Online information seeking has become normative practice among both academics and the general population. This study appraised the performance of eight databases to retrieve research pertaining to the influence of social networking sites on the mental health of young people. A total of 43 empirical studies on young people’s use of social networking sites and the mental health implications were retrieved. Scopus and SSCI had the highest sensitivity with PsycINFO having the highest precision. Effective searching requires large generic databases, supplemented by subject-specific catalogues. The methodology developed here may provide inexperienced searchers, such as undergraduate students, with a framework to define a realistic scale of searching to undertake for a particular literature review or similar project.
RowleyJJohnsonF. Understanding trust formation in digital information sources: The case of Wikipedia. Journal of Information Science. 2013; 39: 494; doi: 10.1177/0165551513477820
2.
LawrenceDW. What is lost when searching only one literature database for articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion?Injury Prevention: 2008; 14: 401–404; doi: 10.1136/ip.2008.019430
3.
TaylorBJ. ‘Literature searching’. In: MillerRBrewerJ (eds) The A to Z of social research, 2003; London: Sage, pp. 171–176.
4.
ParkYJ. Digital literacy and privacy behavior. Online Communication Research40: 215; originally published online 23August2011; doi: 10.1177/0093650211418338
5.
KingDWMontgomeryCH. After migration to an electronic journal collection: Impact on faculty and doctoral students. D-Lib Magazine2002; 8: 12.
6.
BoycePKingDWMontgomeryCTenopirC. How electronic journals are changing patterns of use. The Serials Librarian, 2004; 46: 1, 121–141.
7.
KillickCTaylorBJ. Professional decision making on elder abuse: Systematic narrative review. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect2009; 21: 211–238; doi: 10.1080/08946560902997421
8.
CreaserCHamblinYDaviesJE. An assessment of potential efficiency gains through online content use. Electronic Library and Information Systems2006; 40(2): 178–189.
9.
SimonHA. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review. 1959; 63: 129–138.
10.
KraftDHLeeT. Stopping rules and their effect of expected search length. Information Processing and Management1979; 15(1): 47–58.
11.
MarchioniniG. Information seeking in electronic environments. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
12.
ZachL. When is ‘enough’ enough? Modeling the information-seeking and stopping behavior of senior arts administrators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2005; 56(1): 23–35.
13.
PrabhaCConnawayLSOlszewskiLJenkinsLR. What is enough? Satisficing information needs. Journal of Documentation. 2007; 63(1): 74–89.
14.
ZipfGK. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison Wesley, New York, 1949.
15.
ConnollyTThornBK. Predecisional information acquisition: Effects of task variables on suboptimal search strategies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes1987; 39: 397–416.
16.
StraussALCorbinJ. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, London, 1990.
17.
GigerenzerGHertwigRThorstenP. Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
18.
AgostoD. A model of young people’s decision-making in using the Web. Library and Information Science Research2002; 24: 311–341.
19.
BerrymanJM. Judgements during information seeking: A naturalistic approach to understanding the assessment of enough information. Journal of Information Science2008; 34(2): 196–206.
20.
TaylorBJDempsterMDonnellyM. Hidden gems: Systematically searching electronic databases for research publications for social work and social care. British Journal of Social Work2003; 33(4): 423–439.
21.
TaylorBWylieEDempsterMDonnellyM. Systematically retrieving research: A case study evaluating seven databases. Research on Social Work Practice2007; 17(6), 697–706.
22.
McFaddenPTaylorBJCampbellAMcQuilkinJ. Systematically identifying relevant research: Case study on child protection social workers’ resilience. Research on Social Work Practice2012; 22(6): 626–636.
23.
HopewellSClarkeMLusherALefebvreCWestbyM. A comparison of hand searching versus Medline searching to identify reports of randomized controlled trials. Statistical Medicine2002; 21: 1625–1634.
24.
GreenhalghTPeacockR. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources. British Medical Journal2005; 331: 1064.
25.
StevinsonCLawlorDA. Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added values or diminishing returns?Complementary Therapies in Medicine2004; 12(4): 228–232.
26.
HigginsJPTGreenS. The Cochrane handbook of systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0 (updated March, 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration.
27.
SnowballR. Using the clinical question to teach search strategy: Fostering transferable conceptual skills in user education by active learning. Health Library Review1997; 14(3): 167–172.
28.
JonesQRavidGRafaeliS. Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research2004; 15(2): 194–210.
29.
O’NeillBLivingstoneSMcLaughlinS. Final recommendations for policy, methodology and research. London: London School of Economics, 2011.
30.
TianQ. Social anxiety, motivation, self-disclosure and friendship: A path analysis of social integration in the blogosphere. Communication Research2013; 40(2): 237–260.
31.
RowlandsINicholasDWilliamsPHuntingtonPFieldhouseMGunterBWitheyRJamaliHDobrowolskiTTenopirC. The Google generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of the future. The Association for Information Management Proceedings2008; 60(4): 290–310.
32.
MillerCWChabotMDMessinaTC. A student’s guide to searching the literature using online databases. American Journal of Physiology2009; 77(12): 1112; doi: 10.1119/1.3213525
33.
BergmanEML. Finding citations to social work literature: The relative benefits of using ‘Web of Science’, ‘Scopus’ or ‘Google Scholar’. Journal of Academic Librarianship2012; 38(6): 370–379.
34.
ClaptonJRutterDSharifN. SCIE Systematic mapping guidance. Using knowledge in social care. Research Resource 03, 2009.
35.
WatsonRJRichardsonPH. Accessing the literature on outcome studies in group psychotherapy: the sensitivity and precision of Medline and PsycINFO bibliographic database searching. British Journal of Medical Psychology1998; 72(1): 127–134.
36.
PageD. Systematic literature searching and the bibliographic database haystack. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods1998; 6(2): 171–180.
37.
MontoriVMWilczynskNLMorganDHaynesRB. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. British Medical Journal2005; doi: 10.1136/bmj.38336.804167.47
38.
GolderSMasonASpilsburyK. Systematic searches for the effectiveness of respite care. Journal of the Medical Library Association2008; 96(2): 147–152.
39.
BadeD. Relevance ranking is not relevance ranking or, when the user is not the user, the search results are not search results. Online Information Review2007; 31(6): 831–844.
40.
BilalD. Ranking, relevance judgment and precision of information retrieval on children’s queries: Evaluation of Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Yahoo! Kids and Ask Kids. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology2012; 63(9): 1879–1896.
41.
XuYWangD. Order effects in relevance judgment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology2008; 59(8): 1264–1275.
42.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics1977; 33: 159–174.
43.
BachmannLMCoreyREstermannPTer RietG. Identifying diagnostic studies in Medline: Reducing the Number Needed to Read. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association2002; 9: 653–658.
44.
SlonskyABakerTMFuller-ThomsonE. Using methodological search filters to facilitate evidenced based social work practice. Clinical Social Work Journal2011; 39: 390–399.
45.
GigerenzerG. (2013) Risk savvy: How to make good decisions. New York: Penguin
46.
TothBGreyJAMBriceA. Guest editorial. The Number Needed to Read – a new measure of journal value. Health Information and Libraries Journal2003; 22: 81–82.
47.
ConnawayLSilipigniTDickeyJRadfordML. If it is too inconvenient, I’m not going after it: Convenience as a critical factor in information-seeking behaviors. Library and Information Science Research2011; 33: 179–190.
48.
FastKVCampbellG. I still like Google: University student perceptions of searching OPACs and the Web. Proceedings of the 67th ASIST annual meeting, 2004; 41: 138–146.
49.
ZhangY. The influence of mental models on undergraduate students’ searching behavior on the Web. Information Processing and Management2008; 44: 1330–1345.
