Methodological issues in measuring psychosocial safety climate: a systematic review protocol

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Introduction

This systematic review aims to highlight the methodological inconsistencies in studying psychosocial safety climate (PSC). Highlighting the diverse dimensions and implications of PSC, this review seeks to enhance the replicability and comparability of studies, contributing to the development of standardised measurement techniques for the construct.

Methods and analysis

The methodology encompasses a comprehensive search strategy in PubMed Central, Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR, Embase, Science Direct, ProQuest, Google and Google Scholar from 28 January 2024 to 30 September 2024. A team of trained reviewers, under the guidance of the authors, will scrutinise eligible studies for inclusion based on predefined criteria. This will ensure a diverse yet focused selection of articles aligned with the research objectives. Robust data extraction and appraisal processes will be followed. Adopting a qualitative synthesis approach, the review aims to generate descriptive and analytical themes, uncovering nuanced dimensions of PSC beyond individual study findings. The protocol emphasises consultation with domain experts and a chartered librarian to refine research questions and optimise search strategies for selecting very relevant articles for the review. We will adopt qualitative data synthesis in summarising and presenting the results and findings for our review of PSC methodological issues.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not needed for this systematic review because the data for this review will be extracted from already published journal articles. The protocol for this review has been registered in the Open Science Framework. This review and its findings will be published in an academic journal and or presented at scientific conferences.

Trial registration number

OSF registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3UZC2.

Related collections

Most cited references 16

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E. Mckenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2022)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 3108 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2009)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (www.prisma-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

0 comments Cited 1095 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period

Konstantina Vasileiou, Julie Barnett, Susan Thorpe … (2018)

Background Choosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication that the issue constitutes an important marker of the quality of qualitative research. Nevertheless, research shows that sample size sufficiency reporting is often poor, if not absent, across a range of disciplinary fields. Methods A systematic analysis of single-interview-per-participant designs within three health-related journals from the disciplines of psychology, sociology and medicine, over a 15-year period, was conducted to examine whether and how sample sizes were justified and how sample size was characterised and discussed by authors. Data pertinent to sample size were extracted and analysed using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques. Results Our findings demonstrate that provision of sample size justifications in qualitative health research is limited; is not contingent on the number of interviews; and relates to the journal of publication. Defence of sample size was most frequently supported across all three journals with reference to the principle of saturation and to pragmatic considerations. Qualitative sample sizes were predominantly – and often without justification – characterised as insufficient (i.e., ‘small’) and discussed in the context of study limitations. Sample size insufficiency was seen to threaten the validity and generalizability of studies’ results, with the latter being frequently conceived in nomothetic terms. Conclusions We recommend, firstly, that qualitative health researchers be more transparent about evaluations of their sample size sufficiency, situating these within broader and more encompassing assessments of data adequacy. Secondly, we invite researchers critically to consider how saturation parameters found in prior methodological studies and sample size community norms might best inform, and apply to, their own project and encourage that data adequacy is best appraised with reference to features that are intrinsic to the study at hand. Finally, those reviewing papers have a vital role in supporting and encouraging transparent study-specific reporting. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

0 comments Cited 746 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Mustapha Amoadu:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9582-8884

Paul Obeng

Godfred Cobbinah

Promise Kwame Salu:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0009-0007-2287-0102

Godson Obeng Ofori

Edward Wilson Ansah:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9450-7774

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMJ Open

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMJ Open

Journal ID (hwp): bmjopen

Journal ID (publisher-id): bmjopen

Title: BMJ Open

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )

ISSN (Electronic): 2044-6055

Publication date Collection: 2024

Publication date (Electronic): 2 August 2024

Volume: 14

Issue: 8

Electronic Location Identifier: e087315

Affiliations

[1 ]departmentDepartment of Health, Physical Education and Recreation , University of Cape Coast , Cape Coast, Ghana

[2 ]departmentSchool of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Cape Coast , Cape Coast, Ghana

Author notes

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

None declared.

Promise KwameSalu; promise.salu@ 123456stu.ucc.edu.gh

Author information

Mustapha Amoadu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9582-8884

Promise Kwame Salu http://orcid.org/0009-0007-2287-0102

Edward Wilson Ansah http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9450-7774

Article

Publisher ID: bmjopen-2024-087315

DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087315

PMC ID: 11298738

PubMed ID: 39097311

SO-VID: d57d9d11-ceb3-4ab9-bd2d-7ee823f2fff1

License:

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Methodological issues in measuring psychosocial safety climate: a systematic review protocol

Read this article at