To compare the performance of a range of search facilities; and to illustrate the execution of a comprehensive literature search for qualitative evidence in social work.
Context:
Developments in literature search methods and comparisons of search facilities help facilitate access to the best available evidence for social workers.
Method:
The performance of 14 databases and web search engines was appraised, by applying a search formula for articles relating to perpetrators of intimate partner violence and the process of change.
Results:
Seventy-two out of seventy-eight relevant articles were found on just six of the search facilities used. Social Services Abstracts performed the best. Web search engines did not contribute any unique hits.
Conclusion:
The need to use a range of databases was confirmed. Databases have performed inconsistently across case studies to date. New approaches to pilot-testing facilities and search terms proved useful. Accessing qualitative evidence to inform practice must become more straightforward.
AkoensiT. D.KoehlerJ. A.LöselF.HumphreysD. K. (2012). Domestic violence perpetrator programs in Europe, Part II: A systematic review of the state of evidence. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 57, 1206–1225.
2.
BabcockJ. C.GreenC. E.RobieC. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023–1053.
3.
BronsonD. E.DavisT. S. (2011). Finding and evaluating evidence: Systematic reviews and evidence-based practice. Oxford, England: University Press.
4.
BurdettS.StewartL. A.TierneyJ. F. (2003). Publication bias and meta-analyses. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19, 129–134.
Dixon-WoodsM.FitzpatrickR. (2001). Qualitative research in systematic reviews: Has established a place for itself. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 323, 765–766. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121325/
11.
DuttonD. G.CorvoK. (2007). The Duluth model: A data-impervious paradigm and a failed strategy. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 658–667. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2007.03.002
12.
EckhardtC.Holtzworth-MunroeA.NorlanderB.SibleyA.CahillM. (2008). Readiness to change, partner violence subtypes, and treatment outcomes among men in treatment for partner assault. Violence and Victims, 23, 446–475.
13.
EvansD. (2002). Database searches for qualitative research. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90, 290.
14.
FederL.WilsonD. B.AustinS. (2008). Court-mandated interventions for individuals convicted of domestic violence. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 12, 1–49.
15.
FisherM.QureshiH.HardymanW.HomewoodJ. (2006). Using qualitative research in systematic reviews: Older people’s views of hospital discharge. London, England: Social Care Institute for Excellence. Retrieved fromhttp://www.scie.org.uk/publications/reports/report09d.pdf
16.
FlatleyR. K.LillaR.WidnerJ. (2007). Choosing a database for social work: A comparison of social work abstracts and social service abstracts. The Journal of academic librarianship, 33, 47–55.
17.
GrantM. J. (2004). How does your searching grow? A survey of search preferences and the use of optimal search strategies in the identification of qualitative research. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 21, 21–32.
HigginsJ.GreenS. (2009). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2. West Sussex, England: The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved fromwww.cochrane-handbook.org.
20.
HoldenG.BarkerK.Covert-VailL.RosenbergG.CohenS. A. (2008). Does social work abstracts work?Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 487–499.
21.
HoloskoM. J. (2010). An overview of qualitative research methods. In ThyerB. (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (2nd ed., pp. 263–272). London, England: Sage.
22.
HoodW. W.WilsonC. S. (2001). The scatter of documents over databases in different subject domains: How many databases are needed?Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 1242–1254.
23.
LasserreK. (2012). Expert searching in health librarianship: A literature review to identify international issues and Australian concerns. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 29, 3–15. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2011.00974.x
24.
LittellJ. H.CorcoranJ. (2010). Systematic reviews. In ThyerB. (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (p. 313). London, England: Sage.
25.
McFaddenP.TaylorB. J.CampbellA.McQuilkinJ. (2012). Systematically identifying relevant research: Case study on child protection social workers’ resilience. Research on Social Work Practice, 22, 626–636.
26.
McKibbonK. A.WilczynskiN. L.HaynesR. B. (2006). Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving qualitative studies in PsycINFO. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 29, 440–454.
27.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, 264–269.
28.
NourbakhshE.NugentR.WangH.CevikC.NugentK. (2012). Medical literature searches: A comparison of Pub Med and Google Scholar. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 29, 214–222. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00992.x
29.
OgilvieD.HamiltonV.EganM.PetticrewM. (2005). Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. Finding the evidence: How far should you go?Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 804–808.
30.
PapaioannouD.SuttonA.CarrollC.BoothA.WongR. (2010). Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: Consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 27, 114–122. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00863.x
31.
Parra-CardonaJ. R.Escobar-ChewA. R.HoltropK.CarpenterG.GuzmánR.HernêndezD.ZamudioE.González RamírezD.2013. “En el grupo tomas conciencia (In group you become aware)”: Latino immigrants’ satisfaction with a culturally informed intervention for men who batter. Violence against women19, 107–132.
32.
PenceE.PaymarM. (1983). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York, NY: Springer.
33.
PetticrewM.RobertsH. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. London, England: Blackwell.
34.
PolaschekD. L. L.CollieR. M. (2004). Rehabilitating serious violent adult offenders: An empirical and theoretical stocktake. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 321–334.
35.
ReedJ. G.BaxterP. M. (2009). Using reference databases. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 73–102). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
36.
RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. London, England: Wiley.
37.
RutterD.FrancisJ.CorenE.FisherM. (2010). SCIE systematic research reviews: Guidelines (2nd edition) SCIE systematic research reviews. London, England: Social Care Institute for Excellence. Retrieved fromhttp://www.scie.org.uk/publications/researchresources/rr01.asp
38.
SainiM.ShlonskyA. (2012). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
39.
SchöpfelJ.FaraceD. J. (2010). Grey literature. In BatesM. J.MaackM. N. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (3rd ed., pp. 2029–2039). London, England: CRC Press.
40.
ShawR. L.BoothA.SuttonA. J.MillerT.SmithJ. A.YoungB.Dixon-WoodsM. (2004). Finding qualitative research: An evaluation of search strategies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4, 5.
41.
SheehanK. A.ThakorS.StewartD. E. (2012). Turning points for perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 13, 30–40. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838011426016
42.
ShekD. T. (2008). Comprehensiveness of social work abstracts as a database for research ers and practitioners. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 500–506.
43.
SimmonsC. A.LehmannP.Collier-TenisonS. (2008). Men’s Use of controlling behaviors: A comparison of reports by women in a domestic violence shelter and women in a domestic violence offender program. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 387–394.
SmithM. E. (2012). Self-deception among men who are mandated to attend a batterer intervention program. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 43, 193–203.
46.
StansfieldC.KavanaghJ.ReesR.GomersallA.ThomasJ. (2012). The selection of search sources influences the findings of a systematic review of people’s views: A case study in public health. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 55.
47.
StarksH.TrinidadS. B. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1372–1380.
48.
SugavanamT.MeadG.BulleyC.DonaghyM.van WijckF. (2013). The effects and experiences of goal setting in stroke rehabilitation: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35, 177–190. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.690501
49.
TaylorB. (2014). Book review: Practitioner’s guide to using research for evidence-based practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 24, 377–378. doi:10.1177/1049731513512155
50.
TaylorB.WylieE.DempsterM.DonnellyM. (2007). Systematically retrieving research: A case study evaluating seven databases. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 697–706.
51.
TaylorB. J. (2009). Invited commentary on papers by Holden et al. and Shek on the quality of social work abstracts. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 366–369. doi:10.1177/1049731508321560
52.
TaylorB. J.DempsterM.DonnellyM. (2003). Hidden gems: Systematically searching electronic databases for research publications for social work and social care. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 423–439.
53.
van TeijlingenE.HundleyV. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social Research Update, 35, 1–4.
