JBI evidence synthesis最新文献_第7页

Long-term care home residents' experiences with socially assistive technologies and the effectiveness of these technologies: a mixed methods systematic review. 长期护理院住户使用社会辅助技术的经验及其效果：混合方法系统综述。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00021

Marilyn Macdonald, Allyson Gallant, Lori Weeks, Alannah Delahunty-Pike, Elaine Moody, Damilola Iduye, Melissa Rothfus, Chelsa States, Ruth Martin-Misener, Melissa Ignaczak, Julie Caruso, Janet Simm, Andrea Mayo

Objective: The objectives of this review were to determine the effectiveness of socially assistive technologies for improving depression, loneliness, and social interaction among residents of long-term care (LTC) homes, and to explore the experiences of residents of LTC homes with socially assistive technologies.Introduction: Globally, the number of older adults (≥ 65 years) and the demand for LTC services are expected to increase over the next 30 years. Individuals within this population are at increased risk of experiencing depression, loneliness, and social isolation. The exploration of the extent to which socially assistive technologies may aid in improving loneliness and depression while supporting social interactions is essential to supporting a sustainable LTC sector.Inclusion criteria: This mixed methods systematic review included studies on the experiences of older adults in LTC homes using socially assistive technologies, as well as studies on the effectiveness of these technologies for improving depression, loneliness, and social interaction. Older adults were defined as people 65 years of age and older. We considered studies examining socially assistive technologies, such as computers, smart phones, tablets, and associated applications.Methods: A JBI mixed methods convergent, segregated approach was used. CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and Scopus databases were searched on January 18, 2022, to identify published studies. The search for unpublished studies and gray literature included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, Google, and the websites of professional organizations associated with LTC. No language or geographical restrictions were placed on the search. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of included studies were screened by 2 reviewers independently. Included studies underwent quality appraisal and data extraction. Quantitative and qualitative data findings were analyzed separately and then integrated. Where possible, quantitative data were synthesized using comparative meta-analyses with a fixed-effects model.Results: From 12,536 records identified through the search, 14 studies were included. Quantitative (n=8), mixed methods (n=3), and qualitative (n=3) approaches were used in the included studies, with half (n=7) using quasi-experimental designs. All studies received moderate to high-quality appraisal scores. Comparative meta-analyses for depression and loneliness scores did not find any significant differences, and narrative findings were mixed. Qualitative meta-aggregation identified 1 synthesized finding (Matching technology functionality to user for enhanced well-being) derived from 2 categories (Enhanced sense of well-being, and Mismatch between technology and resident ability).Conclusions: Residents'

目的本综述旨在确定社交辅助技术在改善长期护理（LTC）机构居民抑郁、孤独和社交互动方面的有效性，并探讨长期护理机构居民使用社交辅助技术的经验：在全球范围内，预计未来 30 年老年人（≥ 65 岁）的数量和对长期护理服务的需求都将增加。在这一人群中，出现抑郁、孤独和社会隔离的风险越来越高。探索社交辅助技术在多大程度上可以帮助改善孤独和抑郁，同时支持社交互动，这对支持可持续的长期护理行业至关重要：这项混合方法的系统性综述包括有关长者护理院中的老年人使用社交辅助技术的经验的研究，以及有关这些技术在改善抑郁、孤独感和社会交往方面的有效性的研究。老年人的定义是 65 岁及以上的老人。我们考虑了对社交辅助技术（如电脑、智能手机、平板电脑和相关应用程序）的研究：我们采用了 JBI 混合方法的聚合分离法。于 2022 年 1 月 18 日检索了 CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、MEDLINE (Ovid)、Embase、APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) 和 Scopus 数据库，以确定已发表的研究。未发表研究和灰色文献的检索包括 ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global、Open Access Theses and Dissertations、Google 以及与 LTC 相关的专业组织网站。搜索不受语言或地域限制。纳入研究的标题、摘要和全文由两名审稿人独立筛选。对纳入的研究进行质量评估和数据提取。分别对定量和定性数据结果进行分析，然后进行整合。在可能的情况下，采用固定效应模型的比较荟萃分析对定量数据进行综合：从搜索到的 12,536 条记录中，共纳入了 14 项研究。纳入的研究采用了定量方法（8 项）、混合方法（3 项）和定性方法（3 项），其中半数（7 项）采用了准实验设计。所有研究都获得了中等至高质量的评价分数。抑郁和孤独评分的比较荟萃分析未发现任何显著差异，叙述性研究结果参差不齐。定性荟萃分析从 2 个类别（幸福感增强和技术与居民能力不匹配）中发现了 1 个综合结论（技术功能与用户相匹配以提高幸福感）：尽管与抑郁和孤独相关的定量研究结果显示了不同的影响，但居民使用视频会议等社交辅助技术的体验却能提升他们的幸福感。住院者在学习使用该技术的过程中遇到了身体和认知方面的挑战，需要得到帮助。在设计和使用社交辅助技术时，未来的工作应考虑到老年人和长期护理院居民的独特需求：PERCORCO CRD42021279015.

{"title":"Long-term care home residents' experiences with socially assistive technologies and the effectiveness of these technologies: a mixed methods systematic review.","authors":"Marilyn Macdonald, Allyson Gallant, Lori Weeks, Alannah Delahunty-Pike, Elaine Moody, Damilola Iduye, Melissa Rothfus, Chelsa States, Ruth Martin-Misener, Melissa Ignaczak, Julie Caruso, Janet Simm, Andrea Mayo","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00021","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00021","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objectives of this review were to determine the effectiveness of socially assistive technologies for improving depression, loneliness, and social interaction among residents of long-term care (LTC) homes, and to explore the experiences of residents of LTC homes with socially assistive technologies.Introduction: Globally, the number of older adults (≥ 65 years) and the demand for LTC services are expected to increase over the next 30 years. Individuals within this population are at increased risk of experiencing depression, loneliness, and social isolation. The exploration of the extent to which socially assistive technologies may aid in improving loneliness and depression while supporting social interactions is essential to supporting a sustainable LTC sector.Inclusion criteria: This mixed methods systematic review included studies on the experiences of older adults in LTC homes using socially assistive technologies, as well as studies on the effectiveness of these technologies for improving depression, loneliness, and social interaction. Older adults were defined as people 65 years of age and older. We considered studies examining socially assistive technologies, such as computers, smart phones, tablets, and associated applications.Methods: A JBI mixed methods convergent, segregated approach was used. CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and Scopus databases were searched on January 18, 2022, to identify published studies. The search for unpublished studies and gray literature included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, Google, and the websites of professional organizations associated with LTC. No language or geographical restrictions were placed on the search. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of included studies were screened by 2 reviewers independently. Included studies underwent quality appraisal and data extraction. Quantitative and qualitative data findings were analyzed separately and then integrated. Where possible, quantitative data were synthesized using comparative meta-analyses with a fixed-effects model.Results: From 12,536 records identified through the search, 14 studies were included. Quantitative (n=8), mixed methods (n=3), and qualitative (n=3) approaches were used in the included studies, with half (n=7) using quasi-experimental designs. All studies received moderate to high-quality appraisal scores. Comparative meta-analyses for depression and loneliness scores did not find any significant differences, and narrative findings were mixed. Qualitative meta-aggregation identified 1 synthesized finding (Matching technology functionality to user for enhanced well-being) derived from 2 categories (Enhanced sense of well-being, and Mismatch between technology and resident ability).Conclusions: Residents'","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"1410-1459"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141443474","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

Nursing-sensitive outcomes for the provision of pain management in pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities: a scoping review protocol. 为儿科智障人群提供疼痛管理的护理敏感结果：范围界定审查协议。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00133

Morgan MacNeil, Helen McCord, Lynsey Alcock, Amy Mireault, Melissa Rothfus, Marsha Campbell-Yeo

Objective: The aim of this review is to identify and map nursing-sensitive outcomes for the provision of pain management in pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities that are currently reported in the literature.

Introduction: The experience of pain is highly individualized and subjective, with physiological, biochemical, and psychological differences contributing to pain perception. Pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities are at increased risk of ubiquitous pain exposure. Pain management effectiveness can be determined through the measurement of nursing-sensitive outcomes, which have not been mapped in the context of pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities.

Inclusion criteria: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, and gray literature discussing nursing pain management in pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities will be included. No date limits will be applied. Only studies published in English will be considered.

Methods: This review will be guided by the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The search strategy will aim to locate published and unpublished literature using the databases CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, PsycINFO (ProQuest), LILACS, SciELO, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Titles and abstracts, and then full-text studies, will be selected and reviewed by 2 independent researchers against the inclusion criteria. Content analysis using the NNQR-C, C-HOBIC, NDNQI, and Donabedian model frameworks will be used for data extraction and organization, accompanied by charted results and narrative summaries, as appropriate.

目的：本综述旨在确定和绘制目前文献报道的智障儿科人群疼痛管理的护理敏感结果：本综述旨在确定和绘制目前文献中报道的、对智障儿科人群疼痛管理具有护理敏感性的结果：疼痛的体验是高度个性化和主观的，生理、生化和心理的差异都会导致对疼痛的感知。有智力障碍的儿科患者面临更多无处不在的疼痛风险。疼痛管理的有效性可通过对护理敏感结果的测量来确定，而这些结果尚未在儿科智障人群中得到反映：纳入标准：讨论儿科智障人群疼痛护理管理的定量、定性、混合方法和灰色文献。无日期限制。仅考虑以英语发表的研究：本综述将以 JBI 的范围界定综述方法为指导。检索策略的目标是使用数据库 CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、MEDLINE (Ovid)、Embase (Ovid)、Scopus、PsycINFO (ProQuest)、LILACS、SciELO 和 ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global 查找已发表和未发表的文献。将由两名独立研究人员根据纳入标准选择并审查标题和摘要，然后是研究报告全文。将使用 NNQR-C、C-HOBIC、NDNQI 和 Donabedian 模型框架进行内容分析，以提取和组织数据，并酌情提供图表结果和叙述性摘要。

{"title":"Nursing-sensitive outcomes for the provision of pain management in pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Morgan MacNeil, Helen McCord, Lynsey Alcock, Amy Mireault, Melissa Rothfus, Marsha Campbell-Yeo","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00133","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00133","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The aim of this review is to identify and map nursing-sensitive outcomes for the provision of pain management in pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities that are currently reported in the literature.Introduction: The experience of pain is highly individualized and subjective, with physiological, biochemical, and psychological differences contributing to pain perception. Pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities are at increased risk of ubiquitous pain exposure. Pain management effectiveness can be determined through the measurement of nursing-sensitive outcomes, which have not been mapped in the context of pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities.Inclusion criteria: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, and gray literature discussing nursing pain management in pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities will be included. No date limits will be applied. Only studies published in English will be considered.Methods: This review will be guided by the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The search strategy will aim to locate published and unpublished literature using the databases CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, PsycINFO (ProQuest), LILACS, SciELO, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Titles and abstracts, and then full-text studies, will be selected and reviewed by 2 independent researchers against the inclusion criteria. Content analysis using the NNQR-C, C-HOBIC, NDNQI, and Donabedian model frameworks will be used for data extraction and organization, accompanied by charted results and narrative summaries, as appropriate.","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"1645-1653"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140892179","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

Nurses' perceptions of reasons for missed nursing care in hospitals: a qualitative systematic review protocol. 护士对医院护理工作缺失原因的看法：定性系统综述方案。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00367

Sara Mandahl Ellehave, Siri Lygum Voldbjerg, Philippa Rasmussen, Britt Laugesen

Objective: The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize the best available evidence on nurses' perceptions of the reasons for missed nursing care in hospitals.

Introduction: Missed nursing care in hospitals is a complex and global problem affecting patients, nurses, and the health care system. An in-depth understanding of reasons for missed nursing care is essential to prevent it from happening in hospitals. Nurses' perceptions of reasons for missed nursing care in hospitals are related to the care environment, such as staff levels, nurses' workload, levels of experience and competencies, incomplete communication, and poor teamwork. The reasons are multifaceted, and there is a need to synthesize qualitative evidence on nurses' perceptions of the reasons for missed nursing care in hospitals.

Inclusion criteria: The phenomenon of interest is nurses' perceptions of reasons for missed nursing care, which is defined as care that is either delayed or partially or entirely missed. Studies of nurses with any level of experience, training, or education will be eligible for inclusion. This systematic review will consider qualitative studies that include the perceptions of nurses working in hospital settings, either inpatient or outpatient settings.

Methods: Following an initial search in PubMed, a full search strategy will be conducted in CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and GreyNet International. The JBI approach will inform study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and meta-aggregation. Confidence in the findings will be assessed in accordance with the ConQual approach.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023438198.

目的本综述旨在确定并综合现有的最佳证据，说明护士对医院护理服务缺失原因的看法：医院中的护理遗漏是一个复杂的全球性问题，影响着患者、护士和医疗保健系统。深入了解护理遗漏的原因对于防止医院发生护理遗漏至关重要。护士对医院护理服务缺失原因的看法与护理环境有关，如人员水平、护士工作量、经验和能力水平、沟通不充分以及团队合作不佳等。因此，原因是多方面的，有必要对护士对医院护理工作缺失原因的看法的定性证据进行综合分析：感兴趣的现象是护士对护理服务缺失原因的看法。本系统性综述将考虑包含在医院环境中工作的护士的看法的定性研究：在 PubMed 上进行初步搜索后，将在 CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Google Scholar 和 GreyNet International 上进行全面搜索。将采用 JBI 方法对研究进行筛选、严格评估、数据提取和元汇总。研究结果的可信度将根据 ConQual 方法进行评估：PREMCORD42023438198。

{"title":"Nurses' perceptions of reasons for missed nursing care in hospitals: a qualitative systematic review protocol.","authors":"Sara Mandahl Ellehave, Siri Lygum Voldbjerg, Philippa Rasmussen, Britt Laugesen","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00367","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00367","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize the best available evidence on nurses' perceptions of the reasons for missed nursing care in hospitals.Introduction: Missed nursing care in hospitals is a complex and global problem affecting patients, nurses, and the health care system. An in-depth understanding of reasons for missed nursing care is essential to prevent it from happening in hospitals. Nurses' perceptions of reasons for missed nursing care in hospitals are related to the care environment, such as staff levels, nurses' workload, levels of experience and competencies, incomplete communication, and poor teamwork. The reasons are multifaceted, and there is a need to synthesize qualitative evidence on nurses' perceptions of the reasons for missed nursing care in hospitals.Inclusion criteria: The phenomenon of interest is nurses' perceptions of reasons for missed nursing care, which is defined as care that is either delayed or partially or entirely missed. Studies of nurses with any level of experience, training, or education will be eligible for inclusion. This systematic review will consider qualitative studies that include the perceptions of nurses working in hospital settings, either inpatient or outpatient settings.Methods: Following an initial search in PubMed, a full search strategy will be conducted in CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and GreyNet International. The JBI approach will inform study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and meta-aggregation. Confidence in the findings will be assessed in accordance with the ConQual approach.Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023438198.","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"1594-1600"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140120987","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

The time to act is now! The imperative of resident quality of life in long-term care. 现在是行动的时候了！在长期护理中提高居民生活质量势在必行。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00359

Matthias Hoben, Charlotte Berendonk

引用次数: 0

Effectiveness of physical rehabilitation for physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care residents with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 物理康复对痴呆症长期护理居民的身体功能和生活质量的影响：系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00431

Caitlin McArthur, Niousha Alizadehsaravi, Rebecca Affoo, Karen Cooke, Natalie Douglas, Marie Earl, Trudy Flynn, Parisa Ghanouni, Susan Hunter, Michael Kalu, Laura Middleton, Elaine Moody, Cheryl Smith, Linda Verlinden, Lori Weeks

Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation vs non-rehabilitation comparators for physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia.Introduction: LTC residents living with dementia often have impaired physical functioning and quality of life. Physical rehabilitation can improve physical functioning and quality of life for individuals living with dementia; however, many LTC residents with dementia do not receive physical rehabilitation and providers are unsure what interventions to employ. A synthesis of studies examining physical rehabilitation will help guide practice in the LTC sector where most residents live with dementia. Previous syntheses have focused on all residents in LTC, specific professions, interventions, or people with dementia in the community. Our review focused on LTC residents with dementia and used a broader definition of physical rehabilitation.Inclusion criteria: This review included studies that evaluated physical rehabilitation in comparison with non-rehabilitation controls among LTC residents with any severity of dementia. We included experimental and quasi-experimental studies that measured the effect on activities of daily living, performance-based physical functioning, and self- or proxy-rated quality of life.Methods: Searches were conducted in APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database with no date or language limitations. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies against the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers extracted data and conducted a methodological quality assessment using standardized checklists from JBI. Certainty of evidence was ascertained using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Where possible, studies were pooled in meta-analyses; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was presented.Results: Thirty-three studies were included (n=3072 participants); 27 were randomized controlled trials and (RCTs) the remaining 6 were non-randomized trials. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low to unclear. Many of the included studies focused on increasing activity or walking, while few were individually tailored or at an intensity appropriate to induce therapeutic effects on physical function. Physical function was measured via several outcome measures, limiting our ability to pool results. There was low-certainty evidence that physical rehabilitation improved activities of daily living assessed with multiple instruments (12 RCTs, 1348 participants, standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.78; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.30) and lower extremity function assessed with the Short Physical Performance Battery Score (3 RCTs, 258 participants, mean difference [MD]

研究目的本综述旨在评估物理康复与非康复比较对痴呆症长期护理（LTC）患者的身体功能和生活质量的影响：患有痴呆症的长期护理（LTC）患者的身体功能和生活质量通常会受到损害。身体康复可以改善痴呆症患者的身体功能和生活质量；然而，许多患有痴呆症的长期护理（LTC）患者并没有接受身体康复治疗，医疗服务提供者也不确定应该采取何种干预措施。对有关身体康复的研究进行综述，将有助于指导大多数居民患有痴呆症的长期护理行业的实践。以前的综述主要针对的是长期护理中心的所有居民、特定职业、干预措施或社区中的痴呆症患者。我们的综述侧重于患有痴呆症的长者照护中心居民，并对物理康复进行了更广泛的定义：本综述包括对患有任何严重程度痴呆症的 LTC 居民进行身体康复与非康复对照比较的评估研究。我们纳入了对日常生活活动、基于表现的身体功能以及自我或代理评定的生活质量的影响进行测量的研究：在 APA PsycINFO（EBSCOhost）、CINAHL（EBSCOhost）、PubMed（美国国立医学图书馆）、Embase、Scopus 和 Cochrane CENTRAL 数据库中进行检索，无日期或语言限制。两名独立审稿人根据纳入标准对研究进行了评估。两位独立审稿人使用结构化提取表提取数据并进行质量评估。采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级法（GRADE）确定证据的确定性。在可能的情况下，将研究集中进行荟萃分析；否则，进行叙述性综合分析：共纳入 33 项研究（n = 3072 名参与者），其中 27 项为随机对照试验，其余 6 项为非随机试验。纳入研究的总体偏倚风险为低至不明确。纳入的许多研究都侧重于增加活动量或步行，但很少有研究是针对个人情况或以适当的强度对身体功能产生治疗效果。身体功能也是通过几种结果测量来衡量的，这限制了我们汇总结果的能力。有低度确定性证据表明，与非康复干预相比，物理康复改善了日常生活活动（12 项 RCT，1348 名参与者，SMD 0.78；95% CI 0.27 至 1.30）和短期体能测试评分（3 项 RCT，258 名参与者，MD 3.01 分；95% CI 1.37 至 4.66）。有低到中度确定性证据表明，物理康复在 30 秒坐立测试（2 项研究，293 名参与者，MD 0.79 次；95% CI -0.45 至 2.03）、6 分钟步行测试（4 项研究，363 名参与者，MD 17.32 米；95% CI -29.41至64.05）、步速（4项RCT，400名参与者，MD为0.10米/秒；95% CI为-0.02至0.22）、定时起立行走测试（3项研究，275名参与者，MD为-2.89秒；95% CI为-6.62至0.84）或生活质量（4项RCT，419名参与者，SMD为0.20；95% CI为-0.08至0.47）：本综述表明，物理康复可改善痴呆症患者的日常生活活动，但证据的确定性较低。身体康复对特定功能任务（如步速和生活质量）的影响则不太明确。未来的研究应考察个性化、渐进式干预措施对反映晚期痴呆症患者能力和偏好的结果指标的影响：PREMCORD42022308444。

{"title":"Effectiveness of physical rehabilitation for physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care residents with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Caitlin McArthur, Niousha Alizadehsaravi, Rebecca Affoo, Karen Cooke, Natalie Douglas, Marie Earl, Trudy Flynn, Parisa Ghanouni, Susan Hunter, Michael Kalu, Laura Middleton, Elaine Moody, Cheryl Smith, Linda Verlinden, Lori Weeks","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00431","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00431","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation vs non-rehabilitation comparators for physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia.Introduction: LTC residents living with dementia often have impaired physical functioning and quality of life. Physical rehabilitation can improve physical functioning and quality of life for individuals living with dementia; however, many LTC residents with dementia do not receive physical rehabilitation and providers are unsure what interventions to employ. A synthesis of studies examining physical rehabilitation will help guide practice in the LTC sector where most residents live with dementia. Previous syntheses have focused on all residents in LTC, specific professions, interventions, or people with dementia in the community. Our review focused on LTC residents with dementia and used a broader definition of physical rehabilitation.Inclusion criteria: This review included studies that evaluated physical rehabilitation in comparison with non-rehabilitation controls among LTC residents with any severity of dementia. We included experimental and quasi-experimental studies that measured the effect on activities of daily living, performance-based physical functioning, and self- or proxy-rated quality of life.Methods: Searches were conducted in APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database with no date or language limitations. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies against the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers extracted data and conducted a methodological quality assessment using standardized checklists from JBI. Certainty of evidence was ascertained using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Where possible, studies were pooled in meta-analyses; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was presented.Results: Thirty-three studies were included (n=3072 participants); 27 were randomized controlled trials and (RCTs) the remaining 6 were non-randomized trials. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low to unclear. Many of the included studies focused on increasing activity or walking, while few were individually tailored or at an intensity appropriate to induce therapeutic effects on physical function. Physical function was measured via several outcome measures, limiting our ability to pool results. There was low-certainty evidence that physical rehabilitation improved activities of daily living assessed with multiple instruments (12 RCTs, 1348 participants, standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.78; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.30) and lower extremity function assessed with the Short Physical Performance Battery Score (3 RCTs, 258 participants, mean difference [MD]","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"1460-1535"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321609/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141447240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness models of pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema: a scoping review. 糖尿病、糖尿病视网膜病变和糖尿病黄斑水肿药物干预成本效益模型中的药物不良事件：范围界定综述。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-07-29 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00511

Mari Pesonen, Virpi Jylhä, Eila Kankaanpää

Objective: The objective of this review was to examine the role of adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by pharmacological interventions in cost-effectiveness models for diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema.Introduction: Guidelines for economic evaluation recognize the importance of including ADEs in the analysis, but in practice, consideration of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models seem to be vague. Inadequate inclusion of these harmful outcomes affects the reliability of the results, and the information provided by economic evaluation could be misleading. Reviewing whether and how ADEs are incorporated in cost-effectiveness models is necessary to understand the current practices of economic evaluation.Inclusion criteria: Studies included were published between 2011-2022 in English, representing cost-effectiveness analyses using modeling framework for pharmacological interventions in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, or diabetic macular edema. Other types of analyses and other types of conditions were excluded.Methods: The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Gray literature was searched via the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Network for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. The search was conducted on January 1, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Full-text review was conducted by 3 independent reviewers. A data extraction form was used to extract and analyze the data. Results were presented in tabular format with a narrative summary, and discussed in the context of existing literature and guidelines.Results: A total of 242 reports were extracted and analyzed in this scoping review. For the included analyses, type 2 diabetes was the most common disease (86%) followed by type 1 diabetes (10%), diabetic macular edema (9%), and diabetic retinopathy (0.4%). The majority of the included analyses used a health care payer perspective (88%) and had a time horizon of 30 years or more (75%). The most common model type was a simulation model (57%), followed by a Markov simulation model (18%). Of the included cost-effectiveness analyses, 26% included ADEs in the modeling, and 13% of the analyses excluded them. Most of the analyses (61%) partly considered ADEs; that is, only 1 or 2 ADEs were included. No difference in overall inclusion of ADEs between the different conditions existed, but the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema more often omitted the ADE-related impact on quality of life compared with the models for diabetes mellitus. Most analyses included ADEs in the mode

目的：本综述旨在研究药物干预引起的药物不良事件（ADEs）在糖尿病、糖尿病视网膜病变和糖尿病黄斑水肿成本效益模型中的作用：经济评估指南承认将 ADE 纳入分析的重要性，但在实践中，成本效益模型对 ADE 的考虑似乎比较模糊。不充分纳入这些有害结果会影响结果的可靠性，而且经济评估所提供的信息可能会产生误导。要了解当前的经济评估实践，有必要回顾是否以及如何将 ADE 纳入成本效益模型：纳入的研究发表于 2011-2022 年间，均为英文，使用模型框架对治疗糖尿病、糖尿病视网膜病变或糖尿病黄斑水肿的药物干预进行成本效益分析。其他类型的分析和其他类型的病症除外：检索的数据库包括 MEDLINE (PubMed)、CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、Scopus、Web of Science Core Collection 和 NHS Economic Evaluation Database。通过国家健康与护理卓越研究所、欧洲健康技术评估网络、国家健康与护理研究所和国际健康技术评估机构网络检索了灰色文献。搜索时间为 2023 年 1 月 1 日。标题和摘要由两名独立审稿人进行筛选。全文由 3 位独立审稿人进行审阅。数据提取表用于提取和分析数据。结果以表格形式呈现，并附有叙述性摘要，同时结合现有文献和指南进行讨论：本次范围界定综述共提取并分析了 242 份报告。在纳入的分析中，2 型糖尿病是最常见的疾病（86%），其次是 1 型糖尿病（10%）、糖尿病黄斑水肿（9%）和糖尿病视网膜病变（0.4%）。大多数纳入的分析都从医疗支付方的角度出发（88%），时间跨度为 30 年或以上（75%）。最常见的模型类型是模拟模型（57%），其次是马尔可夫模拟模型（18%）。在所纳入的成本效益分析中，26%的分析在建模中纳入了 ADE，13%的分析排除了 ADE。大多数分析（61%）部分考虑了 ADE，即仅纳入了 1 或 2 种 ADE。不同病症纳入 ADE 的总体情况并无差异，但与糖尿病模型相比，糖尿病视网膜病变和糖尿病黄斑水肿模型更常忽略 ADE 相关对生活质量的影响。大多数分析将 ADE 作为概率（55%）或子模型（40%）纳入模型，ADE 发生率最常见的来源是临床试验（65%）：结论：将 ADE 纳入成本效益模型并非最佳选择。糖尿病视网膜病变和糖尿病黄斑水肿模型中，与 ADE 相关的成本比与 ADE 相关的对生活质量的影响更好地反映了对生活质量的影响。未来的研究应调查 ADE 对结果的潜在影响，并确定将 ADE 实际纳入经济评估的标准和政策。

{"title":"Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness models of pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema: a scoping review.","authors":"Mari Pesonen, Virpi Jylhä, Eila Kankaanpää","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00511","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00511","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of this review was to examine the role of adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by pharmacological interventions in cost-effectiveness models for diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema.Introduction: Guidelines for economic evaluation recognize the importance of including ADEs in the analysis, but in practice, consideration of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models seem to be vague. Inadequate inclusion of these harmful outcomes affects the reliability of the results, and the information provided by economic evaluation could be misleading. Reviewing whether and how ADEs are incorporated in cost-effectiveness models is necessary to understand the current practices of economic evaluation.Inclusion criteria: Studies included were published between 2011-2022 in English, representing cost-effectiveness analyses using modeling framework for pharmacological interventions in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, or diabetic macular edema. Other types of analyses and other types of conditions were excluded.Methods: The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Gray literature was searched via the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Network for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. The search was conducted on January 1, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Full-text review was conducted by 3 independent reviewers. A data extraction form was used to extract and analyze the data. Results were presented in tabular format with a narrative summary, and discussed in the context of existing literature and guidelines.Results: A total of 242 reports were extracted and analyzed in this scoping review. For the included analyses, type 2 diabetes was the most common disease (86%) followed by type 1 diabetes (10%), diabetic macular edema (9%), and diabetic retinopathy (0.4%). The majority of the included analyses used a health care payer perspective (88%) and had a time horizon of 30 years or more (75%). The most common model type was a simulation model (57%), followed by a Markov simulation model (18%). Of the included cost-effectiveness analyses, 26% included ADEs in the modeling, and 13% of the analyses excluded them. Most of the analyses (61%) partly considered ADEs; that is, only 1 or 2 ADEs were included. No difference in overall inclusion of ADEs between the different conditions existed, but the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema more often omitted the ADE-related impact on quality of life compared with the models for diabetes mellitus. Most analyses included ADEs in the mode","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11554252/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141761461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Protocols for breaking bad news in health care: a scoping review protocol. 在医疗保健中发布坏消息的规程：范围审查规程。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-07-23 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00404

Ana Filipa Cardoso, Inês Rosendo, Luiz Santiago, Joana Neto, Daniela Cardoso

Objective: This scoping review will map the available evidence on communication protocols for breaking bad news to adult patients and their families in health care.

Introduction: Breaking bad news to adult patients and their families is a challenging task for health care professionals. To address these challenges, communication protocols have been developed to support health care professionals in breaking bad news in a compassionate and effective manner while respecting each patient's individuality.

Inclusion criteria: This scoping review will consider all studies that focus on communication protocols (original or adapted versions) to break bad news to adult patients and/or their families (adults) in any health care context, regardless of the approach (face-to-face, telephone, video, or other). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies, systematic reviews, and text and opinion papers will be considered for inclusion in this review.

Methods: This review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished evidence in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. The databases to be searched include CINAHL Plus Complete (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (PubMed), Academic Search Complete, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Gray literature will also be searched for. Two independent reviewers will independently perform study selection and data extraction. Data will be extracted using a data extraction tool developed by the reviewers. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion or with an additional reviewer. Data will be presented in tabular and narrative format.

Details of the review can be found in open science framework: https://osf.io/s6ru7/.

目的本范围界定综述将对在医疗保健领域向成年患者及其家属透露坏消息的沟通协议的现有证据进行摸底：对医护人员来说，向成年患者及其家属告知坏消息是一项具有挑战性的任务。为了应对这些挑战，人们制定了沟通协议，以支持医护人员以富有同情心和有效的方式告知坏消息，同时尊重每位患者的个性：本次范围界定综述将考虑所有关注在任何医疗环境下向成年患者和/或其家属（成人）告知坏消息的沟通协议（原始版本或改编版本）的研究，无论采用何种方式（面对面、电话、视频或其他）。本综述将考虑纳入定量、定性和混合方法研究、系统综述以及文本和观点论文：本综述将按照 JBI 的范围界定综述方法进行。检索策略旨在查找英语、西班牙语和葡萄牙语已发表和未发表的证据。要检索的数据库包括 CINAHL Plus Complete (EBSCOhost)、MEDLINE (PubMed)、Academic Search Complete、Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection、Scopus 和 Web of Science Core Collection。还将检索灰色文献。两名独立审稿人将独立完成研究选择和数据提取。数据提取将使用审稿人开发的数据提取工具。审稿人之间出现的任何分歧将通过讨论或与另一位审稿人共同解决。数据将以表格和叙述的形式呈现。有关评审的详细信息，请参阅开放科学框架：https://osf.io/s6ru7/。

{"title":"Protocols for breaking bad news in health care: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Ana Filipa Cardoso, Inês Rosendo, Luiz Santiago, Joana Neto, Daniela Cardoso","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00404","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00404","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This scoping review will map the available evidence on communication protocols for breaking bad news to adult patients and their families in health care.Introduction: Breaking bad news to adult patients and their families is a challenging task for health care professionals. To address these challenges, communication protocols have been developed to support health care professionals in breaking bad news in a compassionate and effective manner while respecting each patient's individuality.Inclusion criteria: This scoping review will consider all studies that focus on communication protocols (original or adapted versions) to break bad news to adult patients and/or their families (adults) in any health care context, regardless of the approach (face-to-face, telephone, video, or other). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies, systematic reviews, and text and opinion papers will be considered for inclusion in this review.Methods: This review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished evidence in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. The databases to be searched include CINAHL Plus Complete (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (PubMed), Academic Search Complete, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Gray literature will also be searched for. Two independent reviewers will independently perform study selection and data extraction. Data will be extracted using a data extraction tool developed by the reviewers. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion or with an additional reviewer. Data will be presented in tabular and narrative format.Details of the review can be found in open science framework: https://osf.io/s6ru7/.","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141749175","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

Prophylactic embolization versus observation for high-grade blunt trauma splenic injury: a systematic review with meta-analysis. 高位钝性外伤脾损伤的预防性栓塞与观察：系统回顾与荟萃分析。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-07-19 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00110

Silas Nann, Molly Clark, Joshua Kovoor, Shivangi Jog, Edoardo Aromataris

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of prophylactic angioembolization with observation as primary management strategies for patients with high-grade (grades 3-5) blunt trauma splenic injury.Introduction: The spleen is frequently injured in abdominal trauma. Historical management practices involved splenectomy, but more recent evidence suggests an increased risk of severe infections and sepsis associated with this approach. Accordingly, non-operative management strategies, including prophylactic splenic artery embolization and clinical observation, have gained prominence. This systematic review with meta-analysis directly compares angioembolization with clinical observation for high-grade splenic injuries only, aiming to provide clarity on this matter amid ongoing debates and variations in clinical practice.Inclusion criteria: This review included adult patients aged 15 years or older with high-grade splenic injuries (grade 3-5) due to blunt trauma. Outcomes of interest include the need for further intervention (failure of management), mortality, complications, red blood cell transfusion requirements, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay.Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL (EBSCOhost), was performed with no restrictions on language or publication date. Gray literature was searched, including trial registries and relevant conference proceedings. After deduplication, 2 reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, and, subsequently, full-text articles for eligibility. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using standardized instruments from JBI. Data was extracted using predefined templates, and statistical meta-analysis was performed, where possible, using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using statistical methods, and potential publication bias was tested with a funnel plot. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.Results: Sixteen studies were included in this review. Methodological quality assessment indicated some risk of bias in most studies, with concerns primarily related to differences in injury severity and potential confounding factors. Meta-analysis revealed that prophylactic angioembolization significantly reduced risk of management failure by 57% (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.68, I2=53%, 15 studies) and decreased patient mortality by 37% (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.93, I2=0%, 9 studies) compared with clinical observation alone. There was a 47% reduction in risk of complications associated with prophylactic embolization compared with clinical observation (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.95, I2=0%, 4 studies). Some statistical heterogeneity was observed, with I2 ranging from 0% to 53%. No significant d

目的：本系统综述的目的是比较预防性血管栓塞术和观察法作为主要治疗策略对高级别（3-5 级）钝性创伤脾损伤患者的有效性：简介：脾脏经常在腹部创伤中受伤。导言：腹部创伤时脾脏经常受伤，以往的处理方法包括脾脏切除术，但最近的证据表明这种方法会增加严重感染和败血症的风险。因此，包括预防性脾动脉栓塞和临床观察在内的非手术治疗策略越来越受到重视。本系统性综述与荟萃分析直接比较了血管栓塞术与临床观察对高位脾损伤的治疗效果，目的是在临床实践中不断争论和变化的情况下澄清这一问题：本综述包括年龄在 15 岁或 15 岁以上、因钝性外伤导致高级别的脾损伤（3-5 级）的成年患者。相关结果包括需要进一步干预（治疗失败）、死亡率、并发症、红细胞输血需求、住院时间和重症监护室住院时间：对 PubMed、Embase 和 CINAHL（EBSCOhost）进行了全面检索，对语言和出版日期没有限制。还检索了灰色文献，包括试验登记和相关会议论文集。经过重复筛选后，由两名审稿人独立评估标题和摘要，随后评估文章全文是否合格。采用 JBI 提供的标准化工具对纳入研究的方法学质量进行评估。使用预定义模板提取数据，并尽可能使用随机效应模型进行统计荟萃分析。使用统计方法评估异质性，并使用漏斗图检测潜在的发表偏倚。采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级法（GRADE）评估证据的确定性：本综述共纳入 16 项研究。方法学质量评估表明，大多数研究存在一定的偏倚风险，主要与损伤严重程度差异和潜在混杂因素有关。Meta 分析显示，与单纯临床观察相比，预防性血管栓塞术可将治疗失败的风险显著降低 57%（OR 0.43，95% CI 0.28-0.68，I2=53%，15 项研究），并将患者死亡率降低 37%（OR 0.63，95% CI 0.43-0.93，I2=0%，9 项研究）。与临床观察相比，预防性栓塞的相关并发症风险降低了 47%（OR 0.53，95% CI 0.29-0.95，I2=0%，4 项研究）。观察到一些统计异质性，I2范围在0%到53%之间。两种管理策略在红细胞输注需求和住院时间方面无明显差异：这项研究的结果表明，预防性栓塞治疗高位钝性创伤脾损伤的失败率较低，减少了额外干预的需要，降低了死亡率，减少了并发症，因此支持使用预防性栓塞治疗高位钝性创伤脾损伤：ProCORMBERCO CRD42023420220。

{"title":"Prophylactic embolization versus observation for high-grade blunt trauma splenic injury: a systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"Silas Nann, Molly Clark, Joshua Kovoor, Shivangi Jog, Edoardo Aromataris","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00110","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of prophylactic angioembolization with observation as primary management strategies for patients with high-grade (grades 3-5) blunt trauma splenic injury.Introduction: The spleen is frequently injured in abdominal trauma. Historical management practices involved splenectomy, but more recent evidence suggests an increased risk of severe infections and sepsis associated with this approach. Accordingly, non-operative management strategies, including prophylactic splenic artery embolization and clinical observation, have gained prominence. This systematic review with meta-analysis directly compares angioembolization with clinical observation for high-grade splenic injuries only, aiming to provide clarity on this matter amid ongoing debates and variations in clinical practice.Inclusion criteria: This review included adult patients aged 15 years or older with high-grade splenic injuries (grade 3-5) due to blunt trauma. Outcomes of interest include the need for further intervention (failure of management), mortality, complications, red blood cell transfusion requirements, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay.Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL (EBSCOhost), was performed with no restrictions on language or publication date. Gray literature was searched, including trial registries and relevant conference proceedings. After deduplication, 2 reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, and, subsequently, full-text articles for eligibility. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using standardized instruments from JBI. Data was extracted using predefined templates, and statistical meta-analysis was performed, where possible, using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using statistical methods, and potential publication bias was tested with a funnel plot. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.Results: Sixteen studies were included in this review. Methodological quality assessment indicated some risk of bias in most studies, with concerns primarily related to differences in injury severity and potential confounding factors. Meta-analysis revealed that prophylactic angioembolization significantly reduced risk of management failure by 57% (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.68, I2=53%, 15 studies) and decreased patient mortality by 37% (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.93, I2=0%, 9 studies) compared with clinical observation alone. There was a 47% reduction in risk of complications associated with prophylactic embolization compared with clinical observation (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.95, I2=0%, 4 studies). Some statistical heterogeneity was observed, with I2 ranging from 0% to 53%. No significant d","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141724616","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

Deprescribing for older adults during acute care admission: a scoping review protocol. 急性病入院期间老年人的去处方化：范围界定审查协议。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-07-15 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00406

Erika Sprake, Janice Kung, Michelle Graham, Ross Tsuyuki, William Gibson

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to understand the current body of knowledge regarding deprescribing in adults aged 60 and over in acute care settings, including the deprescribing activities that are being undertaken, and the feasibility, challenges, and outcomes of the practice.

Introduction: Polypharmacy is prevalent amongst older adults, despite risks to patients. Much of the existing research on deprescribing has occurred in the outpatient context, with recent research emerging on the unique opportunity that acute care may provide.

Inclusion criteria: This review will include deprescribing in adults aged 60 and older in acute care. It will consider deprescribing occurring during inpatient admission and at the time of discharge from hospital.

Methods: The JBI method for scoping reviews will guide this review. A search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), and the Cochrane Database will be undertaken from inception to present with no language restrictions. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies, clinical practice guidelines, and opinion papers will be considered for inclusion. Systematic reviews and scoping reviews will be excluded. Google Scholar and a general Google search will be conducted for gray literature. Two reviewers will assess articles for inclusion and any disagreements will be discussed and resolved by discussion or a third reviewer, if required. Findings will be presented in the scoping review using a narrative approach with supporting quantitative data in a tabular format according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist (PRISMA-ScR).

Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/pb7aw/.

目的本范围综述旨在了解当前有关急症护理环境中 60 岁及以上成年人去处方化的知识体系，包括正在开展的去处方化活动，以及该做法的可行性、挑战和结果：导言：尽管对患者存在风险，但在老年人中使用多种药物的情况十分普遍。有关去处方化的现有研究大多发生在门诊环境中，而最近的研究则是针对急症护理可能提供的独特机会：本综述将包括急症护理中 60 岁及以上成人的去处方治疗。纳入标准：本综述将包括接受急症护理的 60 岁及以上成年人的去处方化情况，并将考虑住院期间和出院时发生的去处方化情况：方法：采用 JBI 方法进行范围界定审查。方法：本综述将以 JBI 的范围综述方法为指导，检索 MEDLINE (Ovid)、Scopus、Web of Science、CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、Embase (Ovid) 和 Cochrane 数据库，检索时间从开始到现在，无语言限制。定性、定量和混合方法研究、临床实践指南和意见书都将考虑纳入。系统综述和范围界定综述将被排除在外。将通过 Google Scholar 和普通 Google 搜索灰色文献。两位审稿人将对纳入的文章进行评估，如有任何分歧，将通过讨论或第三位审稿人（如需要）来解决。研究结果将按照《系统综述和 Meta 分析的首选报告项目》（Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews）清单（PRISMA-ScR），以叙述的方式在范围界定综述中呈现，并以表格的形式提供支持性定量数据：开放科学框架 https://osf.io/pb7aw/。

{"title":"Deprescribing for older adults during acute care admission: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Erika Sprake, Janice Kung, Michelle Graham, Ross Tsuyuki, William Gibson","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00406","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to understand the current body of knowledge regarding deprescribing in adults aged 60 and over in acute care settings, including the deprescribing activities that are being undertaken, and the feasibility, challenges, and outcomes of the practice.Introduction: Polypharmacy is prevalent amongst older adults, despite risks to patients. Much of the existing research on deprescribing has occurred in the outpatient context, with recent research emerging on the unique opportunity that acute care may provide.Inclusion criteria: This review will include deprescribing in adults aged 60 and older in acute care. It will consider deprescribing occurring during inpatient admission and at the time of discharge from hospital.Methods: The JBI method for scoping reviews will guide this review. A search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), and the Cochrane Database will be undertaken from inception to present with no language restrictions. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies, clinical practice guidelines, and opinion papers will be considered for inclusion. Systematic reviews and scoping reviews will be excluded. Google Scholar and a general Google search will be conducted for gray literature. Two reviewers will assess articles for inclusion and any disagreements will be discussed and resolved by discussion or a third reviewer, if required. Findings will be presented in the scoping review using a narrative approach with supporting quantitative data in a tabular format according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist (PRISMA-ScR).Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/pb7aw/.","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141617299","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

Extent, range, and nature of studies examining sleep in nurses: a scoping review protocol. 研究护士睡眠的程度、范围和性质：范围界定审查协议。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

JBI evidence synthesis

Pub Date : 2024-07-03 DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00281

Gabriele Raine Baljak, Casey Marnie, Jarrod Clarke, Micah Dj Peters, Lisa Matricciani

Objective: This scoping review aims to comprehensively map the extent, range, and nature of studies that examine the various dimensions of nurses' sleep across all health care settings or countries.

Introduction: Over the past 2 decades, the importance of sleep for nurses has gained increasing attention from health care administrators, researchers, and policymakers. Despite growing research in the area, it remains unclear as to how research on sleep in nurses aligns with emerging concepts in sleep medicine more broadly, particularly in terms of how outcomes and predictors are associated with different dimensions of sleep.

Inclusion criteria: This review will include primary studies that examine nurses' sleep. All dimensions of sleep (eg, duration, timing, variability, quality, and common disorders) and all nurses, irrespective of career stage, will be considered for inclusion.

Methods: This review will utilize the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRIMSA-ScR). Databases to be searched include MEDLINE (Ovid), Emcare, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus. A 3-step search strategy will be undertaken to identify primary studies published in English with no date limit. The data extracted will include specific details about the nursing population, sleep dimension, outcome measures, methodology, and key findings. Figurative, tabular, and accompanying narrative synthesis will be used to present the results in line with the review questions.

Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/rzc4m.

目标：本范围界定综述旨在全面了解所有医疗机构或国家对护士睡眠各方面进行研究的程度、范围和性质：在过去的 20 年中，护士睡眠的重要性日益受到医疗管理者、研究人员和政策制定者的关注。尽管该领域的研究在不断增加，但对于护士睡眠研究如何与睡眠医学的新兴概念保持更广泛的一致，尤其是在结果和预测因素如何与睡眠的不同维度相关联方面，目前仍不清楚：本综述将包括研究护士睡眠的主要研究。纳入标准：本综述将包括研究护士睡眠的主要研究。所有睡眠维度（例如，持续时间、时间、可变性、质量和常见失调）以及所有护士，无论其处于哪个职业阶段，都将被纳入考虑范围：本综述将采用 JBI 的范围界定综述方法和范围界定综述的系统综述和元分析首选报告项目扩展版（PRIMSA-ScR）。要检索的数据库包括 MEDLINE (Ovid)、Emcare、Embase、PsycINFO 和 Scopus。将采用三步检索策略来确定以英文发表的、没有日期限制的主要研究。提取的数据将包括有关护理人群、睡眠维度、结果测量、方法和主要发现的具体细节。根据综述问题，将采用图解法、表格法和附带的叙事综合法来呈现结果：开放科学框架 https://osf.io/rzc4m。

{"title":"Extent, range, and nature of studies examining sleep in nurses: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Gabriele Raine Baljak, Casey Marnie, Jarrod Clarke, Micah Dj Peters, Lisa Matricciani","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00281","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This scoping review aims to comprehensively map the extent, range, and nature of studies that examine the various dimensions of nurses' sleep across all health care settings or countries.Introduction: Over the past 2 decades, the importance of sleep for nurses has gained increasing attention from health care administrators, researchers, and policymakers. Despite growing research in the area, it remains unclear as to how research on sleep in nurses aligns with emerging concepts in sleep medicine more broadly, particularly in terms of how outcomes and predictors are associated with different dimensions of sleep.Inclusion criteria: This review will include primary studies that examine nurses' sleep. All dimensions of sleep (eg, duration, timing, variability, quality, and common disorders) and all nurses, irrespective of career stage, will be considered for inclusion.Methods: This review will utilize the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRIMSA-ScR). Databases to be searched include MEDLINE (Ovid), Emcare, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus. A 3-step search strategy will be undertaken to identify primary studies published in English with no date limit. The data extracted will include specific details about the nursing population, sleep dimension, outcome measures, methodology, and key findings. Figurative, tabular, and accompanying narrative synthesis will be used to present the results in line with the review questions.Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/rzc4m.","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141493820","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