scholarly journals Protective Decision-Making in Bushfire Part 2: A Rapid Systematic Review of the ‘Leave Early’ Literature

Fire ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Kenneth William Strahan ◽  
John Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Personal Safety ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Safety Policy ◽  
Decision To Leave ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Early Literature ◽  
Review Reports

In Australia, residents can choose to remain to defend their property against bushfire but, since the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, considerable emphasis is placed on leaving early, well in advance of a bushfire. However, many householders delay their protective decision. The insights offered by the literature into how and why some people leave early before their personal safety is threatened can inform bushfire safety policy and practice. This systematic review reports the findings of 90 papers selected from 216 identified through a search of papers in Scopus, Science Direct and Google Scholar published between 1995 and May 2021 in English. This review establishes the reasons people leave early; the influence of official and unofficial warnings; gender and other demographics; the influence of self-evacuation archetypes; planning and preparation; the influence of children and other dependents and pets; triggers initiating leaving; factors impeding and facilitating leaving; and policy issues around early leaving. This review also details 12 seminal studies that capture much of the evidence on the decision to leave early.

scholarly journals The Wait and See Literature: A Rapid Systematic Review

Fire ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Kenneth Strahan ◽  
John Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Protective Action ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Comprehensive Understanding ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Wait And See ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Action Decision

Delaying protective action decision making in wildfire is inconsistent with fire authorities’ advice and is associated with fatalities. A comprehensive understanding of why at-risk residents wait and see whether they will evacuate from a wildfire or remain to shelter or defend can better inform wildfire safety policy and practice. This systematic review reports the findings of 40 papers selected from 255 identified through a search of papers in Scopus, Science Direct and Google Scholar published between 1995 and December 2020 in English. This review establishes the extent of wait and see behaviour; grounds for concern for such behaviour; reasons protective action is delayed; the influence of information and warnings; relevance of gender and other characteristics; delay by those who defend their property; and policy implications. This review also details 11 seminal studies that capture much of the evidence on the delay of protective action in wildfire.

Evidence-based decision-making: practical issues in the appraisal of evidence to inform policy and practice

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bronwyn J. Carter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Public Health Education ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Objective. To highlight the differences between a systematic review of the literature and a systematic review of the best available evidence; to discuss practical issues in the appraisal of evidence to inform public health policy and practice; and to make recommendations for next steps in the development of evidence-based decision making in public health. Data sources and selection. Literature and other sources were reviewed including the subject reading list, recommended texts and websites for the La Trobe University postgraduate subject Evidence Based Public Health Practice 2007 and other relevant sources identified. Data extraction and synthesis. Relevant opinions were extracted to summarise debate in relation to definitions of evidence, usefulness of systematic reviews, tools for critical appraisal and other practical issues in the translation of evidence into practice. Conclusions. Evidence relevant to decisions regarding public health policy and practice may include evidence from the literature including experimental and observational studies as well as other sources, including policies and opinions of stakeholders. Further development of skills and approaches to the critical appraisal of evidence are required. Recommendations include: mapping of Australian competencies to public health education; development of national guidelines to inform the appraisal of evidence for public health decision making; and promotion of leadership and education in evidence-based approaches, discussion and debate in relation to definitions of evidence, and public health research that generates the best possible evidence. What is known about the topic? Systematic reviews are a well recognised tool for the critical appraisal of evidence to inform decision making. There is a lack of agreement about what constitutes valid evidence for inclusion in such reviews and many policy makers have no training or qualifications in the use of systematised approaches to the critical appraisal of evidence from a range of sources to inform decisions. Approaches to critical appraisal of evidence and skills in appraisal of evidence and evidence-based decision making require further development. What does this paper add? This paper reviews current opinions on what constitutes valid evidence and discusses important differences between a systematic review of the literature as distinct from a systematic review of available evidence. The desirable approach is recognised as the utilisation of the best available evidence from a range of sources to inform decision making, including evidence from observational studies including qualitative data, as well as contextual and colloquial evidence. This paper calls for: mapping of Australian competencies to public health education; development of national guidelines to inform the appraisal of evidence for public health decision making; and the promotion of leadership and education in evidence-based approaches, discussion and debate in relation to definitions of evidence and the promotion of public health research that generates the best possible evidence. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper calls upon practitioners to further develop skills in critical appraisal of evidence from a range of sources to inform policy and practice, and to foster collaborative partnerships between researchers, policy makers, educators, managers and clinicians.

scholarly journals Success Factors and Barriers in Combining Personalized Medicine and Patient Centered Care in Breast Cancer. Results from a Systematic Review and Proposal of Conceptual Framework

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 654
Author(s):  
Antonio Giulio de Belvis ◽  
Rossella Pellegrino ◽  
Carolina Castagna ◽  
Alisha Morsella ◽  
Roberta Pastorino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Personalized Medicine ◽  
Success Factors ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Care Models ◽  
Review Reports

Breast Cancer (BC) is the leading cause of death due to cancer in women. Ensuring equitable, quality-assured and effective care has increased the complexity of BC management. This systematic review reports on the state-of-the art of available literature investigating the enactment of personalized treatment and patient-centered care models in BC clinical practice, building a framework for the delivery of personalized BC care within a Patient-Centered model. Databases were searched for articles (from the inception to December 2020) reporting on Patient-Centered or Personalized Medicine BC management models, assessing success factors or limits. Out of 1885 records, 25 studies were included in our analysis. The main success factors include clearly defined roles and responsibilities within a multi-professional collaboration, appropriate training programs and adequate communication strategies and adopting a universal genomic language to improve patients’ involvement in the decision-making process. Among detected barriers, delays in the use of genetic testing were linked to the lack of public reimbursement schemes and of clear indications in timing and appropriateness. Overall, both care approaches are complementary and necessary to effectively improve BC patient management. Our framework attempts to bridge the gap in assigning a central role played by shared decision-making, still scarcely investigated in literature.

Adverse Effects of Natural Products: A Brief Pre-Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 01 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Pires ◽  
Ana Fernandes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Natural Products ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Natural products are commonly used for treating health problems. These products may be associated with adverse events, which are defined as "noxious and unintended response to a medicinal product" by the European Medicine Agency. Objectives: To identify studies describing at least one adverse event (or with potential to promote an adverse event) related to the use of natural products, as well as to describe the involved product(s) and adverse event(s). Methods: A pre-systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. Keywords: "natural product(s)" and ["adverse drug reaction(s)" or "adverse effect(s)"]. Screened databases: PubMed, SciELO, DOAJ and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria: papers describing at least one adverse event associated with the use of natural products and published between 2017 and 2019. Exclusion criteria: Repeated studies, reviews and papers written in other languages than English, Portuguese, French or Spanish. Results: 104 studies were identified (20 PubMed; 0 SciELO; 2 DOAJ; 82 Google Scholar), but only 10 were selected (4 PubMed and 6 Google Scholar): 1 in-vitro study; 2 non-clinical studies, 1 study reporting in-vitro and clinical data and 5 studies were cases reports. Globally, 997 reports of adverse drug reactions with natural products were identified, mainly non-severe cases. Conclusion: Since a limited number of studies was found, we conclude that adverse events due to natural products may be underreported, or natural products may have a good safety profile. This review contributes for assuring the safety of natural products consumers, by evaluating the knowledge/information on the potential adverse events and interactions of these products.

The implications of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 for advance care planning and decision making

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Chapman ◽  
Ben Lobo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Advance Care Planning ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Advance Care ◽  
Current Context ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
End Of Life Decision

This chapter provides an overview of the MCA’s impact on end-of-life care. It situates the MCA in the current context of policy and practice. It describes how the MCA can be used to improve care, enable people to express and protect choices, and empower and enable the professional and/or the proxy decision maker. It also presents an introduction and explanation of the role of the IMCA and how it might apply to advance care planning (ACP) and end of life decision making, and an explanation of the legal and ethical process involved in reaching best interest decisions, especially for potentially vulnerable people in care homes and other settings.

Children’s Participation in Decision Making From Child Welfare Workers’ Perspectives: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 104973152098484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karmen Toros
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Child Welfare ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Child Welfare Workers ◽  
Children’S Participation ◽  
Participation In Decision Making ◽  
Children's Participation ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Welfare Workers

This article explores child welfare workers’ experiences of children’s participation in decision making in the child protection system. The systematic review follows the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and includes 12 peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals from 2009 to 2019. Findings indicate that children’s participation in decision making is generally limited or nonexistent. The age of the child is an important determining factor concerning whether the child is given the opportunity to participate in decision making. Potential harm for children that may result from participation is considered when deciding on whether to include a child in the decision-making process.

scholarly journals Healthcare professionals’ behaviour regarding the implementation of shared decision-making in screening programmes: A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
María José Hernández-Leal ◽  
María José Pérez-Lacasta ◽  
María Feijoo-Cid ◽  
Vanesa Ramos-García ◽  
Misericòrdia Carles-Lavila
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Shared Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document