JBI evidence synthesis最新文献

Value-based outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists in primary care: a scoping review. 初级医疗中职业治疗师使用的基于价值的成果评估方法：范围界定综述。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00183

Laura Ingham, Alison Cooper, Deborah Edwards, Catherine Purcell

Objective: This scoping review aimed to map how occupational therapists evaluate the outcomes of services they provide within primary care. This evidence was considered in relation to how identified outcome evaluation methods align to principles of value-based health care.Introduction: Primary care services are experiencing unprecedented demands. Occupational therapy is an allied health profession that supports health and care provision in primary care, using a timely and proactive approach. There has been a notable increase in occupational therapy roles across primary care services in the past decade; however, the mechanisms for evaluating outcomes and the wider impact of these services remain under-researched. The aim of value-based health care, a global transformative approach, is to establish better health outcomes for individuals and communities through addressing value in system-wide care. However, it is not yet clear how evaluation methods used within occupational therapy align to the principles of a value-based agenda.Inclusion criteria: Peer-reviewed journal articles and gray literature written in English were included to identify outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of occupational therapy services provided in a primary care setting. Outcome evaluation methods used exclusively for the purpose of conducting research and not for capturing data within an occupational therapy primary care setting as part of routine clinical practice were excluded.Methods: This review followed JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The literature search was undertaken during June and July 2022. The following databases were searched from their earliest dates of availability: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, Scopus, AMED, and Web of Science. Two reviewers extracted data, supported by use of an extraction form developed by the reviewers. Findings were mapped using a framework developed based on key principles of value-based health care.Results: From 2394 articles, 16 eligible studies were included in the review. Of these, 9 were quantitative and 7 were of mixed methods design. Studies were from the UK, USA, Sweden, Spain, and Canada. The occupational therapy services represented were mainly heterogeneous. Four services were part of multidisciplinary programs of care and 12 services were specific to occupational therapy. Identified outcome evaluation methods broadly aligned to principles of value-based health care, with most alignment noted for measures demonstrating the aim of establishing better health. A wide range of evaluation methods were described to address both individual-level and service-level outcomes, with the use of patient-reported outcome measures identified in 13 studies. To capture patient experience, most studies reported a vari

目的：本范围界定综述旨在了解职业治疗师如何评估他们在初级医疗中提供的服务的结果。这些证据与已确定的成果评估方法如何与以价值为基础的医疗保健原则保持一致有关：初级医疗服务正面临着前所未有的需求。职业疗法是一种专职医疗职业，它采用及时、主动的方法为初级医疗保健提供健康和护理支持。在过去十年中，职业疗法在基层医疗服务中的作用显著增加；然而，对这些服务的成果和更广泛影响的评估机制仍然研究不足。基于价值的医疗保健是一种全球性的变革方法，其目的是通过在全系统的医疗保健中实现价值，为个人和社区创造更好的健康成果。然而，目前尚不清楚职业疗法中使用的评估方法如何与基于价值的议程原则保持一致：纳入标准：纳入同行评议的英文期刊文章和灰色文献，以确定职业治疗师用于评估在初级医疗环境中提供的职业治疗服务的有效性和影响的结果评估方法。结果评估方法仅用于开展研究，而不是作为常规临床实践的一部分在职业治疗基层医疗机构中获取数据，因此不包括在内：本综述采用 JBI 的方法进行范围界定综述。文献检索于 2022 年 6 月至 7 月进行。从最早可用日期开始检索以下数据库：Cochrane Library、Ovid 的 MEDLINE、Ovid 的 Embase、EBSCOhost 的 CINAHL、Scopus、AMED 和 Web of Science。两名审稿人在使用审稿人制定的提取表的支持下提取数据。根据基于价值的医疗保健的关键原则制定的框架对研究结果进行了映射：从 2394 篇文章中，有 16 项符合条件的研究被纳入综述。其中，9 项为定量研究，7 项为混合方法设计。研究来自英国、美国、瑞典、西班牙和加拿大。所代表的职业治疗服务主要是异质性的。四项服务是多学科护理计划的一部分，12 项服务是专门针对职业治疗的。已确定的结果评估方法大致符合以价值为基础的医疗保健原则，其中最符合以建立更好的健康为目标的措施。有 13 项研究采用了患者报告的结果测量方法，并介绍了针对个人层面和服务层面结果的多种评估方法。为了解患者体验，大多数研究报告了各种方法。降低人均医疗成本的目标在文献中最少：本范围界定综述强调了衡量初级医疗中职业疗法成果的多方面但不一致的方法。这对确定有效性和获取大规模数据以协助更广泛的护理规划以及使该行业能够证明其对以价值为基础的医疗保健的贡献具有重要意义：开放科学框架 https://osf.io/hnaq4/。

{"title":"Value-based outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists in primary care: a scoping review.","authors":"Laura Ingham, Alison Cooper, Deborah Edwards, Catherine Purcell","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00183","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00183","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This scoping review aimed to map how occupational therapists evaluate the outcomes of services they provide within primary care. This evidence was considered in relation to how identified outcome evaluation methods align to principles of value-based health care.Introduction: Primary care services are experiencing unprecedented demands. Occupational therapy is an allied health profession that supports health and care provision in primary care, using a timely and proactive approach. There has been a notable increase in occupational therapy roles across primary care services in the past decade; however, the mechanisms for evaluating outcomes and the wider impact of these services remain under-researched. The aim of value-based health care, a global transformative approach, is to establish better health outcomes for individuals and communities through addressing value in system-wide care. However, it is not yet clear how evaluation methods used within occupational therapy align to the principles of a value-based agenda.Inclusion criteria: Peer-reviewed journal articles and gray literature written in English were included to identify outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of occupational therapy services provided in a primary care setting. Outcome evaluation methods used exclusively for the purpose of conducting research and not for capturing data within an occupational therapy primary care setting as part of routine clinical practice were excluded.Methods: This review followed JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The literature search was undertaken during June and July 2022. The following databases were searched from their earliest dates of availability: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, Scopus, AMED, and Web of Science. Two reviewers extracted data, supported by use of an extraction form developed by the reviewers. Findings were mapped using a framework developed based on key principles of value-based health care.Results: From 2394 articles, 16 eligible studies were included in the review. Of these, 9 were quantitative and 7 were of mixed methods design. Studies were from the UK, USA, Sweden, Spain, and Canada. The occupational therapy services represented were mainly heterogeneous. Four services were part of multidisciplinary programs of care and 12 services were specific to occupational therapy. Identified outcome evaluation methods broadly aligned to principles of value-based health care, with most alignment noted for measures demonstrating the aim of establishing better health. A wide range of evaluation methods were described to address both individual-level and service-level outcomes, with the use of patient-reported outcome measures identified in 13 studies. To capture patient experience, most studies reported a vari","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142591772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Parents' and guardians' experiences of barriers and facilitators in accessing autism spectrum disorder diagnostic services for their children: a qualitative systematic review. 家长和监护人在为子女获得自闭症谱系障碍诊断服务时遇到的障碍和促进因素：定性系统综述。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00332

Joanne Smith-Young, April Pike, Michelle Swab, Roger Chafe

Objective: The objectives of this review were to comprehensively identify the best available qualitative evidence about parents' and guardians' experiences of barriers and facilitators in accessing autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnostic services for their children; and to develop recommendations based on the review for addressing barriers to timely diagnosis and early intervention.Introduction: Early identification of ASD is a priority because the best chance for improving symptoms occurs through early and intensive intervention. A definitive ASD diagnosis is often a prerequisite for children to access publicly funded services, yet obtaining a diagnosis in itself can be stressful, frustrating, and time-consuming for many families. It is essential to understand the barriers and facilitators parents and guardians face in accessing ASD diagnostic services for their children.Inclusion criteria: This qualitative systematic review considered studies conducted worldwide that included parents and guardians of children up to 18 years of age who had accessed or who were attempting to access ASD diagnostic services for their children.Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. A literature search included CINAHL (EBSCOhost), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest), ERIC (EBSCOhost), and Embase. Gray literature sources included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar, Google, OpenGrey, other online resources (government and organizational websites), and reference lists of retrieved records. No language, date, or country limits were applied to the searches. Retrieved records from the academic databases, gray literature, and reference lists of retrieved records were screened, with potentially relevant records examined in full against the inclusion criteria. Eligible studies were critically appraised for methodological quality and those included in this review were subjected to data extraction of descriptive details and study findings relevant to the review question. Study findings were synthesized and assigned confidence scores. All reviewers agreed upon the categories and finalized synthesized findings.Results: The 36 included studies varied in qualitative research designs with high methodological quality. There were approximately 661 eligible participants, and 55 credible and unequivocal research findings. The research findings yielded 6 categories and 3 synthesized findings with moderate confidence scores. Parents' and guardians' ability to access ASD diagnostic services for their children is affected by i) encountering health care providers who actively listened to and addressed parents' and guardians' concerns instead of dismissing them, providing a sense of support and validation; ii

目的：本综述的目的是全面确定家长和监护人在为其子女获得自闭症谱系障碍（ASD）诊断服务时遇到的障碍和促进因素方面的现有最佳定性证据；并在综述的基础上提出建议，以解决及时诊断和早期干预的障碍：早期识别自闭症谱系障碍是当务之急，因为早期强化干预是改善症状的最佳途径。明确的 ASD 诊断通常是儿童获得政府资助服务的先决条件，但获得诊断本身就会给许多家庭带来压力、挫折和耗费时间。了解家长和监护人在为其子女获得 ASD 诊断服务时所面临的障碍和促进因素至关重要：本定性系统综述考虑了在全球范围内开展的研究，这些研究的对象包括 18 岁以下儿童的家长和监护人，他们已经或正试图为其子女获得 ASD 诊断服务：本综述根据 JBI 定性证据系统综述方法进行。文献检索包括 CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost)、MEDLINE (EBSCOhost)、APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost)、Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest)、ERIC (EBSCOhost) 和 Embase。灰色文献来源包括 ProQuest Dissertations and Theses、Google Scholar、Google、OpenGrey、其他在线资源（政府和组织网站）以及检索记录的参考文献列表。搜索没有语言、日期或国家限制。对从学术数据库、灰色文献和参考文献列表中检索到的记录进行筛选，并根据纳入标准对可能相关的记录进行全面审查。对符合条件的研究进行严格的方法学质量评估，并对纳入本综述的研究进行数据提取，提取与综述问题相关的描述性细节和研究结果。对研究结果进行综合并给予置信度评分。所有审稿人都同意对研究结果进行分类并最终确定综合结果：纳入的 36 项研究的定性研究设计各不相同，方法质量较高。约有 661 名符合条件的参与者，55 项研究结果可信且明确。研究结果产生了 6 个类别和 3 个综合结果，可信度得分中等。家长和监护人为其子女获得 ASD 诊断服务的能力受到以下因素的影响：i) 遇到的医疗服务提供者积极倾听并解决家长和监护人的担忧，而不是将其置之不理，从而提供一种支持和认可感；ii) 面临漫长的等待时间和相关的经济负担，从而在出现延误时产生挫败感和相关的经济影响；iii) 遇到的医疗服务提供者缺乏有关 ASD 的专业知识，从而导致家长和监护人因与 ASD 合并症相关的不准确或相互矛盾的诊断而感到困惑：许多家长认为他们的孩子在接受 ASD 评估和诊断服务的过程中遇到了很多麻烦。家长和监护人的经历受到以下因素的影响：医疗服务提供者提供的支持和知识水平；与 ASD 相关的不准确/混合诊断带来的困惑；长时间的延误；在通往 ASD 评估和诊断的道路上遇到的系统性和背景性障碍，包括社会经济和文化差异：审查注册：PROCEMO CRD42018100127。

{"title":"Parents' and guardians' experiences of barriers and facilitators in accessing autism spectrum disorder diagnostic services for their children: a qualitative systematic review.","authors":"Joanne Smith-Young, April Pike, Michelle Swab, Roger Chafe","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00332","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00332","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objectives of this review were to comprehensively identify the best available qualitative evidence about parents' and guardians' experiences of barriers and facilitators in accessing autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnostic services for their children; and to develop recommendations based on the review for addressing barriers to timely diagnosis and early intervention.Introduction: Early identification of ASD is a priority because the best chance for improving symptoms occurs through early and intensive intervention. A definitive ASD diagnosis is often a prerequisite for children to access publicly funded services, yet obtaining a diagnosis in itself can be stressful, frustrating, and time-consuming for many families. It is essential to understand the barriers and facilitators parents and guardians face in accessing ASD diagnostic services for their children.Inclusion criteria: This qualitative systematic review considered studies conducted worldwide that included parents and guardians of children up to 18 years of age who had accessed or who were attempting to access ASD diagnostic services for their children.Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. A literature search included CINAHL (EBSCOhost), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest), ERIC (EBSCOhost), and Embase. Gray literature sources included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar, Google, OpenGrey, other online resources (government and organizational websites), and reference lists of retrieved records. No language, date, or country limits were applied to the searches. Retrieved records from the academic databases, gray literature, and reference lists of retrieved records were screened, with potentially relevant records examined in full against the inclusion criteria. Eligible studies were critically appraised for methodological quality and those included in this review were subjected to data extraction of descriptive details and study findings relevant to the review question. Study findings were synthesized and assigned confidence scores. All reviewers agreed upon the categories and finalized synthesized findings.Results: The 36 included studies varied in qualitative research designs with high methodological quality. There were approximately 661 eligible participants, and 55 credible and unequivocal research findings. The research findings yielded 6 categories and 3 synthesized findings with moderate confidence scores. Parents' and guardians' ability to access ASD diagnostic services for their children is affected by i) encountering health care providers who actively listened to and addressed parents' and guardians' concerns instead of dismissing them, providing a sense of support and validation; ii","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142548085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Evidence on the accreditation of health professionals' education in the WHO Africa region: a scoping review protocol. 世界卫生组织非洲地区卫生专业人员教育认证的证据：范围界定审查协议。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00285

Catherine Nakidde, Debora Marletta, Gerry McGivern, Catherine O'Keeffe, Ann Griffin

Objective: This scoping review aims to map and examine the extent and type of available evidence on health professionals' education accreditation within Africa.

Introduction: The demand for health professionals is unprecedentedly high globally. One response to this challenge has been expanding training through more liberal education policies, facilitating private sector participation in education service provision. Some evidence suggests that this is a double-edged sword, increasing quantity but compromising the quality of health professionals produced. Regulation can provide a framework to assure and continuously improve quality, with such regulation in place in 79% of World Health Organization African countries. However, it is unclear how much and what evidence has been generated on how accreditation happens, where it is concentrated, and the prevailing evidence gaps within this region; therefore, we propose to conduct a scoping review.

Inclusion criteria: This review will include articles and dissertations focusing on the accreditation of health professionals' education in Africa. All methodological approaches and designs will be included. Conference abstracts and protocols will be excluded.

Methods: This review will be carried out according to the JBI scoping review methodology. We conducted an initial search of CINAHL and MEDLINE to identify relevant articles. This informed our selection of keywords, along with index terms, to create a comprehensive search strategy for CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Global Health (Ovid), ERIC (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, and Scopus. Sources included will be limited to those published starting from 2000 onwards. Data will be presented using tables and charts, accompanied by a narrative summary.

Detail of this review project can be found in open science framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W5G7T.

目的本范围界定综述旨在对非洲卫生专业人员教育认证方面现有证据的范围和类型进行规划和研究：全球对卫生专业人员的需求空前高涨。应对这一挑战的办法之一是通过更加宽松的教育政策扩大培训，促进私营部门参与教育服务的提供。一些证据表明，这是一把双刃剑，虽然增加了数量，但却降低了培养卫生专业人员的质量。监管可以提供一个确保并不断提高质量的框架，世界卫生组织 79% 的非洲国家都有这种监管。然而，目前还不清楚关于评审如何进行、评审集中在哪些地方以及该地区普遍存在的证据差距的证据有多少、有哪些；因此，我们建议进行一次范围界定综述：本综述将包括关注非洲卫生专业人员教育认证的文章和论文。所有方法和设计都将包括在内。方法：本综述将按照 JBI 范围综述方法进行。我们对 CINAHL 和 MEDLINE 进行了初步检索，以确定相关文章。这为我们选择关键词和索引术语提供了依据，从而为 CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、MEDLINE (Ovid)、Global Health (Ovid)、ERIC (EBSCOhost)、Web of Science Core Collection、Embase 和 Scopus 制定了全面的检索策略。收录的资料来源仅限于 2000 年以后发表的资料。数据将以表格和图表的形式呈现，并附有叙述性摘要。有关本综述项目的详细信息，请参阅开放科学框架：https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W5G7T。

{"title":"Evidence on the accreditation of health professionals' education in the WHO Africa region: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Catherine Nakidde, Debora Marletta, Gerry McGivern, Catherine O'Keeffe, Ann Griffin","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00285","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This scoping review aims to map and examine the extent and type of available evidence on health professionals' education accreditation within Africa.Introduction: The demand for health professionals is unprecedentedly high globally. One response to this challenge has been expanding training through more liberal education policies, facilitating private sector participation in education service provision. Some evidence suggests that this is a double-edged sword, increasing quantity but compromising the quality of health professionals produced. Regulation can provide a framework to assure and continuously improve quality, with such regulation in place in 79% of World Health Organization African countries. However, it is unclear how much and what evidence has been generated on how accreditation happens, where it is concentrated, and the prevailing evidence gaps within this region; therefore, we propose to conduct a scoping review.Inclusion criteria: This review will include articles and dissertations focusing on the accreditation of health professionals' education in Africa. All methodological approaches and designs will be included. Conference abstracts and protocols will be excluded.Methods: This review will be carried out according to the JBI scoping review methodology. We conducted an initial search of CINAHL and MEDLINE to identify relevant articles. This informed our selection of keywords, along with index terms, to create a comprehensive search strategy for CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Global Health (Ovid), ERIC (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, and Scopus. Sources included will be limited to those published starting from 2000 onwards. Data will be presented using tables and charts, accompanied by a narrative summary.Detail of this review project can be found in open science framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W5G7T.","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142509685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Barriers and facilitators to designing, maintaining, and utilizing rare disease patient registries: a scoping review protocol. 设计、维护和利用罕见病患者登记处的障碍和促进因素：范围界定审查协议。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-10-21 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00091

Catherine Stratton, Andrew Taylor, Menelaos Konstantinidis, Vanda McNiven, Peter Kannu, Peter Gill, Ian Stedman, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Martin Offringa, Beth Potter, Durhane Wong-Rieger, John Adams, Kathy Hodgkinson, Alison M Elliott, Alexandra Neville, Marie Faughnan, Sarah Dyack, Pavel Zhelnov, Jennifer Daly-Cyr, Jessie McGowan, Sharon Straus, Maureen Smith, Laura Rosella, Andrea C Tricco

Objective: The objectives of this review are to identify barriers/facilitators to designing, maintaining, and utilizing rare disease patient registries (RDPRs); determine whether and how these differ among patient partners, other knowledge users (KUs), and researchers; and chart definitions of rare diseases and RDPRs.

Introduction: RDPRs are vital to improving the understanding of the natural histories and predictors of outcomes for rare diseases, assessing interventions, and identifying potential participants for clinical trials. Currently, however, the functionality of RDPRs is not fully optimized. To improve the quality and functionality of RDPRs, it is important to understand the barriers and/or facilitators involved in their design, maintenance, and utilization; how these might differ among patient partners, other KUs, and researchers; and to delineate the range of definitions for rare diseases and RDPRs.

Inclusion criteria: Evidence of any study design or format (including empirical studies, books, manuals, commentaries, editorials, guidance documents, conference abstracts, review documents, and gray literature) referencing barriers/facilitators for designing, maintaining, or utilizing RDPRs will be considered for inclusion.

Methods: The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will search health science databases, including the Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, the JBI EBP Database, and PsycINFO, from inception onwards, as well as gray literature using the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Grey Matters guidance. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and full-text documents, as well as abstract data. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Evidence will be synthesized descriptively and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRIMSA-ScR).

Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mvf9r.

目标：本综述旨在确定设计、维护和利用罕见病患者登记处（RDPR）的障碍/促进因素；确定患者合作伙伴、其他知识用户（KUs）和研究人员在这些障碍/促进因素方面是否存在差异以及差异如何；并绘制罕见病和 RDPR 的定义图：RDPRs 对于提高对罕见病自然病史和预后因素的了解、评估干预措施以及确定临床试验的潜在参与者至关重要。然而，目前 RDPRs 的功能尚未完全优化。为了提高 RDPR 的质量和功能，必须了解其设计、维护和使用过程中存在的障碍和/或促进因素；患者合作伙伴、其他 KU 和研究人员之间可能存在的差异；以及界定罕见病和 RDPR 的定义范围：任何研究设计或格式（包括实证研究、书籍、手册、评论、社论、指导文件、会议摘要、综述文件和灰色文献）中提及设计、维护或使用 RDPR 的障碍/促进因素的证据都将被考虑纳入：审查将遵循 JBI 的范围审查方法。我们将检索健康科学数据库，包括 Cochrane 图书馆、Embase、MEDLINE、JBI EBP 数据库和 PsycINFO（从开始到现在），以及使用加拿大药物与健康技术局 (CADTH) 灰色事项指南检索灰色文献。两名独立审稿人将筛选标题和摘要、全文文件以及摘要数据。如有分歧，将通过讨论或与第三位审稿人协商解决。将对证据进行描述性综合，并使用 "系统综述和元分析首选报告项目"（Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews，PRIMSA-ScR）进行报告：开放科学框架 https://osf.io/mvf9r。

{"title":"Barriers and facilitators to designing, maintaining, and utilizing rare disease patient registries: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Catherine Stratton, Andrew Taylor, Menelaos Konstantinidis, Vanda McNiven, Peter Kannu, Peter Gill, Ian Stedman, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Martin Offringa, Beth Potter, Durhane Wong-Rieger, John Adams, Kathy Hodgkinson, Alison M Elliott, Alexandra Neville, Marie Faughnan, Sarah Dyack, Pavel Zhelnov, Jennifer Daly-Cyr, Jessie McGowan, Sharon Straus, Maureen Smith, Laura Rosella, Andrea C Tricco","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00091","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objectives of this review are to identify barriers/facilitators to designing, maintaining, and utilizing rare disease patient registries (RDPRs); determine whether and how these differ among patient partners, other knowledge users (KUs), and researchers; and chart definitions of rare diseases and RDPRs.Introduction: RDPRs are vital to improving the understanding of the natural histories and predictors of outcomes for rare diseases, assessing interventions, and identifying potential participants for clinical trials. Currently, however, the functionality of RDPRs is not fully optimized. To improve the quality and functionality of RDPRs, it is important to understand the barriers and/or facilitators involved in their design, maintenance, and utilization; how these might differ among patient partners, other KUs, and researchers; and to delineate the range of definitions for rare diseases and RDPRs.Inclusion criteria: Evidence of any study design or format (including empirical studies, books, manuals, commentaries, editorials, guidance documents, conference abstracts, review documents, and gray literature) referencing barriers/facilitators for designing, maintaining, or utilizing RDPRs will be considered for inclusion.Methods: The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will search health science databases, including the Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, the JBI EBP Database, and PsycINFO, from inception onwards, as well as gray literature using the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Grey Matters guidance. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and full-text documents, as well as abstract data. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Evidence will be synthesized descriptively and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRIMSA-ScR).Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mvf9r.","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142476700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Supporting professional practice transition in undergraduate nursing education: a scoping review protocol. 支持本科护理教育中的专业实践过渡：范围界定审查协议。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-10-21 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00180

Elizabeth Orr, Meredith Kuipers, Elizabeth Yates, Kathryn Halverson

Objective: This scoping review will describe educational programming that supports undergraduate student nurses' transition-to-practice and/or enhances practice readiness.

Introduction: The period of transition from nursing student to professional nurse is fraught with challenges stemming from the evolving role and the increasing demands of independent practice. While transition-to-practice programming exists for the new graduate nurse, there is less focus on preparing the student in their final year of education. A scoping review will identify educational programming delivered to nursing students approaching graduation that facilitate transition-to-practice success and/or improve practice readiness.

Inclusion criteria: This review will consider literature describing educational programming that supports transition-to-practice success and/or practice readiness and that demonstrates evidence of evaluation. Studies that involve primarily pre-licensure, undergraduate, or baccalaureate nursing students will be included. Reports of primary studies, reviews, dissertations and theses, conference proceedings, and nursing trade publications that describe quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods will be included.

Methods: The proposed review will adhere to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search will be conducted in CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Healthstar (Ovid), and Nursing and Allied Health (ProQuest) using a search strategy developed in consultation with an expert university librarian. Two independent reviewers will screen articles by title and abstract and assess the full text of each selected citation against inclusion criteria. Quantitative methods (descriptive statistics) and basic qualitative content analysis will be used to analyze the data, and results will be reported in narrative and graphic formats.

Review registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/2vsbq.

目标：本范围综述将介绍支持本科生护士向执业过渡和/或加强执业准备的教育计划：从护理专业学生到专业护士的过渡时期充满了挑战，这些挑战源于不断变化的角色和日益增长的独立实践要求。虽然针对新毕业护士的执业过渡计划已经存在，但对学生在最后一年教育中的准备工作关注较少。范围界定综述将确定为即将毕业的护理专业学生提供的教育计划，以促进学生成功过渡到实践和/或改善实践准备：本综述将考虑介绍有助于成功过渡到实习和/或做好实习准备的教育计划的文献，并提供评估证据。主要涉及执照前、本科或学士学位护理学生的研究将被纳入。将包括描述定量、定性或混合方法的主要研究报告、综述、学位论文和毕业论文、会议论文集以及护理行业出版物：方法：建议的综述将遵循 JBI 的范围综述方法。将采用与大学图书馆员专家协商制定的检索策略，在 CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、MEDLINE (Ovid)、Healthstar (Ovid) 和 Nursing and Allied Health (ProQuest) 中进行全面检索。两名独立审稿人将根据标题和摘要对文章进行筛选，并根据纳入标准对所选引文的全文进行评估。将使用定量方法（描述性统计）和基本的定性内容分析来分析数据，并以叙述和图表的形式报告结果：开放科学框架 osf.io/2vsbq。

{"title":"Supporting professional practice transition in undergraduate nursing education: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Elizabeth Orr, Meredith Kuipers, Elizabeth Yates, Kathryn Halverson","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00180","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This scoping review will describe educational programming that supports undergraduate student nurses' transition-to-practice and/or enhances practice readiness.Introduction: The period of transition from nursing student to professional nurse is fraught with challenges stemming from the evolving role and the increasing demands of independent practice. While transition-to-practice programming exists for the new graduate nurse, there is less focus on preparing the student in their final year of education. A scoping review will identify educational programming delivered to nursing students approaching graduation that facilitate transition-to-practice success and/or improve practice readiness.Inclusion criteria: This review will consider literature describing educational programming that supports transition-to-practice success and/or practice readiness and that demonstrates evidence of evaluation. Studies that involve primarily pre-licensure, undergraduate, or baccalaureate nursing students will be included. Reports of primary studies, reviews, dissertations and theses, conference proceedings, and nursing trade publications that describe quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods will be included.Methods: The proposed review will adhere to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search will be conducted in CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Healthstar (Ovid), and Nursing and Allied Health (ProQuest) using a search strategy developed in consultation with an expert university librarian. Two independent reviewers will screen articles by title and abstract and assess the full text of each selected citation against inclusion criteria. Quantitative methods (descriptive statistics) and basic qualitative content analysis will be used to analyze the data, and results will be reported in narrative and graphic formats.Review registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/2vsbq.","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142476702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Scope of nursing work and models of service delivery in Australian primary and secondary schools: a scoping review protocol. 澳大利亚中小学护理工作的范围和服务提供模式：范围界定审查协议。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-10-18 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00151

Chelsey Williams, Elizabeth Rankin, Anita Moyes

Objective: The objective of this review is to generate a national picture of the scope of nursing work and models of service delivery in Australian primary and secondary schools.

Introduction: Schools are an important setting for providing health services to school-aged children and youth. Early intervention with identified health needs has the potential to improve health and educational outcomes across the life course. Additionally, many children and young people present with health issues requiring sophisticated management at school. Nurses have worked in Australian schools for more than a century, but there is a lack of clarity about the scope of nursing work and models of service delivery in Australian schools.

Inclusion criteria: The review will include papers describing the work of registered or enrolled nurses in primary and secondary Australian schools providing education to children aged 3-18 years, in urban, regional, and remote areas of all states and territories. Peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and gray literature, not limited by publication date or language, will be included.

Methods: The review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched will include CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO (all via EBSCOhost), together with ERIC, Informit, and Google. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts, and extract data from included papers. Data will be analyzed by state/territory and by education sector (government/non-government) to generate a national picture. The findings will be reported in a narrative synthesis aligned with the review questions.

Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/6yqrm.

目的本研究旨在了解澳大利亚中小学护理工作的范围和服务模式：学校是为学龄儿童和青少年提供健康服务的重要场所。对已确定的健康需求进行早期干预，有可能改善整个生命过程中的健康和教育成果。此外，许多儿童和青少年都有健康问题，需要在学校进行精细化管理。一个多世纪以来，护士一直在澳大利亚的学校中工作，但澳大利亚学校的护理工作范围和服务提供模式尚不明确：综述将包括介绍澳大利亚各州和地区城市、区域和偏远地区为 3-18 岁儿童提供教育的中小学中注册或登记护士工作的论文。同行评议、非同行评议和灰色文献均包括在内，不受出版日期或语言的限制：审查将按照 JBI 的范围审查方法进行。要检索的数据库包括 CINAHL、MEDLINE、PsycINFO（均通过 EBSCOhost）以及 ERIC、Informit 和 Google。两位作者将独立筛选标题和摘要，并从收录的论文中提取数据。将按州/地区和教育部门（政府/非政府）对数据进行分析，以了解全国情况。研究结果将以符合综述问题的叙述性综述的形式进行报告：开放科学框架 https://osf.io/6yqrm。

{"title":"Scope of nursing work and models of service delivery in Australian primary and secondary schools: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Chelsey Williams, Elizabeth Rankin, Anita Moyes","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00151","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of this review is to generate a national picture of the scope of nursing work and models of service delivery in Australian primary and secondary schools.Introduction: Schools are an important setting for providing health services to school-aged children and youth. Early intervention with identified health needs has the potential to improve health and educational outcomes across the life course. Additionally, many children and young people present with health issues requiring sophisticated management at school. Nurses have worked in Australian schools for more than a century, but there is a lack of clarity about the scope of nursing work and models of service delivery in Australian schools.Inclusion criteria: The review will include papers describing the work of registered or enrolled nurses in primary and secondary Australian schools providing education to children aged 3-18 years, in urban, regional, and remote areas of all states and territories. Peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and gray literature, not limited by publication date or language, will be included.Methods: The review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched will include CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO (all via EBSCOhost), together with ERIC, Informit, and Google. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts, and extract data from included papers. Data will be analyzed by state/territory and by education sector (government/non-government) to generate a national picture. The findings will be reported in a narrative synthesis aligned with the review questions.Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/6yqrm.","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142476701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Effectiveness of early childhood education interventions to improve complementary feeding practices in children 4 to 36 months of age: a systematic review protocol. 儿童早期教育干预对改善 4 至 36 个月大儿童辅食喂养习惯的效果：系统性综述方案。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00447

Paloma Sodré Cardoso, Bruno Mori, Ronilson Ferreira Freitas, Regismeire Viana Lima, Bruno Mendes Tavares, Jose Fernando Marques Barcellos, Carla Vanessa Alves Lopes, Celsa da Silva Moura Souza

Background: Healthy eating habits, which start with food introduction, can influence children's growth and development. Therefore, the educational actions carried out at school for children who are beginning to eat, involving families and school staff who attend daycare centers, can serve as strategies to improve complementary feeding practices.

Objective: This review will analyze the effectiveness of early childhood education interventions to improve complementary feeding practices in children aged 4 to 36 months.

Inclusion criteria: The review will consider randomized clinical trials, cluster-randomized clinical trials, and controlled clinical trials that evaluate the effectiveness of early childhood education interventions involving children aged 4 to 36 months, their families, or school staff to improve complementary feeding. In their absence, observational cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies may be considered.

Methods: This review will be conducted in line with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. The search for relevant studies will be conducted in PubMed, Embase (Ovid), BIREME, Scopus, the Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and the ProQuest Databases (ProQuest Central). No date or language limitation will be applied. Two independent reviewers will select studies by screening titles, abstracts, and keywords against the inclusion criteria. This will be followed by full-text screening. Two independent reviewers will then conduct the study method quality evaluation and data extraction. GRADEpro will be used to assess the certainty in the findings, which will be reported in a systematic review, and, if possible, grouped in a meta-analysis.

Review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42022384704.

背景：健康的饮食习惯可以影响儿童的生长发育，而健康的饮食习惯始于食物介绍。因此，在学校为开始进食的儿童开展的教育活动，包括参加日托中心的家庭和学校工作人员，可以作为改善辅食喂养方法的策略：本综述将分析幼儿教育干预措施对改善 4 至 36 个月儿童辅食喂养习惯的有效性：本综述将考虑随机临床试验、分组随机临床试验和对照临床试验，这些试验将评估涉及 4 到 36 个月大儿童、其家庭或学校教职员工的早期儿童教育干预措施对改善辅食喂养的有效性。如果没有这些研究，则可以考虑观察性队列研究、病例对照研究和横断面研究：本综述将按照 JBI 的有效性系统综述方法进行。相关研究的检索将在 PubMed、Embase (Ovid)、BIREME、Scopus、Cochrane 图书馆（Cochrane 对照试验中央注册中心 CENTRAL 和 Cochrane 系统性综述数据库）、CINAHL (EBSCOhost) 和 ProQuest 数据库 (ProQuest Central) 中进行。没有日期或语言限制。两名独立审稿人将根据纳入标准筛选研究报告的标题、摘要和关键词。然后再进行全文筛选。然后，两名独立审稿人将进行研究方法质量评估和数据提取。将使用 GRADEpro 对研究结果的确定性进行评估，评估结果将在系统综述中进行报告，如有可能，还将在荟萃分析中进行分组：综述注册编号：PREMCORD42022384704。

{"title":"Effectiveness of early childhood education interventions to improve complementary feeding practices in children 4 to 36 months of age: a systematic review protocol.","authors":"Paloma Sodré Cardoso, Bruno Mori, Ronilson Ferreira Freitas, Regismeire Viana Lima, Bruno Mendes Tavares, Jose Fernando Marques Barcellos, Carla Vanessa Alves Lopes, Celsa da Silva Moura Souza","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00447","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00447","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Healthy eating habits, which start with food introduction, can influence children's growth and development. Therefore, the educational actions carried out at school for children who are beginning to eat, involving families and school staff who attend daycare centers, can serve as strategies to improve complementary feeding practices.Objective: This review will analyze the effectiveness of early childhood education interventions to improve complementary feeding practices in children aged 4 to 36 months.Inclusion criteria: The review will consider randomized clinical trials, cluster-randomized clinical trials, and controlled clinical trials that evaluate the effectiveness of early childhood education interventions involving children aged 4 to 36 months, their families, or school staff to improve complementary feeding. In their absence, observational cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies may be considered.Methods: This review will be conducted in line with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. The search for relevant studies will be conducted in PubMed, Embase (Ovid), BIREME, Scopus, the Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and the ProQuest Databases (ProQuest Central). No date or language limitation will be applied. Two independent reviewers will select studies by screening titles, abstracts, and keywords against the inclusion criteria. This will be followed by full-text screening. Two independent reviewers will then conduct the study method quality evaluation and data extraction. GRADEpro will be used to assess the certainty in the findings, which will be reported in a systematic review, and, if possible, grouped in a meta-analysis.Review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42022384704.","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142393990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 成人 COVID19 快速抗原检测与病毒基因检测诊断准确性的比较：系统综述与荟萃分析。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00291

Ellyn Hirabayashi, Guadalupe Mercado, Brandi Hull, Sabrina Soin, Sherli Koshy-Chenthittayil, Sarina Raman, Timothy Huang, Chathushya Keerthisinghe, Shelby Feliciano, Andrew Dongo, James Kal, Azliyati Azizan, Karen Duus, Terry Else, Megan DeArmond, Amy E L Stone

Objective: The objective of this review was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available and upcoming point-of-care rapid antigen tests (RATs) used in primary care settings relative to the viral genetic real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test as a reference for diagnosing COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 in adults.Introduction: Accurate COVID-19 point-of-care diagnostic tests are required for real-time identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals. Real-time RT-PCR is the accepted gold standard for diagnostic testing, requiring technical expertise and expensive equipment that are unavailable in most primary care locations. RATs are immunoassays that detect the presence of a specific viral protein, which implies a current infection with SARS-CoV-2. RATs are qualitative or semi-quantitative diagnostics that lack thresholds that provide a result within a short time frame, typically within the hour following sample collection. In this systematic review, we synthesized the current evidence regarding the accuracy of RATs for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with RT-PCR.Inclusion criteria: Studies that included nonpregnant adults (18 years or older) with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptomology or disease severity, were included. The index test was any available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care RAT. The reference test was any commercially distributed RT-PCR-based test that detects the RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 and has been validated by an independent third party. Custom or in-house RT-PCR tests were also considered, with appropriate validation documentation. The diagnosis of interest was COVID-19 disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection. This review considered cross-sectional and cohort studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection where the participants had both index and reference tests performed.Methods: The keywords and index terms contained in relevant articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and adapted for Embase, Scopus, Qinsight, and the WHO COVID-19 databases. Studies published from November 2019 to July 12, 2022, were included, as SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2019 and is the cause of a continuing pandemic. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using QUADAS-2. Using a customized tool, data were extracted from included studies and were verified prior to analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values were calculated and presented with 95% CIs. When heterogeneity was observed, outlier analysis was conducted, and the results were generated by removing outliers.Results: Meta-analysis was performed on 91 studies of 581 full-text articles retrieved that provided true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative values. RATs can identify individual

目的：本综述旨在确定目前在初级医疗机构中使用的和即将使用的床旁快速抗原检测（RAT）与病毒基因实时逆转录酶聚合酶链反应（RT-PCR）检测的诊断准确性，后者是诊断成人 COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 的参考依据：导言：要实时确定个人是否感染了 SARS-CoV-2，需要准确的 COVID-19 床旁诊断测试。实时 RT-PCR 是公认的诊断检测黄金标准，但需要专业技术和昂贵的设备，而大多数基层医疗机构都不具备这些条件。RAT 是一种免疫测定方法，可检测出特定病毒蛋白的存在，这意味着当前感染了 SARS-CoV-2。RAT 是一种定性或半定量诊断方法，缺乏阈值，可在短时间内（通常在样本采集后一小时内）提供结果。在本系统综述中，我们综合了目前有关 RAT 与 RT-PCR 相比检测 SARS-CoV-2 的准确性的证据：纳入标准：纳入疑似感染 SARS-CoV-2 的非怀孕成人（18 岁或以上）的研究，无论其症状或疾病严重程度如何。指标检验是任何可用的 SARS-CoV-2 床旁 RAT。参考检验是指任何商业销售的基于 RT-PCR 的检验，该检验可检测 SARS-CoV-2 的 RNA 基因组，并已通过独立第三方的验证。定制或内部 RT-PCR 检测也可考虑，但需提供适当的验证文件。相关诊断为 COVID-19 疾病和 SARS-CoV-2 感染。本综述考虑了对COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2感染的诊断准确性进行研究的横断面研究和队列研究，这些研究的参与者都进行了指标检验和参考检验：相关文章中包含的关键词和索引词被用于制定PubMed的完整检索策略，并在Embase、Scopus、Qinsight和WHO COVID-19数据库中进行了调整。由于SARS-CoV-2是在2019年末出现的，并且是持续大流行的原因，因此纳入了2019年11月至2022年7月12日期间发表的研究。我们使用 QUADAS-2 对符合纳入标准的研究进行了严格评估。使用定制工具从纳入的研究中提取数据，并在分析前进行核实。计算汇总的灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值，并给出 95% CI。当观察到异质性时，进行离群值分析，去除离群值后得出结果：对检索到的 581 篇全文文章中的 91 项研究进行了元分析，这些研究提供了真阳性、真阴性、假阳性和假阴性值。考虑到整体性能，RATs 能以较高的可靠性（阳性预测值 97.7%；阴性预测值 95.2%）识别出 COVID-19 患者。然而，较低的灵敏度（67.1%）表明，阴性检测结果可能需要通过其他方法重新检测：结论：大多数报告的 RAT 品牌仅有少数研究将其性能与 RT-PCR 进行了比较。总体而言，RAT 阳性结果是 COVID-19 阳性诊断的绝佳预测指标。我们建议在基层医疗机构使用罗氏的 SARS-CoV-2 快速抗原检测试剂盒和雅培的 BinaxNOW 检测试剂盒，但阴性结果需要通过 RT-PCR 进行确认。我们建议在报告诊断数据时遵守 STARD 指南：审查注册：prospero crd42020224250。

{"title":"Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Ellyn Hirabayashi, Guadalupe Mercado, Brandi Hull, Sabrina Soin, Sherli Koshy-Chenthittayil, Sarina Raman, Timothy Huang, Chathushya Keerthisinghe, Shelby Feliciano, Andrew Dongo, James Kal, Azliyati Azizan, Karen Duus, Terry Else, Megan DeArmond, Amy E L Stone","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00291","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00291","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of this review was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available and upcoming point-of-care rapid antigen tests (RATs) used in primary care settings relative to the viral genetic real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test as a reference for diagnosing COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 in adults.Introduction: Accurate COVID-19 point-of-care diagnostic tests are required for real-time identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals. Real-time RT-PCR is the accepted gold standard for diagnostic testing, requiring technical expertise and expensive equipment that are unavailable in most primary care locations. RATs are immunoassays that detect the presence of a specific viral protein, which implies a current infection with SARS-CoV-2. RATs are qualitative or semi-quantitative diagnostics that lack thresholds that provide a result within a short time frame, typically within the hour following sample collection. In this systematic review, we synthesized the current evidence regarding the accuracy of RATs for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with RT-PCR.Inclusion criteria: Studies that included nonpregnant adults (18 years or older) with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptomology or disease severity, were included. The index test was any available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care RAT. The reference test was any commercially distributed RT-PCR-based test that detects the RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 and has been validated by an independent third party. Custom or in-house RT-PCR tests were also considered, with appropriate validation documentation. The diagnosis of interest was COVID-19 disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection. This review considered cross-sectional and cohort studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection where the participants had both index and reference tests performed.Methods: The keywords and index terms contained in relevant articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and adapted for Embase, Scopus, Qinsight, and the WHO COVID-19 databases. Studies published from November 2019 to July 12, 2022, were included, as SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2019 and is the cause of a continuing pandemic. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using QUADAS-2. Using a customized tool, data were extracted from included studies and were verified prior to analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values were calculated and presented with 95% CIs. When heterogeneity was observed, outlier analysis was conducted, and the results were generated by removing outliers.Results: Meta-analysis was performed on 91 studies of 581 full-text articles retrieved that provided true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative values. RATs can identify individual","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"1939-2002"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11462910/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142074131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Treatment outcomes in maxillofacial rehabilitation: a scoping review protocol. 颌面康复的治疗效果：范围界定审查协议。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00100

Sreelakshmi Viswanath, Saranya Sreekumar, Chandrasekhar Janakiram, Suresh Nayar, Anil Mathew

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to assess the treatment outcomes following maxillofacial rehabilitation and to identify the tools used to evaluate those outcomes.

Introduction: Maxillofacial defects caused due to tumor, trauma, or any pathology affects the patient physically, mentally, and psychologically. Various methodologies and strategies are used for jaw reconstruction and oral rehabilitation to help the patient regain the functions and quality of life that were lost due to the defect. The evaluation of these treatment outcomes is imperative to assess the success of rehabilitation.

Inclusion criteria: The review will include patients with any maxillofacial defect caused by a developmental anomaly, trauma, or tumor. The patients must have undergone any type of reconstruction and/or rehabilitation and can be from any age group. All treatment outcomes of maxillofacial rehabilitation will be considered. Information from primary and secondary sources and from diverse geographical settings will be included.

Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched will include PubMed (Ovid), Scopus, PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Google Scholar (first 10 pages of the search). Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts and extract data from selected studies. Data will be presented in tabular format, accompanied by a narrative summary.

Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/dp8wc.

目标：本综述旨在评估颌面部康复治疗的效果，并确定用于评估这些效果的工具：由于肿瘤、外伤或任何病理原因造成的颌面部缺陷会对患者的身体、精神和心理造成影响。颌骨重建和口腔康复采用了各种方法和策略，以帮助患者恢复因缺损而丧失的功能和生活质量。对这些治疗结果进行评估是评估康复成功与否的当务之急：审查将包括任何因发育异常、外伤或肿瘤引起的颌面部缺陷患者。患者必须接受过任何类型的重建和/或康复治疗，年龄不限。颌面康复的所有治疗结果都将被考虑在内。方法：本综述将采用 JBI 方法：本综述将采用 JBI 的方法进行范围界定综述。要检索的数据库包括 PubMed (Ovid)、Scopus、PsycINFO (EBSCOhost)、CINAHL(EBSCO)、Web of Science、Cochrane CENTRAL、ProQuest Dissertations and Theses 和 Google Scholar（检索的前 10 页）。两名独立审稿人将筛选标题和摘要，并从选定的研究中提取数据。数据将以表格形式呈现，并附有叙述性摘要。有关综述的详细信息，请参阅开放科学框架：https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DP8WC。

{"title":"Treatment outcomes in maxillofacial rehabilitation: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Sreelakshmi Viswanath, Saranya Sreekumar, Chandrasekhar Janakiram, Suresh Nayar, Anil Mathew","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00100","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00100","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to assess the treatment outcomes following maxillofacial rehabilitation and to identify the tools used to evaluate those outcomes.Introduction: Maxillofacial defects caused due to tumor, trauma, or any pathology affects the patient physically, mentally, and psychologically. Various methodologies and strategies are used for jaw reconstruction and oral rehabilitation to help the patient regain the functions and quality of life that were lost due to the defect. The evaluation of these treatment outcomes is imperative to assess the success of rehabilitation.Inclusion criteria: The review will include patients with any maxillofacial defect caused by a developmental anomaly, trauma, or tumor. The patients must have undergone any type of reconstruction and/or rehabilitation and can be from any age group. All treatment outcomes of maxillofacial rehabilitation will be considered. Information from primary and secondary sources and from diverse geographical settings will be included.Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched will include PubMed (Ovid), Scopus, PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Google Scholar (first 10 pages of the search). Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts and extract data from selected studies. Data will be presented in tabular format, accompanied by a narrative summary.Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/dp8wc.","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2156-2161"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141238340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Occupational therapy assessments and interventions for patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a scoping review protocol. 强直性脊柱炎患者的作业疗法评估和干预：范围界定审查协议。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00393

John V Rider, Abigail E LaVerdure, Megan De Armond

Objective: The proposed scoping review aims to explore the literature on the occupational therapy (OT) scope of practice for patients with ankylosing spondylitis, including assessment methods and intervention approaches used by OT practitioners, areas of impairment addressed, and practice settings where OT practitioners provide services.

Introduction: Ankylosing spondylitis is a type of spondyloarthritis primarily involving inflammation of the spine. Studies have begun to examine the role of OT in addressing pain, function, and disability among patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Given the increased recognition of OT services for this population, a comprehensive understanding of the assessment methods and intervention approaches used by OT practitioners when working with ankylosing spondylitis would benefit clinicians, providers, and patients and support future research efforts.

Inclusion criteria: The review will consider studies that include participants of any age diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis and any form of OT assessment and intervention. All relevant published and unpublished studies will be considered, without date or language limitations, including all primary studies, gray literature, textual evidence papers, and clinical guidelines.

Methods: The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, SportDiscus (EBSCOhost), OTDBase, OTSeeker, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers will independently extract data from selected papers using a standardized tool modified for the review. The results will be presented using frequency tables and will be accompanied by a narrative summary.

Review registration: Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VPY56.

目的：拟议的范围界定综述旨在探究有关强直性脊柱炎（AS）患者职业治疗（OT）实践范围的文献，包括OT从业人员使用的评估方法和干预方法、治疗损伤的领域以及OT从业人员提供服务的实践环境：强直性脊柱炎是一种主要涉及脊柱炎症的脊柱关节炎。研究已经开始探讨作业疗法在解决强直性脊柱炎患者的疼痛、功能和残疾方面所起的作用。鉴于人们越来越认可为这一人群提供的定向行走服务，全面了解定向行走从业人员在为强直性脊柱炎患者提供服务时所使用的评估方法和干预方法将有利于临床医生、服务提供者和患者，并支持未来的研究工作：综述将考虑包括任何年龄段被诊断为 AS 的参与者以及任何形式的 OT 评估和干预的研究。将考虑所有已发表和未发表的相关研究，不受日期和语言的限制，包括所有主要研究、灰色文献、文本和意见书以及临床指南：综述将遵循 JBI 的范围界定综述方法。将在 MEDLINE (PubMed)、Embase、CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、Scopus (EBSCOhost)、PsycINFO、ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global、SportDiscus (EBSCOhost)、OTDBase、OTSeeker 和 Google Scholar 中进行检索。两名独立审稿人将使用为此次审稿修改过的标准化工具从所选论文中提取数据。审查结果将使用频率表进行展示，并附有叙述性摘要。审查协议的详细内容请参见开放科学框架：https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VPY56。

{"title":"Occupational therapy assessments and interventions for patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"John V Rider, Abigail E LaVerdure, Megan De Armond","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00393","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00393","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The proposed scoping review aims to explore the literature on the occupational therapy (OT) scope of practice for patients with ankylosing spondylitis, including assessment methods and intervention approaches used by OT practitioners, areas of impairment addressed, and practice settings where OT practitioners provide services.Introduction: Ankylosing spondylitis is a type of spondyloarthritis primarily involving inflammation of the spine. Studies have begun to examine the role of OT in addressing pain, function, and disability among patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Given the increased recognition of OT services for this population, a comprehensive understanding of the assessment methods and intervention approaches used by OT practitioners when working with ankylosing spondylitis would benefit clinicians, providers, and patients and support future research efforts.Inclusion criteria: The review will consider studies that include participants of any age diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis and any form of OT assessment and intervention. All relevant published and unpublished studies will be considered, without date or language limitations, including all primary studies, gray literature, textual evidence papers, and clinical guidelines.Methods: The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, SportDiscus (EBSCOhost), OTDBase, OTSeeker, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers will independently extract data from selected papers using a standardized tool modified for the review. The results will be presented using frequency tables and will be accompanied by a narrative summary.Review registration: Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VPY56.","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2148-2155"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140892253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0