AIM: To examine the use of hermeneutic phenomenology and the ethnographic principle of cultural interpretation in a research study conducted with Malaysian nurses on part-time, transnational, post-registration, top-up nursing degree programmes provided by one Australian and two UK universities.
DISCUSSION: To enable the researcher to undertake international cross-cultural research and illuminate Malaysian nurses' views for the reader, cultural aspects need to be considered, as they will influence the information participants provide. Useful strategies that western researchers can adopt to co-create research texts with interviewees are outlined. The paradigm and research designs used in the study revealed the views and experiences of Malaysian nurses.
CONCLUSION: Hermeneutic phenomenology enabled the exploration of participants' experiences, and the ethnographic principle of cultural interpretation enabled the researcher's reflexivity to provide emic and etic views for the reader.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This paper adds to the discussion of the paradigms and research designs used for international, cross-cultural research in Asia. It identifies the influence participants' cultural values have on their confidence and level of disclosure with western researchers.
Objective: This paper illustrates a significant perspective of some of the challenges faced while conducting a randomized controlled trial exploring the impact of a multi-component intervention that included strategy- and process-based prospective memory (PM) training among Malaysian older adults.
Methods: The current study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and therefore the challenges were presented in accordance with the CONSORT statement style.
Results: A discussion on how these issues were addressed is provided.
Conclusion: Some suggestions were presented to help researchers plan and create interventions for similar studies and to support a practical method of addressing all related challenges.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to use data systematically extracted from multiple sources (ie, grant, publication, and patent databases) to investigate the development, research, and fund application of health-related CIs and associated stakeholders (ie, countries, organizations, and collaborators).
METHODS: A multifaceted search query was executed to retrieve records from 9 databases. Bibliometric analysis, social network analysis, and term co-occurrence analysis were conducted on the screened records.
RESULTS: This review included 42 funded projects, 428 research publications, and 162 patents. The total dollar amount of grants awarded was US $30,297,932, of which US $13,513,473 was awarded by US funding agencies and US $16,784,459 was funded by the Europe Commission. The top 3 funding agencies in the United States were the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Boston Medical Center was awarded the largest combined grant size (US $2,246,437) for 4 projects. The authors of the publications were from 58 countries and 566 organizations; the top 3 most productive organizations were Northeastern University (United States), Universiti Teknologi MARA (Malaysia), and the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS; France). US researchers produced 114 publications. Although 82.0% (464/566) of the organizations engaged in interorganizational collaboration, 2 organizational research-collaboration clusters were observed with Northeastern University and CNRS as the central nodes. About 112 organizations from the United States and China filed 87.7% patents. IBM filed most patents (N=17). Only 5 patents were co-owned by different organizations, and there was no across-country collaboration on patenting activity. The terms patient, child, elderly, and robot were frequently discussed in the 3 record types. The terms related to mental and chronic issues were discussed mainly in grants and publications. The terms regarding multimodal interactions were widely mentioned as users' communication modes with CIs in the identified records.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provided an overview of the countries, organizations, and topic terms in funded projects, as well as the authorship, collaboration, content, and related information of research publications and patents. There is a lack of broad cross-sector partnerships among grant agencies, academia, and industry, particularly in the United States. Our results suggest a need to improve collaboration among public and private sectors and health care organizations in research and patent activities.
METHODS: Elsevier's Scopus was used to search and analyze the 50 most frequently cited scientific papers. After the screening process, two reviewers arranged the articles in a descending order based on their citation counts. Each article was then cross-matched with Google Scholar. The articles were analyzed, and information including citation counts, citation density, publication year, authorship, contributing institutions and countries, article topic, study design, and keywords was extracted.
RESULTS: The literature search identified 2421 articles. The citation counts of the 50 selected articles varied from 117 to 580 (Scopus) and 206 to 1130 (Google Scholar). The year in which most top 50 articles were published was 2002 (n = 5). Among 105 authors, the greatest contribution was made by JO Andreasen (n = 12). Most of the articles originated from the United States (n = 12) with the greatest contributions from the University Hospital (Rigshospitalet), Copenhagen, Denmark (n = 6). Original research article was the most frequent study design (n = 34). The majority of the top 50 articles were focused on traumatic dental injuries. Among 131 unique key words, root resorption (n = 6) was the most frequently used. A non-significant correlation occurred between citation count (correlation coefficient = 0.127, P = .378), citation density (correlation coefficient = 0.654, P = 2.493), and publication age.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the top 50 most cited articles published in this journal in the specialty of Dental Traumatology. The publication year of an article was not significantly associated with citation count nor citation density.