scholarly journals The relationship between buildings and health: a systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. e121-e132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Ige ◽  
Paul Pilkington ◽  
Judy Orme ◽  
Ben Williams ◽  
Emily Prestwood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Strong Association ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The built environment exerts one of the strongest directly measurable effects on physical and mental health, yet the evidence base underpinning the design of healthy urban planning is not fully developed. Method This study provides a systematic review of quantitative studies assessing the impact of buildings on health. In total, 7127 studies were identified from a structured search of eight databases combined with manual searching for grey literature. Only quantitative studies conducted between January 2000 and November 2016 were eligible for inclusion. Studies were assessed using the quality assessment tool for quantitative studies. Results In total, 39 studies were included in this review. Findings showed consistently that housing refurbishment and modifications, provision of adequate heating, improvements to ventilation and water supply were associated with improved respiratory outcomes, quality of life and mental health. Prioritization of housing for vulnerable groups led to improved wellbeing. However, the quality of the underpinning evidence and lack of methodological rigour in most of the studies makes it difficult to draw causal links. Conclusion This review identified evidence to demonstrate the strong association between certain features of housing and wellbeing such as adequate heating and ventilation. Our findings highlight the need for strengthening of the evidence base in order for meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

scholarly journals Tri-Response Police, Ambulance, Mental Health Crisis Models in Reducing Involuntary Detentions of Mentally Ill People: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (15) ◽  
pp. 8230
Author(s):  
Julia Heffernan ◽  
Ewan McDonald ◽  
Elizabeth Hughes ◽  
Richard Gray
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Mental Health Crisis ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Response Models

Police, ambulance and mental health tri-response services are a relatively new model of responding to people experiencing mental health crisis in the community, but limited evidence exists examining their efficacy. To date there have been no systematic reviews that have examined the association between the tri-response model and rates of involuntary detentions. A systematic review examining co-response models demonstrated possible reduction in involuntary detention, however, recommended further research. The aim of this protocol is to describe how we will systematically review the evidence base around the relationship of the police, ambulance mental health tri-response models in reducing involuntary detentions. We will search health, policing and grey literature databases and include clinical evaluations of any design. Risk of bias will be determined using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool and a narrative synthesis will be undertaken to synthesis key themes. Risk of bias and extracted data will be summarized in tables and results synthesis tabulated to identify patterns within the included studies. The findings will inform future research into the effectiveness of tri-response police, ambulance, and mental health models in reducing involuntary detentions.

scholarly journals Scoping review of mental health in prisons through the COVID-19 pandemic

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e046547
Author(s):  
Luke Johnson ◽  
Kerry Gutridge ◽  
Julie Parkes ◽  
Anjana Roy ◽  
Emma Plugge
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Prison Staff ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveTo examine the extent, nature and quality of literature on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of imprisoned people and prison staff.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, Cochrane, PsycINFO, PsychExtra, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for any paper from 2019 onwards that focused on the mental health impact of COVID-19 on imprisoned people and prison staff. A grey literature search focused on international and government sources and professional bodies representing healthcare, public health and prison staff was also performed. We also performed hand searching of the reference lists of included studies.Eligibility criteria for selection of studiesAll papers, regardless of study design, were included if they examined the mental health of imprisoned people or prison staff specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Imprisoned people could be of any age and from any countries. All languages were included. Two independent reviewers quality assessed appropriate papers.ResultsOf 647 articles found, 83 were eligible for inclusion, the majority (58%) of which were opinion pieces. The articles focused on the challenges to prisoner mental health. Fear of COVID-19, the impact of isolation, discontinuation of prison visits and reduced mental health services were all likely to have an adverse effect on the mental well-being of imprisoned people. The limited research and poor quality of articles included mean that the findings are not conclusive. However, they suggest a significant adverse impact on the mental health and well-being of those who live and work in prisons.ConclusionsIt is key to address the mental health impacts of the pandemic on people who live and work in prisons. These findings are discussed in terms of implications for getting the balance between infection control imperatives and the fundamental human rights of prison populations.

scholarly journals Housing with support for older people: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 64
Author(s):  
Camille Coyle ◽  
Sarah Buggy ◽  
Olivia Cagney ◽  
Louise Farragher ◽  
Caitriona Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Older People ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
The Impact ◽  
People’S Perceptions

Background: The implementation of housing with support is rapidly expanding, particularly as life expectancy is increasing throughout the world. This expansion is likely to intensify in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has revealed the risks of relying primarily on nursing homes. This mixed-methods systematic review aims to: 1) explore older people’s perceptions and experiences of housing with support and 2) examine the impact of providing housing with support for older people on their quality of life. Methods: The databases Ovid Medline, Ovid Social Policy & Practice, EBSCO CINAHL, and EBSCO SOCIndex will be searched, and grey literature will also be identified. Quality assessment will be carried out using Joanna Briggs Institute’s Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research as well as a tool from the National Institutes of Health for observational cohort studies. This review will employ convergent parallel design; as such, qualitative and quantitative findings will be synthesised separately in the initial stage of analysis. The results from the qualitative and quantitative syntheses will then be integrated in the final stage of the analysis. Conclusion: This systematic review will synthesise the evidence regarding older people’s perceptions and experiences of housing with support and the impact of providing housing with support for older people on their quality of life.

scholarly journals Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e029789 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Louise Hutchinson ◽  
Angela Berndt ◽  
Deborah Forsythe ◽  
Susan Gilbert-Hunt ◽  
Stacey George ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Return On Investment ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Social Return On Investment ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesTo identify how social return on investment (SROI) analysis—traditionally used by business consultants—has been interpreted, used and innovated by academics in the health and social care sector and to assess the quality of peer-reviewed SROI studies in this sector.DesignSystematic review.SettingsCommunity and residential settings.ParticipantsA wide range of demographic groups and age groups.ResultsThe following databases were searched: Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, Emerald, Social Care Online and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Limited uptake of SROI methodology by academics was found in the health and social care sector. From 868 papers screened, 8 studies met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Study quality was found to be highly variable, ranging from 38% to 90% based on scores from a purpose-designed quality assessment tool. In general, relatively high consistency and clarity was observed in the reporting of the research question, reasons for using this methodology and justifying the need for the study. However, weaknesses were observed in other areas including justifying stakeholders, reporting sample sizes, undertaking sensitivity analysis and reporting unexpected or negative outcomes. Most papers cited links to additional materials to aid in reporting. There was little evidence that academics had innovated or advanced the methodology beyond that outlined in a much-cited SROI guide.ConclusionAcademics have thus far been slow to adopt SROI methodology in the evaluation of health and social care interventions, and there is little evidence of innovation and development of the methodology. The word count requirements of peer-reviewed journals may make it difficult for authors to be fully transparent about the details of their studies, potentially impacting the quality of reporting in those studies published in these journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018080195.

Effect of interventions using physical activity trackers on physical activity in people aged 60 years and over: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (20) ◽  
pp. 1188-1194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliana S Oliveira ◽  
Cathie Sherrington ◽  
Elizabeth R Y Zheng ◽  
Marcia Rodrigues Franco ◽  
Anne Tiedemann
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Mental Health ◽  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older People ◽  
Activity Levels ◽  
Activity Tracker ◽  
Activity Trackers ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundOlder people are at high risk of physical inactivity. Activity trackers can facilitate physical activity. We aimed to investigate the effect of interventions using activity trackers on physical activity, mobility, quality of life and mental health among people aged 60+ years.MethodsFor this systematic review, we searched eight databases, including MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to April 2018. Randomised controlled trials of interventions that used activity trackers to promote physical activity among people aged 60+ years were included in the analyses. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017065250.ResultsWe identified 23 eligible trials. Interventions using activity trackers had a moderate effect on physical activity (23 studies; standardised mean difference (SMD)=0.55; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.70; I2=86%) and increased steps/day by 1558 (95% CI 1099 to 2018 steps/day; I2=92%) compared with usual care, no intervention and wait-list control. Longer duration activity tracker-based interventions were more effective than short duration interventions (18 studies, SMD=0.70; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.93 vs 5 studies, SMD=0.14; 95% CI −0.26 to 0.54, p for comparison=0.02). Interventions that used activity trackers improved mobility (three studies; SMD=0.61; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.90; I2=10%), but not quality of life (nine studies; SMD=0.09; 95% CI −0.07 to 0.25; I2=45%). Only one trial included mental health outcomes and it reported similar effects of the activity tracker intervention compared with control.ConclusionsInterventions using activity trackers improve physical activity levels and mobility among older people compared with control. However, the impact of activity tracker interventions on quality of life, and mental health is unknown.

scholarly journals Double Burden of Malnutrition Among Migrants and Refugees in Developed Countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Blessing Akombi-Inyang ◽  
Md. Nazmul Huda ◽  
Judith Byaruhanga ◽  
Andre Renzaho
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Double Burden ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Double Burden Of Malnutrition ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: The double burden of malnutrition (DBM) increases the risk of developing non-communicable diseases among migrant and refugee populations living in developed countries. This systematic review aims to examine the DBM among migrants and refugees in developed countries. It aims to appraise, synthesise, and summarise literature to create an evidence base that looks at multiple faces of DBM. Methods/Design: This protocol is informed by the standard Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A systematic review of peer-reviewed quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies on DBM among migrants and refugees in developed countries will be undertaken. The review will include only studies published in English. Eight bibliographic databases will be searched: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest, Scopus, PubMed, and web of science. Grey literature will also be searched. Studies that meet the inclusion criteria will be imported to Covidence. Screening for eligible studies will be conducted by two independent researchers. The quality of included studies will be appraised for risk of bias using validated tools. A narrative synthesis approach will be undertaken to report retrieved data. Discussion: The protocol provides insight into the scope and parameters of the systematic review to be conducted.

scholarly journals Impact of olfactory dysfunction on quality of life in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 135 (11) ◽  
pp. 947-952
Author(s):  
J Saniasiaya ◽  
N Prepageran
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Life Domains ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Assess Quality ◽  
Taste Dysfunction ◽  
The Impact

AbstractObjectiveTo outline the impact on quality of life in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with olfactory dysfunction.MethodsFive databases were searched for articles referring to the impact on quality of life in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with olfactory dysfunction. The search was conducted for the period from November 2019 to April 2021. The search was conducted over one month (May 2021).ResultsFour studies that met the objective were included. Altogether, there were 1045 patients. Various questionnaires were used to assess quality of life. Overall, the quality of life deficit affected 67.7 per cent of patients. Quality of life domains investigated include overall quality of life (four studies), food and taste dysfunction (two studies), mental health (two studies), cognitive function (one study), functional outcome (one study) and safety domains (one study).ConclusionQuality of life deficit was reported to be 67.7 per cent among coronavirus disease 2019 patients with olfactory dysfunction. The high prevalence of persistent olfactory dysfunction prompts more serious research, as the long-standing consequences of olfactory dysfunction are detrimental.

scholarly journals Interventions to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes of children born moderate to late preterm: a systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Josephine Agyeman-Duah ◽  
Stephen Kennedy ◽  
Frances O'Brien ◽  
Giancarlo Natalucci
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Motor Development ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Early Interventions ◽  
Neurodevelopmental Outcomes ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: Prematurity (birth before 37+0 weeks’ gestation) is associated with wide-ranging neurodevelopmental impairment. Prognosis among moderate to late (32+0 to <37+0  weeks’ gestation) preterm infants (MLPT) is better compared to their counterparts born very preterm (<32+0  weeks’ gestation). However the risk of developmental impairment among MLPT, who make up about 84% of all preterm infants, is 2-3 times higher when compared to infants born at term. Early interventions have aimed to improve outcomes in preterm infants generally, but there are limited data on their need and effect in MLPT specifically. Prioritising research, long-term follow-up and early interventions targeted at ameliorating the impact of preterm birth among MLPT is required. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of the type of early childhood interventions (from birth until 4 years of age) offered to  MLPT children and to evaluate their impact on neurodevelopmental outcomes (cognitive, neurobehavioural and motor) as assessed in these children during childhood (until 18 years of age). Methods and analysis: A systematic literature search in Web of Science, Medline Ovid, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE will be conducted. Data on MLPT children receiving developmental interventions until the age of 4 years will be evaluated. Interventions may involve parents or primary caregivers. Primary outcomes are cognitive, neurobehavioural and motor development as measured from birth until the age of 18 years. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in the review and will be graded as low, high  or unclear risk of bias. The quality of non-RCTs will be evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The quality of evidence for each outcome will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Approach. Publication and reporting bias will be assessed using Egger’s test and funnel plots respectively.

scholarly journals Small/kiddie Cigarette Packaging Size and Its Impact on Smoking: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Halizah Mat Rifin ◽  
Miaw Yn Jane Ling ◽  
Tania Gayle Robert Lourdes ◽  
Thamil Arasu Saminathan ◽  
Wan Shakira Rodzlan Hasani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Cigarette Consumption ◽  
Smoking Urge ◽  
Quit Smoking ◽  
Item Quality ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background:Kiddie/small packs contain less than 20 cigarette sticks in a pack.Kiddie packs were introduced by the tobacco industry to support moderation and encourage quit smoking among heavy smokers although this may in turn encourage underage smoking. Smaller packs may suggest lower costs and this may increase affordability among the younger generation. This concern has causedmany countries to ban the sale of single cigarette sticks or kiddie packs. Hence, a systematic review was conducted to identify the impact of kiddie packs on smoking as compared to regular cigarette packaging in the general population.Methods:A database search was conductedin PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus up to31stJanuary 2020. Other sources namely Google Scholar, as well as Journal of Substance Use and Tobacco Control were also searched.The results were analysed qualitatively, under four groups: initiation of smoking;urge /tendency to buy cigarettes; prevalence of smoking and attempt to reduce cigarette consumption. The methodological quality of all articles that were includedwas determined using a validated 16-item quality assessment tool (QATSDD). The literature search identified 2253 articles, of which20articles had met theinclusion criteria. Discussion:Articles that we reviewed had some evidence that kiddie packs increase the urge/tendency to buy cigarettes and also increase the attempt to reduce cigarette consumption. However, we found no evidence on theimpact of kiddie packs on the initiation of smoking and the prevalence of smoking. The average quality score for all papers was 34.1%.Given the diverse study settings of the articles and despite the challenges of the methodological quality of some papers, this review will provideevidence that kiddie packs increase urge/tendency to buy cigarettes and also increase the attempt to reduce cigarette consumption. However, since most studies were of low quality, further high-quality studies are needed to come to a firm conclusion of the impact of kiddie packs on smoking.Systematic review registration: PROSPEROCRD42018102325

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document