scholarly journals Association between psychosocial factors at work and health outcomes after retirement: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e030773
Author(s):  
Kotaro Imamura ◽  
Akizumi Tsutsumi ◽  
Yumi Asai ◽  
Hideaki Arima ◽  
Emiko Ando ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe world’s population is rapidly ageing, and health among older people is thus an important issue. Several previous studies have reported an association between adverse psychosocial factors at work before retirement and postretirement health. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine the association between psychosocial factors at work and health outcomes after retirement, based on a synthesis of well-designed prospective studies.Methods and analysisThe participants, exposures, comparisons and outcomes of the studies in this systematic review and meta-analysis are defined as follows: (P) people who have retired from their job, (E) presence of adverse psychosocial factors at work before retirement, (C) absence of adverse psychosocial factors at work before retirement and (O) any physical and mental health outcomes after retirement. Published studies were searched using the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES and Japan Medical Abstracts Society. The included studies will be statistically synthesised in a meta-analysis to estimate pooled coefficients and 95% CIs. The quality of each included study will be assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions. For the assessment of meta-bias, publication bias will be assessed by using Egger’s test, as well as visually on a funnel plot. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the χ² test with Cochran’s Q statistic and I2.Ethics and disseminationResults and findings will be submitted and published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal and will be disseminated broadly to researchers and policy-makers interested in the translatability of scientific evidence into good practices.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018099043.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natsu Sasaki ◽  
Kotaro Imamura ◽  
Kazuhiro Watanabe ◽  
Yui Hidaka ◽  
Emiko Ando ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Menstrual abnormalities, such as menstrual cycle disorders or related symptoms (e.g., pelvic pain, premenstrual syndrome [PMS], menopausal symptoms), affect female workers’ quality of life and work capacity. The fertility of female workers is also a worldwide concern. However, the association between psychosocial factors at work and menstrual abnormalities or fertility is not well understood. To address this relationship, we will conduct a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the literature that has utilized a longitudinal or prospective cohort design.Methods and analysis: The inclusion criteria for this systematic review and meta-analysis are defined as follows: (P) Adult female workers (over 18 years old), (E) Presence of adverse psychosocial factors at work, (C) Absence of adverse psychosocial factors at work, and (O) Any menstrual cycle disorders, menstrual-related symptoms, or fertility. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, and Japan Medical Abstracts Society electronic databases will be used to search for published studies. The statistical synthesis of the studies included in the meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate pooled coefficients and 95% CIs. We will use the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) to determine the quality of selected studies. To assess meta-bias, Egger’s test, along with a funnel plot, will be used to check for publication bias. Lastly, we will examine heterogeneity using the χ² test with Cochran’s Q statistic and I2.Ethics and dissemination: The results and findings will be submitted and published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal and will be disseminated broadly to researchers and policymakers interested in the translatability of scientific evidence into good practices.Trial registration: The study protocol was registered at the UMIN registry (registration number: UMIN000039488). The registration date is 14th Feb 2020.URL: https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-bin/ctr/ctr_view_reg.cgi?recptno=R000044704


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047283
Author(s):  
Rosalind Gittins ◽  
Louise Missen ◽  
Ian Maidment

IntroductionThere is a growing concern about the misuse of over the counter (OTC) and prescription only medication (POM) because of the impact on physical and mental health, drug interactions, overdoses and drug-related deaths. These medicines include opioid analgesics, anxiolytics such as pregabalin and diazepam and antidepressants. This protocol outlines how a systematic review will be undertaken (during June 2021), which aims to examine the literature on the pattern of OTC and POM misuse among adults who are accessing substance misuse treatment services. It will include the types of medication being taken, prevalence and demographic characteristics of people who access treatment services.Methods and analysisAn electronic search will be conducted on the Cochrane, OVID Medline, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science databases as well as grey literature. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings, using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. If selected for inclusion, full-text data extraction will be conducted using a pilot-tested data extraction form. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted for all included studies. A qualitative synthesis and summary of the data will be provided. If possible, a meta-analysis with heterogeneity calculation will be conducted; otherwise, Synthesis Without Meta-analysis will be undertaken for quantitative data. The reporting of this protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be peer reviewed, published and shared verbally, electronically and in print, with interested clinicians and policymakers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020135216.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 755
Author(s):  
Falonn Contreras-Osorio ◽  
Christian Campos-Jara ◽  
Cristian Martínez-Salazar ◽  
Luis Chirosa-Ríos ◽  
Darío Martínez-García

One of the most studied aspects of children’s cognitive development is that of the development of the executive function, and research has shown that physical activity has been demonstrated as a key factor in its enhancement. This meta-analysis aims to assess the impact of specific sports interventions on the executive function of children and teenagers. A systematic review was carried out on 1 November 2020 to search for published scientific evidence that analysed different sports programs that possibly affected executive function in students. Longitudinal studies, which assessed the effects of sports interventions on subjects between 6 and 18 years old, were identified through a systematic search of the four principal electronic databases: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO. A total of eight studies, with 424 subjects overall, met the inclusion criteria and were classified based on one or more of the following categories: working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility. The random-effects model for meta-analyses was performed with RevMan version 5.3 to facilitate the analysis of the studies. Large effect sizes were found in all categories: working memory (ES −1.25; 95% CI −1.70; −0.79; p < 0.0001); inhibitory control (ES −1.30; 95% CI −1.98; −0.63; p < 0.00001); and cognitive flexibility (ES −1.52; 95% CI −2.20; −0.83; p < 0.00001). Our analysis concluded that healthy children and teenagers should be encouraged to practice sports in order to improve their executive function at every stage of their development.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Runqing Li ◽  
Junjie Liu ◽  
Yushan Li ◽  
Quanxian Wang

Abstract Background Published studies have shown contradictory results regarding the relationship between somatometric parameters and varicoceles. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the possible effects of age, height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) on the presence and severity of varicoceles. Methods Databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Web of Science, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant articles published up to March 2020. Two researchers independently identified eligible articles and extracted data. Cochran’s Q statistic and I2 statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. Meta-analysis was performed using StataSE 12.0 software (StataCorp LP, USA). Random-effects models were used to obtain the weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Publication bias was assessed using Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s regression test. Results The search strategy produced 272 articles, of which 18 articles were eligible according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A total of 56,325 patients with varicocele and 1,334,694 patients without varicocele were included in the meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of somatometric parameters on the presence and severity of varicocele. The overall results demonstrated that the presence of varicoceles was significantly associated with height (WMD = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.74, P < 0.001) and inversely correlated with BMI (WMD = − 1.35, 95% CI = -1.67 to − 1.03, P < 0.001) but not with age (WMD = -0.93, 95% CI = -2.19 to 0.33, P = 0.149) or weight (WMD = 0.24, 95% CI = -2.24 to 2.72, P = 0.850). The severity of varicocele was inversely correlated with increased BMI but not with age. Conclusion The presence of varicoceles was significantly associated with height and inversely correlated with BMI.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e043026
Author(s):  
Erin M Macri ◽  
Michael Callaghan ◽  
Marienke van Middelkoop ◽  
Miriam Hattle ◽  
Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra

IntroductionKnee osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent and disabling musculoskeletal condition. Biomechanical factors may play a key role in the aetiology of knee OA, therefore, a broad class of interventions involves the application or wear of devices designed to mechanically support knees with OA. These include gait aids, bracing, taping, orthotics and footwear. The literature regarding efficacy of mechanical interventions has been conflicting or inconclusive, and this may be because certain subgroups with knee OA respond better to mechanical interventions. Our primary aim is to identify subgroups with knee OA who respond favourably to mechanical interventions.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review to identify randomised clinical trials of any mechanical intervention for the treatment of knee OA. We will invite lead authors of eligible studies to share individual participant data (IPD). We will perform an IPD meta-analysis for each type of mechanical intervention to evaluate efficacy, with our main outcome being pain. Where IPD are not available, this will be achieved using aggregate data. We will then evaluate five potential treatment effect modifiers using a two-stage approach. If data permit, we will also evaluate whether biomechanics mediate the effects of mechanical interventions on pain in knee OA.Ethics and disseminationNo new data will be collected in this study. We will adhere to institutional, national and international regulations regarding the secure and confidential sharing of IPD, addressing ethics as indicated. We will disseminate findings via international conferences, open-source publication in peer-reviewed journals and summaries posted on websites serving the public and clinicians.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020155466.


2020 ◽  
Vol 218 ◽  
pp. 166-177.e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liel N. Cohn ◽  
Petros Pechlivanoglou ◽  
Yuna Lee ◽  
Sanjay Mahant ◽  
Julia Orkin ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sohail Akhtar ◽  
Jamal Abdul Nasir ◽  
Amara Javed ◽  
Mariyam Saleem ◽  
Sundas Sajjad ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The aim of this paper is to investigate the prevalence of diabetes and its associated risk factors in Afghanistan through a systematic review and meta–analysis. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted using EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Sciences, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library, carried out from inception to April 312,020, without language restriction. Meta–analysis was performed using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models with inverse variance weighting. The existence of publication bias was initially assessed by visual inspection of a funnel plot and then tested by the Egger regression test. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. This systematic review was reported by following the PRISMA guidelines and the methodological quality of each included study was evaluated using the STROBE guidelines. Results Out of 64 potentially relevant studies, only 06 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were considered for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of diabetes in the general population based on population-based studies were 12.13% (95% CI: 8.86–16.24%), based on a pooled sample of 7071 individuals. Results of univariate meta-regression analysis revealed that the prevalence of diabetes increased with mean age, hypertension and obesity. There was no significant association between sex (male vs female), smoking, the methodological quality of included articles or education (illiterate vs literate) and the prevalence of diabetes. Conclusions This meta-analysis reports the 12.13% prevalence of diabetes in Afghanistan,with the highest prevalence in Kandahar and the lowest in Balkh province. The main risk factors include increasing age, obesity and hypertension. Community-based care and preventive training programmes are recommended. Trial registration This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020172624).


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e043722
Author(s):  
Naomi Priest ◽  
Kate Doery ◽  
Mandy Truong ◽  
Shuaijun Guo ◽  
Ryan Perry ◽  
...  

IntroductionRacism is a critical determinant of health and health inequities for children and youth. This protocol aims to update the first systematic review conducted by Priest et al (2013), including a meta-analysis of findings. Based on previous empirical data, it is anticipated that child and youth health will be negatively impacted by racism. Findings from this review will provide updated evidence of effect sizes across outcomes and identify moderators and mediators of relationships between racism and health.Methods and analysisThis systematic review and meta-analysis will include studies that examine associations between experiences of racism and racial discrimination with health outcomes of children and youth aged 0–24 years. Exposure measures include self-reported or proxy reported systemic, interpersonal and intrapersonal racism. Outcome measures include general health and well-being, physical health, mental health, biological markers, healthcare utilisation and health behaviours. A comprehensive search of studies from the earliest time available to October 2020 will be conducted. A random effects meta-analysis will examine the average effect of racism on a range of health outcomes. Study-level moderation will test the difference in effect sizes with regard to various sample and exposure characteristics. This review has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.Ethics and disseminationThis review will provide evidence for future research within the field and help to support policy and practice development. Results will be widely disseminated to both academic and non-academic audiences through peer-review publications, community summaries and presentations to research, policy, practice and community audiences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184055.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e042212
Author(s):  
Hamish Foster ◽  
Peter Polz ◽  
Frances Mair ◽  
Jason Gill ◽  
Catherine A O'Donnell

IntroductionCombinations of unhealthy lifestyle factors are strongly associated with mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. It is unclear how socioeconomic status (SES) affects those associations. Lower SES groups may be disproportionately vulnerable to the effects of unhealthy lifestyle factors compared with higher SES groups via interactions with other factors associated with low SES (eg, stress) or via accelerated biological ageing. This systematic review aims to synthesise studies that examine how SES moderates the association between lifestyle factor combinations and adverse health outcomes. Greater understanding of how lifestyle risk varies across socioeconomic spectra could reduce adverse health by (1) identifying novel high-risk groups or targets for future interventions and (2) informing research, policy and interventions that aim to support healthy lifestyles in socioeconomically deprived communities.Methods and analysisThree databases will be searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL) from inception to March 2020. Reference lists, citations and grey literature will also be searched. Inclusion criteria are: (1) prospective cohort studies; (2) investigations of two key exposures: (a) lifestyle factor combinations of at least three lifestyle factors (eg, smoking, physical activity and diet) and (b) SES (eg, income, education or poverty index); (3) an assessment of the impact of SES on the association between combinations of unhealthy lifestyle factors and health outcomes; (4) at least one outcome from—mortality (all cause, CVD and cancer), CVD or cancer incidence. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts of included studies. Data extraction will focus on cohort characteristics, exposures, direction and magnitude of SES effects, methods and quality (via Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). If appropriate, a meta-analysis, pooling the effects of SES, will be performed. Alternatively, a synthesis without meta-analysis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication, professional networks, social media and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020172588.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document