Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Bridget Pratt and Adrian Harper ( 2021) conducted a comparison of articles identified through six electronic literature searches. Their aim was to "identify ethics literature… that discussed combatting neo-colonial models of research". They used manifest content analysis to compare the conceptual content of articles from the fields of global health (GH) and Australian Aboriginal health (AH). This innovative application of a literature review approach from literary and media studies, to health sciences in which literature reviews have traditionally focused on synthesizing evidence about intervention effectiveness, should be commended. It has potential to advance theoretical understandings of ethics in health research. However, I argue here that Pratt and Harper's (2021) search strategy has several weaknesses, which suggests that their results must be interpreted with caution.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15562646221097226 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!