A Meta-review of Gamification Research

This work intends to lay the foundations for a theoretical framework of citizen science combining social and organizational implications with the support of information technologies. The proposed theoretical framework moves towards a shared and common research process between experts and citizens to deal with environmental and social challenges. The role and capacity of online communities is explored and their engagement capacity by means of web-based digital platforms supporting crowdsourcing activities. In this contribution, authors highlight the most common practices, methods and issues of citizen science approaches adopted from multidisciplinary application fields to obtain insights for designing a new participative approach for organizational studies. To reach this goal, authors illustrate the results of a systematic meta-review analysis, consisting of an accurate selection and revision of journal review articles in order to highlight concepts, methods, research design approaches and tools adopted in citizen science approaches.

Download Full-text

Psychological resilience during COVID-19: a meta-review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051417 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. e051417

Author(s):

Katie Seaborn ◽

Mark Chignell ◽

Jacek Gwizdka

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Well Being ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Psychological Resilience ◽

Key Points ◽

Meta Review ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Review Protocol

IntroductionThe global COVID-19 pandemic continues to have wide-ranging implications for health, including psychological well-being. A growing corpus of research reviews has emerged on the topic of psychological resilience in the context of the pandemic. However, this body of work has not been systematically reviewed for its quality, nor with respect to findings on the effectiveness of tools and strategies for psychological resilience. To this end, a meta-review protocol is proposed with the following objectives: (1) identify review work on the topic of psychological resilience during COVID-19; (2) assess the quality of this review work using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; (3) assess the risk of bias in this work; (4) generate a narrative summary of the key points, strengths and weaknesses; (5) identify the psychological resilience strategies that have been reviewed; (6) identify how these strategies have been evaluated for their effectiveness; (7) identify what outcomes were measured and (8) summarise the findings on strategies for psychological resilience so far, providing recommendations, if possible.Methods and analysisA systematic meta-review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Protocols and Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review guidelines. Electronic searches of general databases, especially Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, will be conducted. Only results from January 2020 onwards will be considered, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Only results in English will be included. Descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and narrative summaries describing the nature of the reviewed work and evaluation of psychological resilience strategies will be carried out.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed for systematic review protocols. The results of the meta-review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The raw and summarised data will be shared in the journal or other open venues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021235288.

Download Full-text

Do the combined blood pressure effects of exercise and antihypertensive medications add up to the sum of their parts? A systematic meta-review

BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine ◽

10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000895 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

pp. e000895

Author(s):

Linda S Pescatello ◽

Yin Wu ◽

Simiao Gao ◽

Jill Livingston ◽

Bonny Bloodgood Sheppard ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Strong Evidence ◽

Pressure Effects ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Antihypertensive Medications ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Physical Activity Guidelines ◽

Meta Review ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

ObjectiveTo compare the blood pressure (BP) effects of exercise alone (EXalone), medication alone (MEDSalone) and combined (EX+MEDScombined) among adults with hypertension.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SPORTDiscus and the Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trails (RCTs) or meta-analyses (MAs) of controlled trials that: (1) involved healthy adults>18 year with hypertension; (2) investigated exercise and BP; (3) reported preintervention and postintervention BP and (4) were published in English. RCTs had an EX+MEDScombined arm; and an EXalone arm and/or an MEDSalone arm; and MAs performed moderator analyses.DesignA systematic network MA and meta-review with the evidence graded using the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Advisory Committee system.OutcomeThe BP response for EXalone, MEDSalone and EX+MEDScombined and compared with each other.ResultsTwelve RCTs qualified with 342 subjects (60% women) who were mostly physically inactive, middle-aged to older adults. There were 13 qualifying MAs with 28 468 participants (~50% women) who were mostly Caucasian or Asian. Most RCTs were aerobic (83.3%), while the MAs involved traditional (46%) and alternative (54%) exercise types. Strong evidence demonstrates EXalone, MEDSalone and EX+MEDScombined reduce BP and EX+MEDScombined elicit BP reductions less than the sum of their parts. Strong evidence indicates EX+MEDScombined potentiate the BP effects of MEDSalone. Although the evidence is stronger for alternative than traditional types of exercise, EXaloneelicits greater BP reductions than MEDSalone.ConclusionsThe combined BP effects of exercise and medications are not additive or synergistic, but when combined they bolster the antihypertensive effects of MEDSalone.PROSPERO registration numberThe protocol is registered at PROSPERO CRD42020181754.

Download Full-text

Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review

npj Digital Medicine ◽

10.1038/s41746-021-00430-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Anne M. Finucane ◽

Hannah O’Donnell ◽

Jean Lugton ◽

Tilly Gibson-Watt ◽

Connie Swenson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Palliative Care ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Psychological Symptoms ◽

Digital Health ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Information Provision ◽

Health Interventions ◽

Meta Review

AbstractDigital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of ten databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%) and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information sharing, decision-making, communication and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution.

Download Full-text