Journal articles on the topic 'Qualitative research; systematic review; evidence-based practice'
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Qualitative research; systematic review; evidence-based practice.
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Qualitative research; systematic review; evidence-based practice.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Bahtsevani, Christel, Giggi Udén, and Ania Willman. "Outcomes of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: A systematic review." International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 20, no. 4 (November 2004): 427–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s026646230400131x.
Full textAbstract:
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate whether evidence-based clinical practice in health care improves outcomes for patients, personnel, and/or organizations.Methods: A systematic review of studies was conducted with various quantitative and qualitative methods up to the Spring of 2002. Protocols were used in quality assessment. Data synthesis is descriptive in a narrative form.Results: Of 305 assessed articles, eight studies were included. The outcomes in the included studies were related to the experiences of patients and personnel and to organization concerning changed patient care and resource utilization. Because the included studies are heterogeneous in design, focus of research area, and scientific quality, the scientific foundation for the findings is weak. There is some support that evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, when put to use, improve outcomes (i) for patients—less likelihood of showing worsening of skin condition and disruption of skin condition improves more rapidly for infants; (ii) for personnel—support in daily work situation; and (iii) for organizations—decreased admission rates and length of stay, less resource utilization and reduced costs.Conclusions: There is a need for further research as the findings are based on a rather limited number of studies. There is a tendency toward support for the idea that outcomes improve for patients, personnel, or organizations if clinical practice in health care is evidence-based, that is, if evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are used, although these findings could be specific to the settings and context of the studies reported in this systematic review.
2
Malterud, Kirsti. "The Impact of Evidence-Based Medicine on Qualitative Metasynthesis: Benefits to be Harvested and Warnings to be Given." Qualitative Health Research 29, no. 1 (August 30, 2018): 7–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732318795864.
Full textAbstract:
Qualitative metasynthesis, developed as an interpretative and inductive methodology, is increasingly influenced by standards from evidence-based medicine, established as a strategy to support policy decisions and guidelines. Currently, principles and procedures from the format developed for systematic reviews are often applied for review and synthesis of all kinds of evidence, including results from qualitative studies. In this article, I substantiate these claims, discussing benefits to be harvested and warnings to be given when qualitative metasynthesis approaches the evidence-based medicine methodology. Situating my exploration in the context of clinical practice, I contrast missions and values of these methodologies regarding review and synthesis of research literature, highlighting potential mismatches between ontology and epistemology, emphasizing challenges regarding sample, analysis, and transferability. Approving systematic and transparent strategies as generic for such purposes, I warn against the idea that methodology developed for evidence-based medicine is a universal gold standard for synthesis of research evidence.
3
Nunn, Jack, and Steven Chang. "What are Systematic Reviews?" WikiJournal of Medicine 7, no. 1 (2020): 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2020.005.
Full textAbstract:
Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary data and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and identify and synthesize data that directly relate to the systematic review question. While some people might associate ‘systematic review’ with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as ‘systematic’ which do not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically appraise research studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively. Systematic reviews are often designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing evidence-based medicine, and a review of existing studies is often quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study. While systematic reviews are often applied in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely defined subject would be helpful. Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions, social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations. An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of health care, public health and public policy.
4
Nunn, Jack, and Steven Chang. "What are Systematic Reviews?" WikiJournal of Medicine 7, no. 1 (2020): 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.15347/wjm/2020.004.
Full textAbstract:
Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary data and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and identify and synthesize data that directly relate to the systematic review question.[1] While some people might associate ‘systematic review’ with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as ‘systematic’ which do not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically appraise research studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively.[2] Systematic reviews are often designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing evidence-based medicine,[3] and a review of existing studies is often quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study. While systematic reviews are often applied in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely defined subject would be helpful.[4] Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions,[5] social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations.[6][7] An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of health care, public health and public policy.
5
Lekan, Deborah A., Susan K. Collins, and Audai A. Hayajneh. "Definitions of Frailty in Qualitative Research: A Qualitative Systematic Review." Journal of Aging Research 2021 (June 2, 2021): 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6285058.
Full textAbstract:
The purpose of this qualitative systematic review was to examine how frailty was conceptually and operationally defined for participant inclusion in qualitative research focused on the lived experience of frailty in community-living frail older adults. Search of six electronic databases, 1994–2019, yielded 25 studies. Data collection involved extracting the definition of frailty from the study aim, background, literature review, methods, and sampling strategy in each research study. Quality appraisal indicated that 13 studies (52%) demonstrated potential researcher bias based on insufficient information about participant recruitment, sampling, and relationship between the researcher and participant. Content analysis and concept mapping were applied for data synthesis. Although frailty was generally defined as a multidimensional, biopsychosocial construct with loss of resilience and vulnerability to adverse outcomes, most studies defined the study population based on older age and physical impairments derived from subjective assessment by the researcher, a healthcare professional, or a family member. However, 13 studies (52%) used objective or performance-based quantitative measures to classify participant frailty. There was no consistency across studies in standardized measures or objective assessment of frailty. Synthesis of the findings yielded four themes: Time, Vulnerability, Loss, and Relationships. The predominance of older age and physical limitations as defining characteristics of frailty raises questions about whether participants were frail, since many older adults at advanced age and with physical limitations are not frail. Lack of clear criteria to classify frailty and reliance on subjective assessment introduces the risk for bias, threatens the validity and interpretation of findings, and hinders transferability of findings to other contexts. Clear frailty inclusion and exclusion criteria and a standardized approach in the reporting of how frailty is conceptually and operationally defined in study abstracts and the methodology used is necessary to facilitate dissemination and development of metasynthesis studies that aggregate qualitative research findings that can be used to inform future research and applications in clinical practice to improve healthcare.
6
Majid, Umair, and Meredith Vanstone. "OP119 Appraising Qualitative Research For Qualitative Evidence Syntheses." International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 34, S1 (2018): 44–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266462318001435.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction:The growth of the evidence-based policy movement sought to determine how to better assess and incorporate qualitative evidence in clinical practice and policy development. The question engendered was not whether qualitative research is valuable but how researchers can enhance its rigor. From this discussion arose over one hundred appraisal tools for the quality appraisal process of qualitative studies. For those without a deep familiarity with the qualitative research paradigm, navigating through the breadth of tools to find the most suitable tool for the task is a cumbersome process. This presentation will review the descriptive characteristics of available quality appraisal tools for assessing the quality of primary qualitative studies in qualitative evidence syntheses (QES). This presentation will also offer a critical discussion on the use of reflexivity as a de facto quality criterion, and how methodological reporting may influence the application of quality criteria in QES.Methods:We conducted a systematic search to identify quality appraisal tools of qualitative research designed for use in QES. This search built upon the work of Santiago-Delefosse and colleagues by extending their search to 2016.Results:We identified eight appraisal tools intended for use in the quality appraisal process of a QES. We provide a description of the structure, content, objectives, and philosophies of tools followed by considerations concerning their historical antecedents, common patterns regarding structure, content, and purpose, and the implications of these patterns on the QES process.Conclusions:Quality appraisal of qualitative research is an important step in QES, and there have been a proliferation of tools for this purpose. By providing an overview of available tools detailing their intent and strengths, this presentation will assist those engaging in QES to choose an appropriate tool for their work.
7
Chesnel, Mary Jo, Maria Healy, and Jenny McNeill. "Experiences that influence how trained providers support women with breastfeeding: A systematic review of qualitative evidence." PLOS ONE 17, no. 10 (October 14, 2022): e0275608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275608.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction There is a need to improve breastfeeding support interventions as although many are evidence-based, a sequential increase in breastfeeding rates is not evident. It is crucial to understand why the implementation of evidence-based guidelines in practice does not always translate to positive experiences for women and improve breastfeeding rates. This systematic review aims to synthesise breastfeeding support experiences of trained support providers and their impact on breastfeeding support practices. Methods A strategy was developed to search seven databases including Medline and CINAHL and grey literature for qualitative studies. Studies eligible for inclusion reported professional and trained peer experiences of supporting women to breastfeed. PRISMA guidelines were followed and included studies were quality appraised using the CASP Qualitative Checklist. A thematic synthesis of included studies was undertaken and confidence in the review findings was assessed using the CERQual tool. The study protocol, registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020207380, has been peer reviewed and published. Findings A total of 977 records were screened, which identified 18 studies (21 papers) eligible for inclusion comprising 368 participants. Following quality appraisal, all studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. The thematic synthesis resulted in four analytical themes: 1) A personal philosophy of breastfeeding support 2) Teamwork and tensions in practice 3) Negotiating organisational constraints and 4) Encounters with breastfeeding women. Findings demonstrated that a range of experiences influence practice, and practice evolves on continued exposure to such experiences. The potential of each experience to facilitate or inhibit breastfeeding support provision is fluid and context specific. Conclusions Experiences, as named above, are modifiable factors contributing to the development of a philosophy of breastfeeding support based on what the provider believes works and is valuable in practice. Further research is required into the range of factors which underpin context-specific breastfeeding support practice, to improve both women’s experiences and intervention effectiveness.
8
Carter, Bronwyn J. "Evidence-based decision-making: practical issues in the appraisal of evidence to inform policy and practice." Australian Health Review 34, no. 4 (2010): 435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/ah09778.
Full textAbstract:
Objective. To highlight the differences between a systematic review of the literature and a systematic review of the best available evidence; to discuss practical issues in the appraisal of evidence to inform public health policy and practice; and to make recommendations for next steps in the development of evidence-based decision making in public health. Data sources and selection. Literature and other sources were reviewed including the subject reading list, recommended texts and websites for the La Trobe University postgraduate subject Evidence Based Public Health Practice 2007 and other relevant sources identified. Data extraction and synthesis. Relevant opinions were extracted to summarise debate in relation to definitions of evidence, usefulness of systematic reviews, tools for critical appraisal and other practical issues in the translation of evidence into practice. Conclusions. Evidence relevant to decisions regarding public health policy and practice may include evidence from the literature including experimental and observational studies as well as other sources, including policies and opinions of stakeholders. Further development of skills and approaches to the critical appraisal of evidence are required. Recommendations include: mapping of Australian competencies to public health education; development of national guidelines to inform the appraisal of evidence for public health decision making; and promotion of leadership and education in evidence-based approaches, discussion and debate in relation to definitions of evidence, and public health research that generates the best possible evidence. What is known about the topic? Systematic reviews are a well recognised tool for the critical appraisal of evidence to inform decision making. There is a lack of agreement about what constitutes valid evidence for inclusion in such reviews and many policy makers have no training or qualifications in the use of systematised approaches to the critical appraisal of evidence from a range of sources to inform decisions. Approaches to critical appraisal of evidence and skills in appraisal of evidence and evidence-based decision making require further development. What does this paper add? This paper reviews current opinions on what constitutes valid evidence and discusses important differences between a systematic review of the literature as distinct from a systematic review of available evidence. The desirable approach is recognised as the utilisation of the best available evidence from a range of sources to inform decision making, including evidence from observational studies including qualitative data, as well as contextual and colloquial evidence. This paper calls for: mapping of Australian competencies to public health education; development of national guidelines to inform the appraisal of evidence for public health decision making; and the promotion of leadership and education in evidence-based approaches, discussion and debate in relation to definitions of evidence and the promotion of public health research that generates the best possible evidence. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper calls upon practitioners to further develop skills in critical appraisal of evidence from a range of sources to inform policy and practice, and to foster collaborative partnerships between researchers, policy makers, educators, managers and clinicians.
9
Brice, Anne, and Andrew Booth. "Practical issues in creating an evidence base for Library and Information Practice." Library and Information Research 30, no. 94 (June 27, 2013): 52–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.29173/lirg272.
Full textAbstract:
What are the practical issues in creating a knowledge
base for the library and information profession? ln this
article the authors explore this topic from a practitioner-researcher perspective in order to identify the issues which arise from undertaking research, informed by experiences when conducting a qualitative systematic review.
The paper identifies barriers to using research, as
perceived by library and information professionals, and
discusses general issues encountered when undertaking research as a practitioner.
It reports the experiences of conducting a systematic review of qualitative research in the area of critical appraisal skills, a review spanning several disciplines. The authors select several factors of particular importance to illustrate the specific challenges of creating an evidence base in library and information practice. They highlight many examples of pitfalls and difficulties, but also the payback and rewards, of doing research.
10
Hawkins, Melanie, Gerald R. Elsworth, and Richard H. Osborne. "Questionnaire validation practice: a protocol for a systematic descriptive literature review of health literacy assessments." BMJ Open 9, no. 10 (October 2019): e030753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030753.
Full textAbstract:
IntroductionContemporary validity testing theory holds that validity lies in the extent to which a proposed interpretation and use of test scores is justified, the evidence for which is dependent on both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Despite this, we hypothesise that development and validation studies for assessments in the field of health primarily report a limited range of statistical properties, and that a systematic theoretical framework for validity testing is rarely applied. Using health literacy assessments as an exemplar, this paper outlines a protocol for a systematic descriptive literature review about types of validity evidence being reported and if the evidence is reported within a theoretical framework.Methods and analysisA systematic descriptive literature review of qualitative and quantitative research will be used to investigate the scope of validation practice in the rapidly growing field of health literacy assessment. This review method employs a frequency analysis to reveal potentially interpretable patterns of phenomena in a research area; in this study, patterns in types of validity evidence reported, as assessed against the criteria of the 2014Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, and in the number of studies using a theoretical validity testing framework. The search process will be consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Outcomes of the review will describe patterns in reported validity evidence, methods used to generate the evidence and theoretical frameworks underpinning validation practice and claims. This review will inform a theoretical basis for future development and validity testing of health assessments in general.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this systematic review because only published research will be examined. Dissemination of the review findings will be through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, at conference presentations and in the lead author’s doctoral thesis.
11
Hines, Sonia, Joanne Ramsbotham, and Fiona Coyer. "The Experiences and Perceptions of Nurses Interacting With Research Literature: A Qualitative Systematic Review to Guide Evidence‐Based Practice." Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 18, no. 6 (November 2, 2021): 371–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12542.
Full text
12
O’Neill, Sarah, and Christina Pallitto. "The Consequences of Female Genital Mutilation on Psycho-Social Well-Being: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research." Qualitative Health Research 31, no. 9 (June 8, 2021): 1738–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10497323211001862.
Full textAbstract:
The health consequences of female genital mutilation (FGM) have been described previously; however, evidence of the social consequences is more intangible. To date, few systematic reviews have addressed the impact of the practice on psycho-social well-being, and there is limited understanding of what these consequences might consist. To complement knowledge on the known health consequences, this article systematically reviewed qualitative evidence of the psycho-social impact of FGM in countries where it is originally practiced (Africa, the Middle East, and Asia) and in countries of the diaspora. Twenty-three qualitative studies describing the psycho-social impact of FGM on women’s lives were selected after screening. This review provides a framework for understanding the less visible ways in which women and girls with FGM experience adverse effects that may affect their sense of identity, their self-esteem, and well-being as well as their participation in society.
13
Mittal, Neeti, Manoj Goyal, and Parteek K. Mittal. "Understanding and Appraising Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis." Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 41, no. 5 (January 1, 2017): 317–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.17796/1053-4628-41.5.317.
Full textAbstract:
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis seek to answer a pre-framed research question to lead to a valid answer through a systematic, explicit and reproducible method of locating; identifying, including and appraising appropriate trials. The results are synthesized considering the methodological rigor of included trials. While the meta-analysis quantitatively pools the results from individual included studies, the systematic review summarizes the findings as qualitative conclusions. These reviews are crux of evidence based dentistry for various stake-holders, i.e., clinicians, researchers and policy-makers. Although the meticulous methodology of systematic review and meta-analysis minimizes the elements of bias, yet the validity and reliability of their findings should be explored prior to translating their conclusions to practice. The goal of this paper is to familiarize readers with rationale, conduct and appraisal of systematic review and meta-analysis. Further, guidance is provided on tracing potential elements of bias in the review to enable readers to judge the quality of evidence generated from the review.
14
Marchand, Catherine, and Stephen Peckham. "Addressing the crisis of GP recruitment and retention: a systematic review." British Journal of General Practice 67, no. 657 (March 13, 2017): e227-e237. http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17x689929.
Full textAbstract:
BackgroundThe numbers of GPs and training places in general practice are declining, and retaining GPs in their practices is an increasing problem.Aim To identify evidence on different approaches to retention and recruitment of GPs, such as intrinsic versus extrinsic motivational determinants.Design and setting Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research using seven electronic databases from 1990 onwards (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Health Management Information Consortium [HMIC], Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (Cinahl), PsycINFO, and the Turning Research Into Practice [TRIP] database).MethodA qualitative approach to reviewing the literature on recruitment and retention of GPs was used. The studies included were English-language studies from Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. The titles and abstracts of 138 articles were reviewed and analysed by the research team.ResultsSome of the most important determinants to increase recruitment in primary care were early exposure to primary care practice, the fit between skills and attributes, and a significant experience in a primary care setting. Factors that seemed to influence retention were subspecialisation and portfolio careers, and job satisfaction. The most important determinants of recruitment and retention were intrinsic and idiosyncratic factors, such as recognition, rather than extrinsic factors, such as income.ConclusionAlthough the published evidence relating to GP recruitment and retention is limited, and most focused on attracting GPs to rural areas, the authors found that there are clear overlaps between strategies to increase recruitment and retention. Indeed, the most influential factors are idiosyncratic and intrinsic to the individuals.
15
Christensen, M. Candace. "Using Photovoice to Address Gender-Based Violence: A Qualitative Systematic Review." Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 20, no. 4 (July 13, 2017): 484–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838017717746.
Full textAbstract:
The purpose of this article is to examine how photovoice research addresses gender-based violence (GBV) among individuals and communities that experience and witness GBV. Photovoice action research (PVAR) methods act as both an intervention and a research method by engaging participants in using photography to depict a topic of concern and in developing potential solutions. To date, there is not a published review of PVAR publications that focus on addressing GBV. This article is comprised of a qualitative systematic review of studies that use photovoice research methods to address GBV. This review is conducted in accordance with the Supplementary Guidance of the Cochrane handbook and results in the examination of 17 publications that meet inclusion criteria. The data synthesis engages grounded theory (GT) methods and results in the emergence of one primary category transgressing the violence and three subcategories illustrating the problem, caring for self and others, and harnessing community resources. The results of this review reveal research, practice, and policy implications for photovoice projects aimed at addressing GBV.
16
Winnard, Andrew, Nick Caplan, Claire Bruce-Martin, Patrick Swain, Rochelle Velho, Roberto Meroni, Virginia Wotring, et al. "Developing, Implementing, and Applying Novel Techniques During Systematic Reviews of Primary Space Medicine Data." Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance 92, no. 8 (August 1, 2021): 681–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.3357/amhp.5803.2021.
Full textAbstract:
BACKGROUND: The Aerospace Medicine Systematic Review Group was set up in 2016 to facilitate high quality and transparent synthesis of primary data to enable evidence-based practice. The group identified many research methods specific to space medicine that need consideration for systematic review methods. The group has developed space medicine specific methods to address this and trialed usage of these methods across seven published systematic reviews. This paper outlines evolution of space medicine synthesis methods and discussion of their initial application.METHODS: Space medicine systematic review guidance has been developed for protocol planning, quantitative and qualitative synthesis, sourcing gray data, and assessing quality and transferability of space medicine human spaceflight simulation study environments.RESULTS: Decision algorithms for guidance and tool usage were created based on usage. Six reviews used quantitative methods in which no meta-analyses were possible due to lack of controlled trials or reporting issues. All reviews scored the quality and transferability of space simulation environments. One review was qualitative. Several research gaps were identified.CONCLUSION: Successful use of the developed methods demonstrates usability and initial validity. The current space medicine evidence base resulting in no meta-analyses being possible shows the need for standardized guidance on how to synthesize data in this field. It also provides evidence to call for increasing use of controlled trials, standardizing outcome measures, and improving minimum reporting standards. Space medicine is a unique field of medical research that requires specific systematic review methods.Winnard A, Caplan N, Bruce-Martin C, Swain P, Velho R, Meroni R, Wotring V, Damann V, Weber T, Evetts S, Laws J. Developing, implementing, and applying novel techniques during systematic reviews of primary space medicine data. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 92(8):681688.
17
Short, Valentina, Judith A. Covey, Lisa A. Webster, Ruth Wadman, Joe Reilly, Naomi Hay-Gibson, and Helen J. Stain. "Considering the team in team formulation: a systematic review." Mental Health Review Journal 24, no. 1 (May 3, 2019): 11–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-12-2017-0055.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose Team formulation, used to understand patient problems and plan care, is a growing practice in adult mental health and learning disability services. The purpose of this paper is to explore definitions applied to team formulation (as distinct to therapy formulation), its underpinning theories, and the inter-relationship between the team and the process of formulation. Design/methodology/approach A database search (main search term of team formulation) of peer-reviewed studies was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A main and second reviewer conducted quality appraisals and thematic analysis. Data were analysed by convergent qualitative synthesis design using thematic analysis to transform evidence from quantitative and qualitative studies into qualitative findings. Findings Initial searching produced 4,532 papers, 10 of which were eligible for inclusion. Team formulation has no distinct definition. Theories underpinning the practice of therapy formulation emanating from general psychological theory underpin team formulation. Seven studies applied psychological theories to the examination of team formulation. No studies examined the impact of the team on the formulation. Six themes were generated regarding the impact of team formulation on the team; “increased knowledge and understanding”, “altered perceptions, leading to altered relationships, feelings and behaviours”, “space to reflect”, “useful when stuck or challenged”, “perceived increase in effectiveness” and “improved team working”. Research limitations/implications Limited evidence and variable quality compromised the availability of review evidence. Originality/value This is the first review to examine team formulation through the context of the team. The authors argue that a conceptual framework to encompass team inputs, processes and outputs in team formulation practice should guide future research.
18
Hall, Lucy, and Una Adderley. "Active debridement of venous leg ulcers: a literature review to inform clinical practice." British Journal of Community Nursing 24, Sup6 (June 2019): S24—S29. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2019.24.sup6.s24.
Full textAbstract:
Community nurses often care for patients with sloughy venous leg ulcers. Slough is viewed as a potential infection source and an impediment to healing, but it is unclear if active debridement of slough promotes healing. Using a clinical scenario as a contextual basis, this literature review sought research evidence to answer this clinical question. A strategy based on the ‘4S’ approach was used to identify research evidence. The retrieved evidence included one systematic review, three clinical guidelines and six qualitative and quantitative studies. The analysis suggested that there is no robust evidence to support the routine practice of active debridement of venous leg ulcers to promote healing, and that debridement is associated with increased pain. Since autolytic debridement can be achieved through the application of graduated compression therapy, active debridement may offer no additional benefit.
19
Siddaway, Andy P., Alex M. Wood, and Larry V. Hedges. "How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses." Annual Review of Psychology 70, no. 1 (January 4, 2019): 747–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803.
Full textAbstract:
Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.
20
Raveel, Ann, and Birgitte Schoenmakers. "Interventions to prevent aggression against doctors: a systematic review." BMJ Open 9, no. 9 (September 2019): e028465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028465.
Full textAbstract:
ObjectiveTo find out if there is evidence on interventions to prevent aggression against doctors.DesignThis systematic review searched the literature and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesPubmed, Embase, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), Cochrane and Psycharticle, GoogleScholar andwww.guideline.govwere consulted.Eligibility criteriaAbstracts published in English between January 2000 and January 2018 were screened. Eligible studies focused on prevention and risk factors of type II workplace violence in general healthcare, psychiatric departments, emergency departments, emergency primary care, general practice.Data extraction and synthesisThe selected intervention studies were grouped into quantitative and qualitative studies. Systematic reviews were reported separately. For each study, the design, type of intervention and key findings were analysed. Quality rating was based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQUAL).Results44 studies are included. One randomised controlled trial (RCT) provided moderate evidence that a violence prevention programme was effective in decreasing risks of violence. Major risk factors are long waiting times, discrepancy between patients’ expectations and services, substance abuse by the patient and psychiatric conditions. Appropriate workplace design and policies aim to reduce risk factors but there is no hard evidence on the effectiveness. One RCT provided evidence that a patient risk assessment combined with tailored actions decreased severe aggression events in psychiatric wards. Applying de-escalation techniques during an aggressive event is highly recommended. Postincident reporting followed by root cause analysis of the incident provides the basic input for review and optimisation of violence prevention programmes.ConclusionsThis review documented interventions to prevent and de-escalate aggression against doctors. Aggression against physicians is a serious occupational hazard. There is moderate evidence that an integrated violence prevention programme decreases the risks of patient-to-worker violence. The review failed to gather sufficient numerical data to perform a meta-analysis. A large-scale cohort study would add to a better understanding of the effectiveness of interventions.
21
Samanta, Debopam. "Improving Management of Infantile Spasms by Adopting Implementation Science." Neuropediatrics 51, no. 06 (October 13, 2020): 377–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716901.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractOver the last several decades, significant progress has been made in the discovery of appropriate therapy in the management of infantile spasms (IS). Based on several well-controlled studies, the American Academy of Neurology and the Child Neurology Society have published the current best practice parameters for the treatment of IS. However, dissemination and implementation of evidence-based guidelines remain a significant challenge. Though the number of well-performed controlled trials and systematic reviews is increasing exponentially, the proportion of valuable new information subsequently embedding into the routine clinical care is significantly lower. Planned and systematic implementation of evidence-based interventions in a given health care structure may outstrip the benefits of discovering a new insight, procedure, or drug in another controlled setting. Implementation problems can be broad-ranging to hinder effective, efficient, safe, timely, and patient-centered care without significant variation. The first part of this review article provides a detailed summary of some crucial comparative treatment studies of IS available in the literature. In the second part, practical challenges to mitigate the gap between knowledge and practice to improve outcomes in the management of IS has been explored, and a consolidated framework approach for systematic implementation research methodology has been discussed to implement evidence-based guidelines for the management of IS. Although large multicenter controlled studies will help gather quality evidence in the treatment of IS, a more comprehensive range of scientific methodologies, including qualitative research and mixed research methodologies, will hold the more considerable promise for implementing evidence-based practices in the health care system.
22
Tate, Kaitlyn, Sarah Hewko, Patrick McLane, Pamela Baxter, Karyn Perry, Susan Armijo-Olivo, Carole Estabrooks, Deb Gordon, and Greta Cummings. "Learning to lead: a review and synthesis of literature examining health care managers' use of knowledge." Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 24, no. 1 (July 25, 2018): 57–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1355819618786764.
Full textAbstract:
Background Scholarship cites health care managers (HCMs) as not using research evidence in their management practice. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to enhance HCMs use of research evidence in practice. Methods We carried out a systematic review and focus groups to validate the review findings. We searched 10 electronic databases for studies reporting on interventions for HCMs to enhance research utilization in their practice. Qualitative studies were analysed using Hoon’s approach to meta-synthesis. Results Seven, primarily qualitative, studies of varying quality (reported in 11 articles) met our inclusion criteria. Interventions to enhance research use by HCMs included: informal and formal training, computer-based application, executive-level knowledge translation activities and residency programmes. Studies did not report efficacy of interventions or impacts of increasing managers’ use of research on staff or patient outcomes. Meta-synthesis yielded four contextual factors influencing the perceived effectiveness of interventions to enhance research use by HCMs: organizational culture, competing priorities, time as a resource and capacity building. Included studies differed in how they defined research and demonstrated varying understandings of research among HCMs, limiting the generalizability of work in this field. Conclusions Healthcare managers are increasingly called upon to make evidence-based decisions in practice, but the small number of studies and diverse strategies employed hinder our ability to identify any intervention to increase use of evidence as superior. Future studies in this area should clearly articulate the definition of research evidence they base their decisions on. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42014006256)
23
Barenie, Rachel E., Alina Cernasev, Hilary Jasmin, Phillip Knight, and Marie Chisholm-Burns. "A Qualitative Systematic Review of Access to Substance Use Disorder Care in the United States Criminal Justice System." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19 (October 3, 2022): 12647. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912647.
Full textAbstract:
Background: The majority of patients with a substance use disorder (SUD) in the United States do not receive evidence-based treatment. Research has also demonstrated challenges to accessing SUD care in the US criminal justice system. We conducted a systematic review of access to SUD care in the US criminal justice system. Methods: We searched for comprehensive qualitative studies in multiple databases through April 2021, and two researchers reviewed 6858 studies using pre-selected inclusion criteria. Once eligibility was determined, themes were extracted from the data. This review provides a thematic overview of the US qualitative studies to inform future research-based interventions. This review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: There were 6858 unique abstract results identified for review, and seven qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Two themes were identified from these results: (1) managing withdrawal from medication-assisted treatment, and (2) facilitators and barriers to treatment programs in the criminal justice system. Conclusions: Qualitative research evaluating access to SUD care in the US criminal justice system varied, with some interventions reported not rooted in evidence-based medicine. An opportunity may exist to develop best practices to ensure evidence-based treatment for SUDs is delivered to patients who need it in the US criminal justice system.
24
Lyness, Emily, Jennifer Parker, Merlin L. Willcox, and Hajira Dambha-Miller. "Experiences of out-of-hours task-shifting from GPs: a systematic review of qualitative studies." BJGP Open 5, no. 4 (June 22, 2021): BJGPO.2021.0043. http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgpo.2021.0043.
Full textAbstract:
BackgroundThe current GP workforce is insufficient to manage rising demand in patient care within out-of-hours (OOH) primary care services. To meet this challenge, non-medical practitioners (NMPs) are employed to fulfil tasks traditionally carried out by GPs. It is important to learn from experiences of task-shifting in this setting to inform optimal delivery of care.AimTo synthesise qualitative evidence of experiences of task-shifting in the OOH primary care setting.Design & settingSystematic review of qualitative studies and thematic synthesis.MethodElectronic searches were conducted across CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature), PsychINFO, Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase, and OpenGrey for qualitative studies of urgent or OOH primary care services, utilising task-shifting or role delegation. Included articles were quality appraised and key findings collated through thematic synthesis.ResultsA total of 2497 studies were screened, of which six met the inclusion criteria. These included interviews with 15 advanced nurse practitioners (ANPs), three physician assistants (PAs), two paramedics, and a focus group of 22 GPs, and focus groups with 33 nurses. Key findings highlight the importance of clearly defining and communicating the scope of practice of NMPs, and of building their confidence by appropriate training, support, and mentoring.ConclusionWhile NMPs may have the potential to make a substantial contribution to OOH primary care services, there has been very little research on experiences of task-shifting. Evidence to date highlights the need for further training specific to OOH services. Mentorship and support to manage the sometimes challenging cases presenting to OOH could enable more effective OOH services and better patient care.
25
Jolly, Andy, Jasber Singh, and Sunila Lobo. "No recourse to public funds: a qualitative evidence synthesis." International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care 18, no. 1 (March 2, 2022): 107–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijmhsc-11-2021-0107.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose This study aims to outlines the findings of the first qualitative evidence synthesis of empirical research on the impact of the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) rule which prevents most temporary migrants from accessing social security benefits in the UK. Design/methodology/approach The review used the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol guidelines. Data were analysed by using Thomas and Harden’s (2008) thematic synthesis methodology. An initial 321 articles were identified from 13 databases, of which 38 studies met the inclusion criteria. Findings The key insights were that NRPF causes destitution and extreme poverty and has a disproportionate impact on racialised women. Studies found that support services were underdeveloped, underfunded, inconsistent and had a culture of mistrust and racism towards migrants. Migrants were often fearful of services due to concerns around deportation, destitution and state intervention around children. Research limitations/implications The review focussed on qualitative research. Future empirical and theoretical research is needed in the following areas: NRPF as a practice of everyday bordering, the role of the Home Office in creating and sustaining the policy; differing gendered experiences of NRPF; and a broader geographical scope which includes all four UK nations and takes an international comparative approach. Originality/value Despite an estimated 1.4 million people in the UK with NRPF (Citizens Advice, 2020), there is little policy or theoretical discussion of the experience of having NRPF or the implications of the rule. This lack of analysis is a significant gap in both our understanding of the landscape of poverty in the UK, and the ways in which immigration policies create extreme poverty. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first systematic qualitative review on NRPF, bringing together the research evidence on how NRPF negatively affects outcomes for migrants, local authority and voluntary sector responses to NRPF and theoretical perspectives on NRPF.
26
Shim, Yerin, Andrew T. Jebb, Louis Tay, and James O. Pawelski. "Arts and Humanities Interventions for Flourishing in Healthy Adults: A Mixed Studies Systematic Review." Review of General Psychology 25, no. 3 (August 2, 2021): 258–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10892680211021350.
Full textAbstract:
The arts and humanities have enriched human life in various ways throughout history. Yet, an analysis of empirical research into the effects of arts and humanities engagement remains incomplete, calling for a systematic and integrative understanding of the role of arts and humanities in promoting human flourishing. The present study used a mixed studies systematic review approach to integrating recent evidence from 27 intervention studies on the effectiveness of arts and humanities interventions on psychological flourishing of healthy adults. Our final dataset both represented quantitative and qualitative data on real-world interventions that encompassed a range of arts and humanities domains, including music, theater, visual arts, and integrative arts. A separate quantitative and qualitative data synthesis on study characteristics and psychological flourishing outcomes and a meta-integration of both types of evidence were conducted. Overall, arts and humanities interventions were associated with positive changes in a range of psychological flourishing outcomes, with overlapping quantitative and qualitative evidence for emotional, social, and sense of self outcomes. A secondary analysis explored key contextual and implementation features that contributed to effectiveness. Recommendations for future research and practice are provided based on our review.
27
Jensen, Lotte Groth, and Kathrine Carstensen. "OP121 Experiences With Using The GRADE-CERQual Approach In Systematic Review." International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 34, S1 (2018): 45–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266462318001459.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction:There are many approaches to synthesis of qualitative studies. The GRADE-CERQual approach (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) provides a transparent method for assessing the confidence of evidence from reviews of qualitative research. This presentation aims at giving examples of applying CERQual, presenting and discussing its strengths and limitations.Methods:This presentation draws on practical experiences with the conduction of three qualitative systematic reviews using the CERQual approach. The reviews differ in aim and field of research.Results:The three CERQual reviews to be discussed in this presentation are: (i) Emergency departments and mental health patients - Purpose: Uncovering knowledge in a project on merging emergency departments to include both somatic and psychiatric patients. (ii) Parental responses to severe or lethal prenatal diagnosis – Purpose: Providing physicians with knowledge on a patient group from their daily clinical practice. (iii) Patients' experiences with home mechanical ventilation – Purpose: Disseminating important knowledge from a national project to an international audience.CERQual strengths: •Presents complex and large amount of knowledge in a clear way•Pools knowledge from different studies into common outcome measures across studies•Presents an assessment of the quality and strength of outcome measures•The clear presentation makes it useful in decision making.CERQual weaknesses: •Time consuming to conduct the reviews•Simplification of qualitative research, missing out on context and nuances.Conclusions:CERQual represents a useful tool to facilitate the use of qualitative evidence in clinical and political decision making. CERQual is time-consuming to learn, but a useful tool to apply when learned. CERQual may encourage more uniform reporting of qualitative research, including assessment of confidence in findings. This may increase the impact of systematic reviews of qualitative studies.
28
Mitosis, Konstantinos D., Demetris Lamnisos, and Michael A. Talias. "Talent Management in Healthcare: A Systematic Qualitative Review." Sustainability 13, no. 8 (April 16, 2021): 4469. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13084469.
Full textAbstract:
Talent Management (T.M.) constitutes a modern and emerging research area in Human Resources Management (HRM). Using a systematic literature approach, we searched in Talent Management literature in the healthcare sector context. We conclude that the number of related studies is minimal. The benefits of implementing Talent Management strategies in healthcare organizations are essential for the organization’s sustainable development and the talented staff and healthcare services patients. Our goal is to undertake a systematic literature review to identify these factors related to talent management practices suitable for healthcare organizations and professionals. We have conducted, according to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review (2010–2020) in the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Source/Nursing Academic Edition. Search terms related to T.M. were (“Talent Management” AND “Talent Healthcare”). Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were set for observational studies, while grey and unpublished literature, uncontrolled studies, protocols, commentaries, and conference proceedings were excluded. All included items were assessed for their quality according to set criteria. Six hundred and eighty-four studies were identified, of which 24 met the requirements. The resulting Talent Management Factors were grouped into nine categories: Programming, Attraction, Development, Preservation, Performance Assessment, Work Climate, Culture, Succession Planning, and Leadership. Based on these factors, we provide a holistic picture of the referred domain’s leading developments. The paper determines the Talent Management factors and explains what happens in practice. In this way, we contribute to building a theoretical framework for T.M. in terms of the organizational context.
29
Dittborn, Mariana, Bernardita Portales, and Joe Brierley. "Clinical ethics support services in paediatric practice: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review on structures, interventions and outcomes." BMJ Open 12, no. 4 (April 2022): e057867. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057867.
Full textAbstract:
IntroductionClinical ethics support services (CESS) have been developing worldwide with growing interest in evaluating their quality. Paediatric-specific CESSs (p-CESS) have received little attention, and evidence from adult services might not be generalisable. Evidence on service models and practices is crucial to inform further research and debate on quality evaluation and minimum standards for p-CESSs. We aim to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise evidence for p-CESS structures, processes and outcomes.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a mixed-studies systematic review including peer-reviewed empirical studies published in English or Spanish language providing data on the evaluation and/or impact on any aspect of p-CESS. We will search seven electronic databases: MEDLINE, Philosopher’s Index, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS, Web of Science and CINHAL, without filters applied. Search terms will be related to “clinical ethics support” AND “paediatrics” AND “structure/process/outcome”. Reference and citation list of included studies will be handsearched. A 10% random sample of retrieved titles/abstracts and all full texts will be independently dual-screened. We will conduct narrative and thematic synthesis for quantitative and qualitative data, respectively, following sequential explanatory synthesis guided by Donabedian’s framework of structure, process and outcomes. Quality will be assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (2018). The review will be reported using the adapted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence template. Stakeholders will be involved twice in the review process; prior to data extraction and synthesis and after preliminary results.Ethics and disseminationAs a systematic review of published data, no ethical approval is necessary. Results will be published in a relevant academic peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021280978.
30
Välimäki, Maritta Anneli, Tella Lantta, Kirsi Hipp, Jaakko Varpula, Gaoming Liu, Yao Tang, Wenjun Chen, Shuang Hu, and Xianhong Li. "Measured and perceived impacts of evidence-based leadership in nursing: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol." BMJ Open 11, no. 10 (October 2021): e055356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055356.
Full textAbstract:
IntroductionDespite the abundance of existing literature on evidence-based nursing practice, knowledge regarding evidence-based leadership, that is, leadership supported by an evidence-based approach, is lacking. Our aim is to conduct a mixed-methods systematic review with qualitative and quantitative studies to examine how evidence is used to solve leadership problems and to describe the measured and perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on nurses and nurse leaders and their performance as well as on organisational and clinical outcomes.Methods and analysisWe will search the following databases with no year limit or language restrictions: CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, Embase (Elsevier), PsycINFO (EBSCO), PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science. In addition, the databases for prospectively registered trials and other systematic reviews will be screened. We will include articles using any type of research design as long as the study includes a component of an evidence-based leadership approach. Three reviewers will independently screen all titles, abstracts and full-text articles and two reviewers will extract the data according to the appropriate checklists. The quality of each study will be appraised using specific appraisal tool fitting in study design used in each study. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) grid, PRISMA Protocols, Synthesis Without Meta-analysis and ENTREQ will guide the study process and reporting. Outcomes related to individual or group performance of nurses or nurse managers regarding leadership skills (e.g., communication skills), organisational outcomes (e.g., work environment, costs) and clinical outcomes (e.g., patient quality of life, treatment satisfaction) will be extracted and synthesised.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will not include empirical data, and therefore, ethics approval will not be sought. The results of the review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and in a conference presentation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021259624.
31
Awan, Hassan, Faraz Mughal, Tom Kingstone, Carolyn A. Chew-Graham, and Nadia Corp. "Emotional distress, anxiety, and depression in South Asians with long-term conditions: a qualitative systematic review." British Journal of General Practice 72, no. 716 (February 7, 2022): e179-e189. http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp.2021.0345.
Full textAbstract:
BackgroundPeople with physical–mental comorbidity have a poorer quality of life, worse clinical outcomes, and increased mortality compared with people with physical conditions alone. People of South Asian (SA) origin are the largest minority group in the UK and are more likely to have long-term conditions (LTCs) such as diabetes and heart disease. People of SA origin are less likely to recognise symptoms that may represent mental health problems.AimTo explore how people of SA origin with LTCs understand, experience, and seek help for emotional distress, depression, and anxiety.Design and settingSystematic review of qualitative studies exploring emotional distress in people of SA origin with diabetes or coronary heart disease, within primary and community care settings worldwide.MethodComprehensive searches of eight electronic databases from inception to 1 September 2021 were undertaken. Data extracted included study characteristics, and understanding, experience, and help-seeking behaviour for emotional distress. Thematic synthesis was undertaken. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies was used to assess quality of articles, and Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) used to determine the overall strength of evidence.ResultsTwenty-one studies from 3165 unique citations were included. Three main themes were identified. Understanding of emotional distress: non-medical terminology used, such as ‘tension’, and a complex relationship between emotional and physical illness. Experiences of emotional distress: multiple forms of inequality, distress at diagnosis of their LTC, cultural factors, and sex differences. Help-seeking behaviour: self-management, support from family, friends, and faith, and inadequate clinical support.ConclusionThis review provides a greater understanding of the conceptualisation of emotional distress in the context of LTCs by people of SA origin, to support improvement in its recognition and management.
32
Iacovou, Marina, Deanna C. Pattieson, Helen Truby, and Claire Palermo. "Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens: a systematic review." Public Health Nutrition 16, no. 3 (June 1, 2012): 535–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1368980012002753.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractObjectiveCommunity kitchens have been implemented by communities as a public health strategy to prevent food insecurity through reducing social isolation, improving food and cooking skills and empowering participants. The aim of the present paper was to investigate whether community kitchens can improve the social and nutritional health of participants and their families.DesignA systematic review of the literature was conducted including searches of seven databases with no date limitations.SettingCommunity kitchens internationally.SubjectsParticipants of community kitchens across the world.ResultsTen studies (eight qualitative studies, one mixed-method study and one cross-sectional study) were selected for inclusion. Evidence synthesis suggested that community kitchens may be an effective strategy to improve participants’ cooking skills, social interactions and nutritional intake. Community kitchens may also play a role in improving participants’ budgeting skills and address some concerns around food insecurity. Long-term solutions are required to address income-related food insecurity.ConclusionsCommunity kitchens may improve social interactions and nutritional intake of participants and their families. More rigorous research methods, for both qualitative and quantitative studies, are required to effectively assess the impact of community kitchens on social and nutritional health in order to confidently recommend them as a strategy in evidence-based public health practice.
33
Harte, Emma, Calum MacLure, Adam Martin, Catherine L. Saunders, Catherine Meads, Fiona M. Walter, Simon J. Griffin, Jonathan Mant, and Juliet A. Usher-Smith. "Reasons why people do not attend NHS Health Checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis." British Journal of General Practice 68, no. 666 (December 4, 2017): e28-e35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17x693929.
Full textAbstract:
BackgroundThe NHS Health Check programme is a prevention initiative offering cardiovascular risk assessment and management advice to adults aged 40–74 years across England. Its effectiveness depends on uptake. When it was introduced in 2009, it was anticipated that all those eligible would be invited over a 5-year cycle and 75% of those invited would attend. So far in the current cycle from 2013 to 2018, 33.8% of those eligible have attended, which is equal to 48.5% of those invited to attend. Understanding the reasons why some people do not attend is important to maximise the impact of the programmes.AimTo review why people do not attend NHS Health Checks.Design and settingA systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.MethodAn electronic literature search was carried out of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycINFO, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016, and the reference lists of all included papers were also screened manually. Inclusion criteria were primary research studies that reported the views of people who were eligible for but had not attended an NHS Health Check.ResultsNine studies met the inclusion criteria. Reasons for not attending included lack of awareness or knowledge, misunderstanding the purpose of the NHS Health Check, aversion to preventive medicine, time constraints, difficulties with access to general practices, and doubts regarding pharmacies as appropriate settings.ConclusionThe findings particularly highlight the need for improved communication and publicity around the purpose of the NHS Health Check programme and the personal health benefits of risk factor detection.
34
Boles, Jessika C., and Maile T. Jones. "Legacy perceptions and interventions for adults and children receiving palliative care: A systematic review." Palliative Medicine 35, no. 3 (January 25, 2021): 529–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269216321989565.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Legacy has been invoked as a means for strengthening human attachments, continuing bonds, and ensuring that individuals will be remembered; however, little is known about the spectrum of approaches to, outcomes associated with, and best practices for legacy interventions. Aim: To systematically review research on legacy perceptions and interventions in pediatric and adult palliative care recipients. Design: A systematic mixed studies review synthesizing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods study findings using PRISMA guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched on October 1, 2020. GRADE criteria were used to assess quality of quantitative reports, and the Johns Hopkins Evidence Level and Quality Guide was used to rate qualitative, mixed methods, and review articles. Data were synthesized using integrative thematic analysis. Results: The 67 studies reviewed describe a variety of legacy perceptions and interventions with adult and pediatric patients receiving palliative care. Statistically significant improvements in various dimensions of wellbeing are documented, with significant reduction in incidence and symptoms of depression in adults. Studies highlight the utility, feasibility, and perceived benefits of legacy interventions according to adult patients and their caregivers, and parents/caregivers of pediatric patients. Conclusions: Though future research with high-quality, experimental designs is needed, the positive outcomes associated with legacy interventions are documented in adult patient populations; additionally, the application of legacy interventions for children with serious illnesses receiving palliative care is reasonable based on the existing body of evidence. A consistent and operational concept of legacy is still needed for future research and practice.
35
Zhu, Yuxuan, Cong Geng, Xianbo Pei, and Xiaoli Chen. "Baccalaureate nursing students’ experiences with high-fidelity simulation: protocol for a qualitative systematic review." BMJ Open 10, no. 12 (December 2020): e040171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040171.
Full textAbstract:
IntroductionHigh-fidelity simulation (HFS) can bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and nursing practice and improve safety and quality of patient care in baccalaureate nursing education. Although inconsistent assessment instruments or lack of high-quality research designs affect the strength of the evidence and limit the generalisability of the results, quantitative studies generally demonstrate the effectiveness of HFS in baccalaureate nursing education. Synthesis of the existing evidence of baccalaureate nursing students’ experiences with HFS is crucial for the improvement and revision of simulation design and teaching.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search for qualitative studies on baccalaureate nursing students’ experiences with HFS will be conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ProQuest, Web of Science, PsycINFO, the Cochrane library, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals. This review considered studies reported in English or Chinese, and studies that were conducted between January 2000 and December 2019 in view of the launch of International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation and Learning. The literature search will be conducted by two independent reviewers, and any disagreement will be adjudicated by discussion or with a third reviewer. The two independent reviewers will use the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research to assess the methodological validity, following which the JBI standardised data extraction tools will be used to extract relevant data. The JBI meta-aggregation method will be subsequently used to synthesise the data, eventually forming themes, categories and synthesised findings. The final synthesised findings will establish confidence levels based on the JBI ConQual approach.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require formal ethical review since it is based on available published literature. Findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and, if possible, presented in scientific conferences.
36
Muldoon, Deirdre, Laura Meyer, Jenna Cortese, and Rebecca Zaleski. "A Literature Review: Evidence Base in Speech-Language Pathology for the Management of Pediatric Oral Phase Dysphagia." Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups 6, no. 2 (April 28, 2021): 444–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2021_persp-19-00080.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose A review was conducted of published literature regarding management of feeding difficulties at the oral phase of feeding in children with autism spectrum disorder and/or developmental disability. The articles selected were open access or free for speech-language pathologist (SLP) members of their professional bodies. The specific research question was: What research and evidence-based practice articles have been published in the SLP literature to assist SLPs in the implementation of evidence-based practice for children with challenges during the oral phase dysphagia? Method Initial inclusion criteria were articles published in English, published in SLP journals, discussed management of behavioral feeding difficulties and oral phase dysphagia, and were published between 2008 and 2018. Exclusion criteria for this review included articles that addressed dysphagia for participants who were medically fragile, used pharmacological intervention, or studies that included adults. A comprehensive search was conducted of ASHAWire, the Speech-Language and Audiology Canada website, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapy of the United Kingdom and the website Speech Pathology Australia. Articles were analyzed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and using a modified feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, effectiveness framework for qualitative case studies. Interrater reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient across four raters. Results All but one of the articles included for this review were qualitative articles containing descriptions of strategies or case studies (e.g., food chaining), were not peer reviewed, but did constitute evidence-based practice as outlined by American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (i.e., were either Level III or Level IV evidence-based strategies or intervention models). Conclusion The review highlighted the need for additional research in SLP designed to answer questions about the management of functional skills in feeding and eating for the population of children with autism spectrum disorder and developmental disability, patients who are increasingly on caseloads of SLPs.
37
Knight, Andrew Walter, Chun Wah Michael Tam, Sarah Dennis, John Fraser, and Dimity Pond. "The role of quality improvement collaboratives in general practice: a qualitative systematic review." BMJ Open Quality 11, no. 2 (May 2022): e001800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001800.
Full textAbstract:
BackgroundThis systematic review used qualitative methodologies to examine the role of quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) in general practice. The aim was to inform implementers and participants about the utility of using or participating in QICs in general practice.MethodsIncluded studies were published in English, used a QIC intervention, reported primary research, used qualitative or mixed methods, and were conducted in general practice.A Medline search between January 1995 and February 2020 was developed and extended to include Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo databases. Articles were sought through chaining of references and grey literature searches.Qualitative outcome data were extracted using a framework analysis. Data were analysed using thematic synthesis. Articles were assessed for quality using a threshold approach based on the criteria described by Dixon-Woods.Results15 qualitative and 18 mixed-methods studies of QICs in general practice were included. Data were grouped into four analytical themes which describe the role of a collaborative in general practice: improving the target topic, developing practices and providers, developing the health system and building quality improvement capacity.DiscussionGeneral practice collaboratives are reported to be useful for improving target topics. They can also develop knowledge and motivation in providers, build systems and team work in local practice organisations, and improve support at a system level. Collaboratives can build quality improvement capacity in the primary care system. These roles suggest that QICs are well matched to the improvement needs of general practice.General practice participants in collaboratives reported positive effects from effective peer interaction, high-quality local support, real engagement with data and well-designed training in quality improvement.Strengths of this study were an inclusive search and explicit qualitative methodology. It is possible some studies were missed. Qualitative studies of collaboratives may be affected by selection bias and confirmation bias.PROSPERO registration numberCRD4202017512.
38
Estrany-Munar, Maria-Francesca, Miguel-Ángel Talavera-Valverde, Ana-Isabel Souto-Gómez, Luis-Javier Márquez-Álvarez, and Pedro Moruno-Miralles. "The Effectiveness of Community Occupational Therapy Interventions: A Scoping Review." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 6 (March 18, 2021): 3142. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063142.
Full textAbstract:
Background: This review aims to evaluate the level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Community Occupational Therapy interventions. Methods: A systematic review was used to analyze and synthesize the studies collected. The databases of Cochrane, OTseeker, OTCATS, Web of Science, Scielo and Scopus were used in order to collect articles published between 2007 and 2020. PRISMA recommendations were followed. Results: A total of 12 articles comprised part of the study (7 randomized controlled studies, 4 systematic reviews and 1 meta-analysis). The main areas of practice were geriatric gerontology (22.1%) and mental health (19.7%), which were statistically significant (χ2; p < 0.005) compared to the rest. Regarding the studies analyzed, all of them had scores of >7 on the PEDro and AMSTAR scales. Conclusions: Research on Community Occupational Therapy constitutes a consolidated line of research but the objectives and areas of research were limited. Descriptive qualitative methodology predominated and studies on the effectiveness of Community Occupational Therapy interventions showed a medium–low level of evidence.
39
McGrath, Niamh, Sheena McHugh, Patricia M. Kearney, and Elaine Toomey. "Barriers and enablers to screening and diagnosing depression and diabetes distress in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus; protocol of a qualitative evidence synthesis." HRB Open Research 2 (October 25, 2019): 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12947.1.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Depression and diabetes distress are common in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). These conditions are independently associated with poorer T2DM outcomes and increased healthcare utilisation and costs. Questions remain regarding the most appropriate ways of initially detecting depression and diabetes distress in this group. Diabetes guidelines recommend depression screening in primary care for people with T2DM but their implementation in practice is suboptimal. As health care professionals influence detection practices, their perceptions and experiences of these guidelines can improve understanding of aspects of the guidelines that work, and those which are more difficult to implement in practice. This study describes the protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis of primary care health professionals’ perceived barriers and enablers to screen for and diagnose depression and diabetes distress in people with T2DM. Methods and analysis: Primary qualitative and mixed method studies will be identified using a systematic search of electronic databases and the CLUSTER (Citations, Lead authors, Unpublished materials, Scholar searches, Theories, Early examples, Related projects) approach. We selected ‘best-fit framework synthesis’ as the approach to synthesise primary data using the RETREAT (Review question-Epistemology-Time/Timescale-Resources-Expertise-Audience and purpose-Type of Data) framework. Quality appraisal of primary studies and confidence in the overall review findings will be determined using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) and the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research), respectively. Discussion: The planned review will provide the first, single point of reference of the available synthesised qualitative evidence on this topic. It will apply recommended approaches to ensure rigor and robustness of study and contribute meaningfully to understanding of how depression and diabetes distress can be initially detected in people with T2DM. This protocol is awaiting processing by the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) [ID number 145483].
40
McGrath, Niamh, Sheena McHugh, Patricia M. Kearney, and Elaine Toomey. "Barriers and enablers to screening and diagnosing depression and diabetes distress in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus; protocol of a qualitative evidence synthesis." HRB Open Research 2 (February 11, 2020): 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12947.2.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Depression and diabetes distress are common in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). These conditions are independently associated with poorer T2DM outcomes and increased healthcare utilisation and costs. Questions remain regarding the most appropriate ways of initially detecting depression and diabetes distress in this group. Diabetes guidelines recommend depression screening in primary care for people with T2DM but their implementation in practice is suboptimal. As health care professionals influence detection practices, their perceptions and experiences of these guidelines can improve understanding of aspects of the guidelines that work, and those which are more difficult to implement in practice. This study describes the protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis of primary care health professionals’ perceived barriers and enablers to screen for and diagnose depression and diabetes distress in people with T2DM. Methods and analysis: Primary qualitative studies will be identified using a systematic search of electronic databases and supplementary searching. We selected ‘best-fit framework synthesis’ as the approach to synthesise primary data using the RETREAT (Review question-Epistemology-Time/Timescale-Resources-Expertise-Audience and purpose-Type of Data) framework. Quality appraisal of primary studies and confidence in the overall review findings will be determined using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) and the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research), respectively. Discussion: The planned review will provide the first, single point of reference of the available synthesised qualitative evidence on this topic. It will apply recommended approaches to ensure rigor and robustness of study and contribute meaningfully to understanding of how depression and diabetes distress can be initially detected in people with T2DM. This protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) [registration number: CRD42019145483].
41
McGrath, Niamh, Sheena McHugh, Patricia M. Kearney, and Elaine Toomey. "Barriers and enablers to screening and diagnosing depression and diabetes distress in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus; protocol of a qualitative evidence synthesis." HRB Open Research 2 (September 30, 2020): 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12947.3.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Depression and diabetes distress are common in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). These conditions are independently associated with poorer T2DM outcomes and increased healthcare utilisation and costs. Questions remain regarding the most appropriate ways of initially detecting depression and diabetes distress in this group. Diabetes guidelines recommend depression screening in primary care for people with T2DM but their implementation in practice is suboptimal. As health care professionals influence detection practices, their perceptions and experiences of these guidelines can improve understanding of aspects of the guidelines that work, and those which are more difficult to implement in practice. This study describes the protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis of primary care health professionals’ perceived barriers and enablers to screen for and diagnose depression and diabetes distress in people with T2DM. Methods and analysis: Primary qualitative studies will be identified using a systematic search of electronic databases and supplementary searching. We selected ‘best-fit framework synthesis’ as the approach to synthesise primary data using the RETREAT (Review question-Epistemology-Time/Timescale-Resources-Expertise-Audience and purpose-Type of Data) framework. Quality appraisal of primary studies and confidence in the overall review findings will be determined using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) and the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research), respectively. Discussion: The planned review will provide the first, single point of reference of the available synthesised qualitative evidence on this topic. It will apply recommended approaches to ensure rigor and robustness of study and contribute meaningfully to understanding of how depression and diabetes distress can be initially detected in people with T2DM. This protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) [registration number: CRD42019145483].
42
Domin, Alex, Donna Spruijt-Metz, Daniel Theisen, Yacine Ouzzahra, and Claus Vögele. "Smartphone-Based Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion: Scoping Review of the Evidence Over the Last 10 Years." JMIR mHealth and uHealth 9, no. 7 (July 21, 2021): e24308. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/24308.
Full textAbstract:
Background Several reviews of mobile health (mHealth) physical activity (PA) interventions suggest their beneficial effects on behavior change in adolescents and adults. Owing to the ubiquitous presence of smartphones, their use in mHealth PA interventions seems obvious; nevertheless, there are gaps in the literature on the evaluation reporting processes and best practices of such interventions. Objective The primary objective of this review is to analyze the development and evaluation trajectory of smartphone-based mHealth PA interventions and to review systematic theory- and evidence-based practices and methods that are implemented along this trajectory. The secondary objective is to identify the range of evidence (both quantitative and qualitative) available on smartphone-based mHealth PA interventions to provide a comprehensive tabular and narrative review of the available literature in terms of its nature, features, and volume. Methods We conducted a scoping review of qualitative and quantitative studies examining smartphone-based PA interventions published between 2008 and 2018. In line with scoping review guidelines, studies were not rejected based on their research design or quality. This review, therefore, includes experimental and descriptive studies, as well as reviews addressing smartphone-based mHealth interventions aimed at promoting PA in all age groups (with a subanalysis conducted for adolescents). Two groups of studies were additionally included: reviews or content analyses of PA trackers and meta-analyses exploring behavior change techniques and their efficacy. Results Included articles (N=148) were categorized into 10 groups: commercial smartphone app content analyses, smartphone-based intervention review studies, activity tracker content analyses, activity tracker review studies, meta-analyses of PA intervention studies, smartphone-based intervention studies, qualitative formative studies, app development descriptive studies, qualitative follow-up studies, and other related articles. Only 24 articles targeted children or adolescents (age range: 5-19 years). There is no agreed evaluation framework or taxonomy to code or report smartphone-based PA interventions. Researchers did not state the coding method, used various evaluation frameworks, or used different versions of behavior change technique taxonomies. In addition, there is no consensus on the best behavior change theory or model that should be used in smartphone-based interventions for PA promotion. Commonly reported systematic practices and methods have been successfully identified. They include PA recommendations, trial designs (randomized controlled trials, experimental trials, and rapid design trials), mixed methods data collection (surveys, questionnaires, interviews, and focus group discussions), scales to assess app quality, and industry-recognized reporting guidelines. Conclusions Smartphone-based mHealth interventions aimed at promoting PA showed promising results for behavior change. Although there is a plethora of published studies on the adult target group, the number of studies and consequently the evidence base for adolescents is limited. Overall, the efficacy of smartphone-based mHealth PA interventions can be considerably improved through a more systematic approach of developing, reporting, and coding of the interventions.
43
Gysels, Marjolein, Claudia Bausewein, and Irene J. Higginson. "Experiences of breathlessness: A systematic review of the qualitative literature." Palliative and Supportive Care 5, no. 3 (September 2007): 281–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1478951507000454.
Full textAbstract:
Objective: Breathlessness is one of the core symptoms in many advanced conditions. The subjective nature of the symptom has been acknowledged in many definitions, emphasizing that it can only be fully perceived and interpreted by the patients themselves.Aim: To review and assess the evidence on the psychosocial nature or experience of breathlessness.Methods: Relevant literature was identified through electronic and hand searches. Studies with qualitative enquiry or mixed method designs were included. The methodological quality of studies was assessed with a standard grading scale.Results: Twenty-two studies were identified, 12 from the United Kingdom, 4 from the United States, 3 from Canada, 1 from Sweden, 1 from Iceland, and 1 from Finland. The nature of the studies determined the themes in which the studies were subsumed. Studies on COPD (19) outnumbered “all other conditions” (3), one of which had COPD and cancer patients and so these were analyzed separately. Within the COPD category most studies (17) considered the experience of breathlessness from the perspective of the patient, 1 study from the informal carer, and 1 from the professional carer. Most of the papers sought to understand the meaning of the symptom in the patient's daily life. The other papers demarcated separate areas of the experience of acute exacerbations and the patient's view on care. The studies explored the subjective component of breathlessness, as part of human experience and social life. The papers showed the influence of the meaning the symptom has for those affected on their ability to cope and on their management.Significance of results: Although the work in this area is still dominated by research on COPD, the totality of the evidence now shows breathlessness as an intractable symptom in other advanced conditions. Practice recommendations focused on the holistic approach as part of palliative and nursing care.
44
Long, Linda, Darren Moore, Sophie Robinson, Anna Sansom, Alex Aylward, Emily Fletcher, Jo Welsman, Sarah Gerard Dean, John L. Campbell, and Rob Anderson. "Understanding why primary care doctors leave direct patient care: a systematic review of qualitative research." BMJ Open 10, no. 5 (May 2020): e029846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029846.
Full textAbstract:
BackgroundUK general practitioners (GPs) are leaving direct patient care in significant numbers. We undertook a systematic review of qualitative research to identify factors affecting GPs’ leaving behaviour in the workforce as part of a wider mixed methods study (ReGROUP).ObjectiveTo identify factors that affect GPs’ decisions to leave direct patient care.MethodsQualitative interview-based studies were identified and their quality was assessed. A thematic analysis was performed and an explanatory model was constructed providing an overview of factors affecting UK GPs. Non-UK studies were considered separately.ResultsSix UK interview-based studies and one Australian interview-based study were identified. Three central dynamics that are key to understanding UK GP leaving behaviour were identified: factors associated with low job satisfaction, high job satisfaction and those linked to the doctor–patient relationship. The importance of contextual influence on job satisfaction emerged. GPs with high job satisfaction described feeling supported by good practice relationships, while GPs with poor job satisfaction described feeling overworked and unsupported with negatively impacted doctor–patient relationships.ConclusionsMany GPs report that job satisfaction directly relates to the quality of the doctor–patient relationship. Combined with changing relationships with patients and interfaces with secondary care, and the gradual sense of loss of autonomy within the workplace, many GPs report a reduction in job satisfaction. Once job satisfaction has become negatively impacted, the combined pressure of increased patient demand and workload, together with other stress factors, has left many feeling unsupported and vulnerable to burn-out and ill health, and ultimately to the decision to leave general practice.
45
Tomlinson, Alan, Jack Lane, Guy Julier, Lily Grigsby-Duffy, Annette Payne, Louise Mansfield, Tess Kay, et al. "Qualitative findings from a systematic review: Visual arts engagement for adults with mental health conditions1." Journal of Applied Arts & Health 11, no. 3 (November 1, 2020): 281–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/jaah_00042_1.
Full textAbstract:
This article reports on an investigation of the effects of ‘visual arts’-based programmes on subjective well-being (SWB) outcomes for adults with mental health conditions. In a systematic review, electronic databases were searched for articles published from January 2007 to April 2017. Grey literature completed from January 2014 to April 2017 was also considered. Six published articles of mostly moderate quality and six evaluation reports (grey literature) covering a wide range of visual arts practice, population groups and settings were included. Key themes emerged connected to the concept of ‘bonding’, sense of belonging, appreciation of self-identity and the confidence that engagement in visual arts can facilitate. The overall conclusion supports that visual arts have the potential to enhance the SWB of adults with mental health conditions. The evidence is relatively limited in terms of scope and quality – increased funding across sectors should be secured to support more extensive and long-term research.
46
Cannon, Abby C., Jennet Arcara, Laurie M. Graham, and Rebecca J. Macy. "Trafficking and Health: A Systematic Review of Research Methods." Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 19, no. 2 (May 17, 2016): 159–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838016650187.
Full textAbstract:
Trafficking in persons (TIP) is a human rights violation with serious public health consequences. Unfortunately, assessing TIP and its health sequelae rigorously and reliably is challenging due to TIP’s clandestine nature, variation in definitions of TIP, and the need to use research methods that ensure studies are ethical and feasible. To help guide practice, policy, and research to assess TIP and health, we undertook a systematic literature review of 70 peer-reviewed, published articles to (a) identify TIP and health research methods being used, (b) determine what we can learn about TIP and health from these varied methodologies, and (c) determine the gaps that exist in health-focused TIP research. Results revealed that there are various quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods being used to investigate TIP and health. Furthermore, findings show that the limitations of current methodologies affect what is known about TIP and health. In particular, varying definitions, participant recruitment strategies, ethical standards, and outcome measures all affect what is known about TIP and health. Moreover, findings demonstrate an urgent need for representative and nonpurposive recruitment strategies in future investigations of TIP and health as well as research on risk and protective factors related to TIP and health, intervention effectiveness, long-term health outcomes, and research on trafficked people beyond women trafficked for sex. We offer recommendations for research, policy, and practice based on review results.
47
Miseliunaite, Brigita, Irina Kliziene, and Gintautas Cibulskas. "Can Holistic Education Solve the World’s Problems: A Systematic Literature Review." Sustainability 14, no. 15 (August 8, 2022): 9737. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14159737.
Full textAbstract:
UNESCO argues that having a holistic approach to education is essential to address global development challenges. However, what empirical evidence do we have about holistic education practices? This study aims to review empirical research on holistic education. The methodological design is a systematic review study following the PRISMA guidelines based on a search of the Scopus and Semantic Scholar databases carried out in December 2021. The selected studies were analysed through a qualitative three-stage screening process based on 218 subjects, 9 of which were included in the final sample. The following inclusion criteria were used: empirical studies or research in English; free access via the internet; and categories limited to “holistic/education/curriculum/pedagogy”. The qualitative analysis of the articles based on the interpretative paradigm and the open coding method was implemented in MAXQDA. The study shows a lack of large-scale quantitative and comparative research showing the benefits of holistic education, its impact on personal and social transformation, and the preparation of teachers to become holistic educators. There is a lack of research analysing the effect of holistic education on environmental awareness compared with traditional education.
48
Walker, Dennis, Clint Moloney, Brendan SueSee, and Renee Sharples. "Contributing factors that influence medication errors in the prehospital paramedic environment: a mixed-method systematic review protocol." BMJ Open 9, no. 12 (December 2019): e034094. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034094.
Full textAbstract:
IntroductionThere is limited reliable research available on medication errors in relation to paramedic practice, with most evidence-based medication safety guidelines based on research in nursing, operating theatre and pharmacy settings. While similarities exist, evidence suggests that the prehospital environment is distinctly different in many aspects. The prevention of errors requires attention to factors from the organisational and regulatory level down to specific tasks and patient characteristics. The evidence available suggests errors may occur in up to 12.76% of medication administrations in some prehospital settings. With multiple sources stating that the errors are under-reported, this represents significant potential for patient harm. This review will seek to identify the factors influencing the occurrence of medication errors by paramedics in the prehospital environment.Methods and analysisThe review will include qualitative and quantitative studies involving interventions or phenomena regarding medication errors or medication safety relating to paramedics (including emergency medical technicians and other prehospital care providers) within the prehospital environment. A search will be conducted using MEDLINE (Ovid), EBSCOhost Megafile Search, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors trial registry, Google Scholar and the OpenGrey database to identify studies meeting this inclusion criteria, with initial searches commencing 30 September 2019. Studies selected will undergo assessment of methodological quality, with data to be extracted from all studies irrespective of quality. Each stage of study selection, appraisal and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers, with a third reviewer deciding any unresolved conflicts. The review will follow a convergent integrated approach, conducting a single qualitative synthesis of qualitative and ‘qualitised’ quantitative data.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval was required for this review. Findings from this systematic review will be disseminated via publications, reports and conference presentations.
49
Berardi, Chiara, Madeleine Hinwood, Angela Smith, Adrian Melia, and Francesco Paolucci. "Barriers and facilitators to the integration of digital technologies in mental health systems: A protocol for a qualitative systematic review." PLOS ONE 16, no. 11 (November 22, 2021): e0259995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259995.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction Digital technology has the potential to improve health outcomes and health system performance in fragmented and under-funded mental health systems. Despite this potential, the integration of digital technology tools into mental health systems has been relatively poor. This is a protocol for a synthesis of qualitative evidence that will aim to determine the barriers and facilitators to integrating digital technologies in mental health systems and classify them in contextual domains at individual, organisational and system levels. Methods and analysis The methodological framework for systematic review of qualitative evidence described in Lockwood et al. will be applied to this review. A draft search strategy was developed in collaboration with an experienced senior health research librarian. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, Web of Science and Google Scholar, as well as hand searching of reference lists and reviews will identify relevant studies for inclusion. Study selection will be carried out independently by two authors, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The quality of selected studies will be assessed using JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Data will be charted using JBI QUARI Data Extraction Tool for Qualitative Research. Findings will be defined and classified both deductively in a priori conceptual framework and inductively by a thematic analysis. Results will be reported based on the Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research. The level of confidence of the findings will be assessed using GRADE-CERQual. Ethics and dissemination This study does not require ethics approval. The systematic review will inform policy and practices around improving the integration of digital technologies into mental health care systems.
50
Laginha, Bela Ines, Frances Rapport, Andrea Smith, David Wilkinson, Anne E. Cust, and Jeffrey Braithwaite. "Systematic development of quality indicators for skin cancer management in primary care: a mixed-methods study protocol." BMJ Open 12, no. 6 (June 2022): e059829. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059829.
Full textAbstract:
IntroductionAustralia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world, with two out of three Australians expected to be diagnosed with skin cancer in their lifetime. Such incidence necessitates large-scale, effective skin cancer management practices. General practitioners (in mainstream practice and in skin cancer clinics) play an important role in skin cancer care provision, making decisions based on relevant evidence-based guidelines, protocols, experience and training. Diversity in these decision-making practices can result in unwarranted variation. Quality indicators are frequently implemented in healthcare contexts to measure performance quality at the level of the clinician and healthcare practice and mitigate unwarranted variation. Such measurements can facilitate performance comparisons between peers and a standard benchmark, often resulting in improved processes and outcomes. A standardised set of quality indicators is yet to be developed in the context of primary care skin cancer management.AimsThis research aims to identify, develop and generate expert consensus on a core set of quality indicators for skin cancer management in primary care.MethodsThis mixed-methods study involves (1) a scoping review of the available evidence on quality indicators in skin cancer management in primary care, (2) identification and development of a core set of quality indicators through interviews/qualitative proforma surveys with participants, and (3) a focus group involving discussion of quality indicators according to Nominal Group Technique. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected and analysed using thematic and descriptive statistical analytical methods.Ethics and disseminationApproval was granted by the university’s Research Ethics Committee (HREC no. 520211051532420). Results from this study will be widely disseminated in publications, study presentations, educational events and reports.