Methods: With the SCOPUS database, we selected those documents made in Malaysia whose title included descriptors related to SGAs. We applied bibliometric indicators of production and dispersion, as Price's law and Bradford's law, respectively. We also calculated the participation index of the different countries. The bibliometric data were also been correlated with some social and health data from Malaysia (total per capita expenditure on health and gross domestic expenditure on R&D).
Results: We found 105 original documents published between 2004 and 2016. Our results fulfilled Price's law, with scientific production on SGAs showing exponential growth (r = 0.401, vs. r = 0.260 after linear adjustment). The drugs most studied are olanzapine (9 documents), clozapine (7), and risperidone (7). Division into Bradford zones yields a nucleus occupied by the Medical Journal of Malaysia, Singapore Medical Journal, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, and Pharmacogenomics. Totally, 63 different journals were used, but only one in the top four journals had an impact factor being greater than 3.
Conclusion: The publications on SGAs in Malaysia have undergone exponential growth, without evidence a saturation point.
METHODS: Seventy-seven medical doctors and eighty nurses answered a self-administered questionnaire designed to capture demographic data and information regarding abbreviation use in medical practice. Comparisons were made between doctors and nurses with regards to frequency and reasons for using abbreviations; from where abbreviations were learned; frequency of encountering abbreviations in medical practice; prevalence of medical errors due to misinterpretation of abbreviations; and their ability to correctly interpret commonly used abbreviations.
RESULTS: The use of abbreviations was highly prevalent among doctors and nurses. Time saving, avoidance of writing sentences in full and convenience, were the main reasons for using abbreviations. Doctors learned abbreviations from fellow doctors while nurses learned from fellow nurses and doctors. More doctors than nurses reported encountering abbreviations. Both groups reported no difficulties in interpreting abbreviations although nurses reported often resorting to guesswork. Both groups felt abbreviations were necessary and an acceptable part of work. Doctors outperformed nurses in correctly interpreting commonly used standard and non-standard abbreviations.
CONCLUSION: The use of standard and non-standard abbreviation in clinical practice by doctors and nurses was highly prevalent. Significant variability in interpretation of abbreviations exists between doctors and nurses.
OBJECTIVES: To apply and validate the Knowledge Sharing Behavior Scale (KSBS) as a measure of knowledge sharing behavior within the academic community.
SUBJECTS: Respondents (N = 447) were academics from arts and science streams in 10 local, public universities in Malaysia.
MEASURES: Data were collected using the 28-item KSBS that assessed four dimensions of knowledge sharing behavior namely written contributions, organizational communications, personal interactions, and communities of practice.
RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis showed that the items loaded on the dimension constructs that they were supposed to represent, thus proving construct validity. A within-factor analysis revealed that each set of items representing their intended dimension loaded on only one construct, therefore establishing convergent validity. All four dimensions were not perfectly correlated with each other or organizational citizenship behavior, thereby proving discriminant validity. However, all four dimensions correlated with organizational commitment, thus confirming predictive validity. Furthermore, all four factors correlated with both tacit and explicit sharing, which confirmed their concurrent validity. All measures also possessed sufficient reliability (α > .70).
CONCLUSION: The KSBS is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used to formally assess the types of knowledge artifacts residing among academics and the degree of knowledge sharing in relation to those artifacts.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus and Nepal Journal Online (NepJOL) databases. 'Adverse Drug Reactions' or 'ADRs' or 'ADR' or 'Adverse drug reaction' or 'AE' or 'Adverse Event' or 'Drug-Induced Reaction' or 'Pharmacovigilance' or 'PV' and 'Nepal'. The search covered 15 years (January 2004 to December 2018) of study on ADRs and PV in Nepal. Only articles retrieved from databases were included, whereas published/unpublished drug bulletins, pharmacy newsletters and thesis were excluded. The articles thus retrieved were recorded, and thereafter analyzed. Word count code was used for the analysis of keywords used in the retrieved articles.
Results: A total of 124 articles were retrieved, with the highest rate of publications in 2006 and 2007, with 16 papers each. Among the articles, 10 (8.1%) were published in Kathmandu University Medical Journal (KUMJ). Single papers were published in 38 different journals. Brief reports (1.6%), case reports (31.2%), case series (0.8%), education forums (0.8%), letters to the editor (5.6%), original research articles (41.9%), review articles (9.7%), short communications and short reports (8.1%) on ADRs and PV were recorded. Out of 124 papers, 52 (41.9%) were original research publications. The majority (74.1%) of research was done in the category of ADR incidence, types, prevention, and management, followed by policy and suggestions for strengthening national and regional pharmacovigilance centers of Nepal (14.5%).
Conclusions: During the study years, there was an increase in scientific publications on drug safety. A total of 124 published articles were found during bibliometric analysis of ADRs and PV research activities in Nepal.