首页 > 最新文献

JBI evidence synthesis最新文献

英文 中文
Short-term effects of preparatory suggestions on pain in adults undergoing nonpharmacological treatments: a systematic review protocol. 预备建议对接受非药物治疗的成人疼痛的短期影响:系统回顾方案。
IF 4.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-05 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00511
Maria Beck Gaarde, Robin Christensen, Lene Vase, Luana Colloca, Henrik Bjarke Vaegter, Sophie Lykkegaard Ravn

Introduction: Clinicians often prepare patients for a treatment by suggesting that their pain levels are likely to reduce or increase during or shortly after the treatment, thereby potentially creating expectations about pain. Several randomized controlled trials have investigated the short-term effects of preparatory suggestions on pain in adults undergoing nonpharmacological treatments, but their findings are inconsistent.

Objective: We will conduct a systematic review to explore whether positive and negative preparatory suggestions reduce and increase pain, respectively, in adults during and shortly after nonpharmacological treatments compared to no or neutral preparatory suggestions, and if so, to what extent.

Eligibility criteria: The review will include randomized controlled trials in which the participants are adults undergoing a nonpharmacological treatment. The intervention group must receive positive or negative preparatory suggestions, while the comparator group must receive no or neutral preparatory suggestions. The outcomes must be within the category of pain and assessed numerically during or shortly after the treatment.

Methods: The review will be conducted in line with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Studies were identified by searching in Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers will independently screen the identified studies, extract data, and evaluate the methodological quality and certainty in the findings. In addition, a narrative synthesis and meta-analyses will be performed. Effect sizes for continuous and binary outcomes will be computed as standardized mean differences and relative risks, respectively. A restricted maximum likelihood mixed effects model will be applied in the meta-analyses.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024587230.

导读:临床医生通常在治疗前告诉患者疼痛程度可能会在治疗过程中或治疗后不久减轻或增加,从而潜在地产生对疼痛的预期。一些随机对照试验调查了预备建议对接受非药物治疗的成人疼痛的短期影响,但他们的发现不一致。目的:我们将进行系统综述,探讨在非药物治疗期间和治疗后不久,与没有或中性的准备建议相比,积极和消极的准备建议是否分别减轻和增加了成人的疼痛,如果是,程度如何。入选标准:该综述将包括随机对照试验,参与者为接受非药物治疗的成年人。干预组必须得到积极或消极的准备建议,而比较组必须没有或中立的准备建议。结果必须在疼痛的范畴内,并在治疗期间或治疗后不久进行数值评估。方法:本综述将按照JBI方法进行有效性的系统评价。通过检索Embase (Ovid)、MEDLINE (Ovid)、PsycINFO (Ovid)、Cochrane CENTRAL和谷歌Scholar来确定研究。2位审稿人将独立筛选已确定的研究,提取数据,并评估研究结果的方法学质量和确定性。此外,将进行叙事综合和元分析。连续和二元结果的效应量将分别以标准化平均差异和相对风险计算。在meta分析中将采用限制最大似然混合效应模型。审查注册:PROSPERO CRD42024587230。
{"title":"Short-term effects of preparatory suggestions on pain in adults undergoing nonpharmacological treatments: a systematic review protocol.","authors":"Maria Beck Gaarde, Robin Christensen, Lene Vase, Luana Colloca, Henrik Bjarke Vaegter, Sophie Lykkegaard Ravn","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00511","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00511","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinicians often prepare patients for a treatment by suggesting that their pain levels are likely to reduce or increase during or shortly after the treatment, thereby potentially creating expectations about pain. Several randomized controlled trials have investigated the short-term effects of preparatory suggestions on pain in adults undergoing nonpharmacological treatments, but their findings are inconsistent.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We will conduct a systematic review to explore whether positive and negative preparatory suggestions reduce and increase pain, respectively, in adults during and shortly after nonpharmacological treatments compared to no or neutral preparatory suggestions, and if so, to what extent.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>The review will include randomized controlled trials in which the participants are adults undergoing a nonpharmacological treatment. The intervention group must receive positive or negative preparatory suggestions, while the comparator group must receive no or neutral preparatory suggestions. The outcomes must be within the category of pain and assessed numerically during or shortly after the treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review will be conducted in line with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Studies were identified by searching in Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers will independently screen the identified studies, extract data, and evaluate the methodological quality and certainty in the findings. In addition, a narrative synthesis and meta-analyses will be performed. Effect sizes for continuous and binary outcomes will be computed as standardized mean differences and relative risks, respectively. A restricted maximum likelihood mixed effects model will be applied in the meta-analyses.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024587230.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2497-2505"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145410079","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
Coaching for informal caregivers of persons living with dementia: a scoping review protocol. 对痴呆症患者非正式照护者的指导:范围审查方案。
IF 4.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-05 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-25-00009
Rachel MacLean, Pamela Durepos, Lisa Keeping-Burke, Katelyn Caverhill, Alex Goudreau, Patricia Morris, Rose M McCloskey

Objective: This scoping review will describe dementia coaching programs, models, and practices for unpaid caregivers of community-dwelling persons living with dementia.

Introduction: Unpaid caregivers of community-dwelling individuals with dementia often experience significant physical and emotional stress due to the complex nature of caregiving, yet many lack access to support tailored to their needs. Dementia coaching has emerged as a potential solution offering personalized guidance to help caregivers set goals, build coping strategies, and manage care responsibilities. However, wide variation in how dementia coaching is defined and delivered has created uncertainty around its implementation. A scoping review is needed to map the current landscape; identify existing programs, models, and practices; and highlight gaps in the literature to inform future service development.

Eligibility criteria: This scoping review will include qualitative studies, quantitative studies, mixed methods studies, guidelines, policies, opinion papers, and gray literature on dementia coaching for unpaid caregivers of community-dwelling individuals with dementia, with no restrictions on language or publication date.

Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Published literature will be located using MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL with Full-Text (EBSCOhost), APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), ERIC (EBSCOhost), Abstracts in Social Gerontology (EBSCOhost), and Scopus. References of included studies will be hand-searched and gray literature identified via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest), Google Scholar, Google, and relevant dementia- and caregiver-related websites. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data, with a third resolving any discrepancies. Findings will be presented through narrative summaries, tables, charts, and publications.

Review registration: OSF https://osf.io/u6vj8.

目的:这篇范围综述将描述痴呆症辅导项目、模式和实践,为社区居住的痴呆症患者提供无偿护理。导言:由于护理工作的复杂性,社区居住的痴呆症患者的无偿照护者往往会经历巨大的身体和情绪压力,但许多人无法获得针对其需求的支持。痴呆症辅导已经成为一种潜在的解决方案,提供个性化的指导,帮助护理人员设定目标,建立应对策略,并管理护理责任。然而,痴呆症指导的定义和提供方式存在很大差异,这给其实施带来了不确定性。需要进行范围审查,以绘制当前的景观,确定现有的计划、模型和实践,并突出文献中的差距,以便为未来的服务开发提供信息。纳入标准:该范围审查将包括定性、定量、混合方法研究、指南、政策、意见文件和灰色文献,内容涉及对社区居住的痴呆症患者的无报酬照护者进行痴呆症辅导,对语言和出版日期没有限制。方法:本综述将遵循JBI方法进行范围综述。已发表的文献将使用MEDLINE (Ovid)、Embase (Ovid)、CINAHL with Full-Text (EBSCOhost)、APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost)、ERIC (EBSCOhost)、Social Abstracts in Gerontology (EBSCOhost)和Scopus进行定位。纳入研究的参考文献将通过ProQuest博士论文和论文(ProQuest)、谷歌Scholar、谷歌和相关的痴呆症和护理相关网站手工检索和灰色文献识别。两位作者将独立筛选和提取数据,第三位作者解决任何差异。调查结果将通过叙述摘要、表格、图表和出版物进行分享。评审注册:OSF https://osf.io/u6vj8。
{"title":"Coaching for informal caregivers of persons living with dementia: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Rachel MacLean, Pamela Durepos, Lisa Keeping-Burke, Katelyn Caverhill, Alex Goudreau, Patricia Morris, Rose M McCloskey","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-25-00009","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-25-00009","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review will describe dementia coaching programs, models, and practices for unpaid caregivers of community-dwelling persons living with dementia.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Unpaid caregivers of community-dwelling individuals with dementia often experience significant physical and emotional stress due to the complex nature of caregiving, yet many lack access to support tailored to their needs. Dementia coaching has emerged as a potential solution offering personalized guidance to help caregivers set goals, build coping strategies, and manage care responsibilities. However, wide variation in how dementia coaching is defined and delivered has created uncertainty around its implementation. A scoping review is needed to map the current landscape; identify existing programs, models, and practices; and highlight gaps in the literature to inform future service development.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>This scoping review will include qualitative studies, quantitative studies, mixed methods studies, guidelines, policies, opinion papers, and gray literature on dementia coaching for unpaid caregivers of community-dwelling individuals with dementia, with no restrictions on language or publication date.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Published literature will be located using MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL with Full-Text (EBSCOhost), APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), ERIC (EBSCOhost), Abstracts in Social Gerontology (EBSCOhost), and Scopus. References of included studies will be hand-searched and gray literature identified via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest), Google Scholar, Google, and relevant dementia- and caregiver-related websites. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data, with a third resolving any discrepancies. Findings will be presented through narrative summaries, tables, charts, and publications.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>OSF https://osf.io/u6vj8.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2481-2488"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145070851","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 environmental approaches in improving cognitive and related functional outcomes for adults with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review protocol. 环境方法在改善成人外伤性脑损伤的认知和相关功能预后方面的有效性:一项系统回顾方案。
IF 4.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-05 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00559
Ella Waldman, Jennie Ponsford, Jessica Trevena-Peters

Objective: This review aims to investigate which environmental approaches to cognitive rehabilitation are effective in improving cognitive and related functional outcomes for adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and to identify the components of these approaches.

Introduction: Individuals with cognitive impairments after sustaining TBI often have limited self-awareness and capacity for goal-directed behavior. Therefore, they are less likely to benefit from cognitive rehabilitation approaches requiring active and self-directed engagement. These individuals may benefit from environmental approaches, which involve manipulating the environment (eg, modifying physical, social, or task-related aspects of an individual's surroundings) to support cognitive function, activity, and participation. However, the evidence base underpinning this is poorly understood, highlighting the need for research synthesis.

Eligibility criteria: This review will consider studies that include participants aged 18 years or older with a TBI and evaluate an environmental intervention. We will include randomized controlled trials written in English, irrespective of publication date or status. Outcomes of interest will include cognitive and related functional outcomes (eg, impairment, activity, participation).

Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Information sources will include the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Two reviewers will independently select studies and extract data. Methodological quality will be appraised using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. We will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. Studies will be pooled with statistical meta-analysis where possible, accompanied by narrative synthesis.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024592708.

目的:本综述旨在探讨哪些环境康复方法能有效改善成人创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者的认知和相关功能结局,并确定这些方法的组成部分。在持续性脑外伤后出现认知障碍的个体通常具有有限的自我意识和目标导向行为能力。因此,他们不太可能从需要主动和自我导向参与的认知康复方法中受益,这通常是由现有研究评估的。这些个体可能受益于环境方法,包括操纵环境(例如,改变个体周围环境的物理、社会或任务相关方面),以支持认知功能、活动和参与。然而,人们对支持这一观点的证据基础知之甚少,这凸显了综合研究的必要性。入选标准:本综述将纳入18岁及以上TBI患者的研究,并评估环境干预。我们将纳入用英文撰写的随机对照试验,无论发表日期或状态如何。感兴趣的结果将包括认知和相关功能结果(如损伤、活动、参与)。方法:本综述将遵循JBI方法对有效性进行系统评价。信息来源包括Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL)、CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、ClinicalTrials.gov、Embase (Ovid)、PsycINFO (Ovid)、MEDLINE (Ovid)和WHO ICTRP。两名审稿人将独立选择研究并提取数据。方法学质量将使用随机对照试验的JBI关键评估工具进行评估。我们将使用GRADE来评估证据的确定性。研究将在可能的情况下与统计荟萃分析合并,并伴有叙事综合。评审注册:PROSPERO CRD42024592708。
{"title":"Effectiveness of environmental approaches in improving cognitive and related functional outcomes for adults with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review protocol.","authors":"Ella Waldman, Jennie Ponsford, Jessica Trevena-Peters","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00559","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00559","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review aims to investigate which environmental approaches to cognitive rehabilitation are effective in improving cognitive and related functional outcomes for adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and to identify the components of these approaches.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Individuals with cognitive impairments after sustaining TBI often have limited self-awareness and capacity for goal-directed behavior. Therefore, they are less likely to benefit from cognitive rehabilitation approaches requiring active and self-directed engagement. These individuals may benefit from environmental approaches, which involve manipulating the environment (eg, modifying physical, social, or task-related aspects of an individual's surroundings) to support cognitive function, activity, and participation. However, the evidence base underpinning this is poorly understood, highlighting the need for research synthesis.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>This review will consider studies that include participants aged 18 years or older with a TBI and evaluate an environmental intervention. We will include randomized controlled trials written in English, irrespective of publication date or status. Outcomes of interest will include cognitive and related functional outcomes (eg, impairment, activity, participation).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Information sources will include the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Two reviewers will independently select studies and extract data. Methodological quality will be appraised using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. We will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. Studies will be pooled with statistical meta-analysis where possible, accompanied by narrative synthesis.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024592708.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2524-2535"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145303942","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
Identification and mapping of mHealth interventions applied in palliative care in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol. 识别和绘制撒哈拉以南非洲地区姑息治疗中应用的移动保健干预措施:范围审查议定书。
IF 4.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-11-19 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00560
John Bosco Ndinawe, Jerome Kabakyenga, Elizabeth Namukwaya, Edgar Mugema Mulogo, Eve Katushabe

Objective: The aim of this scoping review is to identify the currently available mHealth interventions for palliative care and factors influencing their use in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

Introduction: Although palliative care is essential for improving quality of life, its use in SSA remains low. mHealth interventions could enhance and promote palliative care in the region. Integration of mHealth into palliative care has been observed across Europe and the USA to support pain management and improve communication between health professionals and patients; however, there is little evidence on its use in low- and middle-income countries.

Eligibility criteria: Eligible studies will involve key stakeholders in palliative care, such as patients with life-limiting illnesses (eg, cancer), health professionals, community volunteer workers, and community leaders. Studies reporting evidence on mHealth (an interaction with a mobile device) in the design, implementation, or evaluation of palliative care services in any country in SSA will be considered.

Methods: The review will follow JBI methodology for scoping review and will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The following sources will be searched for published and unpublished literature: CINAHL(EBSCOhost), PubMed (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, as well as Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Study screening and selection will be conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Data will be extracted using a modified JBI data charting form, and will be presented in tabular format and narrative summary.

Review registration: OSF https://osf.io/gbqcn/overview.

目的:本范围综述的目的是确定目前可用于姑息治疗的移动健康干预措施以及影响其在撒哈拉以南非洲(SSA)使用的因素。导读:虽然姑息治疗对改善生活质量至关重要,但其在SSA中的应用仍然很低。移动医疗干预措施可加强和促进本区域的姑息治疗。在欧洲和美国,已经观察到将移动医疗整合到姑息治疗中,以支持疼痛管理并改善卫生专业人员与患者之间的沟通;然而,几乎没有证据表明它在低收入和中等收入国家的使用。资格标准:符合条件的研究将涉及姑息治疗的主要利益攸关方,如患有限制生命的疾病(如癌症)的患者、卫生专业人员、社区志愿工作者和社区领导人。将考虑在SSA任何国家的缓和医疗服务的设计、实施或评估中报告移动医疗(与移动设备交互)证据的研究。方法:该综述将遵循JBI方法进行范围评价,并将使用首选报告项目进行报告,用于系统评价和元分析扩展范围评价(PRISMA-ScR)。已发表和未发表的文献将搜索以下来源:CINAHL(EBSCOhost)、PubMed (Ovid)、Embase (Ovid)、Cochrane图书馆和谷歌Scholar,以及Scopus、Web of Science和ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global。研究筛选和选择将由2名审稿人独立进行。数据将使用修改后的JBI数据图表形式提取,并以表格格式和叙述性摘要呈现。评审注册:OSF https://osf.io/gbqcn/overview。
{"title":"Identification and mapping of mHealth interventions applied in palliative care in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"John Bosco Ndinawe, Jerome Kabakyenga, Elizabeth Namukwaya, Edgar Mugema Mulogo, Eve Katushabe","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00560","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00560","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this scoping review is to identify the currently available mHealth interventions for palliative care and factors influencing their use in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although palliative care is essential for improving quality of life, its use in SSA remains low. mHealth interventions could enhance and promote palliative care in the region. Integration of mHealth into palliative care has been observed across Europe and the USA to support pain management and improve communication between health professionals and patients; however, there is little evidence on its use in low- and middle-income countries.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Eligible studies will involve key stakeholders in palliative care, such as patients with life-limiting illnesses (eg, cancer), health professionals, community volunteer workers, and community leaders. Studies reporting evidence on mHealth (an interaction with a mobile device) in the design, implementation, or evaluation of palliative care services in any country in SSA will be considered.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review will follow JBI methodology for scoping review and will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The following sources will be searched for published and unpublished literature: CINAHL(EBSCOhost), PubMed (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, as well as Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Study screening and selection will be conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Data will be extracted using a modified JBI data charting form, and will be presented in tabular format and narrative summary.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>OSF https://osf.io/gbqcn/overview.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145551399","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
Women's experiences of maternity waiting homes in sub-Saharan Africa: a qualitative systematic review. 撒哈拉以南非洲妇女在待产之家的经历:一项定性系统审查。
IF 4.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-11-19 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-25-00026
Teklemariam Ergat Yarinbab, Hailay Abrha Gesesew, Margo Shawn Harrison, Desta Hiko Gemeda, Tefera Belachew

Objective: The aim of this review was to synthesize women's experiences of maternity waiting homes (MWHs) in sub-Saharan Africa.

Introduction: Globally, most maternal deaths occur in low-resource settings, with three-fourths of them occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. MWHs have been promoted as an approach to improving maternal health outcomes in these settings; however, utilization rates are low, and evidence is lacking on women's experiences of MWHs in sub-Saharan Africa.

Eligibility criteria: This review considered studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Qualitative studies conducted in English between January 2000 and July 2025 were considered for inclusion if they exclusively used qualitative research methods including, but not limited to, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research, or feminist research.

Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, HINARI, Google Scholar, and MedNar databases were searched in July 2025. We used the standardized JBI tool to critically appraise the eligible studies. The meta-aggregative approach was used to synthesis the findings, and the ConQual approach was used to assess confidence in the findings.

Results: Ten studies were included for data extraction and synthesis. The review method yielded a total of 78 findings with original quotes. These findings were grouped into 13 categories based on similarity in meaning and subjected to in-depth analysis. The review generated 5 synthesized findings: i) Positive perceptions and attitudes motivate women to use MWH; ii) Fear of complications, high-risk pregnancies, and lack of awareness affect women's decision to use MWH; iii) Family support motivates the use of MWH, whereas women's lack of autonomy and household chores affect their decisions to use MWH; iv) Health facility-level factors such as lack of basic amenities and respectful care affect access to MWH; and v) Geographic barriers such as long distance and poor road conditions impede women's access to MWH.

Conclusions: Positive perceptions and attitudes motivated women to use MWHs; however, lack of autonomy, household chores, lack of awareness, lack of basic facilities, and geographic barriers affected women's decisions to use MWH. The findings from this review can be used to inform policies, practices, and research to improve women's access to maternal health services, including MWH, in sub-Saharan Africa.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022306003.

目的:本综述的目的是综合妇女的经验产妇等待之家(MWHs)在撒哈拉以南非洲。导言:在全球范围内,大多数孕产妇死亡发生在资源匮乏的地区,其中四分之三发生在撒哈拉以南非洲。在这些环境中,妇幼保健作为一种改善孕产妇保健结果的方法得到了推广;然而,使用率很低,而且缺乏关于撒哈拉以南非洲妇女使用产妇保健服务经验的证据。入选标准:本综述考虑了在撒哈拉以南非洲进行的研究。2000年1月至2025年7月期间以英语进行的定性研究,如果它们专门使用定性研究方法,包括但不限于现象学、扎根理论、民族志、行动研究或女权主义研究,则被考虑纳入。方法:于2025年7月检索PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus、HINARI、谷歌Scholar、MedNar等数据库。我们使用标准化的JBI工具对符合条件的研究进行批判性评估。meta- aggregate方法用于综合研究结果,congal方法用于评估研究结果的可信度。结果:纳入10项研究进行数据提取和综合。回顾方法共产生78项带有原始引用的研究结果。这些发现根据意义上的相似性被分为13类,并进行了深入的分析。审查产生了5项综合发现:i)积极的看法和态度促使妇女使用妇女保健;ii)对并发症的恐惧、高危妊娠和缺乏认识影响妇女使用妇幼保健的决定;(iii)家庭支持促使妇女使用妇女保健,而妇女缺乏自主权和家务影响她们使用妇女保健的决定;(四)卫生设施层面的因素,如缺乏基本设施和尊重性护理,影响获得妇幼保健;㈤距离远和路况差等地理障碍阻碍了妇女获得妇幼保健。结论:积极的认知和态度促使妇女使用妇女保健服务;然而,缺乏自主权、家务、缺乏意识、缺乏基本设施和地理障碍影响了妇女使用妇女保健的决定。本次审查的结果可用于为政策、实践和研究提供信息,以改善撒哈拉以南非洲妇女获得孕产妇保健服务(包括孕产妇保健)的机会。评审注册号:PROSPERO CRD42022306003。
{"title":"Women's experiences of maternity waiting homes in sub-Saharan Africa: a qualitative systematic review.","authors":"Teklemariam Ergat Yarinbab, Hailay Abrha Gesesew, Margo Shawn Harrison, Desta Hiko Gemeda, Tefera Belachew","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-25-00026","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-25-00026","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this review was to synthesize women's experiences of maternity waiting homes (MWHs) in sub-Saharan Africa.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Globally, most maternal deaths occur in low-resource settings, with three-fourths of them occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. MWHs have been promoted as an approach to improving maternal health outcomes in these settings; however, utilization rates are low, and evidence is lacking on women's experiences of MWHs in sub-Saharan Africa.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>This review considered studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Qualitative studies conducted in English between January 2000 and July 2025 were considered for inclusion if they exclusively used qualitative research methods including, but not limited to, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research, or feminist research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, HINARI, Google Scholar, and MedNar databases were searched in July 2025. We used the standardized JBI tool to critically appraise the eligible studies. The meta-aggregative approach was used to synthesis the findings, and the ConQual approach was used to assess confidence in the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies were included for data extraction and synthesis. The review method yielded a total of 78 findings with original quotes. These findings were grouped into 13 categories based on similarity in meaning and subjected to in-depth analysis. The review generated 5 synthesized findings: i) Positive perceptions and attitudes motivate women to use MWH; ii) Fear of complications, high-risk pregnancies, and lack of awareness affect women's decision to use MWH; iii) Family support motivates the use of MWH, whereas women's lack of autonomy and household chores affect their decisions to use MWH; iv) Health facility-level factors such as lack of basic amenities and respectful care affect access to MWH; and v) Geographic barriers such as long distance and poor road conditions impede women's access to MWH.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Positive perceptions and attitudes motivated women to use MWHs; however, lack of autonomy, household chores, lack of awareness, lack of basic facilities, and geographic barriers affected women's decisions to use MWH. The findings from this review can be used to inform policies, practices, and research to improve women's access to maternal health services, including MWH, in sub-Saharan Africa.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42022306003.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145551383","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
Factors influencing the de-implementation of seclusion and restraint in inpatient mental health settings: a qualitative systematic review protocol. 影响住院精神卫生机构取消隔离和约束的因素:一项定性系统评价方案。
IF 4.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-06 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00441
Sophie Sergerie-Richard, Guillaume Fontaine, Lewys Beames, Vincent Billé, Rachael Laritz, Marie-Hélène Goulet

Objective: The objective of the review is to synthesize qualitative evidence on the views, experiences, and perspectives of service users and their informal carers, health care providers, managers, and decision-makers regarding factors influencing the de-implementation of seclusion and restraint in inpatient mental health settings.

Introduction: Seclusion and restraint, frequently used in mental health settings, are low-value health care interventions associated with numerous negative consequences and lack of therapeutic benefits. Conceptualizing the reduction, substitution, and elimination of these low-value interventions under the lens of de-implementation offers an innovative and promising approach.

Eligibility criteria: Qualitative studies exploring the views, experiences, and perspectives of adult mental health service users, their informal carers, health care providers, managers, and decision-makers regarding the de-implementation of seclusion and restraint will be considered for inclusion. Studies conducted in inpatient general mental health settings, excluding subspecialties, will be considered.

Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for qualitative reviews. The databases to be searched are CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and Web of Science. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment will be conducted independently by 2 authors. Following a meta-aggregation approach, the data synthesis will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Model of Prevention of Seclusion and Restraint Use in Mental Health. Methodological quality will be assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research, and confidence in the findings will be assessed using ConQual.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024586670.

目的:本综述的目的是巩固有关服务使用者及其非正式护理人员、卫生保健提供者、管理人员和决策者对住院精神卫生机构中取消隔离和约束的影响因素的意见、经验和观点的定性证据。在精神卫生机构中经常使用的隔离和约束是低价值的卫生保健干预措施,与许多负面后果和缺乏治疗效益有关。在去实施的视角下,将减少、替代和消除这些低价值干预措施概念化,是一种创新和有希望的方法。资格标准:将考虑进行定性研究,探讨成人精神卫生服务使用者、他们的非正式照顾者、卫生保健提供者、管理人员和决策者对取消隔离和约束的看法、经验和观点。还将考虑在住院的普通精神卫生机构(不包括亚专科)进行的研究。方法:采用JBI方法进行定性评价。要检索的数据库有:CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost)、Cochrane Library、Embase (Ovid)、MEDLINE (Ovid)、PsycINFO (Ovid)、Web of Science。研究选择、数据提取和质量评估将由2位作者独立进行。采用综合方法,数据综合工作将以《实施研究综合框架》和《精神卫生领域预防隔离和约束使用模式》为指导。方法学质量将使用JBI关键评估清单进行评估,结果的可信度将使用conquest进行评估。评审注册:PROSPERO CRD42024586670。
{"title":"Factors influencing the de-implementation of seclusion and restraint in inpatient mental health settings: a qualitative systematic review protocol.","authors":"Sophie Sergerie-Richard, Guillaume Fontaine, Lewys Beames, Vincent Billé, Rachael Laritz, Marie-Hélène Goulet","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00441","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00441","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of the review is to synthesize qualitative evidence on the views, experiences, and perspectives of service users and their informal carers, health care providers, managers, and decision-makers regarding factors influencing the de-implementation of seclusion and restraint in inpatient mental health settings.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Seclusion and restraint, frequently used in mental health settings, are low-value health care interventions associated with numerous negative consequences and lack of therapeutic benefits. Conceptualizing the reduction, substitution, and elimination of these low-value interventions under the lens of de-implementation offers an innovative and promising approach.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Qualitative studies exploring the views, experiences, and perspectives of adult mental health service users, their informal carers, health care providers, managers, and decision-makers regarding the de-implementation of seclusion and restraint will be considered for inclusion. Studies conducted in inpatient general mental health settings, excluding subspecialties, will be considered.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will follow the JBI methodology for qualitative reviews. The databases to be searched are CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and Web of Science. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment will be conducted independently by 2 authors. Following a meta-aggregation approach, the data synthesis will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Model of Prevention of Seclusion and Restraint Use in Mental Health. Methodological quality will be assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research, and confidence in the findings will be assessed using ConQual.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024586670.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2365-2375"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145070931","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
Methodological rigor and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines for adults hospitalized with bacterial pneumonia: a scoping review. 细菌性肺炎住院成人临床实践指南的方法学严谨性和报告质量:范围综述
IF 4.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-06 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00565
Amy Hagedorn Wonder, Jan M Nick, Olayemi O Adeoye, Gurmeet Sehgal
<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review describes the methodological rigor and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines for adults hospitalized with bacterial pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Health care professionals rely on clinical practice guidelines as authoritative sources for evidence-based treatment recommendations. To increase awareness of the current state of guideline rigor and reporting quality, this scoping review focused on the management of bacterial pneumonia in hospitalized adults.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>This review included national and international clinical practice guidelines for the care of adult and older adult patients (18 years or older) who were male, female, or gender-diverse and hospitalized with bacterial pneumonia. Guidelines published between 2017 and 2022 for adult patients with multiple diagnoses/comorbidities were included if the primary focus was management of bacterial pneumonia in the inpatient, hospital setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 3-step search was conducted following JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A total of 1533 records were identified: 1524 from 8 databases (ie, CINAHL [EBSCOhost], Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase [Embase.com], Epistemonikos, Google Scholar, JBI Evidence Synthesis , PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection), and 9 from other sources (professional organizations [n=6], citation searching [n=3]). Following deduplication, 1293 titles and abstracts were screened, and 1232 were excluded. One guideline from other sources (ie, citation searching) was excluded because it was out of print and unavailable. Full-text screening was completed on 69 guidelines to determine eligibility (databases [61], other sources [8]). Of these, 54 guidelines were excluded as duplicate records, ineligible populations, or ineligible concepts. The remaining 15 national and international guidelines were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen guidelines were authored in 13 different countries (5 continents). All guidelines were endorsed by at least 1 professional organization, and 9 guidelines were endorsed by 2 or more organizations. Most guidelines were published in English, although German, Russian, and Spanish guidelines were also included. The results for the AGREE II Domain 3, Rigor of Development, showed a mean score of 56% (range 15% to 90%). The AGREE II scores showed significant variability within and across all domains, which affected results of overall assessment (6 guidelines were rated high quality, 7 were rated sufficient, 2 were rated low) and reviewers' recommendations on use (2 guidelines were recommended for use in current form, 11 with modifications prior to use, and 2 were not recommended for use in current form). The RIGHT Checklist showed that 64% of guidelines included information on evidence and 56% included clear treatment recommendations. The AGREE Reporting Checklist showed that 4 guidelines add
目的:本综述描述了细菌性肺炎住院成人临床实践指南(CPGs)的方法学严谨性和报告质量。卫生保健专业人员依赖cpg作为循证治疗建议的权威来源。为了提高对指南严谨性和报告质量现状的认识,本综述聚焦于住院成人细菌性肺炎的管理。入选标准:本综述纳入了治疗细菌性肺炎住院的男性、女性或不同性别的成人和老年患者(18岁或以上)的国家和国际CPGs。2017年至2022年间发布的针对患有多种诊断/合并症的成年患者的指南,如果主要重点是住院患者和医院环境中的细菌性肺炎管理,则纳入指南。方法:按照JBI方法进行三步搜索,以进行范围审查。共鉴定出1533条记录:1524条来自8个数据库(即CINAHL [EBSCOhost]、Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews、Embase [Embase.com]、Epistemonikos、谷歌Scholar、JBI Evidence Synthesis、PubMed、Web of Science Core Collection), 9条来自其他来源(专业组织[n=6]、引文检索[n=3])。在重复数据删除后,筛选了1293个标题和摘要,排除了1232个。来自其他来源(即引文搜索)的一条指南被排除在外,因为它已绝版且不可用。对69条指南进行全文筛选以确定入选资格(数据库[61],其他来源[8])。其中,54项指南被排除为重复记录、不合格人群或不合格概念。其余15项国家和国际准则也包括在内。结果:指南在13个不同的国家(5大洲)撰写。所有指南均得到至少1个专业组织的认可,其中9项指南得到2个或更多组织的认可。大多数指南以英语出版,尽管也包括德语、俄语和西班牙语指南。AGREE II领域3(开发的严谨性)的结果显示平均得分为56%(范围从15%到90%)。AGREE II评分在所有领域内和跨领域显示出显著的差异,这影响了总体评估的结果(6个指南被评为高质量,7个被评为足够,2个被评为低质量)和评论者对使用的建议(2个指南被建议以当前形式使用,11个在使用前进行修改,2个不建议以当前形式使用)。RIGHT Checklist显示,64%的指南包括证据信息,56%包括明确的治疗建议。AGREE报告清单显示,4条指南涉及1个重点领域(证据选择[n=2],监测/审计准则以衡量指南建议的应用[n=1],更新程序[n=1])。结论:指南的方法严谨性和报告质量不能被推定。这项范围审查显示15项指南中有13项存在缺陷。在开发的严谨性、证据信息、利益相关者参与、适用性、推荐信息、审查和质量保证信息、利益冲突的资助和申报以及程序的更新等方面发现了明显的弱点。这些结果强调了指南开发者在开发和报告期间使用标准化评估工具的必要性。开发人员应该在公布的指南中包括详细的最终自我评估,以提高透明度,培养信任,并最终支持提供高质量的患者护理。指南作者、认可组织、期刊编辑和出版商以及卫生保健提供者有责任在传播和使用之前评估这些质量。评审注册:OSF https://osf.io/h896x/。
{"title":"Methodological rigor and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines for adults hospitalized with bacterial pneumonia: a scoping review.","authors":"Amy Hagedorn Wonder, Jan M Nick, Olayemi O Adeoye, Gurmeet Sehgal","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00565","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00565","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective: &lt;/strong&gt;This scoping review describes the methodological rigor and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines for adults hospitalized with bacterial pneumonia.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Introduction: &lt;/strong&gt;Health care professionals rely on clinical practice guidelines as authoritative sources for evidence-based treatment recommendations. To increase awareness of the current state of guideline rigor and reporting quality, this scoping review focused on the management of bacterial pneumonia in hospitalized adults.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;This review included national and international clinical practice guidelines for the care of adult and older adult patients (18 years or older) who were male, female, or gender-diverse and hospitalized with bacterial pneumonia. Guidelines published between 2017 and 2022 for adult patients with multiple diagnoses/comorbidities were included if the primary focus was management of bacterial pneumonia in the inpatient, hospital setting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;A 3-step search was conducted following JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A total of 1533 records were identified: 1524 from 8 databases (ie, CINAHL [EBSCOhost], Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase [Embase.com], Epistemonikos, Google Scholar, JBI Evidence Synthesis , PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection), and 9 from other sources (professional organizations [n=6], citation searching [n=3]). Following deduplication, 1293 titles and abstracts were screened, and 1232 were excluded. One guideline from other sources (ie, citation searching) was excluded because it was out of print and unavailable. Full-text screening was completed on 69 guidelines to determine eligibility (databases [61], other sources [8]). Of these, 54 guidelines were excluded as duplicate records, ineligible populations, or ineligible concepts. The remaining 15 national and international guidelines were included.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Fifteen guidelines were authored in 13 different countries (5 continents). All guidelines were endorsed by at least 1 professional organization, and 9 guidelines were endorsed by 2 or more organizations. Most guidelines were published in English, although German, Russian, and Spanish guidelines were also included. The results for the AGREE II Domain 3, Rigor of Development, showed a mean score of 56% (range 15% to 90%). The AGREE II scores showed significant variability within and across all domains, which affected results of overall assessment (6 guidelines were rated high quality, 7 were rated sufficient, 2 were rated low) and reviewers' recommendations on use (2 guidelines were recommended for use in current form, 11 with modifications prior to use, and 2 were not recommended for use in current form). The RIGHT Checklist showed that 64% of guidelines included information on evidence and 56% included clear treatment recommendations. The AGREE Reporting Checklist showed that 4 guidelines add","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2206-2235"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145207918","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
Health care professionals' experiences and perceptions of making treatment decisions for older adults with memory loss and comorbid conditions: a qualitative systematic review. 卫生保健专业人员的经验和看法,作出治疗决策的老年人记忆丧失:定性系统回顾。
IF 4.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-06 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00486
Kimberly Shapkin, Karen MacKinnon, Esther Sangster-Gormley, Bernadette Zakher, Lorelei Newton, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc
<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to appraise and synthesize evidence about licensed health care professionals' experiences and perceptions of treatment decision-making affecting older people with memory loss and comorbid conditions.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Treatment decision-making affecting older people with memory loss and comorbid conditions presents significant challenges for health care professionals, as existing clinical practice guidelines and health care services are designed to focus on managing single-disease conditions. The complexity of balancing comorbid conditions, in addition to memory loss, has led to increased research in this area. Given the growing body of literature exploring health care professionals' decision-making, a synthesis of this evidence is needed to provide clearer insights and inform practice.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>This review considered qualitative studies that explored licensed health care professionals' treatment decisions when providing care for older people (over 65 years) living with memory loss and comorbid conditions. We considered studies conducted across community and clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 3-step search strategy was used in May 2022 to identify published and unpublished studies across CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest). Additionally, relevant websites were searched using keywords to identify gray literature. Searches covered all available literature from database inception using a combination of controlled vocabulary (MeSH and CINAHL headings) and keywords to capture qualitative studies, with an updated search conducted in June 2023. Two reviewers independently completed the title/abstract and full-text screening, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis. Findings classified as unequivocal or credible were grouped into categories that were synthesized to generate a comprehensive set of findings. The ConQual approach was applied to assess confidence in qualitative research synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies published between 2006 and 2022 met the eligibility criteria. A total of 76 findings were extracted and grouped into 8 categories. Three synthesized findings were assembled from the findings: i) Health care professionals experience uncertainty and perceive older people with memory loss in ways that influence their treatment decision-making; ii) Communication challenges and contextual factors unique to older persons, families, and health service organizations influence health care professionals' treatment decision-making affecting older people with memory loss and comorbid conditions; and iii) Health care professionals identify processes to support safeguarding older people with memory loss in treatment decision-making.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Health care professionals' treatme
目的:本系统综述旨在评价和综合有关执业卫生保健专业人员对影响老年人记忆丧失和合并症的治疗决策的经验和看法的证据。导言:影响老年人记忆丧失和合并症的治疗决策对卫生保健专业人员提出了重大挑战,因为现有的临床实践指南和卫生保健服务旨在集中于管理单一疾病条件。除了记忆丧失之外,平衡共病条件的复杂性导致了这一领域的研究增加。鉴于研究卫生保健专业人员决策的文献越来越多,需要对这些证据进行综合,以提供更清晰的见解并为实践提供信息。资格标准:本综述考虑了定性研究,探讨了执业卫生保健专业人员在为患有记忆丧失和合并症的老年人(65岁以上)提供护理时的治疗决策。我们考虑了在社区和临床环境中进行的研究。方法:采用三步搜索策略,于2022年5月在CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、MEDLINE (EBSCOhost)、PsycINFO (EBSCOhost)、Scopus和ProQuest博士论文和论文(ProQuest)中识别已发表和未发表的研究。并利用关键词搜索相关网站,识别灰色文献。搜索涵盖了数据库建立以来所有可用的文献,使用受控词汇(MeSH和CINAHL标题)和关键词的组合来捕获定性研究,并于2023年6月进行了更新搜索。两位独立审稿人完成了标题/摘要和全文筛选、批判性评估、数据提取和数据合成。归类为明确或可信的调查结果被归类为综合的类别,以产生一套全面的调查结果。采用征服方法评估定性研究综合的信心。结果:2006年至2022年间发表的14项研究符合资格标准。共提取76项发现,并将其分为8类。从调查结果中得出了三个综合结论:i)医疗保健专业人员经历不确定性并以影响其治疗决策的方式看待失忆老年人;㈡老年人、家庭和卫生服务组织特有的沟通挑战和环境因素影响到卫生保健专业人员对患有记忆丧失和合并症的老年人的治疗决策;卫生保健专业人员确定在治疗决策中支持保护失忆老年人的程序。结论:卫生保健专业人员的治疗决策实践因医学专业而异,在临床环境中具有相似性。保健专业人员致力于确保患有记忆丧失和合并症的老年患者得到治疗,以提高他们的生活质量,同时促进安全和合乎道德的护理。然而,他们对这些患者的能力持有假设,认为沟通具有挑战性,并且并不总是清楚地了解患者的偏好。这篇综述指出,照顾这一人群的卫生保健专业人员需要进一步的教育。需要改变保健专业人员的治疗决策,以确保老年人及其家庭成员积极参与共同决策的进程,这将支持以个人和家庭为中心的护理方法。评审注册:PROSPERO CRD42021271485。
{"title":"Health care professionals' experiences and perceptions of making treatment decisions for older adults with memory loss and comorbid conditions: a qualitative systematic review.","authors":"Kimberly Shapkin, Karen MacKinnon, Esther Sangster-Gormley, Bernadette Zakher, Lorelei Newton, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00486","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00486","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective: &lt;/strong&gt;This systematic review aimed to appraise and synthesize evidence about licensed health care professionals' experiences and perceptions of treatment decision-making affecting older people with memory loss and comorbid conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Introduction: &lt;/strong&gt;Treatment decision-making affecting older people with memory loss and comorbid conditions presents significant challenges for health care professionals, as existing clinical practice guidelines and health care services are designed to focus on managing single-disease conditions. The complexity of balancing comorbid conditions, in addition to memory loss, has led to increased research in this area. Given the growing body of literature exploring health care professionals' decision-making, a synthesis of this evidence is needed to provide clearer insights and inform practice.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;This review considered qualitative studies that explored licensed health care professionals' treatment decisions when providing care for older people (over 65 years) living with memory loss and comorbid conditions. We considered studies conducted across community and clinical settings.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;A 3-step search strategy was used in May 2022 to identify published and unpublished studies across CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest). Additionally, relevant websites were searched using keywords to identify gray literature. Searches covered all available literature from database inception using a combination of controlled vocabulary (MeSH and CINAHL headings) and keywords to capture qualitative studies, with an updated search conducted in June 2023. Two reviewers independently completed the title/abstract and full-text screening, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis. Findings classified as unequivocal or credible were grouped into categories that were synthesized to generate a comprehensive set of findings. The ConQual approach was applied to assess confidence in qualitative research synthesis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Fourteen studies published between 2006 and 2022 met the eligibility criteria. A total of 76 findings were extracted and grouped into 8 categories. Three synthesized findings were assembled from the findings: i) Health care professionals experience uncertainty and perceive older people with memory loss in ways that influence their treatment decision-making; ii) Communication challenges and contextual factors unique to older persons, families, and health service organizations influence health care professionals' treatment decision-making affecting older people with memory loss and comorbid conditions; and iii) Health care professionals identify processes to support safeguarding older people with memory loss in treatment decision-making.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;Health care professionals' treatme","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2167-2205"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145207895","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
Implementation strategies for reducing carbon emissions in acute care: a scoping review protocol. 减少急症护理碳排放的实施战略:范围审查议定书。
IF 4.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-06 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00367
Brittany Victoria Barber, Fiona A Miller, Daniel Rainham, Sean Christie, Melissa Berry, Kelachi Nsitem, Georgia Murray, Stephanie Hanna, Leah Boulos, Doug Sinclair, Christine Cassidy

Objective: This scoping review aims to characterize evidence on implementation strategies to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in acute care settings.

Introduction: Decarbonizing health care sectors is important for the sustainability of health systems and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. While evidence on the environmental impacts of health care is growing, there is limited understanding of how interventions to reduce emissions are implemented and what strategies support health care adaptation to reduce emissions.

Eligibility criteria: Articles published in English since 1999 will be included if they report on interventions or implementation strategies to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in acute care settings. Eligible studies may use quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods and involve any health care professional, staff, clinical specialty, or activity (eg, recycling, anesthesia, prescribing). Studies conducted outside acute care or lacking information related to reducing carbon dioxide equivalent emissions will be excluded.

Methods: This review will follow JBI scoping review methodology. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), Scopus, and CINAHL (EBSCOhost) will be searched for peer-reviewed articles on emissions reduction in health care. Data will be extracted, synthesized, and categorized using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy of implementation strategies and the behavior change technique taxonomy. Results will be presented in tables, creating an inventory of intervention types and implementation strategies for reducing emissions in health care. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of strategies for reducing carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in acute care, contributing to efforts to decarbonize health care systems and support climate change mitigation.

Review registration: OSF https://osf.io/e8d4r.

目的:这一范围审查的目的是表征实施战略的证据,以减少二氧化碳当量(CO2e)排放在急症护理环境。导言:使卫生保健部门脱碳对卫生系统的可持续性和减少温室气体排放非常重要。虽然关于卫生保健对环境影响的证据越来越多,但人们对如何实施减少排放的干预措施以及哪些战略支持卫生保健适应以减少排放的了解有限。入选标准:1999年以来发表的英文文章,如果报告了在急性护理环境中减少二氧化碳排放的干预措施或实施策略,将被纳入。符合条件的研究可以采用定量、定性或混合方法,并涉及任何卫生保健专业人员、工作人员、临床专业或活动(例如,回收、麻醉、开处方)。在急症护理之外进行的研究或缺乏减少二氧化碳排放相关信息的研究将被排除在外。方法:本综述将遵循JBI范围综述方法。MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase(爱思唯尔),Scopus和CINAHL (EBSCOhost)将被搜索同行评议的关于医疗保健减排的文章。数据将被提取、合成,并使用实施策略的专家建议(ERIC)分类法和行为改变技术分类法进行分类。结果将以表格形式提出,编制一份减少卫生保健领域排放的干预类型和实施战略清单。本综述将全面概述减少急症护理中二氧化碳排放的战略,促进卫生保健系统脱碳和支持减缓气候变化的努力。评审注册:OSF https://osf.io/e8d4r。
{"title":"Implementation strategies for reducing carbon emissions in acute care: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Brittany Victoria Barber, Fiona A Miller, Daniel Rainham, Sean Christie, Melissa Berry, Kelachi Nsitem, Georgia Murray, Stephanie Hanna, Leah Boulos, Doug Sinclair, Christine Cassidy","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00367","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00367","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review aims to characterize evidence on implementation strategies to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in acute care settings.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Decarbonizing health care sectors is important for the sustainability of health systems and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. While evidence on the environmental impacts of health care is growing, there is limited understanding of how interventions to reduce emissions are implemented and what strategies support health care adaptation to reduce emissions.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Articles published in English since 1999 will be included if they report on interventions or implementation strategies to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in acute care settings. Eligible studies may use quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods and involve any health care professional, staff, clinical specialty, or activity (eg, recycling, anesthesia, prescribing). Studies conducted outside acute care or lacking information related to reducing carbon dioxide equivalent emissions will be excluded.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will follow JBI scoping review methodology. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), Scopus, and CINAHL (EBSCOhost) will be searched for peer-reviewed articles on emissions reduction in health care. Data will be extracted, synthesized, and categorized using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy of implementation strategies and the behavior change technique taxonomy. Results will be presented in tables, creating an inventory of intervention types and implementation strategies for reducing emissions in health care. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of strategies for reducing carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in acute care, contributing to efforts to decarbonize health care systems and support climate change mitigation.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>OSF https://osf.io/e8d4r.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2347-2357"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144993382","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
Resilience development in nursing students and new nurse graduates: a qualitative umbrella review protocol. 护生和新护士毕业生的弹性发展:一个定性的伞形审查方案。
IF 4.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-06 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00238
Susan Salmond, Lisa Keeping-Burke, Andrea Norberg, Barbara Sinacori, Susan Maiocco, Amanda Ross-White

Objective: The objective of this umbrella review will be to synthesize qualitative evidence on the experiences of resilience and resilience development in nursing students and new nurse graduates.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic drew attention to longstanding issues of burnout and stress among nurses. While the crisis has abated, burnout remains higher than in pre-pandemic levels. Within the nursing context, it has been shown that resilience enables nurses to adapt to workplace stressors positively.

Eligibility criteria: This review will include qualitative systematic reviews and meta-syntheses on resilience and resilience development in nursing students and new nurse graduates. There will be no limitations on participant age, type of academic program, gender, or ethnicity.

Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for umbrella reviews. A systematic search will be conducted of MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Embase (Ovid) to locate qualitative systematic reviews and meta-syntheses. Gray literature will be searched using Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (ProQuest). The reference lists of all included reviews will also be searched for relevant papers. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, and then full texts, against the eligibility criteria. The JBI Critical Appraisal Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses will be used to assess methodological quality of the data. Data will be extracted using a modified version of the JBI data extraction tool for systematic reviews and research syntheses. A narrative summary and tables will be used to present the review characteristics and findings. Key synthesized findings will be displayed in a Summary of Evidence, with conclusions and relevant recommendations for practice and research provided.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD420250655717.

目的:本综述的目的是综合护生和新护士毕业生心理弹性和心理弹性发展的感知经验的定性证据。导言:COVID-19大流行引起了人们对护士长期存在的职业倦怠和压力问题的关注。虽然危机有所缓解,但倦怠程度仍高于大流行前的水平。在护理环境中,已经证明弹性使护士能够积极地适应工作场所的压力源。资格标准:本综述将包括对护理学生和新护士毕业生的恢复力和恢复力发展的定性系统综述和元综合。参加者的年龄、学术课程类型、性别或种族没有限制。方法:本综述将遵循JBI方法进行总括性综述。将对MEDLINE (Ovid)、CINAHL (EBSCOhost)和Embase (Ovid)进行系统搜索,以定位定性的系统综述和元综合。灰色文献将使用谷歌Scholar和ProQuest dissertation & thesis Global (ProQuest)进行检索。还将检索所有纳入综述的参考文献列表,查找相关论文。两名审稿人将根据资格标准独立筛选标题和摘要,然后是全文。JBI用于系统审查和研究综合的关键评价工具将用于评估数据的方法学质量。将使用JBI数据提取工具的修改版本提取数据,用于系统评价和研究综合。将使用叙述性摘要和表格来介绍审查的特点和发现。关键的综合发现将在证据摘要中显示,并为实践和研究提供结论和相关建议。审核注册:PROSPERO CRD420250655717。
{"title":"Resilience development in nursing students and new nurse graduates: a qualitative umbrella review protocol.","authors":"Susan Salmond, Lisa Keeping-Burke, Andrea Norberg, Barbara Sinacori, Susan Maiocco, Amanda Ross-White","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00238","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00238","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this umbrella review will be to synthesize qualitative evidence on the experiences of resilience and resilience development in nursing students and new nurse graduates.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic drew attention to longstanding issues of burnout and stress among nurses. While the crisis has abated, burnout remains higher than in pre-pandemic levels. Within the nursing context, it has been shown that resilience enables nurses to adapt to workplace stressors positively.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>This review will include qualitative systematic reviews and meta-syntheses on resilience and resilience development in nursing students and new nurse graduates. There will be no limitations on participant age, type of academic program, gender, or ethnicity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will follow the JBI methodology for umbrella reviews. A systematic search will be conducted of MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Embase (Ovid) to locate qualitative systematic reviews and meta-syntheses. Gray literature will be searched using Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (ProQuest). The reference lists of all included reviews will also be searched for relevant papers. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, and then full texts, against the eligibility criteria. The JBI Critical Appraisal Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses will be used to assess methodological quality of the data. Data will be extracted using a modified version of the JBI data extraction tool for systematic reviews and research syntheses. A narrative summary and tables will be used to present the review characteristics and findings. Key synthesized findings will be displayed in a Summary of Evidence, with conclusions and relevant recommendations for practice and research provided.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD420250655717.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2307-2318"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145186984","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
期刊
JBI evidence synthesis
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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