Making sense of living with and beyond cancer: A systematic review and meta-synthesis

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (11) ◽  
pp. 2222-2223
Author(s):  
Clair Le Boutillier ◽  
Stephanie Archer ◽  
Claire Barry ◽  
Louise Mansfield ◽  
Catherine Urch
Food Security ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Pircher ◽  
Conny J. M. Almekinders

AbstractA demand-driven approach is becoming increasingly central in the efforts to improve agricultural research and development. However, the question of how exactly demand is studied usually remains unstated and is rarely discussed. We therefore carried out a systematic review in order to better understand how farmers’ demand for seed in root, tuber and banana seed systems is studied. The review is based on data from a consultation with an expert panel and a structured literature search in the SCOPUS database. Screening the gathered articles resulted in 46 studies on a global scale, fitting the scope of our investigation. Through qualitative analysis and categorization of these studies, we developed a classification scheme according to the types of approaches applied in the retained studies. One group of studies explicitly articulates farmers’ preferences and choices through surveys or engagements in trials, auctions, choice experiments and interviews. Other studies implicitly articulate farmers’ demand by characterising their current use of varieties and seed. We discuss opportunities and limitations in the use of each type of study and we reflect on the body of available literature as a whole. Our conclusion is that a framework is necessary that purposefully combines the existing different methods and that it is necessary to involve stakeholders in a process where demand is articulated. Together, these two steps would characterise existing demands in a more effective and precise way, thus providing better guidance to decision-makers in their reactions pertaining to seed systems.


Health Policy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 124 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-132
Author(s):  
Anne O.E. van den Bulck ◽  
Maud H. de Korte ◽  
Arianne M.J. Elissen ◽  
Silke F. Metzelthin ◽  
Misja C. Mikkers ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-169
Author(s):  
Katelynn E Boerner ◽  
Katherine Green ◽  
Andrea Chapman ◽  
Elizabeth Stanford ◽  
Theresa Newlove ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives Pain and other physical symptoms commonly co-occur in childhood. There is debate about the relevance of somatization in understanding pain. The present review critically appraised and synthesized the extant literature on the relationship between pediatric pain and somatization. Methods A systematic review (PROSPERO registration #95956) was conducted in Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL using search terms related to pain and somatization in children and adolescents. A total of 156 articles were eligible for inclusion in the review. For studies that measured somatization using a symptom questionnaire, descriptions of “somatization” were extracted. Data regarding the relationship between pain and somatization were extracted for studies measuring somatization using a diagnostic category (e.g., Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders [SSRDs]). Results While many studies using somatic symptom questionnaires described somatization as having a psychological component, this was not always captured in measurement tools. Pain was reported as a common symptom in patients with an SSRD diagnosis, though rates varied depending on the specific diagnosis and pain location. Rates of SSRD diagnoses among pain patients were less frequent than rates of pain amongst SSRD patients. Conclusions SSRDs and pain commonly co-occur, though rates differ depending on diagnosis and pain location. Understanding the relationship between pain and somatization is complicated by the discrepancy between how somatization is defined and measured in questionnaire studies. A comprehensive and measurable definition of somatization is needed so researchers can better identify the shared and unique contributions of pain and somatization in pediatric populations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Scherer ◽  
Aaron McKim ◽  
Hui-Hui Wang ◽  
Catherine Dibenedetto ◽  
Kelly Robinson

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Gertler ◽  
Ian D. Cameron

Systematic reviews have developed over the past 40 years as a method for integrating findings from the available studies relating to clinical problems and interventions into one publication. Systematic reviews employ a variety of data analytic techniques including meta-analysis, which combines treatment effects across disparate studies in order to produce a truer estimate of treatment effect. The Cochrane Collaboration was established in order to facilitate access to high-quality evidence and specifies stringent guidelines for the production of systematic reviews. A Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) includes consideration of the risk-of-bias of the selected studies in reaching conclusions. A recent CSR is used as an example to demonstrate the process of conducting a CSR, the data analytic methods employed and the assumptions made when employing these methods. There is a discussion of issues the reader will need to be aware of when considering the findings of a CSR and how this might differ from other systematic reviews including some consideration of how CSRs apply to the brain impairment literature.


2018 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. S24
Author(s):  
Clair Le Boutillier ◽  
Stephanie Archer ◽  
Claire Barry ◽  
Louise Mansfield ◽  
Catherine Urch

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-51
Author(s):  
David Tovey

The article in last month’s issue explored the place of systematic reviews in informing health care decision making. This article describes the core components of a high-quality systematic review of health care interventions. These components include an assessment of the risk of bias for individual studies, evaluation of the overall certainty of the body of evidence for the main outcomes, meta-analysis and the interpretation of the data. An understanding of these differing elements is the key to recognising the potential and important limitations of any systematic review.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document