Background: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. Methods: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency. Discussion: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/.
DOCUMENT
Objectives: This study assesses social workers’ orientation toward the evidence-based practice (EBP) process and explores which specific variables (e.g. age) are associated. Methods: Data were collected from 341 Dutch social workers through an online survey which included a Dutch translation of the EBP Process Assessment Scale (EBPPAS), along with 13 background/demographic questions. Results: The overall level of orientation toward the EBP process is relatively low. Although respondents are slightly familiar with it and have slightly positive attitudes about it, their intentions to engage in it and their actual engagement are relatively low. Respondents who followed a course on the EBP process as a student are more oriented toward it than those who did not. Social workers under 29 are more familiar with the EBP process than those over 29. Conclusions: We recommend educators to take a more active role in teaching the EBP process to students and social workers.
DOCUMENT
Developmental Transformations (DvT), a practice involving interactive, improvisational play in pairs or groups, has gained international appeal as a therapeutic intervention for different populations in a variety of health, care and recreational contexts. However, a rigorous review of the benefits of DvT has not been conducted. The purpose of this study was to review extant literature for the observed benefits of DvT, identify gaps in the literature and make recommendations concerning future research including identifying possible areas for outcome measurement for preliminary studies. The authors, who each completed training in this approach, conducted a scoping review of English-language, published, peer-reviewed and grey DvT literature through 2021. From an initial 745 records retrieved through databases and a manual search, 51 publications met criteria, which, when analysed using in-vivo and pattern coding, resulted in a total of seventeen categories of observed benefits ascribed to DvT. These included six general categories – relational, emotional, social, cognitive, behavioural and physical benefits – and eleven complex categories of benefits to participants across the lifespan. In addition to benefits for participants, benefits of DvT were also observed and reported for facilitators, therapists, teachers and supervisors engaged in this practice. This review revealed inconsistencies regarding the reporting of practitioner training, frequency, format, population, intended goals, assessment measures and outcomes. Future studies with increased experimental rigor, standardized outcome measures and consistent reporting are recommended.
DOCUMENT
