scholarly journals International Palliative Care Research Priorities: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felicity Hasson ◽  
Emma Nicholson ◽  
Deborah Muldrew ◽  
Olufikayo Bamidele ◽  
Sheila Payne ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: There has been increasing evidence and debate on palliative care research priorities and the international research agenda. To date, however, there is a lack of synthesis of this evidence, examining commonalities, differences, and gaps. To identify and synthesize literature on international palliative care research priorities originating from Western countries mapped to a quality assessment framework.Methods: A systematic review of several academic and grey databases were searched from January 2008- June 2019 for studies eliciting research priorities in palliative care in English. Two researchers independently reviewed, critically appraised, and conducted data extraction and synthesis.Results: The search yielded 10,235 articles (academic databases, n = 4108; grey literature, n = 6127), of which ten were included for appraisal and review. Priority areas were identified: service models; continuity of care; training and education; inequality; communication; living well and independently; and recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas. The priorities were mapped to the Donabedian framework for assessing quality reflecting structure, process and outcomes and key priority areas.Conclusions: Limited evidence exists pertaining to research priorities across palliative care. Whilst a broad range of topics were elicited, approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The voice of the care provider dominated, calling for more inclusive means to capture the patient and family voice. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research, identify gaps, and extend the palliative care research agenda.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felicity Hasson ◽  
Emma Nicholson ◽  
Deborah Muldrew ◽  
Olufikayo Bamidele ◽  
Sheila Payne ◽  
...  

Abstract Background : There has been increasing evidence and debate on palliative care research priorities and the international research agenda. To date, however, there is a lack of synthesis of this evidence, examining commonalities, differences, and gaps. To identify and synthesize literature on international palliative care research priorities mapped to a quality assessment framework.Methods: A systematic review of several academic and grey databases were searched from January 2008- June 2019 for studies eliciting research priorities in palliative care in English. Two researchers independently reviewed, critically appraised, and conducted data extraction and synthesis.Results: The search yielded 10,325 of which ten were included for appraisal and review.Priority areas were identified: service models; continuity of care; training and education; inequality; communication; living well and independently; and recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas. The priorities were mapped to the Donabedian framework for assessing quality reflecting structure, process and outcomes and key priority areas. Conclusions : Limited evidence exists pertaining to research priorities across palliative care. Whilst a broad range of topics were elicited, approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The voice of the care provider dominated, calling for more inclusive means to capture the patient and family voice. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research, identify gaps, and extend the palliative care research agenda.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Felicity Hasson ◽  
Emma Nicholson ◽  
Deborah Muldrew ◽  
Olufikayo Bamidele ◽  
Sheila Payne ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047283
Author(s):  
Rosalind Gittins ◽  
Louise Missen ◽  
Ian Maidment

IntroductionThere is a growing concern about the misuse of over the counter (OTC) and prescription only medication (POM) because of the impact on physical and mental health, drug interactions, overdoses and drug-related deaths. These medicines include opioid analgesics, anxiolytics such as pregabalin and diazepam and antidepressants. This protocol outlines how a systematic review will be undertaken (during June 2021), which aims to examine the literature on the pattern of OTC and POM misuse among adults who are accessing substance misuse treatment services. It will include the types of medication being taken, prevalence and demographic characteristics of people who access treatment services.Methods and analysisAn electronic search will be conducted on the Cochrane, OVID Medline, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science databases as well as grey literature. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings, using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. If selected for inclusion, full-text data extraction will be conducted using a pilot-tested data extraction form. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted for all included studies. A qualitative synthesis and summary of the data will be provided. If possible, a meta-analysis with heterogeneity calculation will be conducted; otherwise, Synthesis Without Meta-analysis will be undertaken for quantitative data. The reporting of this protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be peer reviewed, published and shared verbally, electronically and in print, with interested clinicians and policymakers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020135216.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eveline Bunge ◽  
Bernard Hoet ◽  
Liddy Chen ◽  
Florian Lienert ◽  
Heinz Weidenthaler ◽  
...  

Monkeypox, a zoonotic disease caused by an orthopoxvirus, results in a smallpox-like disease in humans. Since monkeypox in humans was initially diagnosed in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), it has spread to other regions of Africa (primarily West and Central), and cases outside Africa have emerged in recent years. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature on how monkeypox epidemiology has evolved, with particular emphasis on the number of confirmed, probable, and/or possible cases, age at presentation, mortality, and geographical spread. The review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020208269). We identified 48 peer-reviewed articles and 18 grey literature sources for data extraction. The number of human monkeypox cases has been on the rise since the 1970s, with the most dramatic increases occurring in the DRC. The median age at presentation has increased from 4 (1970s) to 21 years (2010-2019). There was an overall case fatality rate of 8.7%, with a significant difference between clades - Central African 10.6% (95% CI: 8.4% - 13.3%) vs. West African 3.6% (95% CI: 1.7% - 6.8%). Since 2003, import- and travel-related spread outside of Africa has occasionally resulted in outbreaks. Interactions/activities with infected animals or individuals are risk behaviors associated with acquiring monkeypox. Our review shows an escalation of monkeypox cases, especially in the highly endemic DRC, a spread to other countries, and a growing median age from young children to young adults. These findings may be related to the cessation of smallpox vaccination, which provided some cross-protection against monkeypox, leading to increased human-to-human transmission. The appearance of outbreaks beyond Africa highlights the global relevance of the disease. Increased surveillance and detection of monkeypox cases are essential tools for understanding the continuously changing epidemiology of this resurging disease.


2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter L. Hudson ◽  
Rachel Zordan ◽  
Tom Trauer

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e027874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Button ◽  
Fiona Morgan ◽  
Alison Lesley Weightman ◽  
Stephen Jones

ObjectiveMusculoskeletal care pathways are variable and inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for the clinical and/or cost effectiveness of current care pathways for adults with hip and/or knee pain referred for specialist opinion.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesElectronic database searches were carried out in MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central and Health Management Information Consortium without language restriction from 1990 onwards. Websites were reviewed for grey literature.Eligibility criteriaAll study designs and documents that considered care pathways for adults with musculoskeletal hip and/or knee pain referred for specialist opinion were screened by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for randomised controlled trials and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction and quality assessment were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Findings are reported narratively.ResultsThe titles and abstracts of 1248 articles were screened and 140 full-text articles retrieved. 19 papers reporting 17 studies met the study inclusion criteria. Quality was low due to study design and methodological flaws. Most of the outcomes relate to organisational process at the ‘meso’ level of a whole systems approach.ConclusionIt can be concluded that the pathway is not linear, containing variations and activity loops. The available evidence suggests that, from the point of referral for specialist opinion, a model is required that integrates the skills of all the different healthcare professionals and streamlining is required to ensure that individuals are seen by the healthcare professional that best meets their needs. There is very limited evidence of patient experience informing knee and hip care pathways.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016035510.


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 1055-1077 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Lore Scherrens ◽  
Kim Beernaert ◽  
Lenzo Robijn ◽  
Luc Deliens ◽  
Nele S Pauwels ◽  
...  

Background: It is necessary to understand behaviours that contribute to improvement in the quality of end-of-life care; use of behavioural theories allows identification of factors underlying end-of-life care behaviour, but little is known about the extent to which, and in what manner, these theories are used in an end-of-life care research context. Aim: To assess the number of end-of-life care studies that have used behavioural theories, which theories were used, to what extent main constructs were explored/measured and which behavioural outcomes were examined. Design: We conducted a systematic review. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016036009). Data sources: The MEDLINE (PubMed), PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to June 2017. We included studies aimed at understanding or changing end-of-life care behaviours and that explicitly referred to individual behavioural theories. Results: We screened 2231 records by title and abstract, retrieved 43 full-text articles and included 31 studies – 27 quantitative (of which four (quasi-)randomised controlled trials) and four qualitative – for data extraction. More than half used the Theory of Planned Behaviour (9), the Theory of Reasoned Action (4) or the Transtheoretical Model (8). In 9 of 31 studies, the theory was fully used, and 16 of the 31 studies focussed on behaviours in advance care planning. Conclusion: In end-of-life care research, the use of behavioural theories is limited. As many behaviours can determine the quality of care, their more extensive use may be warranted if we want to better understand and influence behaviours and improve end-of-life care.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e028109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Funbi Akinola ◽  
Rudzani Muloiwa ◽  
Gregory, D Hussey ◽  
Violette Dirix ◽  
Benjamin Kagina ◽  
...  

IntroductionGlobally, some studies show a resurgence of pertussis. The risks and benefits of using whole-cell pertussis (wP) or acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines in the control of the disease have been widely debated. Better control of pertussis will require improved understanding of the immune response to pertussis vaccines. Improved understanding and assessment of the immunity induced by pertussis vaccines is thus imperative. Several studies have documented different immunological outcomes to pertussis vaccination from an array of assays. We propose to conduct a systematic review of the different immunological assays and outcomes used in the assessment of the humoraland cell-mediated immune response following pertussis vaccination.Methods and analysisThe primary outcomes for consideration are quality and quantity of immune responses (humoral and cell-mediated) post-pertussis vaccination. Of interest as secondary outcomes are types of immunoassays used in assessing immune responses post-pertussis vaccination, types of biological samples used in assessing immune responses post-pertussis vaccination, as well as the types of antigens used to stimulate these samples during post-pertussis vaccination immune response assessments. Different electronic databases (including PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO Host, Scopus and Web of Science) will be accessed for peer-reviewed published and grey literature evaluating immune responses to pertussis vaccines between 1990 and 2019. The quality of included articles will be assessed using standardised risk and quality assessment tools specific to the study design used in each article. Data extraction will be done using a data extraction form. The extracted data will be analysed using STATA V.14.0 and RevMan V.5.3 software. A subgroup analysis will be conducted based on the study population, type of vaccine (wP or aP) and type of immune response (cell-mediated or humoral). Guidelines for reporting systematic reviews in the revised 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement will be used in this study.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this study as it is a systematic review. We will only make use of data already available in the public space. Findings will be reported via publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific meetings and workshops.Trial registration numberCRD42018102455.


2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 722-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwenda Albers ◽  
Richard Harding ◽  
H Roeline W Pasman ◽  
Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen ◽  
Sue Hall ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document