scholarly journals Barriers and enablers in primary care clinicians' management of osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. e011618 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Egerton ◽  
L Diamond ◽  
R Buchbinder ◽  
K Bennell ◽  
S C Slade
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Barriers And Enablers ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Primary Care Clinicians

scholarly journals Barriers and enablers to screening and diagnosing depression and diabetes distress in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus; protocol of a qualitative evidence synthesis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh McGrath ◽  
Sheena McHugh ◽  
Patricia M. Kearney ◽  
Elaine Toomey
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Diabetes Distress ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Barriers And Enablers ◽  
Data Framework ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

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studies will be identified using a systematic search of electronic databases and the CLUSTER (Citations, Lead authors, Unpublished materials, Scholar searches, Theories, Early examples, Related projects) approach.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].

scholarly journals Barriers and enablers to screening and diagnosing depression and diabetes distress in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus; protocol of a qualitative evidence synthesis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Niamh McGrath ◽  
Sheena McHugh ◽  
Patricia M. Kearney ◽  
Elaine Toomey
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Diabetes Distress ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Barriers And Enablers ◽  
Data Framework ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

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].

scholarly journals Barriers and enablers to screening and diagnosing depression and diabetes distress in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus; protocol of a qualitative evidence synthesis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Niamh McGrath ◽  
Sheena McHugh ◽  
Patricia M. Kearney ◽  
Elaine Toomey
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Diabetes Distress ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Barriers And Enablers ◽  
Data Framework ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

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].

scholarly journals Study protocol of a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis using two different approaches: Healthcare related needs and desires of older people with post-stroke aphasia

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e039348
Author(s):  
Nadine Janis Pohontsch ◽  
Thorsten Meyer ◽  
Yvonne Eisenmann ◽  
Maria-Inti Metzendorf ◽  
Verena Leve ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older People ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Treatment Success ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

IntroductionStroke is a frequent disease in the older population of Western Europe with aphasia as a common consequence. Aphasia is known to impede targeting treatment to individual patients’ needs and therefore may reduce treatment success. In Germany, the postacute care of patients who had stroke is provided by different healthcare institutions of different sectors (rehabilitation, nursing and primary care) with substantial difficulties to coordinate services. We will conduct two qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) aiming at exploring distinct healthcare needs and desires of older people living with poststroke aphasia. We thereby hope to support the development of integrated care models based on needs of patients who are very restricted to communicate them. Since various methods of QESs exist, the aim of the study embedding the two QESs was to determine if findings differ according to the approach used.Methods and analysisWe will conduct two QESs by using metaethnography (ME) and thematic synthesis (ThS) independently to synthesise the findings of primary qualitative studies. The main differences between these two methods are the underlying epistemologies (idealism (ME) vs realism (ThS)) and the type of research question (emerging (ME) vs fixed (ThS)).We will search seven bibliographical databases. Inclusion criteria comprise: patients with poststroke aphasia, aged 65 years and older, studies in German/English, all types of qualitative studies concerning needs and desires related to healthcare or the healthcare system. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and includes three items from the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative Research checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented on national conferences.

scholarly journals Barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain: protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis using the Theoretical Domains Framework

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e034039
Author(s):  
Amanda J Cross ◽  
Rachelle Buchbinder ◽  
Allison Bourne ◽  
Christopher Maher ◽  
Stephanie Mathieson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Theoretical Domains Framework ◽  
Opioid Analgesics ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Barriers And Enablers ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

IntroductionThe over-prescription and overuse of opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is a growing issue. Synthesis of evidence about the barriers and enablers to reducing long-term opioid prescribing and use will enable the development of tailored interventions to address both problems.ObjectiveTo synthesise the barriers and enablers to monitoring the ongoing appropriateness of opioid treatment and deprescribing opioids for CNCP from the clinician, patient and general public point of view, and to map the findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).Methods and analysisWe will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis using the TDF. We will include qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient and the general public’s perceptions regarding barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioids for CNCP. Studies will be identified via searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO. Databases will be searched from inception to July 2019, and the studies must be published in English. Article selection and data extraction will be completed independently by two review authors. Methodological quality of included studies will be independently assessed by two review authors using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool. We will conduct thematic synthesis and then map identified themes and sub-themes to TDF domains. Confidence in synthesis findings will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required to conduct this review. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019140784

scholarly journals How do middle-aged and older adults with chronic hip pain view their health problem and its care? A protocol for a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e053084
Author(s):  
Travis Haber ◽  
Rana S Hinman ◽  
Fiona Dobson ◽  
Samantha Bunzli ◽  
Michelle Hall
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Hip Pain ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Middle Aged ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionChronic hip pain in middle-aged and older adults is common and disabling. Patient-centred care of chronic hip pain requires a comprehensive understanding of how people with chronic hip pain view their health problem and its care. This paper outlines a protocol to synthesise qualitative evidence of middle-aged and older adults' views, beliefs, expectations and preferences about their chronic hip pain and its care.Methods and analysisWe will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis using a framework approach. We will conduct this study in accord with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative research checklist. We will search MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and PsycINFO using a comprehensive search strategy. A priori selection criteria include qualitative studies involving samples with a mean age over 45 and where 80% or more have chronic hip pain. Two or more reviewers will independently screen studies for eligibility, assess methodological strengths and limitations using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative studies checklist, perform data extraction and synthesis and determine ratings of confidence in each review finding using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation—Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach. Data extraction and synthesis will be guided by the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation. All authors will contribute to interpreting, refining and finalising review findings. This protocol is registered on PROSPERO and reported according to the PRISMA Statement for Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this systematic review as primary data will not be collected. The findings of the review will be disseminated through publication in an academic journal and scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberPROSPERO registration number: CRD42021246305.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document