scholarly journals Defining brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Watling Neal ◽  
Zachary P. Neal ◽  
Brian Brutzman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Relationship Building ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Boundary Spanners ◽  
Boundary Spanner ◽  
Multiple Functions ◽  
Policy Communities ◽  
As Relationship

Background: A growing literature focuses on the roles of brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) in addressing the challenges of transferring research evidence between the research and practice or policy communities.Aims and objectives: In this systematic review, we examined two research questions: (1) where, how, and when are different BIBS terms (broker, intermediary, and boundary spanner) used? and (2) which BIBS terms get defined, and when these terms are defined, who are BIBS and what do they do?Methods: We conducted literature searches designed to capture articles on BIBS and the transfer of research evidence. We extracted information about eligible articles’ characteristics, use of BIBS terms, and definitions of BIBS terms.Findings: The search revealed an initial pool of 667 results, of which 277 articles were included after screening. Although we coded 430 separate uses of BIBS terms, only 37.2% of these uses provided explicit definitions. The terms, ‘broker’ and ‘brokerage’, were commonly applied in the health sector to describe a person engaged in multiple functions. The term, ‘intermediary’, was commonly applied in the education sector to describe an organisation engaged in dissemination. Finally, the terms ‘boundary spanner’ and ‘boundary spanning’ were commonly applied in the environment sector to describe people or organisations that engage in relationship building.Discussion and conclusions: Results demonstrated that when BIBS were defined, there were important (albeit implicit) distinctions between terms. Based on these results, we identify archetypal definitions for brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners and offer recommendations for future research.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Only 37.2% of coded uses of BIBS in articles included explicit definitions.</li><br /><li>Brokers were commonly defined in health as people engaged in multiple functions.</li><br /><li>Intermediaries were commonly defined in education as research-disseminating organisations.</li><br /><li>Boundary spanners were commonly defined in environment as relationship-building entities.</li></ul>

scholarly journals Defining Brokers, Intermediaries, and Boundary Spanners: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Watling Neal ◽  
Zachary Neal ◽  
Brian Brutzman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Relationship Building ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Boundary Spanners ◽  
Boundary Spanner ◽  
Literature Searches ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Policy Communities

Background: A growing literature focuses on the roles of brokers, intermediaries, and boundary-spanners (BIBS) in addressing the challenges of transferring research evidence between the research and practice or policy communities. However, it is unclear how BIBS are used and defined in this work. Aims and Objectives: In this systematic review, we examined two key research questions: (1) Where, how, and when are different BIBS terms (i.e., broker, intermediary, and boundary spanner) used? and (2) Which BIBS terms get defined, and when these terms are defined, who are BIBS and what do they do? Methods: We conducted literature searches designed to capture articles on BIBS and the transfer of research evidence. We extracted information about eligible articles’ characteristics, use of BIBS terms, and definitions of BIBS terms. For all BIBS definitions extracted, we also coded who were counted as BIBS and what BIBS were described as doing. Findings: The search revealed an initial pool of 667 results, of which, 277 articles were included after screening. Although we coded 430 separate uses of BIBS terms in our review, only 37.2% of these uses (i.e., 160) provided explicit definitions. There were some consistent differences in the definition of BIBS terms. The terms, “broker” and “brokerage”, were commonly applied in the health sector to describe a person engaged in multiple functions including capacity building, dissemination, and relationship building. The term, “intermediary”, was commonly applied in the education sector to describe an organization engaged in dissemination. Finally, the terms, “boundary spanner” and “boundary spanning”, were commonly applied in the environment sector to describe people or organizations that engage in relationship building. Discussion and Conclusions: The results of this review demonstrated that it was uncommon for researchers to explicitly define BIBS terms. Additionally, when BIBS were defined, there were important (albeit implicit) distinctions between different terms. Based on these results, we identify archetypal definitions for brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners and offer recommendations for future research.

scholarly journals Content and outcomes of narrative medicine programmes: a systematic review of the literature through 2019

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e031568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christy DiFrances Remein ◽  
Ellen Childs ◽  
John Carlo Pasco ◽  
Ludovic Trinquart ◽  
David B Flynn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Academic Medicine ◽  
Narrative Medicine ◽  
Qualitative Evaluation ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Personal Accomplishment ◽  
Relationship Building ◽  
Positive Outcomes ◽  
Participant Satisfaction ◽  
As Relationship

ObjectivesNarrative medicine (NM) incorporates stories into health sciences paradigms as fundamental aspects of the human experience. The aim of this systematic review is to answer the research question: how effective is the implementation and evaluation of NM programmes in academic medicine and health sciences? We documented objectives, content and evaluation outcomes of NM programming to provide recommendations for future narrative-based education.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of literature published through 2019 using five major databases: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and MedEdPORTAL. Eligible NM programming included textual analysis/close reading of published literature and creative/reflective writing. Qualifying participants comprised individuals from academic medicine and health sciences disciplines. We reviewed and categorised programme goals, content and evaluation activities to assess participant satisfaction and programme efficacy. Two members of the research team assessed the risk of bias, independently screening records via a two-round, iterative process to reach consensus on eligibility.ResultsOf 1569 original citations identified, we selected 55 unique programmes (described in 61 records). In all, 41 (75%) programmes reported a form of evaluation; evaluation methods lacked consistency. Twenty-two programmes used quantitative evaluation (13 well described), and 33 programmes used qualitative evaluation (27 well described). Well-described quantitative evaluations relied on 32 different measures (7 validated) and showed evidence of high participant satisfaction and pre-post improvement in competencies such as relationship-building, empathy, confidence/personal accomplishment, pedagogical skills and clinical skills. An average of 88.3% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the programme had positive outcomes. Qualitative evaluation identified high participant satisfaction and improvement in competencies such as relationship-building, empathy, perspective-taking/reflection, resilience and burnout detection/mitigation, confidence/personal accomplishment, narrative competence, and ethical inquiry.ConclusionEvaluation suggests that NM programming leads to high participant satisfaction and positive outcomes across various competencies. We suggest best practices and innovative future directions for programme implementation and evaluation.

scholarly journals Views and Experiences of LGBTQ+ People in Prison Regarding Their Psychosocial Needs: A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Research Evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (17) ◽  
pp. 9335
Author(s):  
Gráinne Donohue ◽  
Edward McCann ◽  
Michael Brown
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
The Body ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Psychosocial Needs ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Interpersonal Factors ◽  
Systemic Discrimination ◽  
Practice Development

People who identify as LGBTQ+ and are in prison often experience many additional challenges. Once in prison, there is systemic discrimination against imprisoned LGBTQ+ people and a lack of understanding and concern regarding their care, treatment and support needs. While there is growing interest in their protection and that of other vulnerable populations in prison settings, little is known about their views and experiences regarding their distinct psychosocial needs. The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate and synthesize the existing research evidence relating to the unique psychological and social experiences of LGBTQ+ people in prison and identify aspects that may help or hinder access to appropriate psychosocial interventions and supports. The PRISMA procedure was utilized. A search of relevant databases from January 2010 to March 2021 was undertaken. Studies were identified that involved LGBTQ+ people, and addressed their views and experiences regarding their psychosocial needs whilst in prison. The search yielded 858 papers in total. Following the application of rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria a total of 12 papers were considered suitable for the systematic review. Quality was assessed using the CASP instrument. Following analysis, three themes were identified: (i) interpersonal factors (ii) intrapersonal factors and (iii) institutional factors. The policy, education and practice development implications are highlighted and discussed. Future research opportunities have been identified that will add significantly to the body of evidence that may further the development of appropriate health interventions and supports specific to the LGBTQ+ population in prison.

Trials and Tribulations of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Hematology ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 2007 (1) ◽  
pp. 493-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Crowther ◽  
Deborah J. Cook
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Optimal Health ◽  
Bodies Of Evidence ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Key Steps

Abstract Systematic reviews can help practitioners keep abreast of the medical literature by summarizing large bodies of evidence and helping to explain differences among studies on the same question. A systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several primary studies. Because the review process itself (like any other type of research) is subject to bias, a useful review requires rigorous methods that are clearly reported. Used increasingly to inform medical decision making, plan future research agendas, and establish clinical policy, systematic reviews may strengthen the link between best research evidence and optimal health care. In this article, we discuss key steps in how to critically appraise and how to conduct a systematic review or meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Experiences and Perceptions of Trans and Gender Non-Binary People Regarding Their Psychosocial Support Needs: A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Research Evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 3403
Author(s):  
Edward McCann ◽  
Gráinne Donohue ◽  
Michael Brown
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Psychosocial Support ◽  
Healthcare Access ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
The Body ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Psychosocial Needs ◽  
Trans People ◽  
And Gender

People who identify as trans and gender non-binary experience many challenges in their lives and more interest is being paid to their overall health and wellbeing. However, little is known about their experiences and perceptions regarding their distinct psychosocial needs. The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate and synthesize the existing research evidence relating to the unique psychological and social experiences of trans people and identify aspects that may help or hinder access to appropriate psychosocial interventions and supports. The PRISMA procedure was utilized. A search of relevant databases from January 2010 to January 2021 was undertaken. Studies were identified that involved trans people, and addressed issues related to their psychosocial needs. The search yielded 954 papers in total. Following the application of rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria a total of 18 papers were considered suitable for the systematic review. Quality was assessed using the MMAT instrument. Following analysis, four themes were identified: (i) stigma, discrimination and marginalization (ii) trans affirmative experiences (iii) formal and informal supports, and (iv) healthcare access. The policy, education and practice development implications are highlighted and discussed. Future research opportunities have been identified that will add significantly to the body of evidence that may further the development of appropriate health interventions and supports to this population.

Telepractice for Adult Speech-Language Pathology Services: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 326-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Weidner ◽  
Joneen Lowman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Progressive Aphasia ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Service Delivery Model ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Screening Assessment

Purpose We conducted a systematic review of the literature regarding adult telepractice services (screening, assessment, and treatment) from approximately 2014 to 2019. Method Thirty-one relevant studies were identified from a literature search, assessed for quality, and reported. Results Included studies illustrated feasibility, efficacy, diagnostic accuracy, and noninferiority of various speech-language pathology services across adult populations, including chronic aphasia, Parkinson's disease, dysphagia, and primary progressive aphasia. Technical aspects of the equipment and software used to deliver services were discussed. Some general themes were noted as areas for future research. Conclusion Overall, results of the review continue to support the use of telepractice as an appropriate service delivery model in speech-language pathology for adults. Strong research designs, including experimental control, across multiple well-described settings are still needed to definitively determine effectiveness of telepractice services.

Systematic review methodology for development: An example from microfinance

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carina Van Rooyen ◽  
Ruth Stewart ◽  
Thea De Wet
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
International Development ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Development Interventions ◽  
The Us ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Big international development donors such as the UK’s Department for International Development and USAID have recently started using systematic review as a methodology to assess the effectiveness of various development interventions to help them decide what is the ‘best’ intervention to spend money on. Such an approach to evidence-based decision-making has long been practiced in the health sector in the US, UK, and elsewhere but it is relatively new in the development field. In this article we use the case of a systematic review of the impact of microfinance on the poor in sub-Saharan African to indicate how systematic review as a methodology can be used to assess the impact of specific development interventions.

Chasing the Anchor: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Perceptual Anchoring Deficits in Developmental Dyslexia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt D Shulver ◽  
Nicholas A Badcock
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Reading Ability ◽  
English Language ◽  
Prediction Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Visual Assessment ◽  
Individual Performance ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

We report the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the relationship between perceptual anchoring and dyslexia. Our goal was to assess the direction and degree of effect between perceptual anchoring and reading ability in typical and atypical (dyslexic) readers. We performed a literature search of experiments explicitly assessing perceptual anchoring and reading ability using PsycInfo (Ovid, 1860 to 2020), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1860 to 2019), EMBASE (Ovid, 1883 to 2019), and PubMed for all available years up to June (2020). Our eligibility criteria consisted of English-language articles and, at minimum, one experimental group identified as dyslexic - either by reading assessment at the time, or by previous diagnosis. We assessed for risk of bias using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Six studies were included in this review, but only five (n = 280 participants) were included in the meta-analysis (we were unable to access the necessary data for one study).The overall effect was negative, large and statistically significant; g = -0.87, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.27]: a negative effect size indicating less perceptual anchoring in dyslexic versus non-dyslexic groups. Visual assessment of funnel plot and Egger’s test suggest minimal bias but with significant heterogeneity; Q (4) = 9.70, PI (prediction interval) [-2.32, -0.58]. The primary limitation of the current review is the small number of included studies. We discuss methodological limitations, such as limited power, and how future research may redress these concerns. The variability of effect sizes appears consistent with the inherent variability within subtypes of dyslexia. This level of dispersion seems indicative of the how we define cut-off thresholds between typical reading and dyslexia populations, but also the methodological tools we use to investigate individual performance.

Impact of surgery timing for craniosynostosis on neurodevelopmental outcomes: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 442-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Mandela ◽  
Maggie Bellew ◽  
Paul Chumas ◽  
Hannah Nash
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Beneficial Effect ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Sociodemographic Factors ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Neurodevelopmental Outcomes ◽  
Age At Surgery ◽  
Data Extraction Form ◽  
Surgery Timing ◽  
Anesthetic Exposure

OBJECTIVEThere are currently no guidelines for the optimum age for surgical treatment of craniosynostosis. This systematic review summarizes and assesses evidence on whether there is an optimal age for surgery in terms of neurodevelopmental outcomes.METHODSThe databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase + Embase Classic, and Web of Science were searched between October and November 2016 and searches were repeated in July 2017. According to PICO (participants, intervention, comparison, outcome) criteria, studies were included that focused on: children diagnosed with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis, aged ≤ 5 years at time of surgery; corrective surgery for nonsyndromic craniosynostosis; comparison of age-at-surgery groups; and tests of cognitive and neurodevelopmental postoperative outcomes. Studies that did not compare age-at-surgery groups (e.g., those employing a correlational design alone) were excluded. Data were double-extracted by 2 authors using a modified version of the Cochrane data extraction form.RESULTSTen studies met the specified criteria; 5 found a beneficial effect of earlier surgery, and 5 did not. No study found a beneficial effect of later surgery. No study collected data on length of anesthetic exposure and only 1 study collected data on sociodemographic factors.CONCLUSIONSIt was difficult to draw firm conclusions from the results due to multiple confounding factors. There is some inconclusive evidence that earlier surgery is beneficial for patients with sagittal synostosis. The picture is even more mixed for other subtypes. There is no evidence that later surgery is beneficial. The authors recommend that future research use agreed-upon parameters for: age-at-surgery cut-offs, follow-up times, and outcome measures.

scholarly journals Protocol for a systematic review on the experience of informal caregivers for people with a moderate to advanced dementia within a domestic home setting

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles James ◽  
Catherine Walshe ◽  
Katherine Froggatt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Informal Caregivers ◽  
Informal Caregiving ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Advanced Dementia ◽  
Home Setting ◽  
Search Terms

Abstract Background The knowledge about the experience of informal caregivers who provide care to people with moderate to advanced dementia in a domestic home setting is limited. A consequence of long hours of caregiving in addition to dealing with normal challenges of daily living is their experience of a poor quality of life. Some of their experiences may be described in terms of a feeling of powerlessness to make changes during care provision. This feeling may also suggest an experience of moral distress. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise qualitative evidence relating to these experiences. Methods This review adopts a narrative synthesis approach. A search will be conducted for studies written in the English language in the bibliographic databases MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Academic Search Complete covering periods from 1984 to present. Included studies will be qualitative or mixed-methods designs. The search terms will be related to dementia and caregivers, and the process will be focused on dementia at the moderate to the advanced stages within the domestic home setting. Reference lists of included papers will also be searched for additional relevant citations. Search terms and strategies will be checked by two independent reviewers. The identification of abstracts and full texts of studies will be done by the author, while the quality and the risk of bias will also be checked by the two independent reviewers. Discussion Psychological distress is cited as an experience reported within informal caregiving. For the caregiver, it is associated with a negative impact on general health. To date, no synthesis exists on the specific experience of informal caregiving for people with moderate to advanced dementia within the domestic home setting. This review considers that variation of accounts contributes to how the informal caregivers’ general experience is explored in future research. This may enable gaps in current knowledge to be highlighted within the wider context of caregiving in the domestic home setting. Systematic review registration This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183649).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document