ORCID Profile
0000-0001-5397-2303
Current Organisations
Yale University
,
Yale School of Public Health
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 10-04-2019
Abstract: AbstractBackground:Developing a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of systematic review searches, methodology, and reporting. Likewise, journal editors and authors often seek to improve the quality of published SRs and other evidence syntheses through peer review. Health sciences librarians contribute to systematic review production but little is known about their involvement in peer reviewing SR manuscripts.Methods:This survey aimed to assess how frequently librarians are asked to peer review systematic review manuscripts and to determine characteristics associated with those invited to review. The survey was distributed to a purposive s le through three health sciences information professional listservs. Results:There were 291 complete survey responses. Results indicated that 22% (n=63) of respondents had been asked by journal editors to peer review systematic review or meta-analysis manuscripts. Of the 78% (n=228) of respondents who had not already been asked, 54% (n=122) would peer review, and 41% (n=93) might peer review. Only 4% (n=9) would not review a manuscript. Respondents had peer reviewed manuscripts for 38 unique journals and believed they were asked because of their professional expertise. Of respondents who had declined to peer review (32%, n=20), the most common explanation was ‘not enough time’ (60%, n=12) followed by ‘lack of expertise’ (50%, n=10). The vast majority of respondents (95%, n=40) had ‘rejected or recommended a revision of a manuscript’ after peer review. They based their decision on the ‘search methodology’ (57%, n=36), ‘search write-up’ (46%, n=29), or ‘entire article’ (54%, n=34). Those who selected ‘other’ (37%, n=23) listed a variety of reasons for rejection, including problems or errors in the PRISMA flow diagram tables of included, excluded, and ongoing studies data extraction reporting and pooling methods. Conclusions:Despite being experts in conducting literature searches and supporting SR teams through the review process, few librarians have been asked to review SR manuscripts, or even just search strategies yet many are willing to provide this service. Editors should involve experienced librarians with peer review and we suggest some strategies to consider.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 29-03-2021
DOI: 10.1136/SEXTRANS-2020-054896
Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and exacerbated existing socioeconomic and health disparities, including disparities in sexual health and well-being. While there have been several reviews published on COVID-19 and population health disparities generally—including some with attention to HIV—none has focused on sexual health (ie, STI care, female sexual health, sexual behaviour). We have conducted a scoping review focused on sexual health (excluding reproductive health (RH), intimate partner violence (IPV) and gender-based violence (GBV)) in the COVID-19 era, examining sexual behaviours and sexual health outcomes. A scoping review, compiling both peer-reviewed and grey literature, focused on sexual health (excluding RH, IPV and GBV) and COVID-19 was conducted on 15 September 2020. Multiple bibliographical databases were searched. Study selection conformed to Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers’ Manual 2015 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. We only included English-language original studies. We found that men who have sex with men may be moving back toward pre-pandemic levels of sexual activity, and that STI and HIV testing rates seem to have decreased. There was minimal focus on outcomes such as the economic impact on sexual health (excluding RH, IPV and GBV) and STI care, especially STI care of marginalised populations. In terms of population groups, there was limited focus on sex workers or on women, especially women’s sexual behaviour and mental health. We noticed limited use of qualitative techniques. Very few studies were in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Sexual health research is critical during a global infectious disease pandemic and our review of studies suggested notable research gaps. Researchers can focus efforts on LMICs and under-researched topics within sexual health and explore the use of qualitative techniques and interventions where appropriate.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 23-01-2021
DOI: 10.1186/S13643-021-01591-Y
Abstract: Global responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have exposed and exacerbated existing socioeconomic and health inequities that disproportionately affect the sexual health and well-being of many populations, including people of color, ethnic minority groups, women, and sexual and gender minority populations. Although there have been several reviews published on COVID-19 and health disparities across various populations, none has focused on sexual health. We plan to conduct a scoping review that seeks to fill several of the gaps in the current knowledge of sexual health in the COVID-19 era. A scoping review focusing on sexual health and COVID-19 will be conducted. We will search (from January 2020 onwards) CINAHL, Africa-Wide Information, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Gender Studies Database, Gender Watch, Global Health, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease Database, WHO Global Index Medicus, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Sociological Abstracts. Grey literature will be identified using Disaster Lit, Google Scholar, governmental websites, and clinical trials registries (e.g., ClinicalTrial.gov , World Health Organization, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry). Study selection will conform to the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2015 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Only English language, original studies will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g., frequencies) and qualitative (e.g., content and thematic analysis) methods. Original research is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 on sexual health. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap. Systematic Review Registration: Open Science Framework osf/io/PRX8E
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 27-11-2019
DOI: 10.1186/S41073-019-0083-5
Abstract: Developing a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of systematic review searches, methodology, and reporting. Likewise, journal editors and authors often seek to improve the quality of published SRs and other evidence syntheses through peer review. Health sciences librarians contribute to systematic review production but little is known about their involvement in peer reviewing SR manuscripts. This survey aimed to assess how frequently librarians are asked to peer review systematic review manuscripts and to determine characteristics associated with those invited to review. The survey was distributed to a purposive s le through three health sciences information professional listservs. There were 291 complete survey responses. Results indicated that 22% ( n = 63) of respondents had been asked by journal editors to peer review systematic review or meta-analysis manuscripts. Of the 78% ( n = 228) of respondents who had not already been asked, 54% ( n = 122) would peer review, and 41% ( n = 93) might peer review. Only 4% ( n = 9) would not review a manuscript. Respondents had peer reviewed manuscripts for 38 unique journals and believed they were asked because of their professional expertise. Of respondents who had declined to peer review (32%, n = 20), the most common explanation was “not enough time” (60%, n = 12) followed by “lack of expertise” (50%, n = 10). The vast majority of respondents (95%, n = 40) had “rejected or recommended a revision of a manuscript| after peer review. They based their decision on the “search methodology” (57%, n = 36), “search write-up” (46%, n = 29), or “entire article” (54%, n = 34). Those who selected “other” (37%, n = 23) listed a variety of reasons for rejection, including problems or errors in the PRISMA flow diagram tables of included, excluded, and ongoing studies data extraction reporting and pooling methods. Despite being experts in conducting literature searches and supporting SR teams through the review process, few librarians have been asked to review SR manuscripts, or even just search strategies yet many are willing to provide this service. Editors should involve experienced librarians with peer review and we suggest some strategies to consider.
Location: United States of America
No related grants have been discovered for Kate Nyhan.