Dataset Information

Different domains of dengue research in the Philippines: A systematic review and meta-analysis of questionnaire-based studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Dengue is the most rapidly spreading mosquito-borne viral disease of humans worldwide, including southeast Asia region. This review provides a comprehensive overview of questionnaire-related dengue studies conducted in the Philippines and evaluates their reliability and validity in these surveys.

Methods

A review protocol constructed by a panel of experienced academic reviewers was used to formulate the methodology, research design, search strategy and selection criteria. An extensive literature search was conducted between March-June 2020 in various major electronic biomedical databases including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and ScienceDirect. A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) were selected as the preferred item reporting method.

Results

Out of a total of 34 peer-reviewed dengue-related KAP studies that were identified, 15 published from 2000 to April 2020 met the inclusion criteria. Based on the meta-analysis, a poor mean score was obtained for each of knowledge (68.89), attitude (49.86) and preventive practice (64.69). Most respondents were equipped with a good knowledge of the major clinical signs of dengue. Worryingly, 95% of respondents showed several negative attitudes towards dengue prevention, claiming that this was not possible and that enacting preventive practices was not their responsibility. Interestingly, television or radio was claimed as the main source of gaining dengue information (range 50-95%). Lastly, only five articles (33.3%) piloted or pretested their questionnaire before surveying, of which three reported Cronbach's alpha coefficient (range 0.70 to 0.90).

Conclusion

This review indicates that to combat the growing public health threat of dengue to the Philippines, we need the active participation of resident communities, full engagement of healthcare personnel, promotion of awareness campaigns, and access to safe complementary and alternative medicines. Importantly, the psychometric properties of each questionnaire should be assessed rigorously.

SUBMITTER: Guad RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8687574 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundResults of new studies should be interpreted in the context of what is already known to compare results and build the state of the science. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthesise results from meta-research studies examining if original studies within health use systematic reviews to place their results in the context of earlier, similar studies.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies reporting the use of systematic reviews to place results of original clinical studies in the context of existing studies. The primary outcome was the percentage of original studies included in the meta-research studies using systematic reviews or meta-analyses placing new results in the context of existing studies. Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the mean proportion of original studies placing their results in the context of earlier studies. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework.ResultsWe included 15 meta-research studies, representing 1724 original studies. The mean percentage of original studies within these meta-research studies placing their results in the context of existing studies was 30.7% (95% CI [23.8%, 37.6%], I2=87.4%). Only one of the meta-research studies integrated results in a meta-analysis, while four integrated their results within a systematic review; the remaining cited or referred to a systematic review. The results of this systematic review are characterised by a high degree of heterogeneity and should be interpreted cautiously.ConclusionOur systematic review demonstrates a low rate of and great variability in using systematic reviews to place new results in the context of existing studies. On average, one third of the original studies contextualised their results. Improvement is still needed in researchers' use of prior research systematically and transparently-also known as the use of an evidence-based research approach, to contribute to the accumulation of new evidence on which future studies should be based.Systematic review registrationOpen Science registration number https://osf.io/8gkzu/.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs.ObjectivesThe aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy.Eligibility criteriaMeta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users' perspectives when justifying and designing a new study.Sources of evidenceThe initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied.Charting methodsCharting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research.ResultsWe identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented.Conclusions that relate to the review questions and objectivesEven with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study.Systematic review registrationProtocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021).