scholarly journals What is the effect of giving the grazers access to additional nutrient sources on biodiversity in semi-natural pastures? A systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ida Envall ◽  
Jan Bengtsson ◽  
Simon Jakobsson ◽  
Maj Rundlöf ◽  
Charlotte Åberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Nutrient Sources ◽  
History Of ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Two Stages

Abstract Background Semi-natural pastures are unfertilized grasslands with a long history of traditional low-input grazing management. This kind of pastures are recognized for their high species richness. However, as a consequence of modernization of agriculture, many of the semi-natural pastures have been lost during the last century, leading to a serious threat to farmland biodiversity. Semi-natural pastures are relatively low in productivity. Hence, to increase profitability, farmers may want to give the grazing animals access to additional nutrient sources. This can be done either as supplementary feeding, or by fencing the semi-natural pastures into the same enclosure as improved, more nutrient-rich, pastures. These practices are, however, controversial. It is argued that since semi-natural pastures are species-rich partly because they are nutrient-poor, introducing additional nutrients into the system should be avoided. Accordingly, in Sweden, these interventions are often prohibited while receiving financial subsidies for management of semi-natural pastures. However, since many farmers are dependent on such support to maintain their pastures, these prohibitions often cause problems. The question has been raised whether giving the grazers access to additional nutrient sources really affect the biodiversity in semi-natural pastures, as is assumed. The primary aim of the proposed systematic review is to answer this question. Method Peer-reviewed and grey literature will be searched for using bibliographic databases, search engines, specialist websites and stakeholder contacts. The references will be screened for relevance according to a predefined set of eligibility criteria. The criteria will be tested and clarified iteratively, until consistency in interpretations is achieved. Thereafter, the literature will be screened in two stages, first based upon title and abstract and then by examining full texts. Full text screening will be performed with blinded decisions by two independent reviewers. Each relevant study will then be critically appraised, based on a set of predefined validity criteria. A narrative synthesis will be provided, outlining the evidence base in terms of bibliographic information and study metadata. If possible, quantitative syntheses based on meta-analyses will be performed. Identified relevant knowledge gaps will be highlighted and discussed.

scholarly journals Double Burden of Malnutrition Among Migrants and Refugees in Developed Countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Blessing Akombi-Inyang ◽  
Md. Nazmul Huda ◽  
Judith Byaruhanga ◽  
Andre Renzaho
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Double Burden ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Double Burden Of Malnutrition ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: The double burden of malnutrition (DBM) increases the risk of developing non-communicable diseases among migrant and refugee populations living in developed countries. This systematic review aims to examine the DBM among migrants and refugees in developed countries. It aims to appraise, synthesise, and summarise literature to create an evidence base that looks at multiple faces of DBM. Methods/Design: This protocol is informed by the standard Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A systematic review of peer-reviewed quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies on DBM among migrants and refugees in developed countries will be undertaken. The review will include only studies published in English. Eight bibliographic databases will be searched: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest, Scopus, PubMed, and web of science. Grey literature will also be searched. Studies that meet the inclusion criteria will be imported to Covidence. Screening for eligible studies will be conducted by two independent researchers. The quality of included studies will be appraised for risk of bias using validated tools. A narrative synthesis approach will be undertaken to report retrieved data. Discussion: The protocol provides insight into the scope and parameters of the systematic review to be conducted.

scholarly journals Lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽  
Ariel Izcovich ◽  
Martín Ragusa ◽  
Gabriel Rada
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question.We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir— as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

scholarly journals Prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Izcovich ◽  
Martín Ragusa ◽  
Verónica Sanguine ◽  
Fernando Tortosa ◽  
Federico Espinosa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Traditional Media ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe objective of our systematic review is to identify prognostic factors that can potentially be used in decision-making related to the care of patients infected with COVID-19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence covered and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will continue until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will follow a common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews, already published and submitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).We will include studies that assess patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and inform the relation between potential prognostic factors and death or disease severity. Two groups of two reviewers will independently screen studies for eligibility, extract data and assess the risk of bias. We will perform meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each prognostic factor and outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

scholarly journals Hypnotherapy for Procedural Pain and Distress in Children: A scoping Review Protocol

Pain Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daly Geagea ◽  
Zephanie Tyack ◽  
Roy Kimble ◽  
Lars Eriksson ◽  
Vince Polito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Procedural Pain ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Pharmacological Agents ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objective Inadequately treated pain and distress elicited by medical procedures can put children at higher risks of acute and chronic biopsychosocial sequelae. Children can benefit from hypnotherapy, a psychological tailored intervention, as an adjunct to pharmacological agents to address the multiple components of pain and distress. Despite providing evidence on the effectiveness and potential superiority of hypnotherapy to other psychological interventions, research on hypnotherapy for paediatric procedural pain and distress has been predominantly limited to oncology and needle procedures. Plus, there is a lack of reporting of intervention manuals, factors influencing hypnotic responding, pain unpleasantness outcomes, theoretical frameworks, adverse events, as well as barriers and facilitators to the feasibility of delivering the intervention and study procedures. The proposed review aims to map the range and nature of the evidence on hypnotherapy for procedural pain and distress in children to identify gaps in literature and areas requiring further investigation. Methods This review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) methodology and incorporate additional scoping review recommendations by The Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. Relevant studies will be identified through searching published literature databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science) and grey literature in addition to hand-searching of reference lists and key journals. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts of search results followed by full-texts review against eligibility criteria. Conclusion Findings are anticipated to guide future research and inform the development of tailored hypnotic interventions in children.

scholarly journals Technology-based Health Solutions for Cancer Caregivers to Better Shoulder the Impact of COVID-19: A Systematic Review Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaohui Su ◽  
Dean McDonnell ◽  
Bin Liang ◽  
Jennifer Kue ◽  
Xiaoshan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
Protocol Registration ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Cancer Caregivers ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Cancer patients are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, partially owing to their compromised immune systems and curbed or cut cancer healthcare services caused by the pandemic. As a result, cancer caregivers may have to shoulder triple crises: the COVID-19 pandemic, pronounced healthcare needs from the patient, and elevated need for care from within. While technology-based health interventions have the potential to address unique challenges cancer caregivers face amid COVID-19, limited insights are available. Thus, to bridge this gap, we aim to identify technology-based interventions designed for cancer caregivers and report the characteristics and effects of these interventions concerning cancer caregivers' distinctive challenges amid COVID-19. Methods: A systematic search of the literature will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus from the database inception to the end of March, 2021. Articles that center on technology-based interventions for cancer caregivers will be included in the review. The search strategy will be developed in consultation with an academic librarian who is experienced in systematic review studies. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles will be screened against eligibility criteria developed a priori. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses procedures will be followed for the reporting process. Conclusions: COVID-19 has upended cancer care as we know it. Findings of this study can shed light on evidence-based and practical solutions cancer caregivers can utilize to mitigate the unique challenges they face amid COVID-19. Furthermore, results of this study will also offer valuable insights for researchers who aim to develop interventions for cancer caregivers in the context of COVID-19. In addition, we also expect to be able to identify areas for improvement that need to be addressed in order for health experts to more adequately help cancer caregivers weather the storm of global health crises like COVID-19 and beyond. Study Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020196301

scholarly journals Sexual transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus and its role in the spread of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

Medwave ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. e8062-e8062
Author(s):  
Giuliano Duarte ◽  
Luis Ortiz-Muñoz ◽  
María Belén Morales ◽  
María Paz Acuña ◽  
Gabriel Rada
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Sexual Transmission ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective To provide a review of the literature on the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the sexual fluids of patients with COVID-19 and to observe its possible sexual transmission in a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated manner. Data sources We will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomized trials evaluating the sexual transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Randomized trials evaluating the sexual transmission of other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 will be searched if no direct evidence from randomized trials is found or if the direct evidence provides a low to a very low level of certainty for critical outcomes. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit the review if the conclusions change or if there are substantial updates. PROSPERO Registration (CRD42020189368).

scholarly journals A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors for foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the international research collaboration for the prediction of diabetic foot ulcerations (PODUS)

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (57) ◽  
pp. 1-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fay Crawford ◽  
Genevieve Cezard ◽  
Francesca M Chappell ◽  
Gordon D Murray ◽  
Jacqueline F Price ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Foot Ulceration ◽  
History Of ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Assessment Procedures

BackgroundAnnual foot risk assessment of people with diabetes is recommended in national and international clinical guidelines. At present, these are consensus based and use only a proportion of the available evidence.ObjectivesWe undertook a systematic review of individual patient data (IPD) to identify the most highly prognostic factors for foot ulceration (i.e. symptoms, signs, diagnostic tests) in people with diabetes.Data sourcesStudies were identified from searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE.Review methodsThe electronic search strategies for MEDLINE and EMBASE databases created during an aggregate systematic review of predictive factors for foot ulceration in diabetes were updated and rerun to January 2013. One reviewer applied the IPD review eligibility criteria to the full-text articles of the studies identified in our literature search and also to all studies excluded from our aggregate systematic review to ensure that we did not miss eligible IPD. A second reviewer applied the eligibility criteria to a 10% random sample of the abstract search yield to check that no relevant material was missed. This review includes exposure variables (risk factors) only from individuals who were free of foot ulceration at the time of study entry and who had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (either type 1 or type 2). The outcome variable was incident ulceration.ResultsOur search identified 16 cohort studies and we obtained anonymised IPD for 10. These data were collected from more than 16,000 people with diabetes worldwide and reanalysed by us. One data set was kept for independent validation. The data sets contributing IPD covered a range of temporal, geographical and clinical settings. We therefore selected random-effects meta-analysis, which assumes not that all the estimates from each study are estimates of the same underlying true value, but rather that the estimates belong to the same distribution. We selected candidate variables for meta-analysis using specific criteria. After univariate meta-analyses, the most clinically important predictors were identified by an international steering committee for inclusion in the primary, multivariable meta-analysis. Age, sex, duration of diabetes, monofilaments and pulses were considered most prognostically important. Meta-analyses based on data from the entire IPD population found that an inability to feel a 10-g monofilament [odds ratio (OR) 3.184, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.654 to 3.82], at least one absent pedal pulse (OR 1.968, 95% CI 1.624 to 2.386), a longer duration of a diagnosis of diabetes (OR 1.024, 95% CI 1.011 to 1.036) and a previous history of ulceration (OR 6.589, 95% CI 2.488 to 17.45) were all predictive of risk. Female sex was protective (OR 0.743, 95% CI 0.598 to 0.922).LimitationsIt was not possible to perform a meta-analysis using a one-step approach because we were unable to procure copies of one of the data sets and instead accessed data via Safe Haven.ConclusionsThe findings from this review identify risk assessment procedures that can reliably inform national and international diabetes clinical guideline foot risk assessment procedures. The evidence from a large sample of patients in worldwide settings show that the use of a 10-g monofilament or one absent pedal pulse will identify those at moderate or intermediate risk of foot ulceration, and a history of foot ulcers or lower-extremity amputation is sufficient to identify those at high risk. We propose the development of a clinical prediction rule (CPR) from our existing model using the following predictor variables: insensitivity to a 10-g monofilament, absent pedal pulses and a history of ulceration or lower-extremities amputations. This CPR could replace the many tests, signs and symptoms that patients currently have measured using equipment that is either costly or difficult to use.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001841.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e031909 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Avenell ◽  
Fiona Stewart ◽  
Andrew Grey ◽  
Greg Gamble ◽  
Mark Bolland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Potential Influence ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveAnalyses of the impact of a body of clinical trial reports subject to research misconduct have been few. Our objective was to examine the impact on clinically relevant research of a group of researchers’ trial reports (‘affected trial reports’) affected by research misconduct, and whether identification of misconduct invoked a reappraisal.DesignIn 2016, we used five databases and search engines to identify ‘citing publications’, that is, guidelines, systematic and other reviews, and clinical trials citing any of 12 affected trial reports, published 1998–2011, eventually retracted for research misconduct. The affected trial reports were assessed more likely to have had impact because they had hip fracture outcomes and were in journals with impact factor >4. Two authors assessed whether findings of the citing publications would change if the affected trial reports were removed. In 2018, we searched for evidence that the citing publications had undertaken a reassessment as a result of the potential influence of the affected trial reports.ResultsBy 2016 the affected trial reports were cited in 1158 publications, including 68 systematic reviews, meta-analyses, narrative reviews, guidelines and clinical trials. We judged that 13 guidelines, systematic or other reviews would likely change their findings if the affected trial reports were removed, and in another eight it was unclear if findings would change. By 2018, only one of the 68 citing publications, a systematic review, appeared to have undertaken a reassessment, which led to a correction.ConclusionsWe found evidence that this group of affected trial reports distorted the evidence base. Correction of these distortions is slow, uncoordinated and inconsistent. Unless there is a rapid, systematic, coordinated approach by bibliographic databases, authors, journals and publishers to mitigate the impact of known cases of research misconduct, patients, other researchers and their funders may continue to be adversely affected.

scholarly journals Indoor Nature Interventions for Health and Wellbeing of Older Adults in Residential Settings: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. e184-e199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola L Yeo ◽  
Lewis R Elliott ◽  
Alison Bethel ◽  
Mathew P White ◽  
Sarah G Dean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Residential Settings ◽  
Health And Wellbeing ◽  
Design And Methods ◽  
Effective Public Health

Abstract Background and Objectives Having contact with nature can be beneficial for health and wellbeing, but many older adults face barriers with getting outdoors. We conducted a systematic review of quantitative studies on health and wellbeing impacts of indoor forms of nature (both real and simulated/artificial), for older adults in residential settings. Research Design and Methods Search terms relating to older adults and indoor nature were run in 13 scientific databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, AgeLine, Environment Complete, AMED, PsychINFO, EMBASE, HMIC, PsychARTICLES, Global Health, Web of Knowledge, Dissertations and Theses Global, and ASSIA). We also pursued grey literature, global clinical trials registries, and a range of supplementary methods. Results Of 6,131 articles screened against eligibility criteria, 26 studies were accepted into the review, and were quality-appraised using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool. The participants were 930 adults aged over 60. Nature interventions and health/wellbeing outcomes were heterogeneous, which necessitated a narrative synthesis. The evidence base was generally weak, with 18 of 26 studies having a high risk of bias. However, several higher-quality studies found indoor gardening and horticulture programs were effective for cognition, psychological wellbeing, social outcomes, and life satisfaction. Discussion and Implications There is inconsistent evidence that indoor nature exposures are beneficial for older care residents. We expect that successful interventions were, at least partly, facilitating social interaction, supporting feelings of autonomy/control, and promoting skill development, that is, factors not necessarily associated with nature per se. Higher-quality studies with improved reporting standards are needed to further elucidate these mechanisms.

scholarly journals Technology-based health solutions for cancer caregivers to better shoulder the impact of COVID-19: a systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaohui Su ◽  
Dean McDonnell ◽  
Bin Liang ◽  
Jennifer Kue ◽  
Xiaoshan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
Academic Librarian ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Cancer Caregivers ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Cancer patients are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, partially owing to their compromised immune systems and curbed or cut cancer healthcare services caused by the pandemic. As a result, cancer caregivers may have to shoulder triple crises: the COVID-19 pandemic, pronounced healthcare needs from the patient, and elevated need for care from within. While technology-based health interventions have the potential to address unique challenges cancer caregivers face amid COVID-19, limited insights are available. Thus, to bridge this gap, we aim to identify technology-based interventions designed for cancer caregivers and report the characteristics and effects of these interventions concerning cancer caregivers' distinctive challenges amid COVID-19. Methods A systematic search of the literature will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus from the database inception to the end of March 2021. Articles that center on technology-based interventions for cancer caregivers will be included in the review. The search strategy will be developed in consultation with an academic librarian who is experienced in systematic review studies. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles will be screened against eligibility criteria developed a priori. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses procedures will be followed for the reporting process. Conclusions COVID-19 has upended cancer care as we know it. Findings of this study can shed light on evidence-based and practical solutions cancer caregivers can utilize to mitigate the unique challenges they face amid COVID-19. Furthermore, results of this study will also offer valuable insights for researchers who aim to develop interventions for cancer caregivers in the context of COVID-19. In addition, we also expect to be able to identify areas for improvement that need to be addressed in order for health experts to more adequately help cancer caregivers weather the storm of global health crises like COVID-19 and beyond. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196301

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document