scholarly journals Methodology for task-shifting evidence-based psychological treatments to non-licenced/lay health workers: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e044012
Author(s):  
Kathryn E Kanzler ◽  
Lisa Smith Kilpela ◽  
Jaqueline Pugh ◽  
Luz M Garcini ◽  
Christine S Gaspard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Health Worker ◽  
Community Health Worker ◽  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Task Shifting ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based

Introduction‘Task-shifting’ or ‘task-sharing’ is an effective strategy for delivering behavioural healthcare in lower resource communities. However, little is known regarding the actual steps (methods) in carrying out a task-shifting project. This paper presents a protocol for a systematic review that will identify steps in adapting an evidence-based psychological treatment for delivery by lay/non-licenced personnel.Methods and analysisA systematic review of peer-reviewed, published studies involving a non-licenced, non-specialist (eg, community health worker, promotor/a, peer and lay person) delivering an evidence-based psychological treatment for adults will be conducted. Study design of selected articles must include a statistical comparison (eg, randomised controlled trials, quasiexperimental trials, pre–post designs and pragmatic trials). Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, APA PsycInfo and Google Scholar will be searched from 2000 to 2020. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool, and publication bias will be evaluated with the Cochrane GRADE approach. A narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies, and a summary table following Proctor’s framework for operationalising implementation strategies will be included. This protocol was developed following the 2015 guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols.Ethics and disseminationThis review will analyse data from published studies only; thus, it will not require institutional board review. Findings will be presented at conferences, to the broader community via the Community Health Worker Translational Advisory Board and social media, and the final systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Community health worker interventions for older adults with complex health needs: A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meaghan A. Kennedy ◽  
Kayla E. Hatchell ◽  
Peter R. DiMilia ◽  
Stephanie M. Kelly ◽  
Heather B. Blunt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Health Worker ◽  
Community Health Worker ◽  
Health Needs

scholarly journals Adjuvant Transarterial Chemoembolization Following Curative-Intent Hepatectomy Versus Hepatectomy Alone for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 2984
Author(s):  
Stepan M. Esagian ◽  
Christos D. Kakos ◽  
Emmanouil Giorgakis ◽  
Lyle Burdine ◽  
J. Camilo Barreto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Transarterial Chemoembolization ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
Randomized Controlled

The role of adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing hepatectomy is currently unclear. We performed a systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Random-effects meta-analysis was carried out to compare the overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients with resectable HCC undergoing hepatectomy followed by adjuvant TACE vs. hepatectomy alone in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-regression analyses were performed to explore the effect of hepatitis B viral status, microvascular invasion, type of resection (anatomic vs. parenchymal-sparing), and tumor size on the outcomes. Ten eligible RCTs, reporting on 1216 patients in total, were identified. The combination of hepatectomy and adjuvant TACE was associated with superior OS (hazard ratio (HR): 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52 to 0.85; p < 0.001) and RFS (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.88; p < 0.001) compared to hepatectomy alone. There were significant concerns regarding the risk of bias in most of the included studies. Overall, adjuvant TACE may be associated with an oncologic benefit in select HCC patients. However, the applicability of these findings may be limited to Eastern Asian populations, due to the geographically restricted sample. High-quality multinational RCTs, as well as predictive tools to optimize patient selection, are necessary before adjuvant TACE can be routinely implemented into standard practice. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42021245758.

scholarly journals Who is a community health worker? – a systematic review of definitions

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1272223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abimbola Olaniran ◽  
Helen Smith ◽  
Regine Unkels ◽  
Sarah Bar-Zeev ◽  
Nynke van den Broek
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Health Worker ◽  
Community Health Worker

scholarly journals Community health worker interventions to promote psychosocial outcomes among people living with HIV—A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. e0194928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hae-Ra Han ◽  
Kyounghae Kim ◽  
Jeanne Murphy ◽  
Joycelyn Cudjoe ◽  
Patty Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Health Worker ◽  
Community Health Worker ◽  
Psychosocial Outcomes ◽  
People Living With Hiv ◽  
Living With Hiv

scholarly journals Efficacy of remdesivir versus placebo for the treatment of COVID-19: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desye Gebrie ◽  
Desalegn Getnet ◽  
Tsegahun Manyazewal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antiviral Drug ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
List Type ◽  
Randomized Controlled

AbstractBackgroundIn spite of the global containment on prevention efforts, the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is continuing to rise, with 1.1 million confirmed cases and 60,124 deaths recorded worldwide since 04 April 2020. The outbreak has a significant threat to international health and economy. At present, there is no approved vaccine or treatment for the disease, while efforts are underway. Remdesivir, a nucleotide-analogue antiviral drug developed for Ebola, is determined to prevent and stop infections with COVID-19, while results are yet controversial. Here, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the effectiveness of remdesivir and placebo in patients with COVID-19.Method and analysisWe will search MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google scholar databases without restriction in year of publication. We will include randomized controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of remdesivir versus placebo for patients confirmed with COVID-19. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA 2015) guidelines for the design and reporting of the results. The primary endpoint will be time to clinical recovery. The secondary endpoints will be all cause mortality, discharged date, frequency of respiratory progression, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Two independent authors will perform study selection, data extraction, and methodology quality assessment. RevMan 5.3 software will be used for statistical analysis. Random/fixed effect model will be carried out to calculate mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes between remdesivir and placebo.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require ethical approval, because no participant’s data will be involved in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The findings of this study will be published in reputable and peer-reviewed journal.RegistrationThis review protocol is submitted in PROSPERO database for registration and we will include the registration number in the revised version of the manuscript.Strengths and limitations of this study➣This systematic review and meta-analysis will be derived from only randomized controlled trials which will increase the quality of evidences.➣This systematic review and meta-analysis will be derived from only randomized controlled trials which will reduce between study heterogeneity.➣Subgroup and sensitivity analysis will be carried out to identify possible reasons that may cause significant heterogeneity between studies.➣The use of Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risk of bias for each included studies to extract and synthesize evidence based conclusions.➣One of the limitation of this study might be the restriction of trials published in English language.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document