Pub Date : 2024-12-21eCollection Date: 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1002/cl2.70017
Klára Barancová, Jiří Kantor, Martina Fasnerová, Zuzana Svobodová, Miloslav Klugar
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. This systematic review will examine the impact of the Integrated Thematic Instruction (ITI) on academic attainment and other possible outcomes of primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching. We will seek to answer the following research question: What impact does the ITI/HET teaching has on academic attainment and other possible outcomes of primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching?
{"title":"Protocol: The impact of integrated thematic instruction model on primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching: A protocol of systematic review.","authors":"Klára Barancová, Jiří Kantor, Martina Fasnerová, Zuzana Svobodová, Miloslav Klugar","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70017","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70017","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. This systematic review will examine the impact of the Integrated Thematic Instruction (ITI) on academic attainment and other possible outcomes of primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching. We will seek to answer the following research question: What impact does the ITI/HET teaching has on academic attainment and other possible outcomes of primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching?</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":"e70017"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11663231/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142878166","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}
Bei Pan, Long Ge, Xiaoman Wang, Ning Ma, Zhipeng Wei, Lai Honghao, Liangying Hou, Kehu Yang
Delayed publication of systematic reviews increases the risk of presenting outdated data. To date, no studies have examined the time and review process from title registration and protocol publication to the final publication of Campbell systematic reviews. This study aims to examine the publication time from protocol to full review publication and the time gap between database searches and full review publication for Campbell systematic reviews. All Campbell systematic reviews in their first published version were included. We searched the Campbell systematic review journals on the Wiley Online Library website to identify all completed studies to date. We manually searched the table of contents of all Campbell systematic reviews to obtain the date of title registration from the journal's website. We used SPSS software to perform the statistical analysis. We used descriptive statistics to report publication times which were calculated stratified by characteristics, including year of review publication, type of reviews, number of authors, difference in authors between protocol and review, and Campbell Review Groups. Non-normal distributed data were reported as medians, interquartile range, and range, and normal distributed data will be reported as mean ± standard deviation. And we also visualized the overall publication time and the distribution of data. Approximately 18% of reviews were published within one to 2 years, faster than the aims set by Campbell systematic review policies and guidelines, which was 2 years. However, more than 40% of the reviews were published more than 2 years after protocol publication. Furthermore, over 50% of included reviews were published with a time gap of more than 2 years after database searches. There was no significant difference between Campbell coordinating groups' median publication times and time gap from searches of databases to full review publication existed. However, the methods group only published one full review with almost a 3-year time gap from searches of databases to review publication. And there was a major difference between specific types of review. Systematic reviews had the longest median publication time of 2.4 years, whereas evidence and gap maps had the lowest median publication time of 13 months. Half of Campbell reviews were published more than 2 years after protocol publication. Furthermore, the median time from protocol publication to review publication varied widely depending on the specific type of review.
{"title":"Assessment of publication time in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A cross-sectional survey","authors":"Bei Pan, Long Ge, Xiaoman Wang, Ning Ma, Zhipeng Wei, Lai Honghao, Liangying Hou, Kehu Yang","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70011","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70011","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Delayed publication of systematic reviews increases the risk of presenting outdated data. To date, no studies have examined the time and review process from title registration and protocol publication to the final publication of Campbell systematic reviews. This study aims to examine the publication time from protocol to full review publication and the time gap between database searches and full review publication for Campbell systematic reviews. All Campbell systematic reviews in their first published version were included. We searched the Campbell systematic review journals on the Wiley Online Library website to identify all completed studies to date. We manually searched the table of contents of all Campbell systematic reviews to obtain the date of title registration from the journal's website. We used SPSS software to perform the statistical analysis. We used descriptive statistics to report publication times which were calculated stratified by characteristics, including year of review publication, type of reviews, number of authors, difference in authors between protocol and review, and Campbell Review Groups. Non-normal distributed data were reported as medians, interquartile range, and range, and normal distributed data will be reported as mean ± standard deviation. And we also visualized the overall publication time and the distribution of data. Approximately 18% of reviews were published within one to 2 years, faster than the aims set by Campbell systematic review policies and guidelines, which was 2 years. However, more than 40% of the reviews were published more than 2 years after protocol publication. Furthermore, over 50% of included reviews were published with a time gap of more than 2 years after database searches. There was no significant difference between Campbell coordinating groups' median publication times and time gap from searches of databases to full review publication existed. However, the methods group only published one full review with almost a 3-year time gap from searches of databases to review publication. And there was a major difference between specific types of review. Systematic reviews had the longest median publication time of 2.4 years, whereas evidence and gap maps had the lowest median publication time of 13 months. Half of Campbell reviews were published more than 2 years after protocol publication. Furthermore, the median time from protocol publication to review publication varied widely depending on the specific type of review.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11646485/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142830133","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}
Aloe, A. M., Dewidar, O., Hennessy, E. A., Pigott, T., Stewart, G., Welch, V., Wilson, D. B., & Campbell MECCIR Working Group. (2024) Campbell standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20, e1445. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1445
We apologize for this error.
[此处更正了文章 DOI：10.1002/cl2.1445.]。
{"title":"Correction to “Campbell standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR)”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70013","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70013","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Aloe, A. M., Dewidar, O., Hennessy, E. A., Pigott, T., Stewart, G., Welch, V., Wilson, D. B., & Campbell MECCIR Working Group. (2024) Campbell standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). <i>Campbell Systematic Reviews</i>, 20, e1445. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1445</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11636630/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142819634","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}
Julie Birkenmaier, Brandy R. Maynard, Hannah Shanks, Elizabeth Greer
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The primary objective of this review is to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the extent of financial coaching intervention research? (2) What are the effects on financial outcomes of financial coaching embedded within community settings? (3) What are the effects on financial outcomes of financial coaching embedded within healthcare settings? (4) What are the effects on health/well-being-related outcomes of financial coaching embedded within community settings? (5) What are the effects on health/well-being-related outcomes of financial coaching embedded within healthcare settings? (6) What study or intervention characteristics are associated with variation in the effects of financial coaching (i.e., design (RCT and QED), publication status (published or unpublished), dosage and duration of financial coaching intervention (continuous variable), age, financial coaching elements, and setting of intervention (healthcare or non-healthcare)?
{"title":"PROTOCOL: Financial coaching for enhancing household finances and health/well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Julie Birkenmaier, Brandy R. Maynard, Hannah Shanks, Elizabeth Greer","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70012","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70012","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The primary objective of this review is to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the extent of financial coaching intervention research? (2) What are the effects on financial outcomes of financial coaching embedded within community settings? (3) What are the effects on financial outcomes of financial coaching embedded within healthcare settings? (4) What are the effects on health/well-being-related outcomes of financial coaching embedded within community settings? (5) What are the effects on health/well-being-related outcomes of financial coaching embedded within healthcare settings? (6) What study or intervention characteristics are associated with variation in the effects of financial coaching (i.e., design (RCT and QED), publication status (published or unpublished), dosage and duration of financial coaching intervention (continuous variable), age, financial coaching elements, and setting of intervention (healthcare or non-healthcare)?</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11632200/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142814472","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}
Jens Dietrichson, Rasmus Klokker, Trine Filges, Elizabeth Bengtsen, Therese D. Pigott
Objectives
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: The first objective is to find and describe machine and statistical learning (ML) methods designed for moderator meta-analysis. The second objective is to find and describe applications of such ML methods in moderator meta-analyses of health, medical, and social science interventions. These two parts of the meta-review will primarily involve a systematic review and will be conducted according to guidelines specified by the Campbell Collaboration (MECCIR guidelines). The outcomes will be a list of ML methods that are designed for moderator meta-analysis (first objective), and a description of how (some of) these methods have been applied in the health, medical, and social sciences (second objective). The third objective is to examine how the ML methods identified in the meta-review can help researchers formulate new hypotheses or select among existing ones, and compare the identified methods to one another and to regular meta-regression methods for moderator analysis. To compare the performance of different moderator meta-analysis methods, we will apply the methods to data on tutoring interventions from two systematic reviews of interventions to improve academic achievement for students with or at risk-of academic difficulties, and to an independent test sample of tutoring studies published after the search period in the two reviews.
{"title":"Protocol: Machine learning for selecting moderators in meta-analysis: A systematic review of methods and their applications, and an evaluation using data on tutoring interventions","authors":"Jens Dietrichson, Rasmus Klokker, Trine Filges, Elizabeth Bengtsen, Therese D. Pigott","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70009","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70009","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: The first objective is to find and describe machine and statistical learning (ML) methods designed for moderator meta-analysis. The second objective is to find and describe applications of such ML methods in moderator meta-analyses of health, medical, and social science interventions. These two parts of the meta-review will primarily involve a systematic review and will be conducted according to guidelines specified by the Campbell Collaboration (MECCIR guidelines). The outcomes will be a list of ML methods that are designed for moderator meta-analysis (first objective), and a description of how (some of) these methods have been applied in the health, medical, and social sciences (second objective). The third objective is to examine how the ML methods identified in the meta-review can help researchers formulate new hypotheses or select among existing ones, and compare the identified methods to one another and to regular meta-regression methods for moderator analysis. To compare the performance of different moderator meta-analysis methods, we will apply the methods to data on tutoring interventions from two systematic reviews of interventions to improve academic achievement for students with or at risk-of academic difficulties, and to an independent test sample of tutoring studies published after the search period in the two reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11632158/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142814473","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>Details of new titles for systematic reviews or evidence and gap maps that have been accepted by the Editor of a Campbell Coordinating Group are published in each issue of the journal. If you would like to receive a copy of the approved title registration form, please <i>send an email</i> to the Managing Editor of the relevant Coordinating Group.</p><p>A list of discontinued protocols appears below these new titles. If you are interested to continue a project, please get in touch with the Managing Editor of the relevant Coordinating Group or email <span>[email protected]</span>.</p><p>Long distance walking and well-being: A scoping review</p><p>Hind Sabri, Elizabeth Ghogomu, Victoria Barbeau, Tracey Howe, Howard White, Yanfei Li, Qian Liu, Weize Kong, Nina Cruz, Vivian Welch</p><p>6 November 2024</p><p>Effects of long-term care interventions for older adults: An evidence and gap map</p><p>Elizabeth Tanjong-Ghogomu, Nadisha Ratnasekera, Paul Hebert, Vivian Welch</p><p>30 October 2024</p><p>Data pricing: An evidence and gap map</p><p>Yufeng Wen, Yajie Zhou, Liping Guo, Wenjie Zhou, Yueyan Zhao, Weijie Lin,</p><p>4 November 2024</p><p>What are the reasons mothers choose human milk as their method of infant nutrition? A mixed methods systematic review</p><p>Niamh Ryan, Patricia Leahy-Warren, Siobhain O'Mahony, Helen Mulcahy, Lloyd Philpott</p><p>9 October 2024</p><p>Determinants of student well-being and perceived social support in higher education: A systematic literature review</p><p>Dawei Li, Farhana Kamarul Bahrin</p><p>23 September 2024</p><p>The interventions for Youth Employment in China: A country evidence map</p><p>Xiya Shao, Liping Guo, Wenjie Zhou, Yufeng Wen, Weijie Lin, Yueyan Zhao, Yang Yang, Hongli Shang, Yajie Zhou, Yijie Zhang</p><p>23 September 2024</p><p>The impact of relocation processes on people facing socio-territorial iniquities: A scoping review</p><p>Pascale Chagnon, Pierre Paul Audate, Geneviève Cloutier</p><p>23 August 2024</p><p>Understanding the structure, content, and impact of far-right extremist propaganda disseminated online: A systematic review</p><p>Mia Doolan, Kiran Sarma</p><p>25 October 2024</p><p>Strategies to enhance inclusion in informed consent practice for people with sensory impairment: A systematic literature review</p><p>Fleur O'Hare, Sujani Thrimawithana, Aimee Clague, Camille Paynter, David Foran, Caroline Ondracek, Eden Robertson, Tessa Saunders, Lauren Ayton</p><p>24 October 2024</p><p>Evidence and gap map of climate change adaptation interventions for enhancing food security and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa</p><p>David Sarfo Ameyaw, Kwadwo Danso-Mensah, Joseph Clottey, Clarice Panyin Nyan, Sheila Agyemang Oppong, Miriam Oppong, Nana Esi Badu-Ansah, Desmond Kaledzi, Isaac Letsa</p><p>29 August 2024</p><p>Randomized controlled trials for poverty alleviation and environmental conservation in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review</p><p>Adriana Molina Garzon, Aemro Worku, Andres R
已被坎贝尔协调小组的编辑接受的系统评论或证据和差距图的新标题的详细信息发表在每期杂志上。如果您希望收到已批准的所有权登记表的副本，请发送电子邮件给相关协调小组的执行编辑。在这些新标题下面列出了已终止的协议清单。如果您有兴趣继续一个项目，请与相关协调小组的执行编辑联系，或发送电子邮件至[email protected]。ind Sabri, Elizabeth Ghogomu, Victoria Barbeau, Tracey Howe, Howard White，李艳飞，刘谦，孔伟泽，Nina Cruz， Vivian welch2024年11月6日老年人长期护理干预的影响：证据和差距图Elizabeth Tanjong-Ghogomu， Nadisha Ratnasekera, Paul Hebert， Vivian welch2024年10月30日数据价格：温玉峰，周亚杰，郭丽萍，周文杰，赵月艳，林伟杰，2024年11月4日母亲选择母乳作为婴儿营养方式的原因是什么？niamh Ryan, Patricia Leahy-Warren, Siobhain O'Mahony, Helen Mulcahy, Lloyd philpote . 2009年10月9日高等教育中学生幸福感和感知社会支持的决定因素：系统文献综述李大维，Farhana Kamarul bahri . 23 September 24中国青年就业的干预措施：邵希亚，郭丽萍，周文杰，温玉峰，林伟杰，赵月艳，杨洋，尚红丽，周亚杰，张一杰23年9月23日搬迁过程对面临社会-领土不平等的人的影响：一个范围综述pascale Chagnon， Pierre Paul Audate, genevi<e:1>， Cloutier23年8月23日理解极右极端主义宣传的结构、内容和影响mia Doolan， Kiran sarma2024年10月25日加强对感觉障碍患者知情同意实践的包容策略：flur O'Hare, Sujani Thrimawithana, Aimee Clague, Camille Paynter, David Foran, Caroline Ondracek, Eden Robertson, Tessa Saunders， Lauren ayton2024年10月24日David Sarfo Ameyaw， Kwadwo Danso-Mensah, Joseph Clottey, Clarice Panyin Nyan, Sheila Agyemang Oppong, Miriam Oppong, Nana Esi Badu-Ansah, Desmond Kaledzi，中低收入国家减贫和环境保护的随机对照试验：系统综述adriana Molina Garzon， Aemro Worku, Andres Ramasco, Lakshmi Iyer, Ellis Adams, Krister Andersson， Daniel miller2024年8月29日草药和天然溶液对古达尔茶封闭前消毒效果的评价-系统综述emalatha Hiremath， Priyankar Roy， Sadanand kulkarni2024年11月22日药物基因组学检测基因分型平台的准确性和一致性诊断测试准确性的系统评价方案kiflu Tesfamicael， Mike Musker, David Adelson， Martin lewis 2024年10月31日农村提供者对提供者远程医疗对急诊和住院护理的价值：证据和差距图kaylie Toll， Danika Jurat, Suzanne Robinson, Stephen Andrew, Aled Williams, Zaheerah Haywood, Amy Cole， Joanna moullin 2024年10月31日提供性健康和生殖健康的卫生保健专业人员采用远程医疗：范围审查ma。维罗妮卡·克鲁兹，妈。emma Cocking, Joseph Daher, Majid alabbood .信息通信技术在乳腺癌营养干预中的应用：陈欣，易宇彤，Maaz Imam, j.j. Pionke, Lixcy Vega, Anna Arthur, Jessie Chin， chuchungyi 4 October 2024可解释的机器学习用于乳房x光检查和超声图像的乳腺癌诊断：系统综述daraje Gurmessa， Worku jimma2024年10月3日基于人工智能的心理治疗在治疗精神障碍中的有效性samit Soni， Vinit Singh， Mohit kumar2024年9月2日如果您有兴趣继续以下其中一个项目，请与相关协调小组的执行编辑联系或发送电子邮件[email protected].https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/CL2.85PROTOCOL：巴拉克·阿里尔，劳伦斯·w·谢尔曼https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/CL2.215Protocol系统综述：提高小学学龄儿童数学成绩的干预措施：系统综述维多利亚·西姆斯，卡米拉·吉尔摩，肖恩·斯隆，克莱尔·麦基维尼https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2。 1011协议：系统审查协议：改善儿童和青少年教育和社会成果的校际合作：系统审查保罗·康诺利，詹妮弗·汉拉蒂，乔安妮·休斯，克里斯托弗·查普曼，丹妮尔·布拉洛克https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/CL2.145PROTOCOL：增强儿童和青少年亲社会行为的实践和计划组成部分：A . L. Spivak, Mark W. Lipsey, Dale C. Farran, Joshua R. Polaninhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/CL2.185PROTOCOL：基于学校的执行功能干预对儿童和青少年执行功能、学业、社会情感和行为结果的直接和间接影响：一项系统综述。提供信息和通信技术（ICT）以提高4 - 18岁学生的学习成绩和学校参与度kristin Liabo， Laurenz Langer, Antonia Simon, Kathy-Ann Daniel-Gittens, Alex Elwick, Janice Tripneyhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/CL2.210PROTOCOL：为改善3-11岁儿童的社交和情感结果而开展的以学校为基础的普遍项目paul Connolly， Sarah Miller, Jennifer Hanratty, Jennifer Roberts, Seaneen Sloanhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/CL2.110PROTOCOL：为改善患有慢
{"title":"Campbell title registrations to date – August 2024, and discontinued protocols","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70015","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70015","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Details of new titles for systematic reviews or evidence and gap maps that have been accepted by the Editor of a Campbell Coordinating Group are published in each issue of the journal. If you would like to receive a copy of the approved title registration form, please <i>send an email</i> to the Managing Editor of the relevant Coordinating Group.</p><p>A list of discontinued protocols appears below these new titles. If you are interested to continue a project, please get in touch with the Managing Editor of the relevant Coordinating Group or email <span>[email protected]</span>.</p><p>Long distance walking and well-being: A scoping review</p><p>Hind Sabri, Elizabeth Ghogomu, Victoria Barbeau, Tracey Howe, Howard White, Yanfei Li, Qian Liu, Weize Kong, Nina Cruz, Vivian Welch</p><p>6 November 2024</p><p>Effects of long-term care interventions for older adults: An evidence and gap map</p><p>Elizabeth Tanjong-Ghogomu, Nadisha Ratnasekera, Paul Hebert, Vivian Welch</p><p>30 October 2024</p><p>Data pricing: An evidence and gap map</p><p>Yufeng Wen, Yajie Zhou, Liping Guo, Wenjie Zhou, Yueyan Zhao, Weijie Lin,</p><p>4 November 2024</p><p>What are the reasons mothers choose human milk as their method of infant nutrition? A mixed methods systematic review</p><p>Niamh Ryan, Patricia Leahy-Warren, Siobhain O'Mahony, Helen Mulcahy, Lloyd Philpott</p><p>9 October 2024</p><p>Determinants of student well-being and perceived social support in higher education: A systematic literature review</p><p>Dawei Li, Farhana Kamarul Bahrin</p><p>23 September 2024</p><p>The interventions for Youth Employment in China: A country evidence map</p><p>Xiya Shao, Liping Guo, Wenjie Zhou, Yufeng Wen, Weijie Lin, Yueyan Zhao, Yang Yang, Hongli Shang, Yajie Zhou, Yijie Zhang</p><p>23 September 2024</p><p>The impact of relocation processes on people facing socio-territorial iniquities: A scoping review</p><p>Pascale Chagnon, Pierre Paul Audate, Geneviève Cloutier</p><p>23 August 2024</p><p>Understanding the structure, content, and impact of far-right extremist propaganda disseminated online: A systematic review</p><p>Mia Doolan, Kiran Sarma</p><p>25 October 2024</p><p>Strategies to enhance inclusion in informed consent practice for people with sensory impairment: A systematic literature review</p><p>Fleur O'Hare, Sujani Thrimawithana, Aimee Clague, Camille Paynter, David Foran, Caroline Ondracek, Eden Robertson, Tessa Saunders, Lauren Ayton</p><p>24 October 2024</p><p>Evidence and gap map of climate change adaptation interventions for enhancing food security and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa</p><p>David Sarfo Ameyaw, Kwadwo Danso-Mensah, Joseph Clottey, Clarice Panyin Nyan, Sheila Agyemang Oppong, Miriam Oppong, Nana Esi Badu-Ansah, Desmond Kaledzi, Isaac Letsa</p><p>29 August 2024</p><p>Randomized controlled trials for poverty alleviation and environmental conservation in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review</p><p>Adriana Molina Garzon, Aemro Worku, Andres R","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11632157/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142814404","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}
Julie Birkenmaier, Brandy R. Maynard, Harly M. Blumhagen, Hannah Shanks
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>Poverty is considered one of the social determinants of health (i.e., a range of social and environmental conditions that affect health and well-being) because of its association with significant health problems. In recent years, healthcare settings have emerged as focal points for poverty interventions with direct health implications. Medical institutions are increasingly implementing financial partnerships to provide interventions targeted at improving the financial well-being of patients with the dual objective of boosting appointment attendance rates and alleviating financial burdens on patients. While medical-financial partnerships (MFPs) appear to be growing in popularity, it is unclear if these interventions positively impact financial and/or health outcomes.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>The purpose of this review is to inform policy and practice relevant to MFPs by analyzing and synthesizing empirical evidence related to their health and financial outcomes. The primary objectives of this review is to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the extent and quality of MFP intervention research? (2) What are the effects on financial outcomes of financial services embedded within healthcare settings? (3) What are the effects on health-related outcomes of financial services embedded within healthcare settings?</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>We conducted a comprehensive search for published and gray literature from September to December 2023. We searched for and retrieved published studies from Google, Google Scholar, and 10 Electronic databases. We also searched five relevant websites and two trial registries for registered studies. We harvested from the reference lists of included studies and conducted forward citation searching using Google Scholar. Lastly, we contacted the first authors of the four included studies and requested information about unpublished studies, studies in progress, and published studies potentially missed in the other search activities.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>Studies eligible for this review met the following criteria. First, studies must have used a prospective randomized controlled trial or quasi-experimental (QED) research design with parallel cohorts. Second, studies must have involved an intervention that provides financial services on-site within a healthcare setting. Third, the studies must have measured a financial outcome. Fourth, to meet the criteria for on-site financial services, in
{"title":"Medical-financial partnerships for improving financial and medical outcomes for lower-income Americans: A systematic review","authors":"Julie Birkenmaier, Brandy R. Maynard, Harly M. Blumhagen, Hannah Shanks","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70008","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70008","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Poverty is considered one of the social determinants of health (i.e., a range of social and environmental conditions that affect health and well-being) because of its association with significant health problems. In recent years, healthcare settings have emerged as focal points for poverty interventions with direct health implications. Medical institutions are increasingly implementing financial partnerships to provide interventions targeted at improving the financial well-being of patients with the dual objective of boosting appointment attendance rates and alleviating financial burdens on patients. While medical-financial partnerships (MFPs) appear to be growing in popularity, it is unclear if these interventions positively impact financial and/or health outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The purpose of this review is to inform policy and practice relevant to MFPs by analyzing and synthesizing empirical evidence related to their health and financial outcomes. The primary objectives of this review is to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the extent and quality of MFP intervention research? (2) What are the effects on financial outcomes of financial services embedded within healthcare settings? (3) What are the effects on health-related outcomes of financial services embedded within healthcare settings?</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted a comprehensive search for published and gray literature from September to December 2023. We searched for and retrieved published studies from Google, Google Scholar, and 10 Electronic databases. We also searched five relevant websites and two trial registries for registered studies. We harvested from the reference lists of included studies and conducted forward citation searching using Google Scholar. Lastly, we contacted the first authors of the four included studies and requested information about unpublished studies, studies in progress, and published studies potentially missed in the other search activities.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Studies eligible for this review met the following criteria. First, studies must have used a prospective randomized controlled trial or quasi-experimental (QED) research design with parallel cohorts. Second, studies must have involved an intervention that provides financial services on-site within a healthcare setting. Third, the studies must have measured a financial outcome. Fourth, to meet the criteria for on-site financial services, in","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11621975/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142802577","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}
Marta Osório de Matos, Elzbieta Bobrowicz-Campos, Rosa Silva, Francisca Castanheira, Diana Santos
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The aim of this scoping review is to map, describe and characterize the available evidence on the role that formal care might have in complementing informal caregivers role – romantic partners, parallel family members (e.g., [step]siblings, cousins or in-laws) or descendants (e.g., the care-receivers are [step]parents, [step]aunts/uncles, [step]grandparents or in-laws) – when providing care to adults with acquired diseases (physical or neurologic) in domestic settings and will set the ground for future research on this topic. The scoping review questions are the following: (i) What is the existing literature on the complementarity between formal and informal care? (ii) Which are the types of formal cares' services/interventions that have been described in the literature as complementary to informal care, provided to the informal caregiver and/or to the adult being cared for? (iii) Which outcomes have been assessed in the caregiver's physical, psychological, and social health domains, and how have they been measured?
{"title":"Protocol: Complementarity between informal care and formal care to adults: Knowledge mapping through a scoping review of the literature","authors":"Marta Osório de Matos, Elzbieta Bobrowicz-Campos, Rosa Silva, Francisca Castanheira, Diana Santos","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70004","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The aim of this scoping review is to map, describe and characterize the available evidence on the role that formal care might have in complementing informal caregivers role – romantic partners, parallel family members (e.g., [step]siblings, cousins or in-laws) or descendants (e.g., the care-receivers are [step]parents, [step]aunts/uncles, [step]grandparents or in-laws) – when providing care to adults with acquired diseases (physical or neurologic) in domestic settings and will set the ground for future research on this topic. The scoping review questions are the following: (i) What is the existing literature on the complementarity between formal and informal care? (ii) Which are the types of formal cares' services/interventions that have been described in the literature as complementary to informal care, provided to the informal caregiver and/or to the adult being cared for? (iii) Which outcomes have been assessed in the caregiver's physical, psychological, and social health domains, and how have they been measured?</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142759851","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}
Jennifer Petkovic, Alison Riddle, Lyubov Lytvyn, Joanne Khabsa, Elie A. Akl, Vivian Welch, Olivia Magwood, Pearl Atwere, Ian D. Graham, Sean Grant, Denny John, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Etienne V. Langlois, Reem A. Mustafa, Alex Todhunter-Brown, Holger Schünemann, Airton T. Stein, Thomas W. Concannon, Peter Tugwell
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>Health guideline developers engage with interested people and groups to ensure that guidelines and their recommendations are relevant and useful to those who will be affected by them. These ‘interest-holders’ include patients, payers/purchasers of health services, payers of health research, peer review editors, product makers, programme managers, policymakers, providers, principal investigators, and the public. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) and McMaster University Guideline Development Checklist describes 146 steps of the guideline process organized into 18 topics. While one topic focuses on engagement, it does not describe how to engage with interest-holders. In addition, interest-holder input could be sought throughout the guideline development process. This scoping review is part of a series of four related reviews. The three other reviews address barriers and facilitators to engagement in guideline development, managing conflicts of interest in guideline development, and assessing the impact of interest-holder engagement on guideline development. The four reviews will inform the development of guidance for multi-interest-holder engagement in guideline development; the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist Extension for Engagement.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>The objective of this scoping review is to identify, describe, and summarise existing guidance and methods for multi-interest-holder engagement throughout the health guideline development process.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>We conducted one comprehensive search for studies of engagement in guidelines to meet the inclusion criteria of one or more of the four systematic reviews in this series. We searched MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (OVID), PsycInfo (OVID) and SCOPUS databases up to September 2022. We did not include limits for date, study design, or language. We searched websites of agencies and organizations that engage interest-holder groups, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), CIHR Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Be Part of Research, Guidelines International Network (G-I-N), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the PatientCentred Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We handsearched the websites of guideline producing agencies. We solicited additional grey literature from the members of the MuSE Consortium.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>
{"title":"Guidance for engagement in health guideline development: A scoping review","authors":"Jennifer Petkovic, Alison Riddle, Lyubov Lytvyn, Joanne Khabsa, Elie A. Akl, Vivian Welch, Olivia Magwood, Pearl Atwere, Ian D. Graham, Sean Grant, Denny John, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Etienne V. Langlois, Reem A. Mustafa, Alex Todhunter-Brown, Holger Schünemann, Airton T. Stein, Thomas W. Concannon, Peter Tugwell","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70006","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Health guideline developers engage with interested people and groups to ensure that guidelines and their recommendations are relevant and useful to those who will be affected by them. These ‘interest-holders’ include patients, payers/purchasers of health services, payers of health research, peer review editors, product makers, programme managers, policymakers, providers, principal investigators, and the public. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) and McMaster University Guideline Development Checklist describes 146 steps of the guideline process organized into 18 topics. While one topic focuses on engagement, it does not describe how to engage with interest-holders. In addition, interest-holder input could be sought throughout the guideline development process. This scoping review is part of a series of four related reviews. The three other reviews address barriers and facilitators to engagement in guideline development, managing conflicts of interest in guideline development, and assessing the impact of interest-holder engagement on guideline development. The four reviews will inform the development of guidance for multi-interest-holder engagement in guideline development; the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist Extension for Engagement.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The objective of this scoping review is to identify, describe, and summarise existing guidance and methods for multi-interest-holder engagement throughout the health guideline development process.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted one comprehensive search for studies of engagement in guidelines to meet the inclusion criteria of one or more of the four systematic reviews in this series. We searched MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (OVID), PsycInfo (OVID) and SCOPUS databases up to September 2022. We did not include limits for date, study design, or language. We searched websites of agencies and organizations that engage interest-holder groups, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), CIHR Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Be Part of Research, Guidelines International Network (G-I-N), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the PatientCentred Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We handsearched the websites of guideline producing agencies. We solicited additional grey literature from the members of the MuSE Consortium.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 ","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142708288","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}
Promise Nduku, John Ategeka, Andile Madonsela, Tanya Mdlalose, Jennifer Stevenson, Shannon Shisler, Suvarna Pande, Laurenz Mahlanza-Langer
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: Our aim is to collect, assess, and synthesise all the available empirical evidence on what works to support evidence-informed decision-making by policymakers. In doing so, we will aim to answer the following research questions: What are the impacts of interventions to support evidence-informed decision-making by policymakers? What are the factors which have influenced the impact of these interventions, and their design and implementation in low- and middle-income countries? In answering these questions, our goal is to estimate the overall impact and relative effectiveness of different interventions, identify factors or configurations of factors that support or hinder their effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries and to identify gaps and areas for future primary research.
{"title":"Protocol: What works to increase the use of evidence for policy decision-making: A systematic review","authors":"Promise Nduku, John Ategeka, Andile Madonsela, Tanya Mdlalose, Jennifer Stevenson, Shannon Shisler, Suvarna Pande, Laurenz Mahlanza-Langer","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1435","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1435","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: Our aim is to collect, assess, and synthesise all the available empirical evidence on what works to support evidence-informed decision-making by policymakers. In doing so, we will aim to answer the following research questions: What are the impacts of interventions to support evidence-informed decision-making by policymakers? What are the factors which have influenced the impact of these interventions, and their design and implementation in low- and middle-income countries? In answering these questions, our goal is to estimate the overall impact and relative effectiveness of different interventions, identify factors or configurations of factors that support or hinder their effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries and to identify gaps and areas for future primary research.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1435","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142708368","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}
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