Search

Your search keyword '"Steel, Amie"' showing total 1,061 results
Start Over Author "Steel, Amie"
1,061 results on '"Steel, Amie"'

27. The association between learning disorders, motor function, and primitive reflexes in pre-school children: A systematic review.

Author

McWhirter, Kylie, Steel, Amie, and Adams, Jon

Abstract

This study aimed to systematically review evidence of the association between learning disorders, motor function, and primitive reflexes in preschool children. Seven databases were systematically searched (EMBASE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, Medline, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane) with no restrictions. Inclusion criteria were full text peer-reviewed articles reporting new empirical data, assessing any two of three phenomena in preschool children: learning disorders, motor function, or primitive reflexes. Intervention studies or studies examining congenital, chromosomal or acquired neurological, or pathological conditions and prematurity were excluded. Included papers (n = 27) were assessed for methodological quality by the Hoy et al. Risk of bias tool. Learning and motor function were assessed in all except two articles and motor deficits found to be associated with speech/language and executive function as well as several areas of academic performance. Three studies included primitive reflexes, with high levels of the asymmetrical tonic neck reflex positively correlated with fine motor skills, "school readiness" and "impulsivity, hyperactivity and inattention." Caution must be used when interpreting the review results due to significant study heterogeneity. Further research is needed to further understand common underlying mechanisms that may inform earlier diagnostic methods for these three phenomena. PROSPERO: CRD42021265793 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

29. Systematic reviews of osteopathic care: protocol for an umbrella review

Author

Vaughan, Brett, primary, Fleischmann, Michael, additional, Cerritelli, Francesco, additional, Draper-Rodi, Jerry, additional, Feehan, Jack, additional, Ferreira, Ana Paula, additional, McLeod, Gopi, additional, Morin, Chantal, additional, Muddle, Lee, additional, Sampath, Kesava, additional, Thomson, Oliver P., additional, Tripodi, Nicholas, additional, Steel, Amie, additional, and Adams, Jon, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

47. Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to open science: An international, cross-sectional survey.

Author

Ng, Jeremy Y., Santoro, Lucas J., Cobey, Kelly D., Steel, Amie, Cramer, Holger, and Moher, David

Subjects
OPEN scholarship, RESEARCH personnel, INTEGRATIVE medicine, OPEN access publishing, ELECTRONIC journals, WORK sharing, ELECTRONIC publications
Abstract

Introduction and objective: Open science (OS) aims to make the dissemination of knowledge and the research process transparent and accessible to everyone. With the increasing popularity of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), our goal was to explore what are CAIM researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to OS. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey of researchers who published in journals listed in Scopus containing the words "complementary", "alternative", or "integrative" medicine in their names. We emailed 6040 researchers our purpose-built electronic survey after extracting their email address from one of their publications in our sample of journals. We questioned their familiarity with different OS concepts, along with their experiences and challenges engaging in these practices over the last 12 months. Results: The survey was completed by 392 researchers (6.5% response rate, 97.1% completion rate). Most respondents were CAIM researchers familiar with the overall concept of OS, indicated by those actively publishing open access (OA) (n = 244, 76.0%), registering a study protocol (n = 148, 48.0%), and using reporting guidelines (n = 181, 59.0%) in the past 12 months. Preprinting, sharing raw data, and sharing study materials were less popular. A lack of funding was reported as the greatest barrier to publishing OA by most respondents (n = 252, 79.0%), and that additional funding is the most significant incentive in applying more OS practices to their research (n = 229,72.2%). With respect to preprinting barriers, 36.3% (n = 110) participants believed there are potential harms in sharing non-peer-reviewed work and 37.0% (n = 112) feared preprinting would reduce the likelihood of their manuscript being accepted by a journal. Respondents were also concerned about intellectual property control regarding sharing data (n = 94, 31.7%) and research study materials (n = 80, 28.7%). Conclusions: Although many participants were familiar with and practiced aspects of OS, many reported facing barriers relating to lack of funding to enable OS and perceived risks of revealing research ideas and data prior to publication. Future research should monitor the adoption and implementation of OS interventions in CAIM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results