Hazel M. Chapman, Robert McSherry, Josette Bettany-Saltikov, Mridula Mohan, Debbie Spencer
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.
{"title":"Protocol: Assessing the outcomes and impact of professional doctorate programmes in health and social care on the individual, their profession, their employing organisation and wider society: A comprehensive systematic review","authors":"Hazel M. Chapman, Robert McSherry, Josette Bettany-Saltikov, Mridula Mohan, Debbie Spencer","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1446","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1446","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142439038","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}
Mary Catlin, David Wilson, Allison D. Redlich, Talley Bettens, Christian Meissner, Sujeeta Bhatt, Susan Brandon
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>False confessions are often the product of an interrogation process, and the method by which an interrogation is conducted likely affects both the rate of truthful confessions and false confessions. An optimal interrogation method will maximize the former and minimize the latter.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>The current study was a partial update and extension of Meissner and colleagues' (2012) prior Campbell systematic review titled <i>Interview and Interrogation Methods and their Effects on True and False Confessions</i>. Our objective was to assess the effects of interrogation approach on the rates of true and false confessions for criminal (mock) suspects.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>PsycINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and 15 other databases were searched starting October 20, 2022, with the final search conducted on May 23, 2023; together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with authors to identify additional studies.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>All eligible studies experimentally manipulated interrogation approach (i.e., accusatorial, information-gathering, or direct questioning) were conducted with mock suspects accused of wrongdoing where ground truth was known, and included information about confession rates.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3> <p>We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration for our selection of studies and data collection. However, we developed our own risk of bias items and analyzed our data using network meta-analysis methods. Data were synthesized via random-effects network meta-analysis based on the logged odds ratio.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main Results</h3> <p>Across the 27 research articles that provided statistical information sufficient to calculate an effect size, 29 individual studies provided a total of 81 effect sizes. Most studies were conducted with college students in the United States. Overall, our risk of bias assessment indicated that authors generally adhered to double-blind procedures and avoided selective reporting of outcomes. Of note, however, it was often unclear how violations of the randomization process were dealt with.</p> <p>For true confessions, there were 1
{"title":"Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A systematic review update and extension","authors":"Mary Catlin, David Wilson, Allison D. Redlich, Talley Bettens, Christian Meissner, Sujeeta Bhatt, Susan Brandon","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1441","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1441","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>False confessions are often the product of an interrogation process, and the method by which an interrogation is conducted likely affects both the rate of truthful confessions and false confessions. An optimal interrogation method will maximize the former and minimize the latter.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The current study was a partial update and extension of Meissner and colleagues' (2012) prior Campbell systematic review titled <i>Interview and Interrogation Methods and their Effects on True and False Confessions</i>. Our objective was to assess the effects of interrogation approach on the rates of true and false confessions for criminal (mock) suspects.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>PsycINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and 15 other databases were searched starting October 20, 2022, with the final search conducted on May 23, 2023; together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with authors to identify additional studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>All eligible studies experimentally manipulated interrogation approach (i.e., accusatorial, information-gathering, or direct questioning) were conducted with mock suspects accused of wrongdoing where ground truth was known, and included information about confession rates.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration for our selection of studies and data collection. However, we developed our own risk of bias items and analyzed our data using network meta-analysis methods. Data were synthesized via random-effects network meta-analysis based on the logged odds ratio.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Across the 27 research articles that provided statistical information sufficient to calculate an effect size, 29 individual studies provided a total of 81 effect sizes. Most studies were conducted with college students in the United States. Overall, our risk of bias assessment indicated that authors generally adhered to double-blind procedures and avoided selective reporting of outcomes. Of note, however, it was often unclear how violations of the randomization process were dealt with.</p>\u0000 \u0000 <p>For true confessions, there were 1","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11465838/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142401556","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 Hanratty, Rachel Leonard, Sean R. O'Connor, Ciara Keenan, Yuan Chi, Janet Ferguson, Ariana Axiaq, Anna Volz, Ceri Welsh, Kerry Campbell, Victoria Hawkins, Sarah Miller, Declan Bradley, Martin Dempster
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is distancing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of distancing.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to distancing aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL & Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID-19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with distancing, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and distancing (social and/or physical) at an individual level, amongst the general public. We defined physical distancing as, maintaining the recommended distance from others when physically present. And social distancing being defined as, minimising social contact with those outside of your own household. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Studies' titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full-text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>
{"title":"Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID related distancing behaviours: A systematic review","authors":"Jennifer Hanratty, Rachel Leonard, Sean R. O'Connor, Ciara Keenan, Yuan Chi, Janet Ferguson, Ariana Axiaq, Anna Volz, Ceri Welsh, Kerry Campbell, Victoria Hawkins, Sarah Miller, Declan Bradley, Martin Dempster","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1442","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is distancing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of distancing.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to distancing aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL & Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID-19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with distancing, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and distancing (social and/or physical) at an individual level, amongst the general public. We defined physical distancing as, maintaining the recommended distance from others when physically present. And social distancing being defined as, minimising social contact with those outside of your own household. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Studies' titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full-text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 ","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1442","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142435116","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}
Ariel M. Aloe, Omar Dewidar, Emily A. Hennessy, Terri Pigott, Gavin Stewart, Vivian Welch, David B. Wilson, Campbell MECCIR Working Group
<div> <section> <h3> Introduction</h3> <p>The authors formed a small working group to modernize the Methodological Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). We reviewed comments and feedback from editors, peer reviewers of Campbell submissions, and authors; for example, that the Campbell MECCIR was long and some of the items in the reporting and conduct checklists were difficult to cross-reference. We also wanted to make the checklist more relevant for reviews of associations or risk factors and other quantitative non-intervention review types, which we welcome in Campbell. Thus, our aim was to develop a shorter, more holistic guidance and checklist of Campbell Standards, encompassing both conduct and reporting of these standards within the same checklist.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Methods</h3> <p>Our updated Campbell Standards will be a living document. To develop this first iteration, we invited Campbell members to join a virtual working group; we sought experience in conducting Campbell systematic reviews and in conducting methods editor reviews for Campbell. We aligned the items from the MECCIR for conduct and reporting, then compared the principles of conduct that apply across review types to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-literature search extension (S) and PRISMA-2020 reporting standards. We discussed each section with the aim of developing a parsimonious checklist with explanatory guidance while avoiding losing important concepts that are relevant to all types of reviews. We held nine meetings to discuss each section in detail between September 2022 and March 2023. We circulated this initial checklist and guidance to all Campbell editors, methods editors, information specialists and co-chairs to seek their feedback. All feedback was discussed by the working group and incorporated to the Standards or, if not incorporated, a formal response was returned about the rationale for why the feedback was not incorporated.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Campbell Policy</h3> <p>The guidance includes seven main sections with 35 items multifaceted but distinct concepts that authors must adhere to when conducting Campbell reviews. Authors and reviewers must be mindful that multiple factors need to be assessed for each item. According to the Campbell Standards, the reporting of Campbell reviews must adhere to appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines(s) such as PRISMA-2020.</p> </section> <section> <h3> How to Use</h3> <p>The editorial board recommends authors use the checklist dur
{"title":"Campbell Standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR)","authors":"Ariel M. Aloe, Omar Dewidar, Emily A. Hennessy, Terri Pigott, Gavin Stewart, Vivian Welch, David B. Wilson, Campbell MECCIR Working Group","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1445","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1445","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The authors formed a small working group to modernize the Methodological Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). We reviewed comments and feedback from editors, peer reviewers of Campbell submissions, and authors; for example, that the Campbell MECCIR was long and some of the items in the reporting and conduct checklists were difficult to cross-reference. We also wanted to make the checklist more relevant for reviews of associations or risk factors and other quantitative non-intervention review types, which we welcome in Campbell. Thus, our aim was to develop a shorter, more holistic guidance and checklist of Campbell Standards, encompassing both conduct and reporting of these standards within the same checklist.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our updated Campbell Standards will be a living document. To develop this first iteration, we invited Campbell members to join a virtual working group; we sought experience in conducting Campbell systematic reviews and in conducting methods editor reviews for Campbell. We aligned the items from the MECCIR for conduct and reporting, then compared the principles of conduct that apply across review types to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-literature search extension (S) and PRISMA-2020 reporting standards. We discussed each section with the aim of developing a parsimonious checklist with explanatory guidance while avoiding losing important concepts that are relevant to all types of reviews. We held nine meetings to discuss each section in detail between September 2022 and March 2023. We circulated this initial checklist and guidance to all Campbell editors, methods editors, information specialists and co-chairs to seek their feedback. All feedback was discussed by the working group and incorporated to the Standards or, if not incorporated, a formal response was returned about the rationale for why the feedback was not incorporated.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Campbell Policy</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The guidance includes seven main sections with 35 items multifaceted but distinct concepts that authors must adhere to when conducting Campbell reviews. Authors and reviewers must be mindful that multiple factors need to be assessed for each item. According to the Campbell Standards, the reporting of Campbell reviews must adhere to appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines(s) such as PRISMA-2020.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> How to Use</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The editorial board recommends authors use the checklist dur","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11456310/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142393928","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}
Liping Guo, Jieyun Li, Zheng Xu, Xiaoling Hu, Chunyan Liu, Xin Xing, Xiuxia Li, Howard White, Kehu Yang
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>Homework is a common educational task given to students around the world. It demands mental exertion, but staying focused can be challenging, especially for K-12 students. Too much homework can increase their cognitive load and mental fatigue, leading to decreased motivation and performance. This can cause boredom with homework and learning. To lessen their load and make homework more effective, it is important to establish the connection between homework duration and academic achievement.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>To evaluate the relationship between homework time and academic performance among K-12 students.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>On November 5, 2021, we retrieved articles from a variety sources. Firstly, we searched 10 electronic databases for related publications, including Academic Search Premier, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Business Source Premier, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Journal Storage (JSTOR), Learning and Technology Library (LearnTechLib), OCLC FirstSearch, Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), and Teacher Reference Center. We also searched two publisher platforms: ScienceDirect and Taylor & Francis Online Database. Secondly, we consulted five educational organization website such as, American Educational Research Association, Best Evidence Encyclopedia, Education Endowment Foundation, European Educational Research Association, What Works Clearinghouse, and the Open Grey database for unpublished studies. We then searched Open Dissertations and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global databases to locate the relevant dissertations and theses. Additionally, we hand-searched seven educational journals to identify unpublished documents, reports, and potential studies not indexed in the databases. Lastly, we searched Campbell Library to identify relevant reviews and primary (and nearly eligible studies) in these reviews. We also searched Google Scholar for related studies and checked the citations of eligible studies as well as their bibliographies.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <div>Studies with the following criteria were included: <ul> <li><span>− </span> <p><i>Population:</i> K-12 school students with no disabilities or not attending special education schools;</p> </li> <li><span>− </span>
背景 家庭作业是全世界学生的一项常见教育任务。家庭作业需要耗费脑力，但保持注意力集中却很有挑战性，尤其是对 K-12 年级的学生而言。过多的家庭作业会增加他们的认知负担和精神疲劳，导致学习动力和学习成绩下降。这会导致学生对家庭作业和学习产生厌烦情绪。为了减轻他们的负担，使家庭作业更有效，必须建立家庭作业时间与学习成绩之间的联系。 目标 评估 K-12 学生的家庭作业时间与学习成绩之间的关系。 检索方法 2021 年 11 月 5 日，我们从各种来源检索了文章。首先，我们在10个电子数据库中检索了相关出版物，包括Academic Search Premier、APA PsycArticles、APA PsycInfo、Business Source Premier、教育资源信息中心（ERIC）、期刊存储（JSTOR）、学习与技术图书馆（LearnTechLib）、OCLC FirstSearch、社会科学引文索引（Web of Science）和教师参考资料中心。我们还搜索了两个出版商平台：ScienceDirect 和 Taylor & Francis 在线数据库。其次，我们查阅了五个教育组织的网站，如美国教育研究协会、最佳证据百科全书、教育捐赠基金会、欧洲教育研究协会、What Works Clearinghouse 和 Open Grey 数据库，以查找未发表的研究。然后，我们搜索了 Open Dissertations 和 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global 数据库，以查找相关学位论文和论文。此外，我们还手工搜索了七种教育期刊，以确定未发表的文件、报告和数据库未收录的潜在研究。最后，我们搜索了坎贝尔图书馆，以确定这些综述中的相关综述和主要研究（以及几乎符合条件的研究）。我们还在谷歌学术（Google Scholar）中搜索了相关研究，并检查了符合条件的研究的引文及其参考书目。 筛选标准 我们纳入了符合以下标准的研究： - 研究对象干预措施：学校教师定期布置的家庭作业：干预措施：由学校教师定期布置给学生在非上课时间完成的家庭作业； - 对比：结果：结果：学习成绩是主要结果。研究设计：治疗-对照组设计或对比组设计研究。 数据收集与分析 我们审查了检索到的记录的标题、摘要和全文。我们的团队从符合纳入标准的研究中提取了所有相关信息并进行了编码。为了评估偏倚风险，我们对随机对照试验使用了 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具，对非随机对照试验使用了 ROBINS-I。我们进行了随机效应荟萃分析，以确定与没有家庭作业相比，家庭作业对学业成绩的影响。采用漏斗图、修剪填充法和 Egger 检验来检测是否存在发表偏差。由于有关家庭作业持续时间和学业成绩的数据不足，我们采用定性综合法对这些数据进行了分析。 主要结果 我们发现有 11 篇出版物采用实验设计研究了家庭作业持续时间与学习成绩之间的关系。根据这些文章的侧重点，我们将其分为两类：家庭作业与无家庭作业的比较，以及家庭作业与少家庭作业的比较。有 10 篇文章和 14 篇独立报告比较了做家庭作业和不做家庭作业的学生的学习成绩。
{"title":"The relationship between homework time and academic performance among K-12: A systematic review","authors":"Liping Guo, Jieyun Li, Zheng Xu, Xiaoling Hu, Chunyan Liu, Xin Xing, Xiuxia Li, Howard White, Kehu Yang","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1431","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1431","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Homework is a common educational task given to students around the world. It demands mental exertion, but staying focused can be challenging, especially for K-12 students. Too much homework can increase their cognitive load and mental fatigue, leading to decreased motivation and performance. This can cause boredom with homework and learning. To lessen their load and make homework more effective, it is important to establish the connection between homework duration and academic achievement.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To evaluate the relationship between homework time and academic performance among K-12 students.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>On November 5, 2021, we retrieved articles from a variety sources. Firstly, we searched 10 electronic databases for related publications, including Academic Search Premier, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Business Source Premier, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Journal Storage (JSTOR), Learning and Technology Library (LearnTechLib), OCLC FirstSearch, Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), and Teacher Reference Center. We also searched two publisher platforms: ScienceDirect and Taylor & Francis Online Database. Secondly, we consulted five educational organization website such as, American Educational Research Association, Best Evidence Encyclopedia, Education Endowment Foundation, European Educational Research Association, What Works Clearinghouse, and the Open Grey database for unpublished studies. We then searched Open Dissertations and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global databases to locate the relevant dissertations and theses. Additionally, we hand-searched seven educational journals to identify unpublished documents, reports, and potential studies not indexed in the databases. Lastly, we searched Campbell Library to identify relevant reviews and primary (and nearly eligible studies) in these reviews. We also searched Google Scholar for related studies and checked the citations of eligible studies as well as their bibliographies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <div>Studies with the following criteria were included:\u0000\u0000 <ul>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>− </span>\u0000 \u0000 <p><i>Population:</i> K-12 school students with no disabilities or not attending special education schools;</p>\u0000 </li>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>− </span>\u0000 ","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1431","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142245033","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>Intergenerational programs to improve the psychosocial health and wellbeing of older adults in residential aged care: What works, for whom, in what circumstances and how? A rapid realist review</p><p>Lysha Lee, Pat Nicholson, Kayla Lock, Katrin Gerber, Alison Hutchinson</p><p>23 July 2024</p><p>Availability and effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and treatment of obesity in children and adolescents from low- and middle-income countries: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis</p><p>Gerardo Gomez, Muhammad Asim, Aliya Ayub, Zulfiqar Bhutta, Saima Afaq</p><p>3 August 2024</p><p>Effectiveness of school-based nutrition education interventions on obesity and nutritional status of adolescent girls: A systematic review</p><p>Sehar Iqbal, Taima Qudah, Abdul Momin Rizwan Ahmad</p><p>3 August 2024</p><p>Influencing factors and strategies to improve emotional regulation among adolescents: A mixed-method systematic review</p><p>Preejana Sharma, Shweta Rai, Linu George</p><p>24 June 2024</p><p>Interventions and outcomes for depressive symptoms among children and adolescents: An evidence and gap map.</p><p>Pengpeng Cao, Yuhao Li, Luyao Yang, Shuo Zhang, Jieyixi Hua, Bingxia Dang, Chuying Li, Bei An, Zheng Xu</p><p>24 June 2024</p><p>What does the available research tell us about health visitor activities in the United Kingdom and the outcomes for babies and children under five years of age, and their parents or primary caregivers: An evidence and gap map</p><p>Michael Fanner, Jane Barlow, Sarah Cowley, Karen Whittaker, Helen Critcher, Mary Malone</p><p>24 June 2024</p><p>Effects of positive psychological interventions on young children's mental health and well-being: A systematic review</p><p>Daniel Hernández-Torrano, Dianne Vella-Brodrick, Laura Ibrayeva, Manat Sergazina, Kelsey Lewis, Anara Burambayeva, Aiida Kulsary</p><p>19 June 2024</p><p>Bereavement interventions for children and adolescents: An evidence and gap map of primary studies and systematic reviews</p><p>Leonor Rodriguez, James Lyons, Amy Maloy, Ailsa O'Brien</p><p>10 June 2024</p><p>Suicidal behaviours post-natural disasters: An evidence gap map</p><p>Mike Trott, Urska Arnautovska, Dan Siskind</p><p>1 June 2024</p><p>Situational crime prevention measures to prevent terrorist attacks against soft targets and crowded places: An evidence and gap map</p><p>Caitlin Clemmow, Zoe Marchment, Pa
{"title":"Campbell title registrations to date – August 2024, and discontinued protocols","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1439","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1439","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>Intergenerational programs to improve the psychosocial health and wellbeing of older adults in residential aged care: What works, for whom, in what circumstances and how? A rapid realist review</p><p>Lysha Lee, Pat Nicholson, Kayla Lock, Katrin Gerber, Alison Hutchinson</p><p>23 July 2024</p><p>Availability and effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and treatment of obesity in children and adolescents from low- and middle-income countries: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis</p><p>Gerardo Gomez, Muhammad Asim, Aliya Ayub, Zulfiqar Bhutta, Saima Afaq</p><p>3 August 2024</p><p>Effectiveness of school-based nutrition education interventions on obesity and nutritional status of adolescent girls: A systematic review</p><p>Sehar Iqbal, Taima Qudah, Abdul Momin Rizwan Ahmad</p><p>3 August 2024</p><p>Influencing factors and strategies to improve emotional regulation among adolescents: A mixed-method systematic review</p><p>Preejana Sharma, Shweta Rai, Linu George</p><p>24 June 2024</p><p>Interventions and outcomes for depressive symptoms among children and adolescents: An evidence and gap map.</p><p>Pengpeng Cao, Yuhao Li, Luyao Yang, Shuo Zhang, Jieyixi Hua, Bingxia Dang, Chuying Li, Bei An, Zheng Xu</p><p>24 June 2024</p><p>What does the available research tell us about health visitor activities in the United Kingdom and the outcomes for babies and children under five years of age, and their parents or primary caregivers: An evidence and gap map</p><p>Michael Fanner, Jane Barlow, Sarah Cowley, Karen Whittaker, Helen Critcher, Mary Malone</p><p>24 June 2024</p><p>Effects of positive psychological interventions on young children's mental health and well-being: A systematic review</p><p>Daniel Hernández-Torrano, Dianne Vella-Brodrick, Laura Ibrayeva, Manat Sergazina, Kelsey Lewis, Anara Burambayeva, Aiida Kulsary</p><p>19 June 2024</p><p>Bereavement interventions for children and adolescents: An evidence and gap map of primary studies and systematic reviews</p><p>Leonor Rodriguez, James Lyons, Amy Maloy, Ailsa O'Brien</p><p>10 June 2024</p><p>Suicidal behaviours post-natural disasters: An evidence gap map</p><p>Mike Trott, Urska Arnautovska, Dan Siskind</p><p>1 June 2024</p><p>Situational crime prevention measures to prevent terrorist attacks against soft targets and crowded places: An evidence and gap map</p><p>Caitlin Clemmow, Zoe Marchment, Pa","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1439","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142169795","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}
Heather MacDonald, Cozette Comer, Margaret Foster, Patrick R. Labelle, Scott Marsalis, Kate Nyhan, Zahra Premji, Morwenna Rogers, Ryan Splenda, Claire Stansfield, Sarah Young
This guide outlines general issues in searching for studies; describes the main sources of potential studies; and discusses how to plan the search process, design, and carry out search strategies, manage references found during the search process and document and report the search process.
{"title":"Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews","authors":"Heather MacDonald, Cozette Comer, Margaret Foster, Patrick R. Labelle, Scott Marsalis, Kate Nyhan, Zahra Premji, Morwenna Rogers, Ryan Splenda, Claire Stansfield, Sarah Young","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1433","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1433","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This guide outlines general issues in searching for studies; describes the main sources of potential studies; and discusses how to plan the search process, design, and carry out search strategies, manage references found during the search process and document and report the search process.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1433","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142165650","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}
Ana Veronica Scotta, Paula Eugenia Barral, Ailin Farre, Elio Andrés Soria
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. In order to understand the variables affecting breastfeeding in working women, this systematic review will aim to determine the factors associated with early breastfeeding cessation upon women's return to work within a Social-Ecological framework. This will be achieved by answering the following questions: Which individual factors are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?; Which interpersonal factors are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?; Which community factors are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?; Which institutional factors are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?; Which public policies are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?
{"title":"Protocol: Factors contributing to the discontinuation of breastfeeding upon women's return to work: A systematic review protocol","authors":"Ana Veronica Scotta, Paula Eugenia Barral, Ailin Farre, Elio Andrés Soria","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1434","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 <p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. In order to understand the variables affecting breastfeeding in working women, this systematic review will aim to determine the factors associated with early breastfeeding cessation upon women's return to work within a Social-Ecological framework. This will be achieved by answering the following questions: Which individual factors are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?; Which interpersonal factors are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?; Which community factors are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?; Which institutional factors are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?; Which public policies are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1434","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142165322","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}
Smith, A., Roberts, A., Krzemieniewska-Nandwani, K., Eggins, E., Cook, W., Fox, C., Maruna, S., Wallace, S., & Szifris, K. (2024). Revisiting the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy for reducing reoffending in the criminal justice system: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20, e1425. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.142
There is an omission of the word “PROTOCOL” at the beginning of the article title and the correct article title should read as:
PROTOCOL: Revisiting the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy for reducing reoffending in the criminal justice system: A systematic review.
The correct article category is PROTOCOL.
The article title and the category have been corrected in the original publication. We apologize for this error.
[此处更正了文章 DOI：10.1002/cl2.142.]。
{"title":"Correction to “Revisiting the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy for reducing reoffending in the criminal justice system: A systematic review”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1438","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1438","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Smith, A., Roberts, A., Krzemieniewska-Nandwani, K., Eggins, E., Cook, W., Fox, C., Maruna, S., Wallace, S., & Szifris, K. (2024). Revisiting the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy for reducing reoffending in the criminal justice system: A systematic review. <i>Campbell Systematic Reviews</i>, <i>20</i>, e1425. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.142</p><p>There is an omission of the word “PROTOCOL” at the beginning of the article title and the correct article title should read as:</p><p>PROTOCOL: Revisiting the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy for reducing reoffending in the criminal justice system: A systematic review.</p><p>The correct article category is PROTOCOL.</p><p>The article title and the category have been corrected in the original publication. We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11366963/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142120800","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}
Littell, J. H., Young, S., Pigott, T. D., Biggs, M. A., Munk-Olsen, T., & Steinberg, J. R. (2024). Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20, e1410. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1410
There was an omission of “Protocol” at the beginning of the title for this protocol. The correct title is as follows:
PROTOCOL: Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
We apologize for this error.
[此处更正了文章 DOI：10.1002/cl2.1410.]。
{"title":"Correction to “Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1437","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1437","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Littell, J. H., Young, S., Pigott, T. D., Biggs, M. A., Munk-Olsen, T., & Steinberg, J. R. (2024). Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. <i>Campbell Systematic Reviews</i>, <i>20</i>, e1410. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1410</p><p>There was an omission of “Protocol” at the beginning of the title for this protocol. The correct title is as follows:</p><p>PROTOCOL: Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11366970/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142120799","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