A mixed-methods systematic review on barriers to exclusive breastfeeding

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-346
Author(s):  
Divya Sussana Patil ◽  
Prachi Pundir ◽  
Vijay Shree Dhyani ◽  
Jisha B. Krishnan ◽  
Shradha S Parsekar ◽  
...  

Introduction: The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for every newborn during the first 6 months of life, yet women come across various challenges to continuing it. Aim: This systematic review was intended to identify barriers to exclusive breastfeeding among mothers. Methods: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied health literature, ProQuest, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2017. The systematic review included quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies to identify barriers to exclusive breastfeeding among mothers of reproductive age with an infant aged between 0 and 12 months. All studies were screened based on titles, abstracts and full text by two reviewers independently. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using appropriate tools. Of the 9737 eligible records, 44 studies were included for analysis. Classification of barriers to exclusive breastfeeding was adopted from the conceptual framework of factors affecting breastfeeding practices given by Hector and colleagues. Results: In total 32 barriers were grouped under individual, group and society level factors. Meta-analysis indicated that mothers who smoked had 2.49 times more odds of not exclusively breastfeeding than non-smoking mothers and mothers who had undergone caesarean section had 1.69 times more risk of cessation of exclusive breastfeeding than mothers who have had a vaginal childbirth. Conclusion: The systematic review revealed a complex interplay of various barriers related to exclusive breastfeeding. It is recommended that context-specific strategies should be designed in accordance with barriers existing in a region or country.

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brice Batomen ◽  
Lynne Moore ◽  
Mabel Carabali ◽  
Pier-Alexandre Tardif ◽  
Howard Champion ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The implementation of trauma systems in many high-income countries over the last 50 years has led to important reductions in injury mortality and disability in many healthcare jurisdictions. Injury organizations including the American College of Surgeons and the Trauma Association of Canada as well as the World Health Organization provide consensus-based recommendations on resources and processes for optimal injury care. Many hospitals treating trauma patients seek verification to demonstrate that they meet these recommendations. This process may be labeled differently across jurisdictions. In Canada for example, it is called accreditation, but it has the same objective and very similar modalities. The objective of the study described in this protocol is to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of trauma center verification for improving clinical processes and patient outcomes in injury care. Methods We will perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between trauma center verification and hospital mortality (primary outcome), as well as morbidity, resource utilization, and processes of care (secondary outcomes). We will search CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthStar, MEDLINE, and ProQuest databases, as well as key injury organization websites for gray literature. We will assess the methodological quality of studies using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. We are planning to conduct a meta-analysis if feasible based on the number of included studies and their heterogeneity. We will evaluate the quality of cumulative evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology. Discussion This review will provide a synthesis of the body of evidence on trauma center verification effectiveness. Results could reinforce current verification modalities and may suggest ways to optimize them. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an international clinical conference. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018107083.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-262
Author(s):  
Sedigheh Abdollahpour ◽  
Hamid Heidarian Miri ◽  
Talat Khadivzadeh

Background: Improving the maternal health is one of the world’s most challenging problems. Despite significant movements over the past decades, maternal health has been still considered as a central goal for sustainable development. Maternal near miss (MNM) cases experience long-term physical and psychological effects. To present a clear portrait of the current situation, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the purpose to assess the worldwide prevalence of MNM. Methods: We conducted a systematic review on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science electronic databases to find published papers in English, before March 2019 and regardless of the type of study. We, then, assessed the prevalence of MNM according to the World Health Organization(WHO) criteria. Finally, 49 papers were included in the study. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool the available prevalence. The quality of studies was also evaluated. Results: The weighted pooled worldwide prevalence of MNM, was 18.67/1000 (95% CI: 16.28-21.06). Heterogeneity was explored using subgroup analyses based on the continent and the country. We used meta-regression of MNM on MD which resulted in adjusted R-squared as78.88%. Conclusion: The prevalence of MNM was considerable. Low- and middle-income countries should develop systematic approaches to improve quality of care in the facilities and to reducethe risk of MNM events, with the hope to women’s health.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Soheil Hassanipour ◽  
Djavad Ghoddoosi-Nejad

Abstract Background An outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported in Wuhan, China in mid-December 2019, and declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. Due to the unknown nature of the disease and the lack of specific drugs, several potential treatments were used for patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate studies of the effects of Favipiravir in COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods We will search electronic databases including LitCovid hub, PubMed, Scopus, ISI web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Embase using keywords related to COVID-19 and Favipiravir. We will search the reference lists of all included studies and reviews. We will also search for clinical trial registries, such as clinicaltrial.gov for the ongoing clinical trials. Two investigators (MAZ and SH) will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-text of included studies based on eligibility criteria. These investigators will also independently extract data and appraise the quality of studies. All potential discrepancies will be resolved through consultation with the third reviewer. Data synthesis will be conducted using the Review Manager software (version 5.3) or CMA (version 2). Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using a standard I 2 test. A funnel plot, Egger’s test, and Begg’s test will be used for asymmetry to explore possible publication bias. Discussion The findings of this systematic review with proportional meta-analysis will help to identify the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir for COVID-19 patients. Knowledge gained from this research will also assist physicians in selecting better treatment options and developing a guideline in this field.


2021 ◽  
pp. BJGP.2021.0312
Author(s):  
Louise H Hall ◽  
Rachael Thorneloe ◽  
Rocio Rodriguez-Lopez ◽  
Adam Grice ◽  
Mangesh A Thorat ◽  
...  

BackgroundPhysical activity (PA) brief interventions (BIs) involving screening and/or advice are recommended in primary care but frequency of delivery is unknown.AimTo examine the extent to which PA BIs are delivered in primary care, and explore factors associated with delivery, receipt, and patient receptivity.Design and settingA mixed-methods systematic review of studies conducted worldwide, with a narrative synthesis of results.MethodCINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and APA PsycINFO index databases were searched for qualitative and quantitative studies, dating from January 2012 to June 2020, that reported the level of delivery and/or receipt of PA BIs in primary care, and/or factors affecting delivery, receipt, and patient receptivity. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Attitudes towards and barriers to delivery were coded into the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model.ResultsAfter screening a total of 13 066 records, 66 articles were included in the review. The extent of PA screening and advice in primary care varied widely (2.4%–100% and 0.6%–100%, respectively). PA advice was delivered more often to patients with a higher body mass index, lower PA levels, and/or more comorbidities. Barriers — including a lack of time and training/guidelines — remain, despite recommendations from the World Health Organization and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence that PA advice should be provided in primary care. Few studies explored patients’ receptivity to advice.ConclusionPA BIs are not delivered frequently or consistently in primary care. Addressing barriers to delivery through system-level changes and training programmes could improve and increase the advice given. Understanding when patients are receptive to PA interventions could enhance health professionals’ confidence in their delivery.


Author(s):  
Adel Alizadeh ◽  
Reza Negarandeh ◽  
Fahimehe Bagheri Amiri ◽  
Zahra Yazdani

Abstract Objectives This systematic and meta-analysis review was conducted to determine the status of Iranian children and adolescents’ physical activity. Content All the related articles which were published in the major databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Magiran, SID from the beginning of 2010 to the end of 2019, were reviewed by researchers. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was also used to evaluate the quality of articles. Moreover, I 2 index and chi-square were used to assess the heterogeneity between the results. Summary 490 articles were found as a result of the search in the selected international and local databases, where finally, 10 articles were included into the meta-analysis after the elimination of the duplicated articles and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results indicated that 29.5% of the girls were considered active according to WHO criteria (16.1–42.8: 95% CI) and also 20.5% of the boys (7.3–33.7: 95% CI). Outlook Overall, this study’s findings showed that a large percentage of Iranian children and adolescents do not achieve the level of physical activity recommended by the World Health Organization. This can lead to undesirable consequences for this group of population that is considered as the human capital of any country; consequently, it seems necessary to take basic measures at the micro and macro levels in order to reduce such problems in the society.


BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n526
Author(s):  
François Lamontagne ◽  
Thomas Agoritsas ◽  
Reed Siemieniuk ◽  
Bram Rochwerg ◽  
Jessica Bartoszko ◽  
...  

Abstract Clinical question What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? Why does this matter? There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. Recommendation The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. Updates This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. Readers note This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.


Author(s):  
Afsaneh Noormandi ◽  
Mohammad Fathalipour ◽  
Reza Daryabeygi-Khotbehsara ◽  
Soheil Hassanipour

Background and objective: COVID-19 has since been declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), infecting millions worldwide. The use of Interferon (INF) subtypes previously examined in the treatment of SARS and MERS is also being initiated in some clinical trials. Although different clinical trials were evaluated IFNs in the treatment of COVID-19, their efficacy and safety remain unknown. Therefore, this study aims to systematically assess IFNs efficacy and safety in treating patients with COVID-19. Methods: The protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register (CRD42020200643) on 24 July 2020. This protocol has been arranged according to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist. Discussion: Due to lack of approved medication for the covid-19 treatment and also various mutations of this virus, evaluated the efficacy and safety of medications by various studies could help for finding treatments with high effectiveness. IFNs are one of the medications that have been administered in covid-19 infection.  Moreover, the best time of administration and dose of this medication was unknown. Although meta-analysis is a potent source for assessing the accuracy of subjects, heterogeneity of articles is a potent limitation of our work.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e045819
Author(s):  
Jinhui Ma ◽  
Megan Cheng ◽  
Lehana Thabane ◽  
Caihong Ma ◽  
Ning Zhang ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe aetiology of sleep disruptions is unknown, but hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle, pregnancy and menopause have been shown to potentially affect how well a woman sleeps. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether hormonal contraceptives are associated with a decreased quality of sleep and increased sleep duration in women of reproductive age.MethodsThis review will analyse data from randomised controlled trials or non-randomised comparative studies investigating the association between hormonal contraceptives and sleep outcomes among women of reproductive age. Reviews addressing the same research question with similar eligibility criteria will be included. A literature search will be performed using the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to 7 March 2021. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias for Randomised Trials V.2.0 and The Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool will be used to assess risk of bias for each outcome in eligible studies. Two reviewers will independently assess eligibility of studies and risk of bias and extract the data. All extracted data will be presented in tables and narrative form. For sleep measures investigated by two or more studies with low heterogeneity, we will conduct random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of the overall effect of hormonal contraceptives. If studies included in this systematic review form a connected network, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the comparative effect of different contraceptives. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to summarise the quality of evidence. Our protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as data were sourced from previously reported studies. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020199958.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 1900655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Cohen ◽  
Victor Dahl Mathiasen ◽  
Thomas Schön ◽  
Christian Wejse

In 1999, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that one-third of the world's population had latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), which was recently updated to one-fourth. However, this is still based on controversial assumptions in combination with tuberculin skin test (TST) surveys. Interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) with a higher specificity than TST have since been widely implemented, but never used to estimate the global LTBI prevalence.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of LTBI estimates based on both IGRA and TST results published between 2005 and 2018. Regional and global estimates of LTBI prevalence were calculated. Stratification was performed for low, intermediate and high TB incidence countries and a pooled estimate for each area was calculated using a random effects model.Among 3280 studies screened, we included 88 studies from 36 countries with 41 IGRA (n=67 167) and 67 TST estimates (n=284 644). The global prevalence of LTBI was 24.8% (95% CI 19.7–30.0%) and 21.2% (95% CI 17.9–24.4%), based on IGRA and a 10-mm TST cut-off, respectively. The prevalence estimates correlated well to WHO incidence rates (Rs=0.70, p<0.001).In the first study of the global prevalence of LTBI derived from both IGRA and TST surveys, we found that one-fourth of the world's population is infected. This is of relevance, as both tests, although imperfect, are used to identify individuals eligible for preventive therapy. Enhanced efforts are needed targeting the large pool of latently infected individuals, as this constitutes an enormous source of potential active tuberculosis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document