JBI evidence synthesis最新文献

Objective: The aim of this systematic review will be to explore the experiences of empathy in informal caregivers caring for persons with dementia.

Introduction: Positive caregiving experiences of informal caregivers caring for persons with dementia have many beneficial outcomes, such as improved well-being of both caregivers and care receivers and a higher quality of care for the persons with dementia. Empathy is a factor associated with positive caregiving experiences and is strongly correlated with reduced depression and reduced anxiety in informal caregivers of persons with dementia. Therefore, it is essential to understand the experiences of empathy, especially the caregiver characteristics such as their caring behaviors, relationship with the patient, and cultural beliefs.

Inclusion criteria: This review will include studies on the empathy experiences of informal caregivers caring for persons with any type of dementia. It will consider qualitative studies, including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research, and feminist research.

Methods: This study will follow the JBI guidance for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence and will use the meta-aggregation approach to synthesise qualitative studies. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished studies in English, Chinese, and Thai, with no date restrictions. Methodological quality will be evaluated using the standard JBI critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research. The findings will be pooled using the meta-aggregation approach or will be presented in narrative format.

Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42023490472.

Objective: This scoping review aims to identify, catalogue, and characterize previously reported tools, techniques, methods, and processes that have been recommended or used by evidence synthesizers to detect fraudulent or erroneous data and mitigate its impact.

Introduction: Decision-making for policy and practice should always be underpinned by the best available evidence-typically peer-reviewed scientific literature. Evidence synthesis literature should be collated and organized using the appropriate evidence synthesis methodology, best exemplified by the role systematic reviews play in evidence-based health care. However, with the rise of "predatory journals," fraudulent or erroneous data may be invading this literature, which may negatively affect evidence syntheses that use this data. This, in turn, may compromise decision-making processes.

Inclusion criteria: This review will include peer-reviewed articles, commentaries, books, and editorials that describe at least 1 tool, technique, method, or process with the explicit purpose of identifying or mitigating the impact of fraudulent or erroneous data for any evidence synthesis, in any topic area. Manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations, universities, and libraries will also be considered.

Methods: This review will be conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases and relevant organizational websites will be searched for eligible studies. Title and abstract, and subsequently full-text screening will be conducted in duplicate using Covidence. Data from identified full texts will be extracted using a pre-determined checklist, while the findings will be summarized descriptively and presented in tables.

This scoping review protocol was registered in open science framework: https://osf.io/u8yrn.

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to understand the experiences of care partner engagement in patient safety at the direct care level from the perspective of care partners, patients, and health care professionals.

Introduction: Care partner engagement is a strategy for promoting patient safety in hospitals at the direct care level (ie, at the point where patient care is delivered). When present, care partners can increase safety by watching, listening, and taking action to protect admitted patients. To improve care partner presence policies and safety engagement strategies within hospitals, a comprehensive understanding of the current qualitative evidence about the breadth of experiences of care partner engagement in patient safety is required.

Inclusion criteria: This review will include qualitative studies that consider the experiences of care partners, adult patients, and health care professionals. The engagement of care partners in patient safety within pediatric hospital settings will not be considered.

Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. A preliminary literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and a full search strategy was developed for MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO (all via Ovid), as well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and JBI Evidence Synthesis. The JBI approach to study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, data synthesis, and assessment of confidence will be followed. Two reviewers will test the screening criteria and data extraction protocol.

Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42023476286.

Objective: The objective of this review is to synthesize the existing qualitative evidence on the breastfeeding experiences of mothers with hospitalized preterm infants.

Introduction: Breastfeeding is crucial for the well-being and development of preterm infants born before 37 weeks' gestation. Mothers of preterm infants often face challenges that make breastfeeding particularly complex. Understanding their breastfeeding experience is important for health care professionals as it enables them to provide appropriate support and assistance. The qualitative evidence synthesis regarding the breastfeeding experiences of mothers with preterm infants in hospital settings is a valuable area of research that has not been documented.

Inclusion criteria: This review will consider all qualitative studies that explore the experiences of mothers with preterm infants with breastfeeding and mother's own milk management for their hospitalized infants. All mothers of preterm infants who provide their own milk to their infants will be considered, regardless of their health and social status.

Methods: This review will follow the JBI approach for qualitative systematic review. The search strategy aims to find both published and unpublished studies with no date limit. A search of PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Embase (EBSCOhost) will be undertaken to identify articles on the topic. Studies published in English will be considered for inclusion in this review. Two independent reviewers will evaluate the methodological validity of the selected papers before incorporating them into the review. Data synthesis will be conducted using the meta-aggregation approach, and synthesized findings will be assessed using the ConQual approach.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024501454.

Objective: This scoping review aims to map studies that applied artificial intelligence (AI) tools to perform health technology assessment tasks in human health care. The review also aims to understand specific processes in which the AI tools were applied and to comprehend the technical characteristics of these tools.

Introduction: Health technology assessment is a complex, time-consuming, and labor-intensive endeavor. The development of automation techniques using AI has opened up new avenues for accelerating such assessments in human health settings. This could potentially aid health technology assessment researchers and decision-makers to deliver higher quality evidence.

Inclusion criteria: This review will consider studies that assesses the use of AI tools in any process of health technology assessment in human health. However, publications in which AI is a means of clinical aid, such as diagnostics or surgery will be excluded.

Methods: A search for relevant articles will be conducted in databases such as CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (PubMed), Science Direct, Computer and Applied Sciences Complete (EBSCOhost), LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. A search for gray literature will be conducted in GreyLit.Org, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar, and the Google search engine. No language filters will be applied. Screening, selection, and data extraction will be performed by 2 independent reviewers. The results will be presented in graphic and tabular format, accompanied by a narrative summary.

Details of this review can be found in open science framework: osf.io/3rm8g.

Objective: This review aims to assess the effectiveness of receiving genetic risk information for cardiovascular disease (CVD) on individual health behaviors, psychological responses, and risk factor modification.

Introduction: Advancements in genomics have identified strong genetic predispositions for CVD, leading to the development of CVD genetic risk information. Integrating genetic risk information into clinical practice shows promise in predicting CVD risk and facilitating multifactorial management.

Inclusion criteria: This review will focus on randomized controlled trials assessing individual responses to CVD genetic risk information. Participants will be adults aged 18 and older, both with and without CVD. The review will compare the effectiveness of receiving genetic risk information with receiving traditional risk information or no risk information, assessing outcomes such as health behaviors, psychological responses, and risk factor modification.

Methods: Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Emcare will be searched for relevant studies. Current or unpublished trials will be searched for in Clinical-Trials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Articles will be screened and assessed for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Methodological quality will be assessed using the standardized instrument from JBI. Data will be extracted and synthesized for the objectives of the study. If data are sufficient, a meta-analysis will be conducted; otherwise, the findings will be presented in narrative format, including tables and figures to aid in presentation. The certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023390876.

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to explore the experiences of siblings of children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities.

Introduction: With improved life expectancy of children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities, the research focus is on care at home and in the community. Although parents are the primary caregivers, siblings often assume the role of young caregivers, bearing the weight of caregiving responsibilities. Thus, a synthesis of qualitative findings is required regarding their experiences to facilitate the development of effective support strategies.

Inclusion criteria: Siblings of children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities will be included, defined as children with an IQ of ≤40 or mental development below a 2-year-old's level, coupled with an inability to walk independently. Disabled children aged <20 years will be included. There will be no restrictions on the siblings' age or type of relationship. Qualitative studies on experiences, caregiving burdens, challenges, difficulties, and frustration in daily life will be considered, covering home, community, school, and hospital settings for children with disabilities.

Methods: We will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. The search strategy will be conducted in 3 phases: initial limited search, comprehensive database search, and reference list search of the included articles. The MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, Scopus, Ichushi-Web, and CiNii databases will be searched, with no restrictions on language or publication date. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis will be conducted by 2 independent reviewers. We will evaluate the final synthesized findings using the ConQual approach.

Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42024499042.