Before starting a new animal experiment, thorough analysis of previously performed experiments is essential from a scientific as well as from an ethical point of view. The method that is most suitable to carry out such a thorough analysis of the literature is a systematic review (SR). An essential first step in an SR is to search and find all potentially relevant studies. It is important to include all available evidence in an SR to minimize bias and reduce hampered interpretation of experimental outcomes. Despite the recent development of search filters to find animal studies in PubMed and EMBASE, searching for all available animal studies remains a challenge. Available guidelines from the clinical field cannot be copied directly to the situation within animal research, and although there are plenty of books and courses on searching the literature, there is no compact guide available to search and find relevant animal studies. Therefore, in order to facilitate a structured, thorough and transparent search for animal studies (in both preclinical and fundamental science), an easy-to-use, step-by-step guide was prepared and optimized using feedback from scientists in the field of animal experimentation. The step-by-step guide will assist scientists in performing a comprehensive literature search and, consequently, improve the scientific quality of the resulting review and prevent unnecessary animal use in the future.

This Systematic Review Registration Form is intended as a general-purpose registration form. The form is designed to be applicable to reviews across disciplines (i.e., psychology, economics, law, physics, or any other field) and across review types (i.e., scoping review, review of qualitative studies, meta-analysis, or any other type of review). That means that the reviewed records may include research reports as well as archive documents, case law, books, poems, etc. This form, therefore, is a fall-back for more specialized forms and can be used if no specialized form or registration platform is available.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how presuppositional interviews can develop reflexive transparency in grounded theory methodologies. Grounded Theory aims to generate understanding of a given socio-psychological process using a systematic methodology for gathering, analysing and interpreting data. As the researcher is intrinsic to this process, reflexivity is an essential tool to explore and challenge the researcher unknown presuppositions that influence the research process and findings. Reflexivity in practice is challenging as it aims at identifying unknown influences which are by nature, hidden. In this paper, we demonstrate how presuppositional interviews can be applied to Classic and Constructivist grounded theory, and to qualitative research in general. We illustrate this process with two practical case studies, demonstrating how the presuppositional interview can be utilised to enhance transparent reflexive practice. We suggest the presuppositional interview enables higher levels of reflexivity and subsequent positive impact on praxis and the research process.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to review the literature with regard to the course leader in small and specialist higher education in the UK. Design/methodology/approach: First, the role of the course leader is explored, followed by an evaluation of the barriers to effective course management. This is then followed by a discussion of mitigating solutions to the barriers identified. Course leadership is then reviewed in the context of small and specialist higher education. Finally, areas for future research are suggested. Findings: Course leadership in the UK is a role with wide ranging responsibilities, but is under-appreciated by the higher education sector. Various barriers have been identified, and some solutions proposed, in the literature, but problems remain. Originality/value: Course leadership is an underappreciated area with little academic literature available, even though issues have been reported since the 1990s. This paper critically evaluates and summarises the issues, and shows that they are still current. It also proposes solutions and areas of further research so that issues can be resolved for betterment of the higher education sector.

This article discusses the development of professional advocacy in the U.K. nursing and midwifery professions. Initially established in midwifery, the discourse of professional advocacy has gradually shifted from a patient focus to advocating for the professionals in their professional roles. This move is driven by the need to influence the health, well-being, and efficacy of the health professions, thereby positively impacting patient care. The concept of advocacy is thus expanding from advocacy focussing on patients/social groups, to incorporating advocating for health professionals by health professionals. However, it is unclear if literature and evidence is keeping pace with this potential conceptual shift taking place in the practice setting, and it is unclear if past patient-centered conceptualizations of advocacy are relevant to the context of professional-oriented advocacy. This article aims to initiate this discussion specific to the nursing profession.

As evidence-based veterinary nursing is becoming a more common concept in veterinary practice, RVNs will more often be presented with anecdotal evidence by owners presenting to their practice. It is important that RVNs understand some of the issues associated with anecdotal and testimonial evidence and why these are not a suitable basis for decisions, so that they make decisions based on the best-available evidence and can attempt to educate clients. This article explains some of the issues surrounding anecdotal and testimonial evidence to support RVNs in their quest to practice based on evidence.