Trauma Registry Data as a Policy-Making Tool: A Systematic Review on the Research Dimensions

M. Mobinizadeh, Farzan Berenjian, E. Mohamadi, F. Habibi, A. Olyaeemanesh, K. Zendedel, M. Sharif-Alhoseini
{"title":"Trauma Registry Data as a Policy-Making Tool: A Systematic Review on the Research Dimensions","authors":"M. Mobinizadeh, Farzan Berenjian, E. Mohamadi, F. Habibi, A. Olyaeemanesh, K. Zendedel, M. Sharif-Alhoseini","doi":"10.30476/BEAT.2021.91755.1286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To review the research dimensions of trauma registry data on health policy making. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched until July 2020. Keywords were used on the search process included Trauma, Injury, Registry and Research, which were searched by using appropriate search strategies. The included articles had to: 1. be extracted from data related to trauma registries; 2- be written in English; 3- define a time period and a patient population; 4- preferably have more details and policy recommendations; and 5- preferably have a discussion on how to improve diagnosis and treatment. The results obtained from the included studies were qualitatively analyzed using thematic synthesis and comparative tables. Results: In the primary round of search, 19559 studies were retrieved. According to PRISMA statement and also performing quality appraisal process, 30 studies were included in the final phase of analysis. In the final papers’ synthesis, 14 main research domains were extracted and classified in terms of the policy implication and research priority. The domains with the highest frequency were “The relationship between trauma registry data and hospital care protocols for trauma patients” and “The causes of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) due to trauma”. Conclusion: Using trauma registry data as a tool for policy-making could be helpful in several ways, namely increasing the quality of patient care, preventing injuries and decreasing their number, figuring out the details of socioeconomic status effects, and improving the quality of researches in practical ways. Also, follow-up of patients after trauma surgery as one of the positive effects of the trauma registry can be the focus of attention of policy-making bodies.","PeriodicalId":9328,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Emergency & Trauma","volume":"32 1","pages":"49 - 58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Emergency & Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30476/BEAT.2021.91755.1286","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objective: To review the research dimensions of trauma registry data on health policy making. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched until July 2020. Keywords were used on the search process included Trauma, Injury, Registry and Research, which were searched by using appropriate search strategies. The included articles had to: 1. be extracted from data related to trauma registries; 2- be written in English; 3- define a time period and a patient population; 4- preferably have more details and policy recommendations; and 5- preferably have a discussion on how to improve diagnosis and treatment. The results obtained from the included studies were qualitatively analyzed using thematic synthesis and comparative tables. Results: In the primary round of search, 19559 studies were retrieved. According to PRISMA statement and also performing quality appraisal process, 30 studies were included in the final phase of analysis. In the final papers’ synthesis, 14 main research domains were extracted and classified in terms of the policy implication and research priority. The domains with the highest frequency were “The relationship between trauma registry data and hospital care protocols for trauma patients” and “The causes of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) due to trauma”. Conclusion: Using trauma registry data as a tool for policy-making could be helpful in several ways, namely increasing the quality of patient care, preventing injuries and decreasing their number, figuring out the details of socioeconomic status effects, and improving the quality of researches in practical ways. Also, follow-up of patients after trauma surgery as one of the positive effects of the trauma registry can be the focus of attention of policy-making bodies.
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
创伤登记数据作为决策工具:研究维度的系统回顾
目的:回顾创伤登记数据对卫生政策制定的研究维度。方法:检索PubMed和EMBASE至2020年7月。检索过程中使用的关键词包括创伤(Trauma)、损伤(Injury)、注册表(Registry)和研究(Research),并采用适当的检索策略进行检索。纳入的文章必须:1。从创伤登记的相关数据中提取;2-能用英语写作;3-确定时间段和患者人群;4-最好有更多的细节和政策建议;5-最好就如何提高诊断和治疗进行讨论。从纳入的研究中获得的结果使用专题综合和比较表进行定性分析。结果:在第一轮检索中,检索到19559项研究。根据PRISMA声明和执行质量评估过程,30项研究被纳入最后分析阶段。在最后的论文综合中,提取了14个主要研究领域,并根据政策含义和研究重点进行了分类。频率最高的领域是“创伤登记数据与创伤患者医院护理方案之间的关系”和“创伤导致残疾调整生命年(DALYs)的原因”。结论:利用创伤登记数据作为决策工具,可以提高患者护理质量,预防和减少伤害,了解社会经济地位影响的细节,并在实践中提高研究质量。此外,创伤手术后患者的随访作为创伤登记的积极影响之一,可以成为决策机构关注的焦点。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Examining the Relationship between Salivary Amylase Level, Head Trauma Severity and CT Scan Results in Patients with Isolated Mild Head Trauma Heart Rate Variability May Predict the Severity of Appendicitis: A Cross-Sectional Study Impact of Peer-Assisted Learning in Chest Tube Insertion Education on Surgical Residents Assessment of Neck Characteristics for Laryngeal Mask Airway Size Selection in Patients Who Underwent an Elective Ocular Surgery; A Cross-Sectional Study Trauma Registry Data as a Policy-Making Tool: A Systematic Review on the Research Dimensions
×
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