Is traumatic stress research global? A bibliometric analysis
Is traumatic stress research global? A bibliometric analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.3402/ejpt.v5.23269
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Alisic, Eva
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fodor, Kinga E.;Unterhitzenberger, Johanna;Alisic, Eva
背景资料：低收入和中等收入国家（LMIC）在创伤应激研究中的代表性对于建立全球证据库，建设研究能力和减轻世界各地未满足的心理健康需求的负担非常重要。创伤应激文献的审查，到2002年显示出全球化的趋势，虽然低收入国家只有轻微的代表相比，高收入countries（HIC）。Objective：探讨目前创伤应激研究的全球性。特别是，我们感兴趣的创伤性应激研究的程度：（1）在LMIC进行，（2）由LMIC研究人员进行，（3）访问them.Method：使用数据库PubMed，PsychInfo和PILOTS，我们系统地搜索了2012年以任何语言发表的关于创伤性应激的同行评议文章。出3,123独特的论文确定，我们编码的研究，作者，文章，和期刊characteristics.Results的随机样本（N = 1,000）：虽然我们的样本涉及在56个不同的国家的研究，大多数论文（87%）涉及在HIC的研究，与51%的所有论文描述在美国的研究。在88%的论文中，作者团队仅隶属于HIC。不到5%的作者团队涉及HIC和LMIC研究人员之间的合作。此外，HIC通讯作者发表的关于LMIC研究的文章中有45%不涉及任何LMIC共同作者。LMIC的研究人员似乎在影响力较低的期刊上发表了实证研究。在我们的样本中的1,000篇文章，32%是开放获取和10%是通过不同的方式提供的，超过一半的论文是不可访问的subscription.Conclusions：创伤性应激研究是越来越全球化，但仍然强烈主导HIC。在低收入国家建设能力的重要机会似乎已经错过。对更多的国际创伤应激研究的影响进行了讨论。
Background: The representation of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in traumatic stress research is important to establish a global evidence base, build research capacity, and reduce the burden of unmet mental health needs around the world. Reviews of the traumatic stress literature up to 2002 showed trends toward globalization although LMIC were only marginally represented compared to high-income countries (HIC).Objective: To examine the global nature of current traumatic stress research. In particular, we were interested in the extent to which traumatic stress research is: (1) conducted in LMIC, (2) conducted by LMIC researchers, and (3) accessible to them.Method: Using the databases PubMed, PsychInfo, and PILOTS, we systematically searched for peer-reviewed articles on traumatic stress published in any language in the year 2012. Out of the 3,123 unique papers identified, we coded a random sample (N = 1,000) for study, author, article, and journal characteristics.Results: Although our sample involved research in 56 different countries, most papers (87%) involved research in HIC, with 51% of all papers describing studies in the United States. In 88% of the papers, the author team was affiliated with HIC only. Less than 5% of all author teams involved collaborations between HIC and LMIC researchers. Moreover, 45% of the articles on LMIC studies published by a HIC corresponding author did not involve any LMIC co-authors. LMIC researchers appeared to publish empirical studies in lower impact journals. Of the 1,000 articles in our sample, 32% were open access and 10% were made available via different means; over half of the papers were not accessible without subscription.Conclusions: Traumatic stress research is increasingly global but still strongly dominated by HIC. Important opportunities to build capacity in LMIC appear to be missed. Implications toward more international traumatic stress research are discussed.