Scott, David

Permanent URI for this collection

https://opus.uleth.ca/handle/10133/4758

Browse

Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 29
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effectiveness of live health professional-led group eHealth interventions for adult mental health: systematic review of randomized controlled trials
    (JMIR Publications, 2022) Currie, Cheryl L.; Larouche, Richard; Voss, Lauren; Trottier, Maegan; Spiwak, Rae; Higa, Erin; Scott, David R.; Tallow, Treena
    Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had adverse impacts on mental health and substance use worldwide. Systematic reviews suggest eHealth interventions can be effective at addressing these problems. However, strong positive eHealth outcomes are often tied to the intensity of web-based therapist guidance, which has time and cost implications that can make the population scale-up of more effective interventions difficult. A way to offset cost while maintaining the intensity of therapist guidance is to offer eHealth programs to groups rather than more standard one-on-one formats. Objective: This systematic review aims to assess experimental evidence for the effectiveness of live health professional–led group eHealth interventions on mental health, substance use, or bereavement among community-dwelling adults. Within the articles selected for our primary aim, we also seek to examine the impact of interventions that encourage physical activity compared with those that do not. Methods: Overall, 4 databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library) were searched in July 2020. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of eHealth interventions led by health professionals and delivered entirely to adult groups by videoconference, teleconference, or webchat. Eligible studies reported mental health, substance use, or bereavement as primary outcomes. The results were examined by outcome, eHealth platform, and intervention length. Postintervention data were used to calculate effect size by study. The findings were summarized using the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool. Results: Of the 4099 identified studies, 21 (0.51%) RCTs representing 20 interventions met the inclusion criteria. These studies examined mental health outcomes among 2438 participants (sample size range: 47-361 participants per study) across 7 countries. When effect sizes were pooled, live health professional–led group eHealth interventions had a medium effect on reducing anxiety compared with inactive (Cohen d=0.57) or active control (Cohen d=0.48), a medium to small effect on reducing depression compared with inactive (Cohen d=0.61) or active control (Cohen d=0.21), and mixed effects on mental distress and coping. Interventions led by videoconference, and those that provided 8-12 hours of live health professional–led group contact had more robust effects on adult mental health. Risk of bias was high in 91% (19/21) of the studies. Heterogeneity across interventions was significant, resulting in low to very low quality of evidence. No eligible RCT was found that examined substance use, bereavement, or physical activity. Conclusions: Live eHealth group interventions led by health professionals can foster moderate improvements in anxiety and moderate to small improvements in depression among community-based adults, particularly those delivered by videoconference and those providing 8-12 hours of synchronous engagement.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Data-sharing practices in publications funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: a descriptive analysis
    (Canadian Medical Association, 2021) Read, Kevin B.; Ganshorn, Heather; Rutley, Sarah; Scott, David R.
    Background: As Canada increases requirements for research data management and sharing, there is value in identifying how research data are shared and what has been done to make them findable and reusable. This study aimed to understand Canada’s data-sharing landscape by reviewing how data funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) are shared and comparing researchers’ data-sharing practices to best practices for research data management and sharing. Methods: We performed a descriptive analysis of CIHR-funded publications from PubMed and PubMed Central published between 1946 and Dec. 31, 2019, that indicated that the research data underlying the results of the publication were shared. We analyzed each publication to identify how and where data were shared, who shared data and what documentation was included to support data reuse. Results: Of 4144 CIHR-funded publications identified, 1876 (45.2%) included accessible data, 935 (22.6%) stated that data were available via request or application, and 300 (7.2%) stated that data sharing was not applicable or possible; we found no evidence of data sharing in 1558 publications (37.6%). Frequent data-sharing methods included via a repository (1549 [37.4%]), within supplementary files (1048 [25.3%]) and via request or application (935 [22.6%]). Overall, 554 publications (13.4%) included documentation that would facilitate data reuse. Interpretation: Publications funded by the CIHR largely lack the metadata, access instructions and documentation to facilitate data discovery and reuse. Without measures to address these concerns and enhanced support for researchers seeking to implement best practices for research data management and sharing, much CIHR-funded research data will remain hidden, inaccessible and unusable.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Checklist of the birds of the Lethbridge area
    (2021) Bennett, L.; Dolman, T.; Orich, K.; Scott, David R.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    "Social justice in scholarly publishing: Open access is the only way"
    (University of Lethbridge, 2019) Cardozo, Paula; Craig, Romany; Graham, Rumi Y.; Scott, David R.
    The title of this presentation is borrowed from the title of a 2017 article in The American Journal of Bioethics, which opens with the incontrovertible observation, “we live in an unequal world.” The arenas in which inequality plays out are many and varied, but one of them happens to be our intellectual heartland of scholarly publishing. If social justice is an end we believe in, then open access is a means by which we, as researchers and teachers, can meaningfully move the dial toward equality. In this talk, we sketch some ideas that show how we can do that together, and why we should try.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    First report of the Alberta Bird Record Committee
    (Federation of Alberta Naturalists, 1997) Slater, Andrew