Campbell Systematic Reviews最新文献

One goal of this systematic review is to assess whether the pay ratio, that is, the relative difference between the compensation a firm's CEO receives and that of its nonmanagerial employees, is related to subsequent firm performance. A second goal is to identify factors influencing this relationship across publicly traded firms, including the pay ratio's perceived fairness by employees, the firm's business strategy, and related factors.

This is the protocol for a Campbell Collaboration systematic review. Our objective is to conduct an umbrella review to synthesize published and unpublished systematic reviews focused on risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse and effectiveness of interventions against child sexual abuse perpetration and victimization. Specific research questions are: (i) what are the risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse victimization, and what are their relative strength and/or magnitude for predicting child sexual abuse victimization? (ii) what are the risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse perpetration, and what are their relative strength and/or magnitude for predicting child sexual abuse perpetration? (iii) are interventions aimed at reducing and/or preventing child sexual abuse effective? (iv) what are the moderators that increase or decrease effectiveness of the interventions? Efforts to decrease child sexual abuse need to be based on research, but more accessible evidence regarding the breadth of risk and protective factors and effectiveness of interventions to reduce child sexual abuse needs to be provided to policymakers. This will be the first umbrella review that comprehensively synthesizes findings of the previous systematic reviews that focus on risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse and interventions to prevent or reduce child sexual abuse. The results will be able to inform enhanced prevention policy and programs, and regulatory measures for specific contexts of child sexual abuse.

There is growing evidence of a link between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and health and economic outcomes. Previous systematic reviews synthesised evidence of the relationships between ACEs and various health and some economic outcomes such as healthcare costs and educational attainment. The primary aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the evidence on the relationship between ACEs and employment outcomes. MEDLINE, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection (APA PsycInfo), ECONLIT, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and Scopus will be searched using a predefined search strategy. Cross-sectional, cohort, or longitudinal studies published between 2000 and 2024 will be included. ACEs include abuse, neglect, household dysfunction, bullying, foster care, and racism that occur during childhood or adolescence. Employment outcomes include employment status, occupation, and income. Risk of bias of individual studies will be assessed using appropriate NHLBI-NHI quality assessment tools for each type of study. Proportions or means will be used to analyse and compare outcomes. If data allows, we will conduct meta-analysis. Sub-group analyses (e.g., by gender, age group, type and number of ACEs, and intersections of identities of study subjects will be conducted. Further analysis will be conducted to assess the mediators of the effect of ACEs on employment outcomes. By sythesising evidence of the association between ACEs and economic wellbeing later in life, this review will add evidence to the broader literature on poverty. The results of this synthesis will inform policies on child welfare and employment. Results of the review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: One goal of this systematic review is to identify whether merit pay predicts employee work motivation, effort, and performance; a second goal is to determine whether the association between merit pay and subsequent employee work motivation, effort, and performance is stronger depending on the actual relationship between the performance ratings and merit increases received, as well as on the perceived relationship by employees between their performance and their pay; a third goal is to identify whether the association between merit pay and subsequent employee motivation depends on what type of motivation is measured (i.e., intrinsic vs. extrinsic/general work motivation).

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize empirical research on the impacts of interest-holder engagement on the guideline development process and content. Our research questions are as follows: (1) What are the empirical examples of impact on the process in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the empirical examples of impact on the content in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist?

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. This review's objectives are to find out (in relation to health and/or social care): (1) What is known about the outcomes and impact of completing (or not completing) a professional doctorate in health and/or social care on the individual professional? (2) What is known about the outcome and impact of completing (or not completing) a professional doctorate in health and/or social care on the employing organisation? (3) What is known about the outcome and impact of completing (or not completing) a professional doctorate in health and/or social care on the profession? (4) What is known about the outcome and impact of completing (or not completing) a professional doctorate in health and/or social care on service users and the wider society? (5) How do we use the findings from this review to inform educators, higher education institutions, professionals, investors in employing organisations and policymakers? (6) What further research will be needed to answer any knowledge gaps or recommendations? (7) Where possible, we will identify and report on any demographic data and discuss their relevance to the impact and outcomes from professional doctorates.