Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-11-06DOI: 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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-11-06DOI: 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":"<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","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}
<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
{"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":"<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","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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-11-06DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-11-06DOI: 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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-11-06DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00201
Tom Herbert, Michael Malone, Nicola Rhind, Kay Cooper
<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this scoping review was to map how intervention mapping has been used to develop health promotion interventions for adults with chronic conditions.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic conditions present a growing burden of disease across the world, with many countries looking for novel ways of managing these conditions. Intervention mapping is a 6-step behavioral change intervention development approach that can be used to create programs or innovations for health promotion in different settings and locations.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>This review considered all studies that used intervention mapping to develop a health promotion intervention for adults (≥18 years) with a chronic condition in any setting or location. To be included, the study had to use at least 1 of the 6 steps of intervention mapping.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. In May 2023, the databases MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (EBSCOhost), APA PsycINFO (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Library), Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection; the trial registries Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry, Research Registry, European Union Clinical Trials Register, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, and the Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions; and the gray literature databases EThOS, EBSCO Open Dissertations (EBSCOhost), and Sherpa Services (OpenDOAR) were systematically searched. Title and abstract screening was conducted by 3 reviewers independently, with conflicts resolved through discussion. Full-text screening of selected studies was conducted similarly by 2 reviewers. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer using a predefined yet flexible tool developed by the reviewers. A second reviewer independently extracted the first 10% of the included studies, with any discrepancies between reviewers resolved through discussion and random checks on 10% of the remaining studies providing extra fidelity. The data are presented in tables, graphs, and diagrams, with a descriptive summary and discussion of the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening, 56 studies were included in this review. Interventions were developed for 26 named chronic conditions. Steps 1, 2, and 3 were included in 55 studies (98%), step 4 was included in 48 studies (86%), step 5 was included in 30 studies (54%), and step 6 was included in 25 studies (45%). Stakeholder involvement included people with lived experience, health care professionals, experts, and community members, and was reported most often in the work group involved in conducting the research. The most common theory utilized by the included studies was the Social Cognitive Theory.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although int
目的：这一范围审查的目的是绘制如何干预绘图已被用于制定成人慢性疾病的健康促进干预措施。慢性疾病在世界范围内呈现出日益增长的疾病负担，许多国家正在寻找管理这些疾病的新方法。干预绘图是一种6步行为改变干预发展方法，可用于在不同环境和地点为健康促进制定规划或创新。入选标准：本综述考虑了所有在任何环境或地点使用干预制图为患有慢性疾病的成人（≥18岁）制定健康促进干预措施的研究。要纳入研究，该研究必须使用干预绘图6个步骤中的至少1个。方法：该范围审查遵循JBI范围审查方法。2023年5月，MEDLINE （EBSCOhost）、CINAHL （EBSCOhost）、联合与补充医学数据库（EBSCOhost）、APA PsycINFO （Ovid）、Embase （Ovid）、Cochrane系统评价数据库（Cochrane Library）、Scopus和Web of Science核心馆藏数据库；试验注册库Cochrane中央对照试验注册库（Cochrane Library）、ClinicalTrials.gov、ISRCTN注册库、研究注册库、欧盟临床试验注册库、澳大利亚新西兰临床试验注册库和促进健康干预试验注册库；系统检索灰色文献数据库EThOS、EBSCO Open dissertation （EBSCOhost）和Sherpa Services （OpenDOAR）。题目和摘要的筛选由3位审稿人独立完成，冲突通过讨论解决。所选研究的全文筛选同样由2位审稿人进行。1名审稿人使用审稿人开发的预定义但灵活的工具提取数据。第二位审稿人独立地提取了纳入研究的前10%，审稿人之间的任何差异都通过讨论解决，并对剩余10%的研究进行随机检查，以提供额外的保真度。数据以表格、图形和图表的形式呈现，并附有描述性的总结和对结果的讨论。结果：经过筛选，本综述纳入56项研究。针对26种慢性病制定了干预措施。步骤1、2和3被纳入55项研究（98%），步骤4被纳入48项研究（86%），步骤5被纳入30项研究（54%），步骤6被纳入25项研究（45%）。利益相关者的参与包括有实际经验的人、卫生保健专业人员、专家和社区成员，并且最常在参与开展研究的工作组中报告。纳入的研究中最常用的理论是社会认知理论。结论：虽然所有纳入的研究都对干预制图进行了调整，以适应他们的需要，但这种灵活性被干预制图的作者所接受。在整个过程中，利益相关者都参与了进来，尽管在后来的步骤中参与度有所降低。理论虽然经常被采用，但并不总是完全纳入发达的干预措施。这一范围审查的结果表明，应该开发一个专门的干预绘图报告工具，以改进文献中的报告，并使未来的研究更容易理解和综合。未来的干预措施开发商必须认识到这些好处，同时了解在开发干预措施时充分利用理论的挑战。评审注册：OSF https://osf.io/z9kdc。
{"title":"Intervention mapping in the development of health promotion interventions for adults with chronic conditions: a scoping review.","authors":"Tom Herbert, Michael Malone, Nicola Rhind, Kay Cooper","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00201","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00201","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this scoping review was to map how intervention mapping has been used to develop health promotion interventions for adults with chronic conditions.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic conditions present a growing burden of disease across the world, with many countries looking for novel ways of managing these conditions. Intervention mapping is a 6-step behavioral change intervention development approach that can be used to create programs or innovations for health promotion in different settings and locations.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>This review considered all studies that used intervention mapping to develop a health promotion intervention for adults (≥18 years) with a chronic condition in any setting or location. To be included, the study had to use at least 1 of the 6 steps of intervention mapping.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. In May 2023, the databases MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (EBSCOhost), APA PsycINFO (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Library), Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection; the trial registries Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry, Research Registry, European Union Clinical Trials Register, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, and the Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions; and the gray literature databases EThOS, EBSCO Open Dissertations (EBSCOhost), and Sherpa Services (OpenDOAR) were systematically searched. Title and abstract screening was conducted by 3 reviewers independently, with conflicts resolved through discussion. Full-text screening of selected studies was conducted similarly by 2 reviewers. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer using a predefined yet flexible tool developed by the reviewers. A second reviewer independently extracted the first 10% of the included studies, with any discrepancies between reviewers resolved through discussion and random checks on 10% of the remaining studies providing extra fidelity. The data are presented in tables, graphs, and diagrams, with a descriptive summary and discussion of the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening, 56 studies were included in this review. Interventions were developed for 26 named chronic conditions. Steps 1, 2, and 3 were included in 55 studies (98%), step 4 was included in 48 studies (86%), step 5 was included in 30 studies (54%), and step 6 was included in 25 studies (45%). Stakeholder involvement included people with lived experience, health care professionals, experts, and community members, and was reported most often in the work group involved in conducting the research. The most common theory utilized by the included studies was the Social Cognitive Theory.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although int","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2236-2291"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145330186","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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-11-06DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00505
Karen Eileen Furlong, Jaime Riley, Alexis McGill, Richelle Witherspoon, Patricia Morris, Rose McCloskey, Renee Gordon, Lisa Keeping-Burke
Objective: This scoping review aims to map the available literature on the assessment of clinical skills in laboratory settings in health education prelicensure programs.
Introduction: Prelicensure health programs are facing growing challenges in delivering learning experiences that sufficiently prepare students for safe practice as clinical settings contend with workforce shortages, rising workload demands, and increasingly complex patient populations. One safety component is the assessment of clinical skills prior to entering practice and caring for patients. Laboratory experiences generally include opportunities for hands-on practice and demonstration of a new clinical skill, such as medication administration or infection prevention and control measures. This scoping review is necessary as laboratory assessments play a crucial role in providing insights into students' readiness to perform relevant clinical skills prior to caring for patients in practice settings.
Eligibility criteria: This review will consider qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies on approaches and strategies used by faculty, staff, and/or students when assessing clinical skills in laboratory settings in health education prelicensure programs. Assessment of postlicensure health care professionals' clinical skills will be excluded.
Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched will include CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Embase.com), ERIC (EBSCOhost), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest), and Google (with advanced search strategies). Two independent reviewers will screen citations for inclusion as well as conduct data extraction and analysis. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreements. Data will be presented in tables and charts, accompanied by a narrative summary.
Review registration: OSF https://osf.io/yz5bu.
目的：这一范围审查的目的是绘制现有的文献评估临床技能在实验室设置的健康教育执照前计划。导读：随着临床环境面临劳动力短缺、工作量需求增加和患者群体日益复杂的问题，在提供充分为学生做好安全实践准备的学习经验方面，执照前健康计划正面临越来越大的挑战。一个安全组成部分是在进入实践和照顾病人之前对临床技能进行评估。实验室经验通常包括动手实践和展示新的临床技能的机会，包括药物管理或感染预防和控制措施等技能。这种范围审查是必要的，因为实验室评估在提供学生在实践环境中照顾患者之前是否准备好执行相关临床技能方面发挥着至关重要的作用。资格标准：本综述将考虑教师、职员和/或学生在评估健康教育资格预审项目实验室环境中的临床技能时使用的方法和策略的定性、定量和混合方法研究。对获得执照后的卫生保健专业人员临床技能的评估将被排除在外。方法：本综述将遵循JBI方法进行范围综述。要搜索的数据库将包括CINAHL全文（EBSCOhost）， MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Embase.com), ERIC (EBSCOhost)， ProQuest学位论文和论文（ProQuest）和谷歌（具有高级搜索策略）。两名独立审稿人将对引文进行筛选，并进行数据提取和分析。第三位审稿人将解决任何分歧。数据将以表格和图表形式提出，并附有叙述性摘要。审核注册：https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YZ5BU。
{"title":"Assessment of clinical skills in laboratory settings in prelicensure health education programs: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Karen Eileen Furlong, Jaime Riley, Alexis McGill, Richelle Witherspoon, Patricia Morris, Rose McCloskey, Renee Gordon, Lisa Keeping-Burke","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00505","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00505","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review aims to map the available literature on the assessment of clinical skills in laboratory settings in health education prelicensure programs.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prelicensure health programs are facing growing challenges in delivering learning experiences that sufficiently prepare students for safe practice as clinical settings contend with workforce shortages, rising workload demands, and increasingly complex patient populations. One safety component is the assessment of clinical skills prior to entering practice and caring for patients. Laboratory experiences generally include opportunities for hands-on practice and demonstration of a new clinical skill, such as medication administration or infection prevention and control measures. This scoping review is necessary as laboratory assessments play a crucial role in providing insights into students' readiness to perform relevant clinical skills prior to caring for patients in practice settings.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>This review will consider qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies on approaches and strategies used by faculty, staff, and/or students when assessing clinical skills in laboratory settings in health education prelicensure programs. Assessment of postlicensure health care professionals' clinical skills will be excluded.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched will include CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Embase.com), ERIC (EBSCOhost), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest), and Google (with advanced search strategies). Two independent reviewers will screen citations for inclusion as well as conduct data extraction and analysis. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreements. Data will be presented in tables and charts, accompanied by a narrative summary.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>OSF https://osf.io/yz5bu.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2319-2327"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144795785","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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-11-06DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00525
Elena Wong Espiritu, Aine O'Connor, Sara Blass, Kathryn L Dambrino, Angela Shelton Clauson
Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to map the existing literature on alternative grading approaches in health professions education and how these approaches are implemented.
Introduction: Although traditional alphanumerical tiered grading methods are widely used in health professions education, this approach is typically insufficient in providing descriptive feedback, allowing formative assessment, and promoting deeper learning and clinical application. Alternative grading approaches, including competency-based assessment, pass-fail grading, ungrading, specifications grading, and others, are increasingly being implemented, but there is a gap in understanding which approaches are being used in which health professions programs and how the approaches are being implemented.
Eligibility criteria: This scoping review will focus on literature discussing alternative grading approaches, which are any formative, summative, or cumulative assessments that have been built outside the traditional alphanumerical tiered grading systems. The population will include health professions students, such as nurses, pharmacists, physician assistants, physicians, and allied health professionals.
Methods: The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Both published and unpublished literature will be located through a search strategy across PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase.com, ERIC (EBSCOhost), Scopus, and gray literature sources. Information sources will be searched from inception to the search date. Two reviewers will independently screen potential sources of evidence against the prespecified eligibility criteria. No date limits will be applied, and only articles published in English or with a published English translation will be included. Data will be extracted, and the results will be synthesized and presented in a tabular format.
{"title":"Alternative grading approaches in health professions education: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Elena Wong Espiritu, Aine O'Connor, Sara Blass, Kathryn L Dambrino, Angela Shelton Clauson","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00525","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00525","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this scoping review is to map the existing literature on alternative grading approaches in health professions education and how these approaches are implemented.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although traditional alphanumerical tiered grading methods are widely used in health professions education, this approach is typically insufficient in providing descriptive feedback, allowing formative assessment, and promoting deeper learning and clinical application. Alternative grading approaches, including competency-based assessment, pass-fail grading, ungrading, specifications grading, and others, are increasingly being implemented, but there is a gap in understanding which approaches are being used in which health professions programs and how the approaches are being implemented.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>This scoping review will focus on literature discussing alternative grading approaches, which are any formative, summative, or cumulative assessments that have been built outside the traditional alphanumerical tiered grading systems. The population will include health professions students, such as nurses, pharmacists, physician assistants, physicians, and allied health professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Both published and unpublished literature will be located through a search strategy across PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase.com, ERIC (EBSCOhost), Scopus, and gray literature sources. Information sources will be searched from inception to the search date. Two reviewers will independently screen potential sources of evidence against the prespecified eligibility criteria. No date limits will be applied, and only articles published in English or with a published English translation will be included. Data will be extracted, and the results will be synthesized and presented in a tabular format.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>OSF https://osf.io/2czq8.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2301-2306"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145337643","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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-11-06DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-25-00480
Ella Flemyng, Anna Noel-Storr, Biljana Macura, Gerald Gartlehner, James Thomas, Joerg J Meerpohl, Zoe Jordan, Jan Minx, Angelika Eisele-Metzger, Candyce Hamel, Paweł Jemioło, Kylie Porritt, Matthew Grainger
{"title":"Position statement on artificial intelligence (AI) use in evidence synthesis across Cochrane, the Campbell Collaboration, JBI, and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2025.","authors":"Ella Flemyng, Anna Noel-Storr, Biljana Macura, Gerald Gartlehner, James Thomas, Joerg J Meerpohl, Zoe Jordan, Jan Minx, Angelika Eisele-Metzger, Candyce Hamel, Paweł Jemioło, Kylie Porritt, Matthew Grainger","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-25-00480","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-25-00480","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":"23 11","pages":"2162-2166"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12594113/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145496685","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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-11-06DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00450
Tainá Maria Cavassana, Henrique Ceretta Oliveira, Kirsten Hanrahan, Flávia de Oliveira Motta Maia
Objective: This review will critically appraise, compare, and summarize the quality of the measurement properties of vulnerability tools for older people.
Introduction: Various tools exist to assess the vulnerability of older adults. These tools evaluate different dimensions of vulnerability, including identifying vulnerable older adults and conceptualizing vulnerability as an accumulation of social deficits. They also quantify vulnerability based on health, social, and economic risk factors; evaluate perceptions of vulnerability according to physiological, psychological, socioeconomic, social, and environmental dimensions; and evaluate risks or uncontrollable events. Identifying the most precise tools for vulnerability assessments will help health care professionals anticipate complications and prevent injuries.
Eligibility criteria: Eligibility will be determined according to the following criteria: Population (older people); Instrument (self-reported questionnaires); Construct (health vulnerability); Outcomes (measurement properties); and Types of studies (methodological and observational studies-all types of studies that evaluate the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures).
Methods: This review will follow the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (COSMIN). The review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Outcome Measurement Instruments (PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs). Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, assessment of methodological quality, data extraction, data synthesis, and assessment of certainty in the findings. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist will be used to evaluate methodological quality. The evidence will be summarized for each measurement property and the overall result will be rated against the criteria for measurement properties to determine the grading of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. The certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023460483.
目的：本综述将批判性地评估、比较和总结老年人脆弱性工具测量特性的质量。导言：存在各种工具来评估老年人的脆弱性。这些工具评估脆弱性的不同维度，包括识别脆弱的老年人，并将脆弱性概念化为社会缺陷的积累。它们还根据健康、社会和经济风险因素对脆弱性进行量化；根据生理、心理、社会经济、社会和环境维度评估对脆弱性的看法；评估风险或不可控事件。确定最精确的脆弱性评估工具将有助于卫生保健专业人员预测并发症和预防伤害。资格标准：将根据以下标准确定资格：人口（老年人）；工具（自我报告问卷）；Construct（健康脆弱性）；结果（测量属性）；研究类型（方法学和观察性研究——所有评估患者报告的结果测量值的测量特性的研究）。方法：本综述将遵循基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准，用于系统评价患者报告的结果测量（COSMIN）。将根据结果测量仪器系统评价和荟萃分析扩展首选报告项目（prism - cosmin for OMIs）进行综述报告。两名独立审稿人将进行研究选择、方法学质量评估、数据提取、数据综合和结果确定性评估。将使用COSMIN偏倚风险检查表来评估方法学质量。将对每个测量属性的证据进行总结，并根据测量属性的标准对总体结果进行评级，以确定证据的等级为高、中、低或极低。证据的确定性将使用改进的建议分级评估、发展和评价（GRADE）方法进行评估。审核注册：PROSPERO CRD42023460483。
{"title":"Assessment tools to measure the vulnerability of older people: a systematic review protocol of measurement properties.","authors":"Tainá Maria Cavassana, Henrique Ceretta Oliveira, Kirsten Hanrahan, Flávia de Oliveira Motta Maia","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00450","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00450","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review will critically appraise, compare, and summarize the quality of the measurement properties of vulnerability tools for older people.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Various tools exist to assess the vulnerability of older adults. These tools evaluate different dimensions of vulnerability, including identifying vulnerable older adults and conceptualizing vulnerability as an accumulation of social deficits. They also quantify vulnerability based on health, social, and economic risk factors; evaluate perceptions of vulnerability according to physiological, psychological, socioeconomic, social, and environmental dimensions; and evaluate risks or uncontrollable events. Identifying the most precise tools for vulnerability assessments will help health care professionals anticipate complications and prevent injuries.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Eligibility will be determined according to the following criteria: Population (older people); Instrument (self-reported questionnaires); Construct (health vulnerability); Outcomes (measurement properties); and Types of studies (methodological and observational studies-all types of studies that evaluate the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will follow the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (COSMIN). The review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Outcome Measurement Instruments (PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs). Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, assessment of methodological quality, data extraction, data synthesis, and assessment of certainty in the findings. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist will be used to evaluate methodological quality. The evidence will be summarized for each measurement property and the overall result will be rated against the criteria for measurement properties to determine the grading of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. The certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023460483.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2292-2300"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145330198","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}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号