A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prevalence of automatically listing (a) senior member(s) of a department as co-author(s) on all submitted articles in health sciences and the prevalence of degrees of support on a 5-point justification scale. Survey research was searched in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of studies and conducted quantitative syntheses. We identified 15 eligible surveys, that provided 67 results, all of which were rated as having low quality. A pooled estimate of 20% [95% CI 16–25] (10 surveys, 3619 respondents) of researchers in various health sciences reported that a senior member of their department was automatically listed as an author on all submitted articles. Furthermore, 28% [95% CI 22–34] of researchers (10 surveys, 2180 respondents) felt that this practice was ‘never’, 24% [95% CI 22–27] ‘rarely’, 25% [95% CI 23–28] ‘sometimes’, 13% [95% CI 9–17] ‘most of the time’, and 8% [95% CI 6–9] ‘always justified’. The practice of automatically assigning senior members of departments as co-authors on all submitted manuscripts may be common in the health sciences; with those admitting to this practice finding it unjustified in most cases.Registration of the protocol The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. Link: https://osf.io/4eywp/.
MULTIFILE
Background: Nursing documentation could improve the quality of nursing care by being an important source of information about patients' needs and nursing interventions. Standardized terminologies (e.g. NANDA International and the Omaha System) are expected to enhance the accuracy of nursing documentation. However, it remains unclear whether nursing staff actually feel supported in providing nursing care by the use of electronic health records that include standardized terminologies.Objectives: a. To explore which standardized terminologies are being used by nursing staff in electronic health records. b. To explore to what extent they feel supported by the use of electronic health records. c. To examine whether the extent to which nursing staff feel supported is associated with the standardized terminologies that they use in electronic health records.Design: Cross-sectional survey design.Setting and participants: A representative sample of 667 Dutch registered nurses and certified nursing assistants working with electronic health records. The respondents were working in hospitals, mental health care, home care or nursing homes.Methods: A web-based questionnaire was used. Descriptive statistics were performed to explore which standardized terminologies were used by nursing staff, and to explore the extent to which nursing staff felt supported by the use of electronic health records. Multiple linear regression analyses examined the association between the extent of the perceived support provided by electronic health records and the use of specific standardized terminologies.Results: Only half of the respondents used standardized terminologies in their electronic health records. In general, nursing staff felt most supported by the use of electronic health records in their nursing activities during the provision of care. Nursing staff were often not positive about whether the nursing information in the electronic health records was complete, relevant and accurate, and whether the electronic health records were user-friendly. No association was found between the extent to which nursing staff felt supported by the electronic health records and the use of specific standardized terminologies.Conclusions: More user-friendly designs for electronic health records should be developed. The poor user-friendliness of electronic health records and the variety of ways in which software developers have integrated standardized terminologies might explain why these terminologies had less of an impact on the extent to which nursing staff felt supported by the use of electronic health records.
LINK
Adaptive survey design has attracted great interest in recent years, but the number of case studies describing actual implementation is still thin. Reasons for this may be the gap between survey methodology and data collection, practical complications in differentiating effort across sample units and lack of flexibility of survey case management systems. Currently, adaptive survey design is a standard option in redesigns of person and household surveys at Statistics Netherlands and it has been implemented for the Dutch Health survey in 2018. In this article, the implementation of static adaptive survey designs is described and motivated with a focus on practical feasibility.
