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 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

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

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaohui Su ◽  
Dean McDonnell ◽  
Bin Liang ◽  
Jennifer Kue ◽  
Xiaoshan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Daily Basis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
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 the distinctive challenges cancer caregivers face amid COVID-19. Additionally, this paper will present practical insights into the diverse intervention approaches that can assist in the delivery of digital health solutions for cancer caregivers amid and beyond COVID-19.Methods A systematic review of the literature will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus in September, 2020. Articles that center on technology-based interventions for cancer caregivers will be included in the review. The search strategy was 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.Results NA—This is a protocol study.Conclusions COVID-19 has uprooted cancer care as we know it. Due to barriers introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as medical resources rationing, cancer caregivers often have to step up to address patients' healthcare needs and wants. This, in turn, will exert substantial stress on informal caregivers, above and beyond COVID-19-related burdens the general public shoulders on a daily basis. 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 An assessment of the extent to which the contents of PROSPERO records meet the systematic review protocol reporting items in PRISMA-P

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 773
Author(s):  
Alison Booth ◽  
Alex S. Mitchell ◽  
Andrew Mott ◽  
Sophie James ◽  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Single Entry ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Source Of Information

Background: PROSPERO is an international prospective register for systematic review protocols. Many of the registrations are the only available source of information about planned methods. This study investigated the extent to which records in PROSPERO contained the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Methods: A random sample of 439 single entry PROSPERO records of reviews of health interventions registered in 2018 was identified. Using a piloted list of 19 PRISMA-P items, divided into 63 elements, two researchers independently assessed the registration records. Where the information was present or not applicable to the review, a score of 1 was assigned. Overall scores were calculated and comparisons made by stage of review at registration, whether or not a meta-analysis was planned and whether or not funding/sponsorship was reported. Results: Some key methodological details, such as eligibility criteria, were relatively frequently reported, but much of the information recommended in PRISMA-P was not stated in PROSPERO registrations. Considering the 19 items, the mean score was 4.8 (SD 1.8; median 4; range 2-11) and across all the assessed records only 25% (2081/8227) of the items were scored as reported. Considering the 63 elements, the mean score was 33.4 (SD 5.8; median 33; range 18-47) and overall, 53% (14,469/27,279) of the elements were assessed as reported. Reporting was more frequent for items required in PROSPERO than optional items. The planned comparisons showed no meaningful differences between groups. Conclusions: PROSPERO provides reviewers with the opportunity to be transparent in their planned methods and demonstrate efforts to reduce bias. However, where the PROSPERO record is the only available source of a priori reporting, there is a significant shortfall in the items reported, compared to those recommended. This presents challenges in interpretation for those wishing to assess the validity of the final review.

scholarly journals Evidence-based health solutions for challenges women face during pandemics like COVID-19: A systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaohui Su ◽  
Shelly Wagers ◽  
Emme Lopez ◽  
Lori Ann Terjesen ◽  
Jaffar Abbas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Psychological Health ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Nursing Home Residents ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Access To Healthcare ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

Abstract Background One of the most vulnerable populations to COVID-19 is women. Multiple factors associated with violence against women (i.e. sexual assault, domestic violence, homelessness) create an increased vulnerability for women during the COVID pandemic. Women also constitute the majority of older nursing home residents and healthcare workers (e.g., nurses), who have the most pronounced exposure to COVID-19. These factors combined with resource restraints like rationing and lack of access to healthcare can further exacerbate women’s physical and psychological health issues. While literature has well-documented challenges that women face during COVID-19, there is a lack of evidence-based solutions that have the potential to mitigate these difficulties. Therefore, to address this issue, we aim to conduct a systematic review of the literature to: (1) identify interventions designed for women in the context of pandemics, (2) describe the characteristics and effects of these interventions concerning the distinctive traits of women and pandemics, and (3) present evidence-based health solutions for women to mitigate challenges they face amid and beyond COVID-19. Methods A systematic review of literature will be conducted on databases including PubMed, PsycINFO on the EBSCO platform, CINAHL on the EBSCO platform, and Scopus, based on a search strategy developed in consultation with an experienced medical librarian. 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 adopted as the reporting framework, and data extracted (e.g., intervention details) will be evaluated by a multidisciplinary research team. Results NA for now—This is a protocol study. Conclusions Findings of this study will fill an important void in the literature. Considering that, in times of pandemic, women are especially subject to grim health disparities, like pronounced exposure to COVID-19, reproductive health issues, elevated domestic violence, increased mental health challenges, and lack of access to healthcare services, the need for evidence-based health solutions that could address these unique challenges is of paramount importance. A comprehensive understanding of the characteristics and effects of health solutions available to women in the context of pandemics can also help researchers identify areas of improvement regarding intervention design and development. This may further safeguard women’s health and wellbeing amid pandemics like COVID-19 and beyond. Study Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020194003

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 A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien Déry ◽  
Angel Ruiz ◽  
François Routhier ◽  
Valérie Bélanger ◽  
André Côté ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Waiting Times ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Process Data ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Patient Prioritization ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Patient prioritization is a strategy used to manage access to healthcare services. Patient prioritization tools (PPT) contribute to supporting the prioritization decision process, and to its transparency and fairness. Patient prioritization tools can take various forms and are highly dependent on the particular context of application. Consequently, the sets of criteria change from one context to another, especially when used in non-emergency settings. This paper systematically synthesizes and analyzes the published evidence concerning the development and challenges related to the validation and implementation of PPTs in non-emergency settings. Methods We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. We searched evidence in five databases to select articles based on eligibility criteria, and information of included articles was extracted using an extraction grid. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The article selection process, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by at least two reviewers independently. Results We included 48 studies listing 34 different patient prioritization tools. Most of them are designed for managing access to elective surgeries in hospital settings. Two-thirds of the tools were investigated based on reliability or validity. Inconclusive results were found regarding the impact of PPTs on patient waiting times. Advantages associated with PPT use were found mostly in relationship to acceptability of the tools by clinicians and increased transparency and equity for patients. Conclusions This review describes the development and validation processes of PPTs used in non-urgent healthcare settings. Despite the large number of PPTs studied, implementation into clinical practice seems to be an open challenge. Based on the findings of this review, recommendations are proposed to develop, validate, and implement such tools in clinical settings. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018107205

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Patient Prioritization Tools in Non-Emergency Healthcare Services

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien Dery ◽  
Angel Ruiz ◽  
François Routhier ◽  
Valérie Bélanger ◽  
André Côté ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Waiting Times ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Process Data ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Patient Prioritization ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Patient prioritization is a strategy used to manage access to healthcare services. Patient prioritization tools (PPT) contribute to supporting the prioritization decision process, and to its transparency and fairness. Patient prioritization tools can take various forms and are highly dependent on the particular context of application. Consequently, the sets of criteria change from one context to another, especially when used in non-emergency settings. This paper systematically synthesizes and analyzes the published evidence concerning the development and challenges related to the validation and implementation of PPTs in non-emergency settings. Methods: We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. We searched evidence in five databases to select articles based on eligibility criteria, and information of included articles was extracted using an extraction grid. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The article selection process, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by at least two reviewers independently. Results: We included 47 studies listing 33 different patient prioritization tools. Most of them are designed for managing access to elective surgeries in hospital settings. Two thirds of the tools were investigated based on reliability or validity. Inconclusive results were found regarding the impact of PPTs on patient waiting times. Advantages associated with PPT use were found mostly in relationship to acceptability of the tools by clinicians and increased transparency and equity for patients. Conclusions: This review describes the development and validation processes of PPTs used in non-urgent healthcare settings. Despite the large number of PPTs studied, implementation into clinical practice seems to be an open challenge. Based on the findings of this review, recommendations are proposed to develop, validate, and implement such tools in clinical settings. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018107205

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Utility of the Test of Memory Malingering in Pediatric Examinees

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 1312-1322
Author(s):  
Hilary A Clark ◽  
Phillip K Martin ◽  
Hayrettin Okut ◽  
Ryan W Schroeder
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthy Children ◽  
Performance Validity ◽  
Test Of Memory Malingering ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Neuropsychological Evaluations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in pediatric examinees. It adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Method A systematic literature search was conducted using PsycINFO and PubMed, reviewing articles from January 1997 to July 2019. Books providing data on pediatric validity testing were also reviewed for references to relevant articles. Eligibility criteria included publication in a peer-reviewed journal, utilizing a pediatric sample, providing sufficient data to calculate specificity and/or sensitivity, and providing a means for evaluating validity status external to the TOMM. After selection criteria were applied, 9 articles remained for meta-analysis. Samples included clinical patients and healthy children recruited for research purposes; ages ranged from 5 to 18. Fixed and random effects models were used to calculate classification accuracy statistics. Results Traditional adult-derived cutoffs for Trial 2 and Retention were highly specific (0.96–0.99) in pediatric examinees for both clinical and research samples. Sensitivity was relatively strong (0.68–0.70), although only two studies reported sensitivity rates. A supplemental review of the literature corroborated these findings, revealing that traditional adult-based TOMM cutoffs are supported in most pediatric settings. However, limited research exists on the impact of very young age, extremely low cognitive functioning, and varying clinical diagnoses. Conclusions The TOMM, at traditional adult cutoffs, has strong specificity as a performance validity test in pediatric neuropsychological evaluations. This meta-analysis found that specificity values in children are comparable to those of adults. Areas for further research are discussed.

scholarly journals Bridging Health Disparity Gaps through the Use of Medical Legal Partnerships in Patient Care: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omar Martinez ◽  
Jeffrey Boles ◽  
Miguel Muñoz-Laboy ◽  
Ethan C. Levine ◽  
Chukwuemeka Ayamele ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Disparities ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Environmental Threats ◽  
Patient Health ◽  
Medical Teams ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Over the past two decades, we have seen an increase in the use of medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) in health-care and/or legal settings to address health disparities affecting vulnerable populations. MLPs increase medical teams' capacity to address social and environmental threats to patients' health, such as unsafe housing conditions, through partnership with legal professionals. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we systematically reviewed observational studies published from January 1993-January 2016 to investigate the capacity of MLPs to address legal and health disparities. We identified 13 articles for qualitative analysis from an initial pool of 355 records. The resulting pool of 13 articles revealed more information regarding the capacity of MLPs to address legal outcomes than their capacity to address health outcomes; only 4 studies directly addressed the impact of MLP intervention on patient wellbeing and/or patient utilization of healthcare services. We call for further evaluation/longitudinal studies that specifically address MLPs' short and long term effects upon patient health disparities. Finally, given the demonstrated capacity of MLPs to address unmet legal needs, and their evident potential in regards to improving health outcomes, we present the MLP model as a framework to address HIV-related legal and health disparities.

scholarly journals An assessment of the extent to which the contents of PROSPERO records meet the systematic review protocol reporting items in PRISMA-P

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 773
Author(s):  
Alison Booth ◽  
Alex S. Mitchell ◽  
Andrew Mott ◽  
Sophie James ◽  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Single Entry ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Source Of Information

Background: PROSPERO is an international prospective register for systematic review protocols. Many of the registrations are the only available source of information about planned methods. This study investigated the extent to which records in PROSPERO contained the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Methods: A random sample of 439 single entry PROSPERO records of reviews of health interventions registered in 2018 was identified. Using a piloted list of 19 PRISMA-P items, divided into 63 elements, two researchers independently assessed the registration records. Where the information was present or not applicable to the review, a score of 1 was assigned. Overall scores were calculated and comparisons made by stage of review at registration, whether or not a meta-analysis was planned and whether or not funding/sponsorship was reported. Results: Some key methodological details, such as eligibility criteria, were relatively frequently reported, but much of the information recommended in PRISMA-P was not stated in PROSPERO registrations. Considering the 19 items, the mean score was 4.8 (SD 1.8; median 4; range 2-11) and across all the assessed records only 25% (2081/8227) of the items were scored as reported. Considering the 63 elements, the mean score was 33.4 (SD 5.8; median 33; range 18-47) and overall, 53% (14,469/27,279) of the elements were assessed as reported. Reporting was more frequent for items required in PROSPERO than optional items. The planned comparisons showed no meaningful differences between groups. Conclusions: PROSPERO provides reviewers with the opportunity to be transparent in their planned methods and demonstrate efforts to reduce bias. However, where the PROSPERO record is the only available source of a priori reporting, there is a significant shortfall in the items reported, compared to those recommended. This presents challenges in interpretation for those wishing to assess the validity of the final review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document