of 6853 retrieved documents, and a limited number of documents were single-authored. Other findings also revealed the co-authorship map of authors and the co-occurrence of words, highly cited authors and institutions, and highly frequent keywords, signifying the scientific collaboration of Iranian researchers with the United States and England. Altmetric analysis also demonstrated that 43.41% of documents were shared at least once on social media and had an Altmetric Attention score. Furthermore, the analysis of altmetric indices showed that Mendeley, Twitter, and News had the highest share of document mentions on social media, respectively. CONCLUSION: The findings of the study can offer valuable information to researchers, managers, and policy makers to become aware of the current state of research in the field of cardiovascular diseases and implement the necessary policies to inform society and enhance public health status.

The Procedures for Documenting Organizational Knowledge and Experiences: A Scoping Review.

Background: The present study was motivated by issues with earlier studies on documenting knowledge and experiences. This scoping review investigates and maps the procedures for documenting organizational knowledge and experiences. Methods: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, a scoping review was conducted. Data were obtained by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, Embase, and Emerald Insight databases and Persian databases, such as Magiran, Noormags, and Ensani. The selected terms were searched using the Boolean AND/OR operators, phrases, parentheses, and truncations in the title, abstract, keywords, and text word fields. The inclusion criteria were resources relevant to the research question, studies in English and Persian, original research articles, and resources published between 2011 and 2022. Finally, 8 related papers were selected as the research population after screening records. Results: The review of the selected studies indicates that there have been different steps for documenting knowledge and experiences according to the subject's scope and the goals of the studies. The included articles revealed numerous steps for documentation-including planning, acquisition, registration, evaluation, submission, maintenance, publication, application, payment, and compensation. Conclusion: Although a systematic mechanism for documenting knowledge and experience is essential, many processes and phases are offered for documentation. Therefore, a complete review that synthesizes and integrates past study findings must still be included. Several shortcomings in past research on documenting knowledge and expertise prompted the present study. The results of the present study can be of great use to managers and employees of various organizations in topics such as the creation of standards for documenting knowledge and experiences, organizational-structural planning in this field, and training on different documentation methods.

A methodological quality review of citations of randomized controlled trials of diabetes type2 in leading clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews.

Objective: Evaluate methodological quality of type 2 diabetes RCTs conducted in Iran and cited in clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Methods: We conducted a descriptive methodological quality review, analyzing 286 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on diabetes mellitus published in Iran from July 2004 to 2021. We searched six databases systematically and evaluated eligible articles using the CONSORT 2010 checklist for abstracts. Two investigators assessed the data using a 17-item checklist derived from CONSORT. Additionally, we examined the citations of each RCT in 260 clinical practice guidelines, with a specific focus on the adequate reporting of outcomes. Results: Out of 6667 articles, 286 analyzed. Poor reporting and failure to meet criteria observed. Only 3.8% cited in guidelines. Reporting rates: primary outcomes (41.9%), randomization (61.8%), trial recruitment (12.6%), blinding (50.8%). 27.9% cited in systematic reviews, 50.34% in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 26.57% in meta-analyses. 67.8% of papers cited in systematic reviews. Adherence highest for participants, objective, randomization, intervention, outcome; lowest for recruitment, trial design, funding source, harms, and reporting primary outcomes. Conclusions: Poor methodological reporting and adherence to CONSORT checklist in evaluated RCTs, especially in methodological sections. Improvements needed for reliable and applicable results in guidelines, reviews, and meta-analyses. Inadequate outcome reporting challenges researchers, clinicians, and policymakers, impacting evidence-based decision-making. Urgent improvements in RCT registration necessary.

Factors influencing knowledge sharing between scientific specialists in knowledge networks and communities of practice: A systematic literature review.

Knowledge sharing is a competitive advantage and necessity for the success of any organization. Meanwhile, knowledge networks have been introduced as a way to enhance knowledge sharing between individuals and as an effective tool to facilitate knowledge exchange in clinical, educational, and commercial fields. The purpose of this paper is to identify the factors that can affect the level of knowledge sharing and exchange between academic and scientific specialists in knowledge networks and Communities of Practice (COP). A systematic literature review was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Four databases were searched, including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ProQuest. Google Scholar search was conducted to complete the search and ensure the tracking of the gray literature. Also, relevant sources, references, and reference lists of the related articles were reviewed. The studies were searched from April until August 2022 and finally the content analysis of the findings was done. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies. Data were extracted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist tool. Of the 1439 records, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. This study identified three main categories of factors affecting knowledge sharing in knowledge networks and COPs as individual factors, organizational, and structural. The results showed that knowledge networks provide opportunities to overcome professional barriers and complex systemic challenges and lead to knowledge sharing and exchange among scientific specialists. This article has important implications for managers, health policymakers, and academics who wish to expand knowledge sharing of scientific specialists through knowledge networks and CoPs in knowledge-based organizations.

Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology: A Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis from 2005 to 2022.

This study aimed to present a bibliometric and altmetric Analyses of the Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (IJAAI). The citation performance and altmetric data were extracted from Scopus and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Analyses were done using SPSS 26, Microsoft Excel, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace. The results of the bibliometric analysis revealed that IJAAI had experienced respectable growth. Among the total citations, 4746 citations belong to the first decade (2005-2014) and 3,035 citations belong to the second (2015-2022). The findings demonstrated the significance of IJAAI among Iranian researchers. Pourpak, Z (66; 6.57%) is the top-producing author in IJAAI. The examination of research institutions reveals that the Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) is ranked first. The most highly cited article in IJAAI over the past 18 years is a review article which has received 138 citations. IJAAI is ranked first at the citing source and journal level, with the most citations (249 citations) to IJAAI. Iran has collaborated with 13 other countries. Overall, the analysis of co-occurred keywords indicates that IJAAI authors have used the following three high-frequency and important keywords: Asthma (162), Inflammation (48), and Multiple sclerosis (40). Co-citation analysis results demonstrated that a total of 6,718 sources were cited in this journal. The results of the altmetric analysis show that IJAAI has a reasonably low presence across various social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Mendeley, news and blogs. This study aids researchers in exploring and identifying emerging trends in the fields of allergy, asthma, and immunology.

Design and validation of a conceptual model regarding impact of open science on healthcare research processes.

INTRODUCTION: The development and use of digital tools in various stages of research highlight the importance of novel open science methods for an integrated and accessible research system. The objective of this study was to design and validate a conceptual model of open science on healthcare research processes. METHODS: This research was conducted in three phases using a mixed-methods approach. The first phase employed a qualitative method, namely purposive sampling and semi-structured interview guides to collect data from healthcare researchers and managers. Influential factors of open science on research processes were extracted for refining the components and developing the proposed model; the second phase utilized a panel of experts and collective agreement through purposive sampling. The final phase involved purposive sampling and Delphi technique to validate the components of the proposed model according to researchers' perspectives. FINDINGS: From the thematic analysis of 20 interview on the study topic, 385 codes, 38 sub-themes, and 14 main themes were extracted for the initial proposed model. These components were reviewed by expert panel members, resulting in 31 sub-themes, 13 main themes, and 4 approved themes. Ultimately, the agreed-upon model was assessed in four layers for validation by the expert panel, and all the components achieved a score of > 75% in two Delphi rounds. The validated model was presented based on the infrastructure and culture layers, as well as supervision, assessment, publication, and sharing. CONCLUSION: To effectively implement these methods in the research process, it is essential to create cultural and infrastructural backgrounds and predefined requirements for preventing potential abuses and privacy concerns in the healthcare system. Applying these principles will lead to greater access to outputs, increasing the credibility of research results and the utilization of collective intelligence in solving healthcare system issues.

Research impact in randomized controlled trials of diabetes: an altmetric approach.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the impact of research in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of diabetes and explore the various subject areas related to diabetes that receive attention on social media platforms. Altmetric measures were utilized to collect and extract relevant data, providing valuable insights into the social reach and influence of clinical research beyond traditional citation-based metrics. Methods: The research focused on RCTs of diabetes involving at least one Iranian author, indexed in Scopus. Altmetric.com was employed to extract altmetric data, and the collected articles were categorized into 14 subject areas for individual analysis using STATA. Results: The analysis revealed that a majority of the diabetes studies examined nutrition, complications, treatment, genetics, basic mechanisms, and comorbidities of the disease. Conversely, subject areas such as diagnosis, education, gestational diabetes, psychology, physical activity, prevention, dentistry, and economics had fewer studies associated with them. Among social media platforms, Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and Reddit emerged as the most frequently mentioned platforms. Furthermore, Mendeley readership was identified as the preferred platform for engagement across several subject areas. Conclusions: The substantial number of social media mentions indicates a significant level of public interest and concern regarding diabetes. Social media platforms serve as effective tools for disseminating research findings from clinical trials. Altmetric data proves valuable to researchers and funding agencies seeking to comprehend the impact of their work, enabling them to allocate resources more effectively.

A Scoping Review of Adopted Information Extraction Methods for RCTs.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the strongest evidence for therapeutic interventions and their effects on groups of subjects. However, the large amount of unstructured information in these trials makes it challenging and time-consuming to make decisions and identify important concepts and valid evidence. This study aims to explore methods for automating or semi-automating information extraction from reports of RCT studies. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, ACM Digital Library, and Web of Science to identify relevant articles published between January 1, 2010, and 2022. We focused on published Natural Language Processing (NLP), machine learning, and deep learning methods that automate or semi-automate key elements of information extraction in the context of RCTs. Results: A total of 26 publications were included, which discussed the automatic extraction of key characteristics of RCTs using various PICO frameworks (PIBOSO and PECODR). Among these publications, 14 (53.8%) extracted key characteristics based on PICO, PIBOSO, and PECODR, while 12 (46.1%) discussed information extraction methods in RCT studies. Common approaches mentioned included word/phrase matching, machine learning algorithms such as binary classification using the Naïve Bayes algorithm and powerful BERT network for feature extraction, support vector machine for data classification, conditional random field, non-machine-dependent automation, and machine learning or deep learning approaches. Conclusion: The lack of publicly available software and limited access to existing software makes it difficult to determine the most powerful information extraction system. However, deep learning models like Transformers and BERT language models have shown better performance in natural language processing.

Application of Problematic Integration Theory in Health Communication: A Scoping Review.

Problematic integration theory is a theory in communication that deals with the processing of messages by humans. It is helpful to study challenges and their solutions in the health communication context to develop effective relationships, treat patients, and, ultimately, ensure the well-being of society. A scoping review was conducted. Three databases were searched following the PRISMA-ScR statement without a time frame. Independent screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts was performed, and the studies selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed. The required information was then extracted from the studies and entered into Excel software. A total of 43 studies related to PI theory were identified in the databases. The results indicated that PI theory is used to interpret feelings, beliefs, challenges, concerns, and problematic dilemmas in five thematic categories: elderly care, cancer care, infertility, pregnancy, and childbirth care, illness care, and sexual care. Each of the papers also offers distinctive and valuable considerations for interventions such as communication strategies, coping mechanisms, uncertainty and certainty management, information management, education, training, support groups, and campaigns to improve decision-making and meet the challenges of health communication.

Barriers and facilitators of conducting research with team science approach: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The present review aimed to systematically identify and classify barriers and facilitators of conducting research with a team science approach. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Emerald, and ProQuest databases were searched for primary research studies conducted using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Studies examining barriers and facilitators of research with a team science approach were included in search. Two independent reviewers screened the texts, extracted and coded the data. Quality assessment was performed for all 35 included articles. The identified barriers and facilitators were categorized within Human, Organization, and Technology model. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies from 9,381 articles met the inclusion criteria, from which 42 barriers and 148 facilitators were identified. Human barriers were characteristics of the researchers, teaming skills, and time. We consider Human facilitators across nine sub-themes as follows: characteristics of the researchers, roles, goals, communication, trust, conflict, disciplinary distances, academic rank, and collaboration experience. The barriers related to organization were institutional policies, team science integration, and funding. Organizational facilitators were as follows: team science skills training, institutional policies, and evaluation. Facilitators in the field of technology included virtual readiness and data management, and the technology barriers were complexity of techniques and privacy issues. CONCLUSIONS: We identified major barriers and facilitators for conducting research with team science approach. The findings have important connotations for ongoing and future implementation of this intervention strategy in research. The analysis of this review provides evidence to inform policy-makers, funding providers, researchers, and students on the existing barriers and facilitators of team science research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO database (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021278704).

Highly cited publication performance in the ophthalmology category in the Web of Science database: a bibliometric analysis.

AIM: To determine and evaluate the features of highly cited articles (HCAs) in the ophthalmology category in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) from 1991 to 2020. METHODS: The Web of Science Core Collection documents with at least 100 citations from their publication year until December 31, 2020, were evaluated as highly cited. The examined features were the distribution of yearly output and its average number of per publication, HCAs, authors, institutions, journals, and nations. The publication performance of nations and organizations was assessed using six publication indicators. The Y-index was employed to compare the research outputs of various authors. RESULTS: Publications that had cited the most references were highly published in high-impact factor journals. The United States of America came out on top across all six publication indicators, and it was home to eight of the top 10 most productive institutions. The articles written by Breivik et al (2006) and Farrar et al (2001) were highly cited and had a significant impact in 2020. The authors had a higher number of highly cited articles published as corresponding authors than as first authors. CONCLUSION: The findings of the present study highlight the current scope of global research in ophthalmology. The findings can help policy-makers and advisory groups of research centers to develop future policies. In addition, the findings can guide researchers in this field.

Iranian researchers' perspective about concept and effect of open science on research publication.

BACKGROUND: Sharing research outputs with open science methods for different stakeholders causes better access to different studies to solve problems in diverse fields, which leads to equal access conditions to research resources, as well as greater scientific productivity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perceive the concept of openness in research among Iranian health researchers. METHODS: From the beginning of August to the middle of November 2021, twenty semi-structured interviews were held with Iranian health researchers from different fields using purposeful, snowball, and convenience sampling. The interviews continued until data saturation. Data analysis was performed with thematic analysis using MAXQDA 20. Finally, seven main issues related to open science were identified. RESULTS: Through analysis of the interviews, 235 primary codes and 173 main codes were extracted in 22 subclasses. After careful evaluation and integration of subclasses and classes, they were finally classified into nine categories and three main themes. Analysis showed that openness in research was related to three main themes: researchers' understanding of open science, the impact of open science on publication and sharing of research, concerns and reluctance to open research. CONCLUSION: The conditions of access to research output should be specified given the diversity of studies conducted in the field of health; issues like privacy as an important topic of access to data and information in the health system should also be specified. Our analysis indicated that the conditions of publication and sharing of research processes should be stated according to different scopes of health fields. The concept of open science was related to access to findings and other research items regardless of cost, political, social, or racial barriers, which could create collective wisdom in the development of knowledge. The process of publication and sharing of research related to open access applies to all types of outputs, conditions of access, increasing trust in research, creation of diverse publication paths, and broader participation of citizens in research. Open science practices should be promoted to increase the circulation and exploitation rates of knowledge while adjusting and respecting the limits of privacy, intellectual property and national security rights of countries.

Cancer and COVID-19 research studies with team science: a bibliometric study.

Team science refers to research initiatives considered in collaboration with scientists from different disciplines or fields. This paper presents a bibliometric analysis for visualization of global research activity concerning the combination of cancer and the COVID-19 pandemic using a team science approach. A bibliometric study was implemented using Web of Science from 2019 to 2021. We analyzed citations to identify description and citations analysis of results, most prolific countries, international research collaboration, most prolific institutions, research areas, most cited papers, and most productive journals. The preliminary data of 2,313 studies that adopted a team science approach were recorded and analyzed. Team science is becoming progressively popular in cancer research. The United States was the most active country, followed by Italy and China. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy had the highest level of cooperation with other countries. The most prolific institution was Harvard University, followed by University of London and the University of Texas System. Head and Neck Journal for the Sciences and Specialties of the Head and Neck, Frontiers in Oncology, and eCancerMedicalScience were the most productive journals. Governments, organizations, policymakers, and researchers should pay attention to team science approach at times of disasters such as cancer and COVID-19 to achieve the best strategies for controlling cancer that is currently a world problem.

The Effective Trends and Driving Forces in The Future of Research Performance Evaluation: A Qualitative Study.

Background: Performance is a multidimensional concept and is evaluated by different criteria. Definition and evaluation of research performance are always controversial and may be affected by variable conditions. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the effective trends and driving forces in the future of research performance evaluation. Methods: In this qualitative study, the trend analysis through scoping review and interview was done to identify the driving forces affecting the future of research performance evaluation. The scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines and searching of the international databases. The interviews were done face-to-face, by telephone, and on social media. MAXQDA version 10 and thematic analysis were used to analyze the interviews and documents. Results: In the scoping review step, a total of 6125 records were found through searching of the international databases and search engines. After removing 869 duplications, the title and abstract of 5256 records were screened. Finally, 42 records (41 English articles and 1 dissertation) were eligible for the study. In the interview step, 248 codes were assigned in nine main categories, 64 subcategories, and 47 dimensions. The trends included social (27 codes), technological (38 codes), economic (30 codes), environmental (5 codes), and political (44 codes) dimensions. Then, acquired information from two steps was synthesized, and the effective social, technological, economic, environmental, and political trends and driving forces were identified. Conclusion: The results showed that various social, technological, economic, environmental, and political factors and indicators must be included and normalized in the national and international research performance evaluation system.

No study is ever flawless: A scoping review of common errors in biomedical manuscripts.

We conducted this scoping review of common errors identified by editors and reviewers of biomedical manuscripts. Errors includes items that a reviewer or editor might identify as needing correction. The errors were categorized by section of the manuscript: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and References. After screening 87 published studies, 16 papers were selected for data extraction. Of these 16 studies, the most frequently represented disciplines were Medicine (n = 5), Radiology (n = 2), and Psychiatry (n = 2). The most reported common errors included inappropriate study design, inadequate sample size, poor statistical analysis, and unclear and inadequate description of methods. Abstracts not reflecting the content of the paper were the most frequent general common error in biomedical manuscripts. The findings of this study offer one perspective on common errors in biomedical manuscripts and might be a useful guide for novice authors.

Bibliometric Analysis on Geriatric Nursing Research in Web of Science (1900-2020).

OBJECTIVE: Aging is a growing public health concern for people, organizations, and governments. The current study was undertaken to provide insights into the global research output on geriatric nursing. METHODS: A bibliometric study was implemented using the WoS database for the period from 1900 to 2020. Various tools and measures were used to analyze and visualized. RESULTS: The search strategy found 4923 papers. The oldest paper was written by Beverly C. Andre in 1953. As team size increases, so does the number of citations. The USA was the active country and the highest number of coauthors. New York University was an active institution. Stig Karlsson was the most active author in Geriatric Nursing with 28 articles from Sweden, followed by Koen Milisen and Sandman, with 26 articles each from Sweden and Belgium. The most frequent words in this field were depression, malnutrition, education, Alzheimer's disease, and dementia. The latest research themes in this field were COVID-19, interprofessional locomotive syndrome, emergency nursing, and public health. The most influential papers were specified. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society was the most active journal. CONCLUSIONS: Geriatric nursing is a rooted field and has received special attention in the last decade. Policymakers, especially in developing countries, should pay attention to geriatric nursing as a specialty of nursing to solve aging issues they would face considering the increasing elderly population.

Skills and key education needed for clinical librarians: an exploratory study from the librarians' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: A clinical librarian is a member of the medical team in many countries. To strengthen this new job, librarians need to acquire professional skills in order to provide information services to medical staff. In this study, we aimed to explor the skills required for the presence of a clinical librarian in the treatment team. METHODS: In this study, we sonducted a qualitative study in which 15 experienced librarians were interviewed in connection with information services. Also, a treatment team was involved in this study using purposive-convenience and snowball sampling methods. The data collection tool was a semi-structured interview that continued until the data was saturated; finally the data analysis was performed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Out of the total interviews, 158 primary codes and, 107 main codes were extracted in 25 subclasses. After careful evaluation and integration of subclasses and classes, they were finally classified into 13 categories and four main themes, namely clinical librarian's role, professional and specialized skills, communication skills, and training programs. CONCLUSION: The results showed that specialized skills and training programs for the clinical librarian are defined based on his/her duties in the treatment team. We also defined the most important key skills for the clinical librarian in two categories of professional and communication skills such as specialized information search, content production, resource management, familiarity with various sources related to evidence-based medicine, teamwork, and effective communication. To acquire these skills, officials and policy-makers should develop and implement related educational programs at medical universities and colleges.