Suchergebnisse

AbstractWith increased blurring of boundaries between work and family lives, work–family segmentation has been suggested as an effective work–life strategy for social workers who are involved in complex human service work, to reduce work–family conflict and enhance work–family enrichment. Yet, numerous studies have examined social workers' work–family conflict experiences, and only a few have focussed on social workers' work–family enrichment experiences. Correspondingly, drawing on boundary theory, conservation of resources theory and work–family enrichment theory, we investigated how family-to-work enrichment and work-to-family enrichment help social workers to benefit from work–family segmentation to increase their job performance. Using an online survey of Australian social workers (n = 504), we tested the impact of work–family segmentation on the job performance of social workers through family-to-work-enrichment and work-to-family enrichment. The study found evidence for the positive impact of work–family segmentation in helping social workers to experience family-to-work enrichment and work-to-family enrichment, thereby enhancing their job performance. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings for social workers, supervisors and the social service agencies are discussed.

The study protocol, publications, full study report detailing all analyses, and participant-level dataset constitute the main documentation of methods and results for health research. However, journal publications are available for only half of all studies and are plagued by selective reporting of methods and results. The protocol, full study report, and participant-level dataset are rarely available. The quality of information provided in study protocols and reports is variable and often incomplete. Inaccessibility of full information for the vast majority of studies wastes billions of dollars, introduces bias, and has a detrimental impact on patient care and research. To help improve this situation at a systemic level, three main actions are warranted. Firstly, it is important that academic institutions and funders reward investigators who fully disseminate their research protocols, reports, and participant-level datasets. Secondly, standards for the content of protocols, full study reports, and data sharing practices should be rigorously developed and adopted for all types of health research. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators, and legislators should implement and enforce policies supporting study registration and availability of journal publications, full study reports, and participant-level datasets.

AbstractIntroductionAn important mechanism of research waste is inadequate incorporation of, and references to, previous relevant research. Identifying references for a research manuscript can be challenging, in part due to the exponential rise in potentially relevant literature to consider. For large research projects, such as developing or updating reporting guidelines, it may be helpful to construct a supportive topic‐specific bibliographic database.MethodsIn support of updating the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010, we developed the SPIRIT‐CONSORT Evidence Bibliographic database (SCEBdb): a freely available topic‐specific bibliographic database of publications providing an evidence foundation for the updates. We searched multiple sources of potential publications and tagged included ones with database‐specific keywords. For context, we also formulated 10 core considerations for constructing topic‐specific bibliographic databases and identified and described 5 illustrative other databases.ResultsAs of April 2024, the SCEBdb included 846 publications. The database proved useful as a supplementary information source for our scoping review of published comments on SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, for a supplementary Delphi process, and in the writing phase of the guidance documents. We expect that the database will be useful for future projects within the fields of clinical research methodology, bias, evidence synthesis, and randomized trials.ConclusionThe methods involved in constructing the SCEBdb, and our suggested core considerations for topic‐specific bibliographic databases, could be helpful for researchers reflecting on whether, and how, to develop a topic‐specific bibliographic database.

IMPORTANCE: Clinical trial registries are important for gaining an overview of ongoing research efforts and for deterring and identifying publication bias and selective outcome reporting. The reliability of the information in trial registries is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability of information across registries for trials with multiple registrations. EVIDENCE REVIEW: For this systematic review, 360 protocols of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the UK, Canada, and Germany in 2012 were evaluated. Clinical trial registries were searched from March to September 2019 for corresponding registrations of these RCTs. For RCTS that were recorded in more than 1 clinical trial registry, key trial characteristics that should be identical among all trial registries (ie, sponsor, funding source, primary outcome, target sample size, trial status, date of first patient enrollment, results available, and main publication indexed) were extracted in duplicate. Agreement between the different trial registries for these key characteristics was analyzed descriptively. Data analyses were conducted from May 1 to November 30, 2020. Representatives from clinical trial registries were interviewed to discuss the study findings between February 1 and March 31, 2021. FINDINGS: The analysis included 197 RCTs registered in more than 1 trial registry (151 in 2 registries and 46 in 3 registries), with 188 trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, 185 in the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 20 in ISRCTN, and 47 in other registries. The agreement of key information across all registries was as follows: 178 of 197 RCTs (90%; 95% CI, 85%-94%) for sponsor, 18 of 20 (90%; 95% CI, 68%-99%) for funding source (funding was not reported on ClinicalTrials.gov), 154 of 197 (78%; 95% CI, 72%-84%) for primary outcome, 90 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for trial status, 122 of 194 (63%; 95% CI, 56%-70%) for target sample size, and 43 of 57 (75%; 95% CI, ...