= A =

Accuracy

Accuracy is the proportion of all articles that are correctly categorized by the search strategy

Source : http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/HIRU_Hedges_home.aspx

Adjacent

physician adj5 relationship retrieves records that contain the words physician and relationship within five words of each other in either direction.

E.g. physician patient relationship, patient physician relationship, relationship of the physician to the patient, and so on.

Source: OVID help, available from: http://www.ovid.com /site/help/documentation/ospb/en/syntax.htm#operators

AND

The AND operator lets you retrieve only those records that include all of your search terms. For example, the search “blood pressure AND stroke” retrieves only those records that contain both terms “blood pressure” and “stroke” together in the same record. Results exclude records that do not contain both terms.

Source : OVID help. Available form: http://www.ovid.com/site/help/documentation/ospb/en/syntax.htm#operators

Image source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LogicGates.svg

Approach

1. Identify your problem
2. Define a structured question
3. Find the best evidence
4. How valid is the study?
5. What are the results?
6. How should I apply the results to patient care?

Source: Guyatt G, Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users' guides to the medical literature : a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical; 2008.

= B =

Bibliographic indexes

A bibliographic index is an "open-end finding guide to the literature of an academic field or discipline (example: Philosopher's Index), to works of a specific literary form (Biography Index) or published in a specific format (Newspaper Abstracts), or to the analyzed contents of a serial publication (New York Times Index). Indexes of this kind are usually issued in monthly or quarterly paperback supplements, cumulated annually.

Some bibliographic indexes are also published online, in which case they are called bibliographic databases

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliographic_index [visited 2010-09-15]

Bibliographical databases

A bibliographic database is a database of bibliographic records, an organized digital collection of references to published literature, including journal and newspaper articles, conference proceedings, reports, government and legal publications, patents, books, etc. In contrast to library catalogue entries, a large proportion of the bibliographic records in bibliographic databases describe analytics (articles, conference papers, etc.) rather than complete monographs, and they generally contain very rich subject descriptions in the form of keywords, subject classification terms, or abstracts.

A bibliographic database may be general in scope or cover a specific academic discipline. A significant number of bibliographic databases are still proprietary, available by licensing agreement from vendors, or directly from the abstracting and indexing services that create them.

Many bibliographic databases evolve into digital libraries, providing the full-text of the indexed contents. Others converge with non-bibliographic scholarly databases to create more complete disciplinary search engine systems, such as Chemical Abstracts or Entrez

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliographic_database [visited 2010-09-15]

Booleans operators

See : ADJACENT, AND, NEAR, NOT, OR

Broader term

In the hierachy of a thesaurus, relationship between a term and a more generic term.

= C =

Context

Thesauri are multi-hiérarchical: one Heading can be found at several places; each place in the hierarchy of the thesaurus is called a context.

Clinical queries

See: Special queries, Subset

= D =

Descriptor

See : Subject Heading.

= E =

ECLIPSE

ECLIPSE is useful for management, service or health policy related issues.

Source : NHS FIFE LIBRARY SERVICES: Guide to Literature Searching. Available from: http://www.nhsfifelibraries.scot.nhs.uk/publications/litsearching.doc [visited 2010-09-15]

Evidence pyramid

Based on: http://smlweb.aub.edu.lb/Tutorial.aspx?file=Tutorials/principles.html and http://nyu.libguides.com/content.php?pid=27011&sid=234199#systematic [visited 2010-09-15]

Evidence source type

• Quaternary : Clinical guidelines/ consensus meetings/standards
• Tertiary : Systematic reviews/meta-analyses/EBM publications
• Secondary :  Bibliographical databases
• Primary : Journals, reports

Source : CEBAM

Explosion (Explode)

Explosion consists of selecting one term in the hierarchy of a thesaurus, and including all narrower terms.

= F =

Focus

Focus consists of selecting a Heading as Major topic. It reduces the amount of results while keeping a good pertinence.

= H =

Hedges

Hedges are special queries developped by HIRU center of the McMaster University (Canada).

See : Special queries

= I =

Institutional repositories

While the main purposes of institutional repositories are to bring together and preserve the intellectual output of a laboratory, department, university, or other entity, the incentives and commitments to change the process of scholarly communication have also begun serving as strong motivators.

Source : http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/may04/drake.shtml [visited 2010-09-15]

= J =

Journal’s impact factor

A journal’s impact factor is based on two elements: the numerator, which is the number of cites in the current year to any items published in the journal in the previous 2 years; and the denominator, the number of substantive articles (source items) published in the same 2 years.

Source: Eugene Garfield. The Agony and the Ecstasy—The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. International Congress on Peer Review And Biomedical Publication Chicago,  September 16, 2005

= M =

Major topics (Medline / MeSH)

Asterisks on MeSH headings and subheadings (e.g., Wound Healing/radiation effects*) designate that they are the major topics of the article, usually obtained from the title and/or statement of purpose

Non-major (non-asterisked) headings and subheadings are usually additional topics substantively discussed within the article, terms added to qualify a major topic (…).

The only indexed MEDLINE citations without an asterisked heading are some biographies in which the subject’s name may be considered the only major point. (…)

Source : http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/mesh/major.html

Mapping

In resources with controlled vocabulary, you can map search terms to subject headings

Source: OVID help. Available form http://www.ovid.com/site/help/documentation/ospb/en/advanced.htm#map

= N =

Narrower term (NT)

In the hierarchy of a thesaurus, relationship between a term and a more specific term

NEAR

Physician NEAR relationship retrieves records that contain the words in the same field

E.g. both words  in the Title; in the abstract, and so on

Source : OVID help. Available form: http://www.ovid.com/site/help/documentation/ospb/en/syntax.htm#operators

NOT

The NOT operator lets you retrieve records that contain your first term but exclude the second term. In this way, you can restrict the scope of your results. For example, the search health reform not health maintenance organizations retrieves only those records that contain the term health reform but exclude the term health maintenance organizations.

Source : OVID help. Available form: http://www.ovid.com/site/help/documentation/ospb/en/syntax.htm#operators

Image source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LogicGates.svg [visited 2010-09-15]

= O =

OAI repositories

See : Institutional repositories

Open Access (OA)

By 'open access' to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.

Source: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess

Open archives initiative (OAI)

The Open Archives Initiative develops and promotes interoperability standards that aim to facilitate the efficient dissemination of content. OAI has its roots in the open access and institutional repository movements. Continued support of this work remains a cornerstone of the Open Archives program. Over time, however, the work of OAI has expanded to promote broad access to digital resources for eScholarship, eLearning, and eScience.

Source : http://www.openarchives.org/

Operators (Booleans)

See : ADJACENT, AND, NEAR, NOT, OR

OR

The OR operator lets you retrieve records that contain any of your search terms. For example, the search “heart attack OR myocardial infarction” retrieves records that contain “heart attack”, “myocardial infarction” or both terms. Results are all inclusive

Source : OVID help. Available form: http://www.ovid.com/site/help/documentation/ospb/en/syntax.htm#operators

Image source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LogicGates.svg

= P =

Permuted index

The Permuted index is an alphabetical list of all entry terms of a thesaurus. The entry term sends to the retained term (Subject Heading).

PICO

PICO is useful for medical questions and for topics where one thing is being compared with another.

Source : NHS FIFE LIBRARY SERVICES: Guide to Literature Searching. Available from: http://www.nhsfifelibraries.scot.nhs.uk/publications/litsearching.doc

PIRT

Source:

Precision

Precision is the proportion of retrieved articles that are of high quality

Source : http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/HIRU_Hedges_home.aspx

= Q =

Qualifiers

Qualifiers (subheadings) afford a convenient means of grouping together those citations which are concerned with a particular aspect of a subject. Not every qualifier is suitable for use with every subject heading.

Source : http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/topsubscope.html

= R =

Related terms (see also)

Associative relationship

Relationships

Thesaurus relationships include Broader terms, Narrower terms, Used for, Use, Related terms / See also

Rotated index

See: Permuted index

= S =

Scope note

A scope note may be a definition. It may include : Including concepts, excluding concepts; Reference to other terms, Additional instructions,

Source : http://publish.uwo.ca/~craven/677/thesaur/main07.htm [visited 2010-09-15]

Search strategy results

Sensitive search

For a sensitive search you need to think of all the possible ways an author or an indexer might describe each of your key words in phrases. You might find it useful to check with a medical thesaurus or a list of subject heading such as MESH (Medical Subject Headings).

The more alternative terms you use the more results you will get from the search.

Source : NHS FIFE LIBRARY SERVICES: Guide to Literature Searching. Available from: http://www.nhsfifelibraries.scot.nhs.uk/publications/litsearching.doc

Sensitivity

Sensitivity for a given strategy is defined as the proportion of high quality articles that are retrieved

Source : http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/HIRU_Hedges_home.aspx

Special queries

Special queries are pre-established queries allowing to identify pertinent references on a specific subject; two kind of special queries are usually available:

• "Evidence based" special queries that are tested against a gold standard (a manual selection of publications that should be retrieved by the electronic search) regarding sensitivity, specificity, precision and accuracy (e.g. Hedges).
• "Experience based" special queries that are not validated against a gold standard

See Appendix 2 for a KCE selection of special queries

Specific search

For a specific search you want to use only terms that relate directly to your question, so you would use only one (or at the most two) way to describe each search term. You may need to check with the MESH as with the databases own thesaurus to ensure that the terms you are using are the terms the indexer would use.

In a specific search, you would apply more Limits. Limits are search terms such as language, age of article, journal title, article type or limits on the populations such as age, gender, ethnic group etc.

You can limit articles NOT to find certain terms, for example you could search for stress but NOT stress fractures.

The more limits you apply to a search the fewer results you will get from that search.

Source : NHS FIFE LIBRARY SERVICES: Guide to Literature Searching. Available from: http://www.nhsfifelibraries.scot.nhs.uk/publications/litsearching.doc

Specificity

specificity is the proportion of low quality or off topic articles not retrieved.

Source : http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/HIRU_Hedges_home.aspx

SPICE

SPICE is recognises that information practice is a social science, not a “hard science”, by splitting the population component into both setting and perspective. By replacing “outcomes” with “evaluation” the SPICE model incorporates other concepts such as “outputs” and “impact” together with less tangible effects of an intervention

Source: Booth A. Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice. Library Hi Tech. Vol. 24 No. 3, 2006. pp. 355-368

SPIDER

SPIDER is an alternative search strategy tool for qualitative/mixed methods research

Structured question

A structured question put together different elements of the same concept (facet).

Examples : ECLIPSE, PICO, PIRT, SPICE, SPIDER

Sub-headings

See : Qualifiers

Subject heading

Subject heading is a word or phrase from a controlled vocabulary which is used to describe the subject of a document or a class of documents.

Source : http://www.iva.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/concepts/subject_heading.htm

Subset

PubMed subset is the application of a Special query to PubMed records.

Clinical queries search the user’s keyword in a subset of PubMed instead of the whole PubMed set.

E.g.: Systematic Reviews subset on PubMed (source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/pubmed_subsets/sysreviews_strategy.html)

= T =

Thesaurus

A thesaurus is a semantic tool used for information retrieval, query expansion and indexing, among other purposes. It is basically a selection of the basic vocabulary in a domain supplemented with information about synonyms, homonyms, generic terms, part/whole terms, “associative terms” and other information (e.g. frequency and history of terms in a given database).

Source : http://www.iva.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/concepts/thesauri_and_metathesauri.htm

Truncations

Truncated  lacking an expected or normal element (as a syllable) at the beginning or end

Source: Meeriam-Webster dictionary. Available from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar

Examples :

= U =

Use

In a thesaurus, relationship between a non-descriptor (entre term) and the descriptor which takes its place

Used for (UF)

In a thesaurus, relationship between the descriptor and the non-descriptor(s) or entry terms it represents

AN EXAMPLE OF A DEBRIEFING TEMPLATE

• Comment le groupe a fonctionné ?
• Contexte environnemental
• Tensions éventuelles
• Problèmes éventuelles avec certaines questions/topic
• Points à approfondir au cours des interviews suivantes
• Premier résultats frappants

AN EXAMPLE OF A QUESTIONNAIRE

Questionnaire used in the KCE research project on citizen and patient participation in reimbursement decision-making (to be published in 2013).

PART 1 – Prior experience and purpose

• Has citizen-patient participation with regard to reimbursement decisions already been discussed in one or several groups?
• At what occasion? When was that? Why was this? Which decision / organ was involved? What type of citizen-patient was involved?
• What were the arguments pro and/or con?
• What was the motivation/background for/of these arguments? Which targets were researched?  
• What type of participation was considered? and what type was not considered ? (who, method, decision, …)
• What were or are the conclusions regarding citizen-patient participation?
• Is participation important for the future of our healthcare system or no?
• If no why?
• If yes why? Is it feasible now? What is the high-level goal that could be achieved now and in the future? What are the main obstacles?
• What do you want to attain by including public preferences in health care decision making?

PART 2 – HOW TO INVOLVE

Explanation by interviewer of levels of participation: inform – consult – debate – co-decision – decision

• What level(s) of participation would be most desirable and why?
• What would influence this choice: the subject/type of decision? The moment in the decision-making process?
• For each of these desired levels of intensity, what would be advantages / disadvantages?
• From your knowledge of the different stakeholders, what is feasible now? What is feasible in the Belgian context?
• How should such participation be organised?
• Who could be involved :
• Citizen? Taxpayer? Consumer? Patient? Expert?
• From your experience, what’s the opinion of the stakeholders about the citizen-patient to involve or not to involve ?
• Who would represent the citizen-patient ?
• What would be your ideal scenario to involve the citizen-patient in reimbursement decisions.

PART 3 – EXAMPLES OF PARTICIPATION

• From your experience, can you give examples of participation linked to reimbursement decisions that you know about of have witnessed? If none, is there an example you have been thinking of yourself?
• What was positive or negative about these examples?

[Probe for more than one example. If they are giving foreign examples, we ask them how this could work in Belgium. What would be the same, what would be different.]

Systematic probing questions for all examples the respondent gives:

• what would be better compared to a situation without participation
• what would be negative ?
• how would it work / be organized
• who would be involved (who would represent the citizen-patient)
• what barriers do you see

PART 4 – WRAPPING UP

Based on the choice made, probe again with regard to:

• Type of motivation for participation: democracy, equity, efficiency, …
• Which role do citizen-patient have to take within the decision making process? The user of health services perspective (more particular) or the public policy perspective (more diffuse).

Understand the priorities :

• what would be the most interesting to achieve at mid term? at long term?
• what would be the easiest to get going: the way of lesser resistance?

Closing question when thanking:

• Anything else you would like to say or stress?

AN EXAMPLE OF A TOPIC LIST

The example presented below is fictitious. It could have been used in the KCE research project on refractive eye surgery (in progress), but instead a questionnaire was used.

• Discovery of eye problems
• When?
• How?
• Which solution?
• Reaction?
• Satisfaction with solution. Change to new solution, which one?
• Encounter with eye surgery
• When?
• How?
• Consideration of the eye surgery
• Motivations?
• How far in the process
• Final decision/decision so far
• Planning of the eye surgery
• Experience of the eye surgery and after care
• Emotions – fears
• Practicalities
• Informed consent
• Evaluation of the eye surgery
• Quality of sight
• Pain
• Adverse effects
• Reimbursement of glasses, contact lenses, refractive eye surgery

AN EXAMPLE OF AN INTRODUCTORY TEXT

Bonjour,

Je me présente, je m’appelle [Prénom Nom], je travaille pour [institution] en tant que [décrire sa fonction en essayant de ne pas se positionner comme ‘supérieur’ au(x) répondant(s)], C’est moi qui distribuerai la parole ce soir et modérerai la discussion.

Comme vous le savez, nous réalisons en ce moment un projet relatif au [sujet de l’étude].

Dans ce cadre, nous souhaiterions connaitre les opinion, expériences, sentiments de [description de la population d’étude] quant à [description du sujet de l’étude].

Ce projet est financé/demandé par [bailleur de fonds] avec pour objectif de [objectif de l’étude].

Nous vous avons contacté parce que vous [reprendre les caractéristiques du segment de l’échantillon attendu]. Vous avez été identifié(s) via [source de recrutement].

Notre discussion durera approximativement [fourchette de durée de l’interview/focus group].

Le contenu des discussions et les propos échangées resteront confidentiels. Autrement dit, si certaines phrases seront reprises dans notre rapport final, aucune citation ne reprendra le nom de la personne qui l’a formulée.

(Pour les focus groups) Avant de commencer, je voudrais également vous présenter [Prénom Nom de l’observateur] qui va observer ce groupe afin de voir comment se déroulent les discussions et m’aider éventuellement à distribuer équitablement la parole et garder le temps en vue.

Je vous présente également et [Prénom et Nom du rapporteur] qui prendra note des discussions.

(Pour tous) Je souhaiterais par ailleurs vous demander l’autorisation d’enregistrer l’entretien/les discussions : cela nous permettra de revenir sur vos propos exacts lors de l’analyse de l’ensemble des entretiens, de ne pas déformer vos propos en cas de citation pour illustrer nos résultats et ne pas prendre de notes trop précise pendant l’entretien, ce qui facilitera nos échanges. Si vous/personne n’y voit d’inconvénients, je laisse le dictaphone enregistrer. (celui-ci ayant été enclenché dès le début de l’entretien)

Quelques règles de base : il n’y a pas de bonne ou mauvaise réponse. Les discussions se font dans le respect mutuel de chacun.

(Pour les focus groups) Nous vous remercions de bien vouloir ne pas rapporter ce qui se sera dit ici à l’extérieur du groupe.

Pour ce qui est de la prise de parole, ne parlez pas entre vous, en aparté, mais faites profiter le groupe de vos réflexions. En plus, s’il y a plusieurs conversations en même temps, l’enregistrement en pâtira. Si vous souhaitez prendre la parole, faites-moi un petit signe.

(Pour tous) Vous êtes libre de quitter le groupe/arrêter l’interview à tout moment.

(Pour les focus groups) Avant de passer à la première question, je vous propose de commencer par un tour de table afin de vous présenter en donnant votre prénom et [1 ou 2 caractéristiques en fonction de la question de recherche]. Si vous préférez vous pouvez donner un pseudonyme.

CHECKLIST FOR THE PREPARATION OF FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS

OTHER CHECKLISTS AND QUALITY CRITERIA FOR QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

In what follows we will elaborate on two other checklists enabling qualitative researchers to guard the quality of their work.

Henwood and Pidgeon¹⁰⁵ identified seven attributes which characterise good qualitative research. Their schema, which links criteria with methods of achieving sound research, offers a helpful guide for novice researchers. They argue for:

• The importance of fit - The themes or analytical categories offered by the researcher should fit the data. The researcher demonstrates this by writing clear, explicit accounts of how these categories were evolved.
• Integration of theory - The researcher needs to discuss the relationship between units of analysis and the degree to which they can be integrated or generalised (for instance, exploring how themes might be combined moving towards a theory).
• Reflexivity – The role of the researcher needs to be acknowledged and accounted for in the documentation of the research.
• Documentation – The researcher needs to provide an audit trail: a comprehensive account of what was done and why.
• Theoretical sampling and negative case analysis – The researcher needs to continuously develop and modify any emerging theory, exploring cases that do not fit as well as those which might generate new knowledge.
• Sensitivity to negotiated realities – While participant validation may be necessary, the researcher needs to demonstrate awareness of the research context, power differentials and participant reactions to the research. It is particularly important to explain any differences between the researcher’s interpretations and those of the participant(s).
• Transferability - The researcher should suggest how the research may have applicability beyond the particular research context.

Malterud¹⁰⁶ provides the following checklist:

Aim

• Is the research question a relevant issue?
• Is the aim sufficiently focused, and stated clearly?

• Are the researcher's motives, background, perspectives, and preliminary hypotheses presented, and is the effect of these issues sufficiently dealt with

Method and design

• Are qualitative research methods suitable for exploration of the research question?
• Has the best method been chosen with respect to the research question?

Data collection and sampling

• Is the strategy for data collection clearly stated (usually purposive or theoretical, usually not random or representative)?
• Are the reasons for this choice stated?
• Has the best approach been chosen, in view of the research question?
• Are the consequences of the chosen strategy discussed and compared with other options?
• Are the characteristics of the sample presented in enough depth to understand the study site and context?

Theoretical Framework

• Are the perspectives and ideas used for data interpretation presented?
• Is the framework adequate, in view of the aim of the study?
• Does the author account for the role given to the theoretical framework during analysis?

Analysis

• Are the principles and procedures for data organization and analysis fully described, allowing the reader to understand what happened to the raw material to arrive at the results?
• Were the various categories identified from theory or preconceptions in advance, or were they developed from the data?
• Which principles were followed to organize the presentation of findings?
• Are strategies used to validate results presented, such as cross-checks for rivalling explanations, member checks, or triangulation? If such strategies are not described in this section, they should appear as validity discussion later in the report.

Findings

• Are the findings relevant with respect to the aim of the study?
• Do they provide new insight?
• Is the presentation of the findings well organized and best suited to ensure that findings are drawn from systematic analysis of material, rather than from preconceptions?
• Are quotes used adequately to support and enrich the researcher's synopsis of the patterns identified by systematic analysis?

Discussion

• Are questions about internal validity (what the study is actually about), external validity (to what other settings the findings or notions can be applied), and reflexivity (the effects of the researcher on processes, interpretations, findings, and conclusions) addressed?
• Has the design been scrutinized?
• Are the shortcomings accounted for and discussed, without denying the responsibility for choices taken?

• Have the findings been compared with appropriate theoretical and empirical references?
• Are a few clear consequences of the study proposed?

Presentation

• Is the report easy to understand and clearly contextualized?
• Is it possible to distinguish between the voices of the informants and those of the researcher?

References

• Are important and specific sources in the field covered, and have they been appropriately presented and applied in the text?