Liem Tran, Cindy Stern, Philip Harford, Guy Ludbrook, Ashley Whitehorn
Objective: The proposed systematic review will evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of enhanced post-operative care (EPC) units on patient and health service outcomes in adult patients following non-cardiac, non-neurological surgery.
Introduction: The increase in surgical procedures globally has placed a significant economic and societal burden on health care systems. Recognizing this challenge, EPC units have emerged as a model of care, bridging the gap between traditional, ward-level care and intensive care. EPC offers benefits such as higher staff-to-patient ratios, close patient monitoring (eg, invasive monitoring), and access to critical interventions (eg, vasopressor support). However, there is a lack of well-established guidelines and empirical evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of EPC units for adult patients following surgery.
Inclusion criteria: This review will include studies involving adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing any elective or emergency non-cardiac, non-neurological surgery, who have been admitted to an EPC unit. Experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational study designs will be eligible.
Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. The search strategy will identify published and unpublished studies from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Scopus, as well as gray literature sources, from 2010 to the present. Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and critically appraise selected studies using standardized JBI assessment tools. Where feasible, a statistical meta-analysis will be performed to combine study findings. The certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
{"title":"Effectiveness and safety of enhanced postoperative care units for non-cardiac, non-neurological surgery: a systematic review protocol.","authors":"Liem Tran, Cindy Stern, Philip Harford, Guy Ludbrook, Ashley Whitehorn","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00439","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00439","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The proposed systematic review will evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of enhanced post-operative care (EPC) units on patient and health service outcomes in adult patients following non-cardiac, non-neurological surgery.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The increase in surgical procedures globally has placed a significant economic and societal burden on health care systems. Recognizing this challenge, EPC units have emerged as a model of care, bridging the gap between traditional, ward-level care and intensive care. EPC offers benefits such as higher staff-to-patient ratios, close patient monitoring (eg, invasive monitoring), and access to critical interventions (eg, vasopressor support). However, there is a lack of well-established guidelines and empirical evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of EPC units for adult patients following surgery.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review will include studies involving adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing any elective or emergency non-cardiac, non-neurological surgery, who have been admitted to an EPC unit. Experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational study designs will be eligible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. The search strategy will identify published and unpublished studies from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Scopus, as well as gray literature sources, from 2010 to the present. Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and critically appraise selected studies using standardized JBI assessment tools. Where feasible, a statistical meta-analysis will be performed to combine study findings. The certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023455269.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"1626-1635"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140120985","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}
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":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p>","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}
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
<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Residents'
{"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":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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}
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.
{"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":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023438198.</p>","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}
{"title":"The time to act is now! The imperative of resident quality of life in long-term care.","authors":"Matthias Hoben, Charlotte Berendonk","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00359","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00359","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":"22 8","pages":"1408-1409"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141976844","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}
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
<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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}
<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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
{"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":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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}
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":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review will map the available evidence on communication protocols for breaking bad news to adult patients and their families in health care.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Details of the review can be found in open science framework: </strong>https://osf.io/s6ru7/.</p>","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}
<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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
{"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":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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}
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.
{"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":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework https://osf.io/rzc4m.</p>","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}
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