Healthcare professionals' understanding of children's rights: a systematic review of the empirical evidence-base.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1186/s13643-025-02756-9
Sahar Mazied Alshammari, Mark A Linden, Helen Kerr, Helen Noble
{"title":"Healthcare professionals' understanding of children's rights: a systematic review of the empirical evidence-base.","authors":"Sahar Mazied Alshammari, Mark A Linden, Helen Kerr, Helen Noble","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02756-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The concept of children's rights emerged during the 1980s and emphasised the role of children as active participants in matters which concern them.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This review aims to identify and synthesise the empirical evidence base on healthcare professionals' (HCPs) understanding of children's rights.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science) were systematically searched in May 2023. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to quality appraise full-text papers included in the review. A descriptive narrative synthesis of the studies' findings was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 15 relevant studies from 10 countries were identified and included in the review. The number of participants included ranged from 6 to 1048 for HCPs with a broad range of sampling methods. Based on the narrative synthesis of the included studies, three main themes were identified: (1) Barriers to implementing children's rights in healthcare, (2) Factors that contribute to children's rights implementation, and (3) Study instruments used to measure outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HCPs require a better understanding of children's rights to implement these rights into practice. Listening to children, building trusting relationships with children, and continuing professional development of HCPs could help to address barriers to understanding children's rights. There is a pressing need for the development of a tool that is capable of tracking changes in the understanding of children's rights in healthcare environments as efforts to increase awareness become more widely recognised.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11720330/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02756-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The concept of children's rights emerged during the 1980s and emphasised the role of children as active participants in matters which concern them.

Aim: This review aims to identify and synthesise the empirical evidence base on healthcare professionals' (HCPs) understanding of children's rights.

Methods: Five electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science) were systematically searched in May 2023. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to quality appraise full-text papers included in the review. A descriptive narrative synthesis of the studies' findings was performed.

Results: A total of 15 relevant studies from 10 countries were identified and included in the review. The number of participants included ranged from 6 to 1048 for HCPs with a broad range of sampling methods. Based on the narrative synthesis of the included studies, three main themes were identified: (1) Barriers to implementing children's rights in healthcare, (2) Factors that contribute to children's rights implementation, and (3) Study instruments used to measure outcomes.

Conclusions: HCPs require a better understanding of children's rights to implement these rights into practice. Listening to children, building trusting relationships with children, and continuing professional development of HCPs could help to address barriers to understanding children's rights. There is a pressing need for the development of a tool that is capable of tracking changes in the understanding of children's rights in healthcare environments as efforts to increase awareness become more widely recognised.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
卫生保健专业人员对儿童权利的理解:对经验证据基础的系统审查。
背景:儿童权利的概念是在1980年代出现的,强调儿童积极参与与其有关的事项的作用。目的:本综述旨在识别和综合基于卫生保健专业人员(HCPs)对儿童权利的理解的经验证据。方法:于2023年5月系统检索PubMed、CINAHL、Embase、PsycINFO、Web of Science 5个电子数据库。采用混合方法评价工具(MMAT)对纳入综述的全文论文进行质量评价。对研究结果进行了描述性叙述综合。结果:共有来自10个国家的15项相关研究被纳入本综述。在抽样方法范围广泛的情况下,HCPs纳入的参与者人数从6人到1048人不等。根据对纳入研究的叙述综合,确定了三个主要主题:(1)在保健方面落实儿童权利的障碍;(2)有助于落实儿童权利的因素;(3)用于衡量成果的研究工具。结论:卫生保健提供者需要更好地了解儿童的权利,以便将这些权利付诸实践。倾听儿童的心声,与儿童建立信任关系,以及医护人员的持续专业发展,可以帮助解决理解儿童权利的障碍。随着提高认识的努力得到更广泛的承认,迫切需要开发一种工具,能够跟踪在保健环境中对儿童权利的理解发生的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for stroke and traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultra-processed foods and risk of all-cause mortality: an updated systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Using virtual patients to enhance empathy in medical students: a scoping review protocol. Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol. Self-care interventions among women with gestational diabetes mellitus in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1