Dissemination of public health research evidence and guidelines to Australian Early Childhood Education and Care staff: Views about source, content and format.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Effective dissemination of public health research and evidence-based guidelines to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) staff is critical for promoting research transfer and uptake and achieving positive outcomes for children. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted during August 2021 to March 2022, with a sub-sample of Australian ECEC services participating in a larger survey completed online and via Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview. Survey items assessed: influential source for receiving research, type of content that would influence decisions to adopt research and preferred formats for receiving research. RESULTS: Overall, 993 service managers or staff from 1984 (50.0%) invited and eligible services completed the larger survey. Of these, 463 randomly allocated services (46.7%) had staff complete the dissemination items. The Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority, ECEC agencies and Government Departments were most frequently selected as influential sources of research evidence. Staff were most interested in content providing evidence-based recommendations for future actions and descriptions of health issues addressed. Workshops or conferences and webinars were the preferred format for receiving research. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of tailoring dissemination strategies to meet ECEC staff needs and engaging influential sources to disseminate research evidence. SO WHAT?: Understanding dissemination preferences of ECEC staff is crucial for supporting uptake of evidence-based health promotion in this setting. By developing tailored strategies based on ECEC preferences, research transfer and evidence-based decision making can be supported more effectively. These findings contribute to bridging the evidence-practice gap and improving the quality of care and health outcomes for children in ECEC settings.

Online survey about the STROBE statement highlighted diverging views about its content, purpose, and value.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The endorsement rates of The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement are low and little is known about authors' opinions about this reporting guideline. We conducted an online survey with observational study authors on attitude toward and experiences with the STROBE Statement with the aim of understanding how to effectively implement STROBE. METHODS: A thematic analysis on the responses to an open-ended question was conducted using inductive coding. Two coders classified responses independently into themes using a codebook. The inter-rater agreement ranged from 87.7 to 99.9%. RESULTS: 15% (n = 150) of survey participants (n = 1,015) shared perceptions and insights on STROBE. We established four themes: 1) perceptions of the checklist, 2) academic confidence, 3) use in education and training, and 4) journal endorsement and use in peer review. Views were diverse and revealed multiple misunderstandings about the checklist's purpose and content, and lack of incentives for its use. CONCLUSIONS: Better communication efforts are needed when disseminating STROBE and other reporting guidelines. These should focus on content, education for early career researchers, and encouragement of critical self-reflection on one's own work. In addition, results emphasized the need for better incentive and enforcement mechanisms.

Development of LactaPedia: A lactation glossary for science and medicine.

During the last decade, there have been several publications highlighting the need for consistent terminology in breastfeeding research. Standard terms and definitions are essential for the comparison and interpretation of scientific studies that, in turn, support evidence-based education, consistency of health care, and breastfeeding policy. Inconsistent advice is commonly reported by mothers to contribute to early weaning. A standard language is the fundamental starting point required for the provision of consistent advice. LactaPedia (www.lactapedia.com) is a comprehensive lactation glossary of over 500 terms and definitions created during the development of LactaMap (www.lactamap.com), an online lactation care support system. This paper describes the development of LactaPedia, a website that is accessible free of charge to anyone with access to the Internet. Multiple methodological frameworks were incorporated in LactaPedia's development in order to meet the needs of a glossary to support both consistent health care and scientific research. The resulting LactaPedia methodology is a six-stage process that was developed inductively and includes framework to guide vetting and extension of its content using public feedback via discussion forums. The discussion forums support ongoing usability and refinement of the glossary. The development of LactaPedia provides a fundamental first step towards improving breastfeeding outcomes that are currently well below World Health Organisation recommendations globally.

Using the STROBE statement: survey findings emphasized the role of journals in enforcing reporting guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to identify factors affecting the use of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement, specifically authors' attitudes toward and experiences with it. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey was distributed to authors of observational studies recruited via social media, personal network snowballing, and mass mailings using targeted search strategies. Data on demographics, awareness, motivators, and usage were collected in conjunction with a modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) scale on which confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. RESULTS: One thousand fifteen participants completed the survey. Of these, 185 (18.2%) indicated they had never heard of STROBE nor used it previously, 195 (19.2%) had heard of it but never used it, and 635 (62.6%) had used it. Journals promoting STROBE were both key motivators and awareness mechanisms; peers and educational workshops were also important influencing factors to a lesser degree. The internal consistency of the modified UTAUT scale was strong (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94). CFA supported a four-factor model with 23 questions. CONCLUSION: The endorsement of STROBE by journals is key to authors' awareness and use of the guideline. We tested and validated our scale which can guide future research on reporting guidelines.

A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions.

OBJECTIVES: The STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement provides guidance on reporting observational studies. Many extensions have been created for specialized methods or fields. We determined endorsement prevalence and typology by journals in extension-related fields. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A published protocol defined search strategies to identify journals publishing observational studies (2007-2017) across seven fields relating to STROBE extensions. We extracted text regarding STROBE, seven STROBE extensions, reporting guidelines Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and transparent reporting documents/groups: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) networks. Relationships between endorsing STROBE, endorsing other guidelines, and journal impact factor were tested using chi square and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: Of 257 unique journals, 12 (5%) required STROBE on submission, 22 (9%) suggested use, 12 (5%) recommended a "relevant guideline," 72 (28%) mentioned it indirectly (via editorial policies or International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations), and 139 (54%) did not mention STROBE. The relevant extension was required by 2 (<1%) journals; 4 (1%) suggested use. STROBE endorsement was not associated with journal impact indices but was with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses endorsements. CONCLUSION: Reporting guideline endorsement rates are low; information is vague and scattered. Unambiguous language is needed to improve adherence to reporting guidelines and increase the quality of reporting.

The application of the Mayer multimedia learning theory to medical PowerPoint slide show presentations.

PowerPoint™ and other slideware have the potential to be overused and abused. Presentations should be tailored using scientifically derived principles in order to maximise teaching potential. This paper applies the Mayer Multimedia Learning Theory (with its twelve evidence-based principles of multimedia design) to medical slide show presentations. The best way to avoid audience boredom or mortification is to adhere to these precepts. Presentations stand or fall on the quality, relevance, and integrity of the content. Slide shows should supplement a presentation, and not substitute for it. The key principles are brevity, cogency and clarity.

The STROBE extensions: protocol for a qualitative assessment of content and a survey of endorsement.

INTRODUCTION: The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement was developed in response to inadequate reporting of observational studies. In recent years, several extensions to STROBE have been created to provide more nuanced field-specific guidance for authors. The content and the prevalence of extension endorsement have not yet been assessed. Accordingly, there are two aims: (1) to classify changes made in the extensions to identify strengths and weaknesses of the original STROBE checklist and (2) to determine the prevalence and typology of endorsement by journals in fields related to extensions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two independent researchers will assess additions in each extension. Additions will be coded as 'field specific' (FS) or 'not field specific' (NFS). FS is defined as particularly relevant information for a single field and guidance provided generally cannot be extrapolated beyond that field. NFS is defined as information that reflects epidemiological or methodological tenets and can be generalised to most, if not all, types of observational research studies. Intraclass correlation will be calculated to measure reviewers' concordance. On disagreement, consensus will be sought. Individual additions will be grouped by STROBE checklist items to identify the frequency and distribution of changes.Journals in fields related to extensions will be identified through National Library of Medicine PubMed Broad Subject Terms, screened for eligibility and further distilled via Ovid MEDLINE® search strategies for observational studies. Text describing endorsement will be extracted from each journal's website. A classification scheme will be created for endorsement types and the prevalence of endorsement will be estimated. Analyses will use NVivo V.11 and SAS University Edition. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval as it does not involve human participants. This study has been preregistered on Open Science Framework.

WASP - Write a Scientific Paper course: why and how.

The ability to write up research in the form of a paper is a crucial requisite for academics. The skills required are manifold and are acquired piecemeal during an individual's training. Matters would be facilitated by a short and intensive course that would cover all of these facets. Such a course would ideally be delivered by experienced writers and editors. It is for this very reason that WASP (Write a Scientific Paper) was created. WASP was held outside of Malta for the first time, in London. This paper describes the preparations required in order to plan and execute a course of this or similar nature.

Analysis of reference sources used in drug-related Wikipedia articles.

OBJECTIVE: References from drug-related Wikipedia articles and a drug information database were compared. METHODS: Drugs in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MedWatch alerts from January-July 2013 were searched in Wikipedia and Lexicomp to compare reference types and to assess the time for drug safety information to be incorporated into Wikipedia articles. RESULTS: Wikipedia most commonly cited peer-reviewed journal articles (49.2%) and news articles (12.0%). MedWatch citations were incorporated into Wikipedia on average in 5.9 days. CONCLUSIONS: Wikipedia cited various sources but may not be a reliable, up-to-date resource for drug safety information.

Email solicitation for scholarly work--a single researcher's perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Publishing is important for career progression. The traditional journal model results in subscribers bearing publication costs. The eagerness with which researchers seek journals for the publishing of their work, along with the internet, has resulted in the creation of a new model called open access (OA). Author/s or their institution/s pay an actual publication fee. This has in turn resulted in the creation of questionable journals which charge steep publishing fees. METHODS: Emails soliciting publication to one of the authors (VG) were collected for the month of March 2015. Information collected included costs of OA publishing, and whether or not this information was readily available. The appropriateness of said solicitations was also assessed with regard to topics with which the targeted author was familiar. RESULTS: There was a total of 44 solicitations: 3 were duplicates. Out of 41 solicitations, 20 (49%) were appropriate. The open access fee was readily available in 27 out of 41 solicitations (66%). The open access fee averaged $475, ranging from $25 to $1500. The only journal which provided true OA was Medical Principles and Practice, with no fees charged whatsoever. DISCUSSION: Potential authors should carefully investigate OA journals prior to choosing journals wherein to submit their work.

Retrieving clinical evidence: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for quick clinical searches.

BACKGROUND: Physicians frequently search PubMed for information to guide patient care. More recently, Google Scholar has gained popularity as another freely accessible bibliographic database. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. METHODS: We surveyed nephrologists (kidney specialists) and provided each with a unique clinical question derived from 100 renal therapy systematic reviews. Each physician provided the search terms they would type into a bibliographic database to locate evidence to answer the clinical question. We executed each of these searches in PubMed and Google Scholar and compared results for the first 40 records retrieved (equivalent to 2 default search pages in PubMed). We evaluated the recall (proportion of relevant articles found) and precision (ratio of relevant to nonrelevant articles) of the searches performed in PubMed and Google Scholar. Primary studies included in the systematic reviews served as the reference standard for relevant articles. We further documented whether relevant articles were available as free full-texts. RESULTS: Compared with PubMed, the average search in Google Scholar retrieved twice as many relevant articles (PubMed: 11%; Google Scholar: 22%; P<.001). Precision was similar in both databases (PubMed: 6%; Google Scholar: 8%; P=.07). Google Scholar provided significantly greater access to free full-text publications (PubMed: 5%; Google Scholar: 14%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: For quick clinical searches, Google Scholar returns twice as many relevant articles as PubMed and provides greater access to free full-text articles.

Redação científica e a qualidade dos artigos: em busca de maior impacto / Scientific writing and the quality of papers: towards a higher impact

Tendo em vista a constante preocupação de cientistas e editores com a qualidade da escrita científica, o objetivo deste artigo foi apresentar alguns tópicos acerca da estrutura recomendada para a publicação em periódicos revisados por pares. Detalhamos os pontos-chave das seções tradicionais de artigos originais e propusemos dois materiais que podem ser úteis à redação científica: um roteiro pontual para elaborar as principais ideias do artigo; e um quadro com exemplos de estruturas indesejáveis e desejáveis na redação científica.

Given the latent concern of scientists and editors on the quality of scientific writing, the aim of this paper was to present topics on the recommended structure of peer-reviewed papers. We described the key points of common sections of original papers and proposed two additional materials that may be useful for scientific writing: one particular guide to help the organization of the main ideas of the paper; and a table with examples of non desirable and desirable structures in scientific writing.