scholarly journals Experiences of people taking opioid medication for chronic non-malignant pain: a qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e032988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivien P Nichols ◽  
Francine Toye ◽  
Sam Eldabe ◽  
Harbinder Kaur Sandhu ◽  
Martin Underwood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Science Citation Index ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Science Citation ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Opioid Medication ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

ObjectiveTo review qualitative studies on the experience of taking opioid medication for chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) or coming off them.DesignThis is a qualitative evidence synthesis using a seven-step approach from the methods of meta-ethnography.Data sources and eligibility criteriaWe searched selected databases—Medline, Embase, AMED, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus (Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index)—for qualitative studies which provide patients’ views of taking opioid medication for CNMP or of coming off them (June 2017, updated September 2018).Data extraction and synthesisPapers were quality appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool, and the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group - Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) guidelines were applied. We identified concepts and iteratively abstracted these concepts into a line of argument.ResultsWe screened 2994 unique citations and checked 153 full texts, and 31 met our review criteria. We identified five themes: (1) reluctant users with little choice; (2) understanding opioids: the good and the bad; (3) a therapeutic alliance: not always on the same page; (4) stigma: feeling scared and secretive but needing support; and (5) the challenge of tapering or withdrawal. A new overarching theme of ‘constantly balancing’ emerged from the data.ConclusionsPeople taking opioids were constantly balancing tensions, not always wanting to take opioids, and weighing the pros and cons of opioids but feeling they had no choice because of the pain. They frequently felt stigmatised, were not always ‘on the same page’ as their healthcare professional and felt changes in opioid use were often challenging.Trial registration number49470934; Pre-results.

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 The experiences of trained breastfeeding support providers that influence how breastfeeding support is practised: A protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0254445
Author(s):  
Mary Jo Chesnel ◽  
Maria Healy ◽  
Jenny McNeill
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Breastfeeding Support ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Support Providers ◽  
Support Provision ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Review Team

Background Many women stop breastfeeding before they intend to as they cannot overcome breastfeeding difficulties. Breastfeeding support, as an evidence-based intervention by trained lay or professional breastfeeding support providers, can prevent early unintended cessation. Yet some women report dissatisfaction with support and reluctantly stop breastfeeding despite receiving this intervention. Understanding the experiences which shape how support is provided can inform effective implementation of breastfeeding support interventions. This review aims to synthesise experiences of trained breastfeeding support providers in high income settings and how these may influence their breastfeeding support practices. Methods A qualitative systematic review of trained breastfeeding supporters’ experiences of supporting women to breastfeed, as part of a generic healthcare role or focused breastfeeding support role, will be conducted. A systematic search will be performed of the databases: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL +), MEDLINE ALL, Maternity and Infant Care, EMBASE, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. Title and abstract screening using eligibility criteria will be conducted using Covidence software. Eligible papers will be agreed by the review team following full text screening and reported using PRISMA guidelines. CASP and COREQ tools will assess study methodological quality and quality of reporting. Data will be extracted using a bespoke form and coded, using Excel software for data management. Analysis will involve the three stages of thematic synthesis: initial free coding, development of descriptive and subsequent analytical themes. Confidence in findings will be assessed using the CERQual framework. Discussion This review is the first to date to synthesise qualitative evidence on experiences which influence how trained lay and professional providers support women with breastfeeding. Findings will enable deeper understanding of the underpinning mechanisms of breastfeeding support provision and inform the development of tailored interventions to improve breastfeeding rates. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020207380

scholarly journals Clinician and patient beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain: a systematic qualitative evidence synthesis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e037820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sweekriti Sharma ◽  
Adrian C Traeger ◽  
Ben Reed ◽  
Melanie Hamilton ◽  
Denise A O’Connor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Diagnostic Imaging ◽  
General Public ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

ObjectiveOveruse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain remains common. The underlying beliefs about diagnostic imaging that could drive overuse remain unclear. We synthesised qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain.DesignA qualitative evidence synthesis using a thematic analysis.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO from inception to 17 June 2019. Qualitative studies that interviewed clinicians, patients and/or general public exploring beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain were included. Four review authors independently extracted data and organised these according to themes and subthemes. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool to critically appraise included studies. To assess confidence in review findings, we used the GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research method.ResultsWe included 69 qualitative studies with 1747 participants. Key findings included: Patients and clinicians believe diagnostic imaging is an important test to locate the source of low back pain (33 studies, high confidence); patients with chronic low back pain believe pathological findings on diagnostic imaging provide evidence that pain is real (12 studies, moderate confidence); and clinicians ordered diagnostic imaging to reduce the risk of a missed diagnosis that could lead to litigation, and to manage patients’ expectations (12 studies, moderate confidence).ConclusionClinicians and patients can believe that diagnostic imaging is an important tool for locating the source of non-specific low back pain. Patients may underestimate the harms of unnecessary imaging tests. These beliefs could be important targets for intervention.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017076047.

scholarly journals Testing for saturation in qualitative evidence syntheses: An update of HIV adherence in Africa

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0258352
Author(s):  
Anke Rohwer ◽  
Lynn Hendricks ◽  
Sandy Oliver ◽  
Paul Garner
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Internal Factors ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Original Question ◽  
The Rich ◽  
New Literature

Background A systematic review of randomised trials may be conclusive signalling no further research is needed; or identify gaps requiring further research that may then be included in review updates. In qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), the rationale, triggers, and methods for updating are less clear cut. We updated a QES on adherence to anti-retroviral treatment to examine if thematic saturation renders additional research redundant. Methods We adopted the original review search strategy and eligibility criteria to identify studies in the subsequent three years. We assessed studies for conceptual detail, categorised as ‘rich’ or ‘sparse’, coding the rich studies. We sought new codes, and appraised whether findings confirmed, extended, enriched, or refuted existing themes. Finally, we examined if the analysis impacted on the original conceptual model. Results After screening 3895 articles, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria. Rich findings from Africa were available in 82 studies; 146 studies were sparse, contained no additional information on specific populations, and did not contribute to the analysis. New studies enriched our understanding on the relationship between external and internal factors influencing adherence, confirming, extending and enriching the existing themes. Despite careful evaluation of the new literature, we did not identify any new themes, and found no studies that refuted our theory. Conclusions Updating an existing QES using the original question confirmed and sometimes enriched evidence within themes but made little or no substantive difference to the theory and overall findings of the original review. We propose this illustrates thematic saturation. We propose a thoughtful approach before embarking on a QES update, and our work underlines the importance of QES priority areas where further primary research may help, and areas where further studies may be redundant.

Scientometric Parameters of Russian Economic Science:General State and the Evaluation of Thesis boards

2013 ◽  
pp. 129-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Kurakova ◽  
L. Tsvetkova ◽  
O. Eremchenko
Keyword(s):  
Science Citation Index ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Science Citation ◽  
Russian Science ◽  
Russian Science Citation Index

The paper analyses the publications of Russian authors in various fields of economics indexed in Web of Science and Russian Science Citation Index. The authors claim that the scientometric parameters are only in a limited way applicable in evaluating the performance of expert and thesis boards in economics in Russia. The authors also put forward the approaches in order to improve Russia’s positions in the international citations indexes in economics.

scholarly journals Nodding syndrome: bridging the gap—a scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e035269
Author(s):  
Ana Cristina De Castro ◽  
Ivan Ortega-Deballon
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Science Citation Index ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Social Science Citation Index ◽  
Science Citation ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Nodding Syndrome

IntroductionNodding syndrome (NS) is an encephalopathy of unknown origin that affects children aged between 3 and 15 years old. Cases have been reported since the 1950 in Tanzania and South Sudan, the most heavily affected population is the Acholi community in Uganda. In response to the high incidence of the disease, the Ugandan Government has developed a management algorithm, but access to such measures in affected communities is limited. There is little funding for research on the disease, consequently, few studies have been conducted to date. Nevertheless, the number of scientific publications on NS has increased since 2013, reporting several aetiological hypotheses, management algorithms and cases of stigmatisation; however, none has obtained conclusive results.This document describes a protocol for a scoping review of NS to date aimed at obtaining a broad overview of the disease. The results will identify gaps in knowledge in order to better guide future research, intervention strategies, health policies in areas at risk and cooperation and development programmes.Methods and analysisTo identify the relevant data, we will conduct a literature search using the electronic databases PubMed/Medline, Embase, Social Science Citation Index Scopus, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud (LILACS), Social Science Citation Index Expanded and The Cochrane Library. We will also include grey literature. The search strategy will be designed by a librarian.Two members of the team will work independently to identify studies for inclusion and perform data extraction. The search results will be assessed by two independent reviewers and data from the included studies will be charted and summarised in duplicate. The data will be summarised in tables and figures to present the research landscape and describe and map gaps.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. The scoping review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews andMeta-Analyses-ScR guidelines. The results will be disseminated at scientific congresses and meetings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document