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 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 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 Healthcare experiences of perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse: a systematic review and meta-synthesis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e043183
Author(s):  
Marilia A Calcia ◽  
Simran Bedi ◽  
Louise M Howard ◽  
Heidi Lempp ◽  
Sian Oram
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Social Consequences ◽  
Healthcare Staff ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Domestic Violence And Abuse

ObjectivesDomestic violence and abuse (DVA) is highly prevalent, with severe adverse consequences to the health and well-being of survivors. There is a smaller evidence base on the health of DVA perpetrators and their engagement with healthcare services. This review examines the experiences of perpetrators of DVA of accessing healthcare services and the barriers and facilitators to their disclosure of abusive behaviours in these settings.DesignA systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.Data sourcesA systematic search was conducted in Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, BNID, CINAHL, ASSIA, IBSS, SSCI (peer-reviewed literature) and NDLTD, OpenGrey and SCIE Online (grey literature). Each database was searched from its start date to 15 March 2020. Eligibility criteria required that studies used qualitative or mixed methods to report on the experiences of healthcare use by perpetrators of DVA. A meta-ethnographic method was used to analyse the extracted data.ResultsOf 30,663 papers identified, six studies (n=125 participants; 124 men, 1 woman) met the inclusion criteria. Barriers to disclosure of DVA to healthcare staff included perpetrators’ negative emotions and attitudes towards their abusive behaviours; fear of consequences of disclosure; and lack of trust in healthcare services’ ability to address DVA. Facilitators of disclosure of DVA and engagement with healthcare services were experiencing social consequences of abusive behaviours; feeling listened to by healthcare professionals; and offers of emotional and practical support for relationship problems by healthcare staff.ConclusionsDVA perpetration is a complex issue with multiple barriers to healthcare engagement and disclosure. However, healthcare services can create positive conditions for the engagement of individuals who perpetrate abuse.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073818.

scholarly journals Professionals’, patients’ and families’ views on the use of opioids for chronic breathlessness: A systematic review using the framework method and pillar process

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921632110321
Author(s):  
Florence Reedy ◽  
Mark Pearson ◽  
Sarah Greenley ◽  
Joseph Clark ◽  
David C Currow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Synthesis Method ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Severe Illness ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Appraisal Tool

Background: In combination with non-pharmacological interventions, opioids may safely reduce chronic breathlessness in patients with severe illness. However, implementation in clinical practice varies. Aim: To synthesise the published literature regarding health professionals’, patients’ and families’ views on the use of opioids for chronic breathlessness, identifying issues which influence implementation in clinical practice. Design: Systematic review and synthesis using the five-stage framework synthesis method. Data sources: Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase via OVID, ASSIA via Proquest) were searched (March 2020) using a predefined search strategy. Studies were also citation chained from key papers. Papers were screened against a priori eligibility criteria. Data were extracted from included studies using the framework synthesis method. Qualitative and quantitative data were synthesised using the pillar process. Included studies were critically appraised using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Results: After de-duplication, 843 papers were identified. Following screening, 22 studies were included. Five themes were developed: (i) clinician/patient characteristics, (ii) education/knowledge/experience, (iii) relationship between clinician/family, (iv) clinician/patient fear of opioids and (v) regulatory issues. Conclusions: There are significant barriers and enablers to the use of opioids for the symptomatic reduction of chronic breathlessness based on the knowledge, views and attitudes of clinicians, patients and families. Clinicians’ interactions with patients and their families strongly influences adherence with opioid treatment regimens for chronic breathlessness. Clinicians’, patients’ and families’ knowledge about the delicate balance between benefits and risks is generally poor. Education for all, but particularly clinicians, is likely to be a necessary (but insufficient) factor for improving implementation in practice.

scholarly journals Technology-based interventions for nursing home residents: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e056142
Author(s):  
Zhaohui Su ◽  
Kylie Meyer ◽  
Yue Li ◽  
Dean McDonnell ◽  
Nitha Mathew Joseph ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Nursing Home ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Nursing Home Residents ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Nursing Facilities ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionA growing number of technology-based interventions are used to support the health and quality of life of nursing home residents. The onset of COVID-19 and recommended social distancing policies that followed led to an increased interest in technology-based solutions to provide healthcare and promote health. Yet, there are no comprehensive resources on technology-based healthcare solutions that describe their efficacy for nursing home residents. This systematic review will identify technology-based interventions designed for nursing home residents and describe the characteristics and effects of these interventions concerning the distinctive traits of nursing home residents and nursing facilities. Additionally, this paper will present practical insights into the varying intervention approaches that can assist in the delivery of broad digital health solutions for nursing home residents amid and beyond the impact of COVID-19.Methods and analysisDatabases including the PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus will be used to identify articles related to technology-based interventions for nursing home residents published between 1 January 2010 to 30 September 2021. Titles, abstracts and full-text papers will be reviewed against the eligibility criteria. The Cochrane Collaboration evaluation framework will be adopted to examine the risk of bias of the included study. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses procedures will be followed for the reporting process and implications for existing interventions and research evaluated by a multidisciplinary research team.Ethics and disseminationAs the study is a protocol for a systematic review, ethical approval is not required. The study findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberCRD 42020191880.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Status of Forest Healing Program in South Korea

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (19) ◽  
pp. 10368
Author(s):  
Sujin Park ◽  
Soojin Kim ◽  
Geonwoo Kim ◽  
Yeji Choi ◽  
Eunsoo Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Psychological Health ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Benefits ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Certification System ◽  
The Status

Various effects of forest healing on health have been reported, but a certification system to assess the effectiveness of forest healing programs does not exist. In this study, a systematic review (SR) on the “health benefits of forests” and “meta-analysis of forest therapy” was conducted after analyzing the status and level of evidence of 75 forest healing programs that were conducted post-certification in South Korea. The SR for “health benefits of forests” distinguished between activities and time, resulting in 90.9% of walking activities for more than an hour under psychological health, and 100.0% of exercise activities for less than an hour under physiological health. However, the effect of indirect activities performed for more than an hour was unknown. Thus, we confirmed that many indoor activities in the field had low effect size or no established basis regarding the feasibility of its operation. The SR on “meta-analysis of forest therapy” to check whether the program was effective. The highest number of healing effects were obtained for blood pressure (32), followed by psychological depression (24). The findings of this can serve as baseline data to facilitate future development and dissemination of evidence-based forest healing programs.

Systematic review of barriers and enablers to the delivery of palliative care by primary care practitioners

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (9) ◽  
pp. 1131-1145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariko L Carey ◽  
Alison C Zucca ◽  
Megan AG Freund ◽  
Jamie Bryant ◽  
Anne Herrmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Barriers And Enablers ◽  
Primary Care Practitioners

Background: There is increasing demand for primary care practitioners to play a key role in palliative care delivery. Given this, it is important to understand their perceptions of the barriers and enablers to optimal palliative care, and how commonly these are experienced. Aim: To explore the type and prevalence of barriers and enablers to palliative care provision reported by primary care practitioners. Design: A systematic review of quantitative data-based articles was conducted. Data sources: Medline, Embase and PsychINFO databases were searched for articles published between January 2007 and March 2019. Data synthesis: Abstracts were assessed against the eligibility criteria by one reviewer and a random sample of 80 articles were blind coded by a second author. Data were extracted from eligible full-texts by one author and checked by a second. Given the heterogeneity in the included studies’ methods and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The most common barriers related to bureaucratic procedures, communication between healthcare professionals, primary care practitioners’ personal commitments, and their skills or confidence. The most common enablers related to education, nurses and trained respite staff to assist with care delivery, better communication between professionals, and templates to facilitate referral to out-of-hours services. Conclusion: A holistic approach addressing the range of barriers reported in this review is needed to support primary care providers to deliver palliative care. This includes better training and addressing barriers related to the interface between healthcare services.

scholarly journals Safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haitham Shoman ◽  
Simone Sandler ◽  
Alexander Peters ◽  
Ameer Farooq ◽  
Magdalen Gruendl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopy ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Gasless Laparoscopy ◽  
Resource Setting

Abstract Background Gasless laparoscopy, developed in the early 1990s, was a means to minimize the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and general anaesthesia. It has been used in a variety of procedures such as in general surgery and gynecology procedures including diagnostic laparoscopy. There has been increasing evidence of the utility of gasless laparoscopy in resource limited settings where diagnostic imaging is not available. In addition, it may help save costs for hospitals. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence surrounding the safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy and open techniques and to analyze the benefits that gasless laparoscopy has for low resource setting hospitals. Methods This protocol is developed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis–Protocols (PRISMA-P). The PRISMA statement guidelines and flowchart will be used to conduct the study itself. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Global Index Medicus (WHO) will be searched and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. The articles that will be found will be pooled into Covidence article manager software where all the records will be screened for eligibility and duplicates removed. A data extraction spreadsheet will be developed based on variables of interest set a priori. Reviewers will then screen all included studies based on the eligibility criteria. The GRADE tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies and the risk of bias in all the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk assessment tool. The RoB II tool will assed the risk of bias in randomized control studies and the ROBINS I will be used for the non-randomized studies. Discussion This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles found using this search strategy on the safety and efficiency of the use of gasless laparoscopy. The systematic review outcomes will include safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to the use of conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy. Trial registration The study has been registered in PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42017078338

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