Focal Concerns and Police Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 152483802199128
Author(s):  
David S. Lapsey ◽  
Bradley A. Campbell ◽  
Bryant T. Plumlee
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Sexual Assault ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Campbell Collaboration ◽  
Focal Concerns ◽  
Police Decision Making ◽  
The Impact

Sexual assault and case attrition at the arrest stage are serious problems in the United States. Focal concerns have increasingly been used to explain police decision making in sexual assault cases. Because of the popularity of the focal concerns perspective and potential to inform evidence-based training, a systematic review and meta-analysis are needed to condense the literature. In this study, we assess the overall strength of the relationship between focal concerns variables and police decisions to arrest in cases of sexual assault. Our assessment of the effects of focal concerns variables on arrest decision making in sexual assault cases followed the systematic review protocols provided by the Campbell Collaboration of Systematic Reviews. Specifically, we used the Campbell Collaboration recommendations to search empirical literature and used meta-analysis to evaluate the size, direction, and strength of the impact of focal concerns variables on arrest decisions. Our search strategy detected 14 eligible studies and 79 effect sizes. The meta-analysis found several robust and statistically significant correlates of arrest. In fact, each focal concerns concept produced at least one robust arrest correlate. Overall, focal concerns offers a strong approach for explaining police decisions in sexual assault cases. Although practical concerns and resource constraints produced the strongest arrest correlates, results show the importance of additional case characteristics in officers’ decision to arrest.

scholarly journals Efficacy of hydrofibre dressing following total joint arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002110126
Author(s):  
Raman Mundi ◽  
Harman Chaudhry ◽  
Seper Ekhtiari ◽  
Prabjit Ajrawat ◽  
Daniel M Tushinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Total Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Observable Effect ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: In the United States, over 1,000,000 total joint arthroplasty (TJA) surgeries are performed annually and has been forecasted that this number will exceed 4,000,000 by the year 2030. Many different types of dressing exist for use in TJA surgery, and it is unclear if any of the newer, hydrofibre dressings are superior to traditional dressings at reducing rates of infections or improving wound healing. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the impact of hydrofiber dressings on reducing complications. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the online databases MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hydrofibre dressings to a standard dressing were included. Summary measures are reported as odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcome was prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Secondary outcomes included blisters, dressing changes and wound irritation. Results: 5 RCTs were included. Hydrofibre dressing had no observable effect on PJI or wound irritation (OR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.14–1.98; p = 0.35). Hydrofibre dressings reduced the rate of blisters (OR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14–0.90; p = 0.03) and number of dressing changes (MD -1.89; 95% CI, -2.68 to -1.11). Conclusions: In conclusion, evidence suggests hydrofibre dressings have no observable effect on PJI and wound irritation. Evidence for reduction in blisters and number of dressings is modest given wide CIs and biased trial methodologies. Use of hydrofibre dressings should be considered inconclusive for mitigating major complications in light of current best evidence.

scholarly journals The effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions for promoting evidence-informed decision-making among nurses in tertiary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Yost ◽  
Rebecca Ganann ◽  
David Thompson ◽  
Fazila Aloweni ◽  
Kristine Newman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
Quantitative Data ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
Client Outcomes ◽  
The Impact

Nurses are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) to improve client and system outcomes. Despite an improved awareness about EIDM, there is a lack of use of research evidence and understanding about the effectiveness of interventions to promote EIDM. This project aimed to discover if knowledge translation (KT) interventions directed to nurses in tertiary care are effective for improving EIDM knowledge, skills, behaviours, and, as a result, client outcomes. It also sought to understand contextual factors that affect the impact of such interventions. Methods A systematic review funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (PROSPERO registration: CRD42013003319) was conducted. Included studies examined the implementation of any KT intervention involving nurses in tertiary care to promote EIDM knowledge, skills, behaviours, and client outcomes or studies that examined contextual factors. Study designs included systematic reviews, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies. The search included electronic databases and manual searching of published and unpublished literature to November 2012; key databases included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Excerpta Medica (EMBASE). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. Studies with quantitative data determined to be clinically homogeneous were synthesized using meta-analytic methods. Studies with quantitative data not appropriate for meta-analysis were synthesized narratively by outcome. Studies with qualitative data were synthesized by theme. Results Of the 44,648 citations screened, 30 citations met the inclusion criteria (18 quantitative, 10 qualitative, and 2 mixed methods studies). The quality of studies with quantitative data ranged from very low to high, and quality criteria was generally met for studies with qualitative data. No studies evaluated the impact on knowledge and skills; they primarily investigated the effectiveness of multifaceted KT strategies for promoting EIDM behaviours and improving client outcomes. Almost all studies included an educational component. A meta-analysis of two studies determined that a multifaceted intervention (educational meetings and use of a mentor) did not increase engagement in a range of EIDM behaviours [mean difference 2.7, 95 % CI (−1.7 to 7.1), I 2 = 0 %]. Among the remaining studies, no definitive conclusions could be made about the relative effectiveness of the KT interventions due to variation of interventions and outcomes, as well as study limitations. Findings from studies with qualitative data identified the organizational, individual, and interpersonal factors, as well as characteristics of the innovation, that influence the success of implementation. Conclusions KT interventions are being implemented and evaluated on nurses’ behaviour and client outcomes. This systematic review may inform the selection of KT interventions and outcomes among nurses in tertiary care and decisions about further research.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of trauma centre verification: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. E25-E38
Author(s):  
Brice Batomen ◽  
Lynne Moore ◽  
Mabel Carabali ◽  
Pier-Alexandre Tardif ◽  
Howard Champion
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trauma Centre ◽  
Trauma Centres ◽  
Processes Of Care ◽  
Injured Patients ◽  
The Impact

Background: There is a growing trend toward verification of trauma centres, but its impact remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to synthesize available evidence on the effectiveness of trauma centre verification. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the CINAHL, Embase, HealthStar, MEDLINE and ProQuest databases, as well as the websites of key injury organizations for grey literature, from inception to June 2019, without language restrictions. Our population consisted of injured patients treated at trauma centres. The intervention was trauma centre verification. Comparison groups comprised nonverified trauma centres, or the same centre before it was first verified or re-verified. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included adverse events, resource use and processes of care. We computed pooled summary estimates using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Of 5125 citations identified, 29, all conducted in the United States, satisfied our inclusion criteria. Mortality was the most frequently investigated outcome (n = 20), followed by processes of care (n = 12), resource use (n = 12) and adverse events (n = 7). The risk of bias was serious to critical in 22 studies. We observed an imprecise association between verification and decreased mortality (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.06) in severely injured patients. Conclusion: Our review showed mixed and inconsistent associations between verification and processes of care or patient outcomes. The validity of the published literature is limited by the lack of robust controls, as well as any evidence from outside the US, which precludes extrapolation to other health care jurisdictions. Quasiexperimental studies are needed to assess the impact of trauma centre verification. Systematic reviews registration: PROSPERO no. CRD42018107083

scholarly journals Systematic review protocol examining the influence of surgeon personality on perioperative decision making in abdominal surgery

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e035361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carly Nichola Bisset ◽  
Tracey McKee ◽  
Elliot Tilling ◽  
Mary Cawley ◽  
Susan Moug
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scoring Systems ◽  
Postoperative Outcomes ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Review Team ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionThere is limited published literature exploring how the personality traits of surgeons may influence preoperative decision making, particularly in the context of visceral/abdominal surgery. Multiple validated personality scoring systems exist and have been used to describe surgeon personalities previously. The degree to which each trait is expressed by abdominal surgeons is neither currently known, nor the impact of these traits on postoperative outcomes. The protocol has been written in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist.Methods and analysisThe search strategy has been developed by a Health Scientist Librarian in collaboration with the review team. The search was conducted on 1st October 2019.Database subject headings and text words relating to ‘abdominal/general surgeons’, ‘personality’, ‘postoperative outcomes’ and ‘decision making’ formed the basis of our literature search strategy; the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Cochrane databases will be searched. Three reviewers will independently screen and appraise articles, with a fourth reviewer utilised if disagreements arise.A systematic narrative synthesis will be performed, with information presented in text and table format. These will summarise the findings and characteristics of any included studies. Using guidance from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the reviewers will describe the potential relationship and findings between studies using the narrative synthesis. Studies will only be reported if they are felt to have low or mid-levels of bias. Studies felt to display high levels of bias will be excluded.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require ethical approval. The formal systematic review will be submitted for peer reviewed publication and presented at relevant conferences. The methods may inform future reviews in other surgical specialties regarding surgeon personality.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019151375.

scholarly journals Suicide Prevention Among College Students Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yunyu Xiao ◽  
Rachel Hinrichs ◽  
Nina Johnson ◽  
Amanda McKinley ◽  
Joan Carlson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Suicide Prevention ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Suicidal Behaviors ◽  
Global Context ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Suicide is the second leading cause of death for college-aged individuals worldwide and in the United States. Recent studies have identified preliminary evidence of widening disparities in suicidal behaviors across sex, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic status among college students. Few systematic reviews and meta-analyses offer a comprehensive understanding of on-campus and off-campus suicide interventions, nor is collated information available for different types of screening, assessment, treatment, and postvention plans. Further challenges have been identified since the COVID-19 pandemic, calling for cost-effective and innovative interventions to address increased rates of suicidal behaviors among college students facing unprecedented stressors. OBJECTIVE This research protocol describes the first systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the most effective and cost-effective intervention components for universal and targeted (indicated and selected) suicide prevention among college students in a global context. Special attention will be placed on disparities in suicide prevention across sociodemographic subgroups, inclusive interventions beyond campus, global context, and intervention responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS A sensitive search strategy will be executed across MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, PsycINFO (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, Dissertations and Theses Global (ProQuest), Scopus, Global Index Medicus, SciELO, African Journals Online, Global Health (CABI), and Google Scholar. Data extraction and evaluation will be conducted by three independent researchers. Risk of bias will be assessed. A multilevel meta-regression model and subgroup analysis will be used to analyze the data and estimate effect sizes. RESULTS The initial search was completed in December 2020 and updated with additional other-language studies in March 2020. We expect the results to be submitted for publication in mid-2021. CONCLUSIONS Despite increasing rates of suicidal behaviors among college students, few preventative efforts have targeted this population, and fewer focus on factors that might place specific demographic groups at heightened risk. The impact of COVID-19 on suicidal behaviors among college students highlights and exacerbates the urgent need for rapid and effective interventions that might differ from traditional approaches. This equity-focused study will address these gaps and provide a valuable analysis of the effectiveness of suicide prevention programs and interventions. Findings will inform clinicians, researchers, policy makers, families, and organizations about evidence-based interventions for reducing the gaps in the suicide crisis among college students from different sociodemographic groups. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42020225429; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=225429 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/26948

Commitment and Cooperation on High Courts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Alarie ◽  
Andrew J. Green
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
The United States ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Institutional Differences ◽  
The Impact

Judicial decision-making is ideally impartial. In reality, judges are influenced by many different factors, including institutional context, ideological commitment, fellow justices on a panel, and personal preferences. Empirical literature in this area increasingly analyzes this complex collection of factors in isolation, when a larger sample size of comparative institutional contexts can help assess the impact of the procedures, norms, and rules on key institutional decisions, such as how appeals are decided. This book explains how the answers to the following institutional questions largely determine the influence of political preferences of individual judges and the degree of cooperation among judges at a given point in time. Who decides how judicial appointments are made? How does an appeal reach the court; what processes occur? Who is before the court; how do the characteristics of the litigants and third parties affect judicial decision-making? How does the court decide the appeal; what institutional norms and strategic behaviors do the judges follow in obtaining their preferred outcome? The authors apply these four fundamental institutional questions to empirical work on the supreme courts of the United States, UK, Canada, India, and the High Court of Australia. The ultimate purpose of this book is to promote a deeper understanding of how institutional differences affect judicial decision-making, using empirical studies of supreme courts in countries with similar basic structures but with sufficient differences to enable meaningful comparison.

scholarly journals Shared Decision Making in Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Full Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Kacper Niburski ◽  
Elena Guadagno ◽  
Dan Poenaru
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Librarian ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Shared decision-making (SDM), the process where physician and patient reach an agreed-upon choice by understanding the values, concerns, and preferences inherent within each treatment option available, has been increasingly implemented in clinical practice to better health care outcomes. Despite the proven efficacy of SDM to provide better patient-guided care in medicine, its use in surgery has not been studied widely. A search strategy was developed with a medical librarian. It included nine databases from inception until December 2018. After a 2-person title and abstract screen, full-text publications were analyzed in detail. A meta-analysis was done to quantify the impact of SDM in surgical specialties. In total 5,596 studies were retrieved. After duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were screened, and p-values were recorded, 140 (45 RCTs and 95 cross-sectional studies) were used for the systematic review and 42 for the meta-analyses. Most of the studies noted decreased intervention rate (8 of 14), decisional conflict (13 of 16), and decisional regret (3 of 3), and an increased decisional satisfaction (9 of 12), knowledge (19 of 20), SDM preference (6 of 8), and physician trust (3 of 4) when using SDM. Time increase per patient encounter was inconclusive. The meta-analysis showed that despite high heterogeneity, the results were significant. Far from obviating surgical immediacy, these results suggest that SDM is vital for the best indicators of care. With decreased conflict and anxiety, increasing knowledge and satisfaction, and creating a more whole, trusting relationship, SDM appears to be beneficial in surgery.

scholarly journals The effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions for promoting evidence-informed decision-making among nurses in tertiary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Yost ◽  
Rebecca Ganann ◽  
David Thompson ◽  
Fazila Aloweni ◽  
Kristine Newman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
Quantitative Data ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
Client Outcomes ◽  
The Impact

Nurses are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) to improve client and system outcomes. Despite an improved awareness about EIDM, there is a lack of use of research evidence and understanding about the effectiveness of interventions to promote EIDM. This project aimed to discover if knowledge translation (KT) interventions directed to nurses in tertiary care are effective for improving EIDM knowledge, skills, behaviours, and, as a result, client outcomes. It also sought to understand contextual factors that affect the impact of such interventions. Methods A systematic review funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (PROSPERO registration: CRD42013003319) was conducted. Included studies examined the implementation of any KT intervention involving nurses in tertiary care to promote EIDM knowledge, skills, behaviours, and client outcomes or studies that examined contextual factors. Study designs included systematic reviews, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies. The search included electronic databases and manual searching of published and unpublished literature to November 2012; key databases included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Excerpta Medica (EMBASE). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. Studies with quantitative data determined to be clinically homogeneous were synthesized using meta-analytic methods. Studies with quantitative data not appropriate for meta-analysis were synthesized narratively by outcome. Studies with qualitative data were synthesized by theme. Results Of the 44,648 citations screened, 30 citations met the inclusion criteria (18 quantitative, 10 qualitative, and 2 mixed methods studies). The quality of studies with quantitative data ranged from very low to high, and quality criteria was generally met for studies with qualitative data. No studies evaluated the impact on knowledge and skills; they primarily investigated the effectiveness of multifaceted KT strategies for promoting EIDM behaviours and improving client outcomes. Almost all studies included an educational component. A meta-analysis of two studies determined that a multifaceted intervention (educational meetings and use of a mentor) did not increase engagement in a range of EIDM behaviours [mean difference 2.7, 95 % CI (−1.7 to 7.1), I 2 = 0 %]. Among the remaining studies, no definitive conclusions could be made about the relative effectiveness of the KT interventions due to variation of interventions and outcomes, as well as study limitations. Findings from studies with qualitative data identified the organizational, individual, and interpersonal factors, as well as characteristics of the innovation, that influence the success of implementation. Conclusions KT interventions are being implemented and evaluated on nurses’ behaviour and client outcomes. This systematic review may inform the selection of KT interventions and outcomes among nurses in tertiary care and decisions about further research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document