OBJECTIVE: To determine the intermethod agreement of self-reported vs. register data of \'sickness absence\' (SA) and \'return to work\' (RTW) outcome measurements.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies reporting mean differences (MDs) and sensitivity and specificity for self-report vs. register data and an inductive analysis of the self-report question formulations. An information specialist searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO for studies published from inception to November 2022. Screening and data extraction was done by two authors independently.
RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included of which eighteen with an overall high risk of bias. Self-reports had a pooled MD of 1.84 SA days (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-3.41, I2 98%, 18 studies, 38,716 participants) compared to registries which varied among studies from 204 more to 17 days less. The median average sick leave in studies in the self-report group was 8 days (interquartile range 4-23 days). Being absent from work measured with self-report had a sensitivity of 0.83 (0.76-0.88 95% CI) and a specificity of 0.92 (0.88-0.94 95% CI) compared to registry data. The high heterogeneity amongst the studies could not be explained by recall time, gender, register type, prospective or retrospective self-reports, health problem, SA at baseline or risk of bias. Studies lacked standard outcome reporting, had unclearly formulated questions in self-reports and there was little information on the registers\' quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Current self-reports may differ from register-based absence data but in an inconsistent way. Due to inconsistency and high risk of bias the evidence is judged to be of very low certainty. Further research is needed to develop clear standard questions which can be used for SA and RTW self-reports. Quality of registers needs to be better evaluated. Percentage positive and negative agreement, MDs and 2 × 2 tables should be reported for studies investigating agreement between SA and RTW outcome measures.

Two deprescribing search filters for MEDLINE and one deprescribing search filter for Embase have been recently developed, including objectively developed search filters. The objective of this case study was to implement these three deprescribing search filters in systematic review (SR) search strategies and to assess their effect on performances. SR that independently developed original search strategies (OSS) were selected. The deprescribing filters were implemented in each OSS, generating two implemented search strategies (ISS1 and ISS2) in MEDLINE and one ISS (ISS3) in Embase. OSS were re-run on the same date as ISS. The performances of ISS and OSS were calculated and compared. Two SR were included (SR1 and SR2). For MEDLINE, SR1 included 12 articles. The sensitivity was 50% for OSS, 58% for ISS1 and 42% for ISS2. SR2 included four articles. The sensitivity of OSS, ISS 1 and 2 was 25%. For Embase, SR1 included 12 articles. The sensitivity was 33% for OSS and 58% for ISS3. SR2 included four articles. None of the four included articles were retrieved with OSS or ISS3. While sensitivity of OSS was moderate, the objectively developed deprescribing filters maintained or slightly improved this sensitivity when implementing.

Palliative care requires innovative methods to understand what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why. Realist evaluation has become one prominent approach due to its preoccupation with building, and testing, causal theories to explain the influence of contextual factors on outcomes. Undertaking realist evaluation is not without challenges and may amplify issues of underrepresentation, disempower those working in palliative care, and produce results with poor ecological validity. Complementary approaches are needed which mitigate these challenges, whilst producing credible findings that advances knowledge.
In this article it is outlined how realist evaluation provides a toolkit to advance research to explain, and empirically test, the complex contours of palliative care. Moreover, it is proposed that transformative evaluation can provide a catalyst to engage and empower those within palliative care, create the opportunity for care transformation, and produce more informed and authentic theories.
Contemporary issues in palliative care pertain to the complexity of palliative care, the insufficiency of experimental designs alone, and the challenges of achieving inclusive research participation. In this article it is argued that theory led, participatory, opportunistic and naturalistic approaches can provide an antidote to the issues in the literature. The combination also mitigates many methodological critiques of the individual approaches, by increasing the transformative potential of realist evaluation, and explanatory potential of transformative evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the preferred source of evidence for the relative effect of healthcare interventions summarized in knowledge syntheses. Nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSI) may provide replacement, sequential, or complementary evidence to RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach can provide different options for properly using RCTs and NRSI integrated in health syntheses. In this article, we discuss different implications on the certainty of evidence when authors consider the use of NRSI and RCTs in systematic reviews using GRADE. Although this is a GRADE-related article, it is not an official GRADE guidance or concept article.
METHODS: We present case studies used during GRADE working group meetings for discussion of the effects of using NRSI and RCTs on GRADE domains and on the certainty of evidence. Several concepts were discussed through iterative feedback with experts in GRADE methods and Cochrane authors. We compared suggested solutions for possible scenarios that can be met in evidence syntheses informing decisions and future guidance.
RESULTS: Different scenarios for the use of RCTs and NRSI in evidence syntheses are presented, focusing on how different GRADE ratings between RCTs and NRSI affect the overall assessment of the evidence and possible health recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering differences and similarities grounded in the GRADE approach between NRSI and RCTs may help complement one another and maximize the value of knowledge syntheses and health recommendations.

Collecting new data from cross-sectional/survey and cohort observational study designs can be expensive and time-consuming. Nested (hierarchically cocooned within an existing parent study) and/or Multipart (≥ 2 integrally interlinked projects) study designs can expand the scope of a prospective observational research program beyond what might otherwise be possible with available funding and personnel. The Brain, Bone, Heart (BBH) study provides an exemplary case to describe the real-world advantages, challenges, considerations, and insights from these complex designs. MAIN: BBH is a Nested, Multipart study conducted by the Specialized Center for Research Excellence (SCORE) on Sex Differences at Emory University. BBH is designed to examine whether estrogen insufficiency-induced inflammation compounds HIV-induced inflammation, leading to end-organ damage and aging-related co-morbidities affecting the neuro-hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (brain), musculoskeletal (bone), and cardiovascular (heart) organ systems. Using BBH as a real-world case study, we describe the advantages and challenges of Nested and Multipart prospective cohort study design in practice. While excessive dependence on its parent study can pose challenges in a Nested study, there are significant advantages to the study design as well. These include the ability to leverage a parent study\'s resources and personnel; more comprehensive data collection and data sharing options; a broadened community of researchers for collaboration; dedicated longitudinal research participants; and, access to historical data. Multipart, interlinked studies that share a common cohort of participants and pool of resources have the advantage of dedicated key personnel and the challenge of increased organizational complexity. Important considerations for each study design include the stability and administration of the parent study (Nested) and the cohesiveness of linkage elements and staff organizational capacity (Multipart).
Using the experience of BBH as an example, Nested and/or Multipart study designs have both distinct advantages and potential vulnerabilities that warrant consideration and require strong biostatistics and data management leadership to optimize programmatic success and impact.

Discourses of self-harm, and also suicide, are often underpinned by a central tenet: prevention is the priority. This belief is seemingly so inscribed in research that it is rarely interrogated. The present paper re-analyses qualitative data from a hospital-based study of self-harm management and prevention practice. It aims to reflect upon, and disrupt, the authors\' latent assumptions about the construct of \'prevention\', while reflecting on the research method used. Twenty-five individuals participated in semi-structured interviews: healthcare and affiliated professionals (n = 14); parents and carers (n = 8); and children and young people (aged 9-16 years) who had presented to an emergency department for self-harm, with or without suicidal intent (n = 3). We offer two central discursive considerations: (1) Self-harm prevention is largely an unintelligible concept, having to be reflexively constructed in situ. As such, it is questionable whether it makes sense to discuss the prevention of this amorphous and dynamic phenomenon, which cannot always be disentangled from everyday life; (2) Interviews entail significant biographical work for participants, notably the performance of personal and professional competence for the audience. These interactional dynamics offer a glimpse into the priorities, meanings and needs for participants in relation to self-harm. Together these considerations provide useful insights into how the interview method can serve as both a limiting and illuminating site of knowledge creation.

暂无摘要。

Consumers\' product experiences are increasingly uncovered using approaches that extend beyond acceptability and sensory perception. The present research is situated in this context and adopts a multi-response approach to jointly obtain attitudinal, conceptual, emotional, situational and/or sensorial evaluations. With the aim of greater methodological understanding, three case studies were conducted with samples in three product categories (fruit- and vegetable-based beverages (n = 10), seafood (n = 6) and chocolate (n = 7)) using consumers from New Zealand (n = 196), India (living in New Zealand) (n = 138) and China (n = 167), conducted in central location (CLT) or home-use test (HUT) settings. Showcasing this multi-response approach and demonstrating its versatility in product research is the main contribution of the research. Across the three case studies different combinations of response types and scaling formats were successfully used (including CATA (check-all-that-apply) questions, yes/no questions and rating scales), and it was also found that tasted foods and written stimuli (food names) served equally well as stimuli. The degree of liking or disliking for individual samples was a useful benchmark against which to interpret the other types of responses, and situational appropriateness, obtained as item-by-use (IBU) responses always contributed unique insights. Facial emoji to obtain product-emotion associations yielded less valuable insights than a conceptualisation task. As expected, and in accordance with the rationale for adopting a multi-response approach, the combination of response types yielded greater stimuli insights than would otherwise have been gained. This held for each of the three case studies and supported future applications using a multi-response approach that extends beyond many related initiatives by including four response types in each case study.

BACKGROUND: Information specialists frequently translate search filters from one interface to another. Publications advise that translation can be complex and should be undertaken carefully.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the issues arising when translating the Cochrane Embase RCT search filter from one interface (Ovid) to another (Embase.com).
METHODS: We drafted a translation of the Cochrane Ovid RCT filter to run in Embase.com. We compared the line-by-line results of the Ovid filter with the results of the translation. We revised the filter. We identified differences between database versions including records with different publication years and subject headings. Some records were in Embase in one interface but not in the other. We encountered expected interface differences relating to proximity operators. We also encountered unexpected interface issues around truncation and the use of the original title or original abstract field.
CONCLUSIONS: Filter conversion is challenging and time consuming revealing unexpected differences in interfaces and databases. Careful planning can pre-empt some issues, but others may only emerge during testing. We identified interface anomalies that have led database publishers to review aspects of the way their interfaces work.
CONCLUSIONS: Translators should be vigilant for known and unknown differences in both interfaces and database versions.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a promising methodology for policy research in nursing. As a critical theoretical methodology, researchers use CDA to analyze social practices and language use in policies to examine whether such policies may promote or impede social transformation. Despite the widespread use of CDA in other disciplines such as education and sociology, nursing policy research employing CDA methodology is sparse. To advance CDA use in nursing science, it is important to outline the overall research strategies and describe the steps of CDA in policy research. This article describes, using exemplar case studies, how nursing and health policy researchers can employ CDA as a methodology. Three case studies are provided to discuss the application of CDA research methodologies in nursing policy research: (a) implementation of preconception care policies in the Zhejiang province of China, (b) formation and enactment of statewide asthma policy in Washington state of the United States, and (c) organizational implementation of employee antibullying policies in hospital systems in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Each exemplar details how CDA guided the examination of policy within specific contexts and social practices. The variations of the CDA approaches in the three exemplars demonstrated the flexibilities and potentials for conducting policy research grounded in CDA. CDA provides novel insights for nurse researchers examining health policy formation, enactment, and implementation.