Fadzilah Hanum Mohd Mydin, Christopher Mikton, Wan Yuen Choo, Ranita Hisham Shunmugam, Aja Murray, Yongjie Yon, Raudah M. Yunus, Noran N. Hairi, Farizah M. Hairi, Marie Beaulieu, Amanda Phelan
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>The examination of psychometric properties in instruments measuring abuse of older people (AOP) is a crucial area of study that has, unfortunately, received relatively little attention. Poor psychometric properties in AOP measurement instruments can significantly contribute to inconsistencies in prevalence estimates, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the magnitude of the problem at national, regional, and global levels.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>This review rigorously employed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline on the quality of outcome measures. It was designed to identify and review the instruments used to measure AOP, assess the instruments' measurement properties, and identify the definitions of AOP and abuse subtypes measured by these instruments, ensuring the reliability and validity of the findings.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>A comprehensive search was conducted up to May 2023 across various online databases, including AgeLine via EBSCOhost, ASSIA via ProQuest, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, EMBASE, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global, PsycINFO via EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, Sociological Abstract via ProQuest, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Google Scholar and WHO Global Index Medicus. Additionally, relevant studies were identified by thoroughly searching the grey literature from resources such as Campbell Collaboration, OpenAIRE, and GRAFT.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>All quantitative, qualitative (addressing face and content validity), and mixed-method empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or grey literature were included in this review. The included studies were primary studies that (1) evaluated one or more psychometric properties, (2) contained information on instrument development, or (3) examined the content validity of the instruments designed to measure AOP in community or institutional settings. The selected studies describe at least one psychometric property: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Study participants represent the population of interest, including males and females aged 60 or older in community or institutional settings.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3> <p>Two reviewers evaluated the screening of the selected studies' titles, abstracts, and full texts
{"title":"Psychometric properties of instruments for measuring abuse of older people in community and institutional settings: A systematic review","authors":"Fadzilah Hanum Mohd Mydin, Christopher Mikton, Wan Yuen Choo, Ranita Hisham Shunmugam, Aja Murray, Yongjie Yon, Raudah M. Yunus, Noran N. Hairi, Farizah M. Hairi, Marie Beaulieu, Amanda Phelan","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1419","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1419","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The examination of psychometric properties in instruments measuring abuse of older people (AOP) is a crucial area of study that has, unfortunately, received relatively little attention. Poor psychometric properties in AOP measurement instruments can significantly contribute to inconsistencies in prevalence estimates, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the magnitude of the problem at national, regional, and global levels.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This review rigorously employed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline on the quality of outcome measures. It was designed to identify and review the instruments used to measure AOP, assess the instruments' measurement properties, and identify the definitions of AOP and abuse subtypes measured by these instruments, ensuring the reliability and validity of the findings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A comprehensive search was conducted up to May 2023 across various online databases, including AgeLine via EBSCOhost, ASSIA via ProQuest, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, EMBASE, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global, PsycINFO via EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, Sociological Abstract via ProQuest, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Google Scholar and WHO Global Index Medicus. Additionally, relevant studies were identified by thoroughly searching the grey literature from resources such as Campbell Collaboration, OpenAIRE, and GRAFT.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>All quantitative, qualitative (addressing face and content validity), and mixed-method empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or grey literature were included in this review. The included studies were primary studies that (1) evaluated one or more psychometric properties, (2) contained information on instrument development, or (3) examined the content validity of the instruments designed to measure AOP in community or institutional settings. The selected studies describe at least one psychometric property: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Study participants represent the population of interest, including males and females aged 60 or older in community or institutional settings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Two reviewers evaluated the screening of the selected studies' titles, abstracts, and full texts","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1419","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142100329","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}
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>Climate change poses a significant threat to agricultural production worldwide, with developing countries being particularly vulnerable to its negative impacts. Agriculture, which is a crucial factor in ensuring food security and livelihoods, is particularly vulnerable to changes in climate patterns, such as increased temperatures, drought, and extreme weather events. One approach to addressing these challenges is by promoting the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices among farmers. CSA combines traditional agricultural practices with innovative techniques and technologies to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change. infrastructure. By adopting CSA practices, farmers can enhance their resilience to climate variability and improve their productivity.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>This review examines the effectiveness of interventions promoting CSA to enhance farmers' knowledge of the benefits of CSA approaches, subsequent adoption of CSA, and disadoption of harmful agricultural practices in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>We searched 39 academic and online databases, websites, and repositories and screened over 19,000 experimental and quasi-experimental publications to identify studies promoting CSA practices to women farmers. We conducted a citation tracking process on included studies and contacted experts to ensure a thorough search.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>The review focused on studies that included interventions promoting climate-smart agricultural approaches. Using EPPI Reviewer 4, two review authors independently screened the impact evaluation using a standardized screening tool.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3> <p>Information about participant characteristics, intervention characteristics, control conditions, research design, sample size, bias risk, outcomes, and results were gathered. Data collection and quantitative analysis were conducted using standard Campbell Collaboration methods.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main Results</h3> <p>Eight impact evaluations were found (two randomized controlled trials) evaluating the effects of CSA practices on farmer's knowledge gains of the benefits of CSA practices and subsequent adoption.
{"title":"Interventions promoting resilience through climate smart agricultural practices for women farmers: A systematic review","authors":"Ashrita Saran, Sabina Singh, Neha Gupta, Sujata Chodankar Walke, Ranjana Rao, Christine Simiyu, Suchi Malhotra, Avni Mishra, Ranjitha Puskur, Edoardo Masset, Howard White, Hugh Sharma Waddington","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1426","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1426","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Climate change poses a significant threat to agricultural production worldwide, with developing countries being particularly vulnerable to its negative impacts. Agriculture, which is a crucial factor in ensuring food security and livelihoods, is particularly vulnerable to changes in climate patterns, such as increased temperatures, drought, and extreme weather events. One approach to addressing these challenges is by promoting the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices among farmers. CSA combines traditional agricultural practices with innovative techniques and technologies to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change. infrastructure. By adopting CSA practices, farmers can enhance their resilience to climate variability and improve their productivity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This review examines the effectiveness of interventions promoting CSA to enhance farmers' knowledge of the benefits of CSA approaches, subsequent adoption of CSA, and disadoption of harmful agricultural practices in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched 39 academic and online databases, websites, and repositories and screened over 19,000 experimental and quasi-experimental publications to identify studies promoting CSA practices to women farmers. We conducted a citation tracking process on included studies and contacted experts to ensure a thorough search.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The review focused on studies that included interventions promoting climate-smart agricultural approaches. Using EPPI Reviewer 4, two review authors independently screened the impact evaluation using a standardized screening tool.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Information about participant characteristics, intervention characteristics, control conditions, research design, sample size, bias risk, outcomes, and results were gathered. Data collection and quantitative analysis were conducted using standard Campbell Collaboration methods.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Eight impact evaluations were found (two randomized controlled trials) evaluating the effects of CSA practices on farmer's knowledge gains of the benefits of CSA practices and subsequent adoption. ","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1426","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142077829","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}
Elizabeth Eggins, David B. Wilson, Joseph Betts, Sara Roetman, Ned Chandler-Mather, Bronwyn Theroux, Sharon Dawe
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>Parental substance misuse is a pervasive risk factor for a range of detrimental outcomes for children across the life course. While a variety of interventions have been developed for this population, the existing evidence-base requires consolidation and consideration of the comparative effectiveness of different interventions to facilitate evidence-informed decisions between different intervention approaches.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>This review aimed to use network meta-analysis to synthesise the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. Network meta-analysis was not possible; however, we synthesised the effects of a broad range of interventions on child psychosocial outcomes. Another aim was to examine potential moderators of the effects, yet this was also not possible due to data limitations. A secondary objective was to qualitatively synthesise economic, treatment completion, and treatment acceptability information for included studies.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>Searches were performed in November 2020 and again in April 2021. Encompassing multiple disciplines, we searched 34 databases, 58 grey literature repositories, and 10 trial registers. Supplementary hand searches were conducted on 11 journals, along with harvesting the references of all included studies and existing reviews, and forward citation searching each report of all included studies. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing data.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>Eligible studies included randomised and quasi-experimental evaluations of psychosocial, pharmacological, and/or legal interventions using either a placebo, no treatment, waitlist control, treatment-as-usual, or alternative treatment as a comparison condition. Study participants needed to be comprised of families with children under the age of 18 with one or more currently substance-misusing parents (or caregivers). Studies were required to evaluate the eligible intervention using a child-focused psychosocial outcome. If reported in eligible studies, the following secondary outcomes were also synthesised in the review: cost-effectiveness, treatment completion, length of time in treatment and acceptability of treatment (e.g., participant perspectives of the intervention). There were no restrictions placed on publication status or geographic location, however only research written in English was
{"title":"Psychosocial, pharmacological, and legal interventions for improving the psychosocial outcomes of children with substance misusing parents: A systematic review","authors":"Elizabeth Eggins, David B. Wilson, Joseph Betts, Sara Roetman, Ned Chandler-Mather, Bronwyn Theroux, Sharon Dawe","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1413","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Parental substance misuse is a pervasive risk factor for a range of detrimental outcomes for children across the life course. While a variety of interventions have been developed for this population, the existing evidence-base requires consolidation and consideration of the comparative effectiveness of different interventions to facilitate evidence-informed decisions between different intervention approaches.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This review aimed to use network meta-analysis to synthesise the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. Network meta-analysis was not possible; however, we synthesised the effects of a broad range of interventions on child psychosocial outcomes. Another aim was to examine potential moderators of the effects, yet this was also not possible due to data limitations. A secondary objective was to qualitatively synthesise economic, treatment completion, and treatment acceptability information for included studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Searches were performed in November 2020 and again in April 2021. Encompassing multiple disciplines, we searched 34 databases, 58 grey literature repositories, and 10 trial registers. Supplementary hand searches were conducted on 11 journals, along with harvesting the references of all included studies and existing reviews, and forward citation searching each report of all included studies. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing data.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Eligible studies included randomised and quasi-experimental evaluations of psychosocial, pharmacological, and/or legal interventions using either a placebo, no treatment, waitlist control, treatment-as-usual, or alternative treatment as a comparison condition. Study participants needed to be comprised of families with children under the age of 18 with one or more currently substance-misusing parents (or caregivers). Studies were required to evaluate the eligible intervention using a child-focused psychosocial outcome. If reported in eligible studies, the following secondary outcomes were also synthesised in the review: cost-effectiveness, treatment completion, length of time in treatment and acceptability of treatment (e.g., participant perspectives of the intervention). There were no restrictions placed on publication status or geographic location, however only research written in English was ","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1413","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142013608","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}
Sarah Young, Heather MacDonald, Diana Louden, Ursula M. Ellis, Zahra Premji, Morwenna Rogers, Alison Bethel, David Pickup
<p>The search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions are drawn and recommendations made. Searches should aim to be comprehensive and reporting of search methods should be transparent and reproducible. Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews strive to adhere to the best methodological guidance available for this type of searching. The current work aims to provide an assessment of the conduct and reporting of searches in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews. Our objectives were to examine how searches are currently conducted in Campbell systematic reviews, how search strategies, search methods and search reporting adhere to the Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) and PRISMA standards, and identify emerging or novel methods used in searching in Campbell systematic reviews. We also investigated the role of information specialists in Campbell systematic reviews. We handsearched the <i>Campbell Systematic Reviews</i> journal tables of contents from January 2017 to March 2024. We included all systematic reviews published since 2017. We excluded other types of evidence synthesis (e.g., evidence and gap maps), updates to systematic reviews when search methods were not changed from the original pre-2017 review, and systematic reviews that did not conduct their own original searches. We developed a data extraction form in part based on the conduct and reporting items in MECCIR and PRISMA. In addition, we extracted information about the general quality of searches based on the use of Boolean operators, keywords, database syntax and subject headings. Data extraction included information about reporting of sources searched, some aspects of search quality, the use and reporting of supplementary search methods, reporting of the search strategy, the involvement of information specialists, date of the most recent search, and citation of the Campbell search methods guidance. Items were rated as fully, partially or not conducted or reported. We cross-walked our data extraction items to the 2019 MECCIR standards and 2020 PRISMA guidelines and provide descriptive analyses of the conduct and reporting of searches in Campbell systematic reviews, indicating level of adherence to standards where applicable. We included 111 Campbell systematic reviews across all coordinating groups published since 2017 up to the search date. Almost all (98%) included reviews searched at least two relevant databases and all reported the databases searched. All reviews searched grey literature and most (82%) provided a full list of grey literature sources. Detailed information about databases such as platform and date range coverage was lacking in 16% and 77% of the reviews, respectively. In terms of search strategies, most used Boolean operators, search syntax and phrase searching correctly, but subject headings in databases with controlled vocabulary were
{"title":"Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods","authors":"Sarah Young, Heather MacDonald, Diana Louden, Ursula M. Ellis, Zahra Premji, Morwenna Rogers, Alison Bethel, David Pickup","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1432","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1432","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions are drawn and recommendations made. Searches should aim to be comprehensive and reporting of search methods should be transparent and reproducible. Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews strive to adhere to the best methodological guidance available for this type of searching. The current work aims to provide an assessment of the conduct and reporting of searches in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews. Our objectives were to examine how searches are currently conducted in Campbell systematic reviews, how search strategies, search methods and search reporting adhere to the Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) and PRISMA standards, and identify emerging or novel methods used in searching in Campbell systematic reviews. We also investigated the role of information specialists in Campbell systematic reviews. We handsearched the <i>Campbell Systematic Reviews</i> journal tables of contents from January 2017 to March 2024. We included all systematic reviews published since 2017. We excluded other types of evidence synthesis (e.g., evidence and gap maps), updates to systematic reviews when search methods were not changed from the original pre-2017 review, and systematic reviews that did not conduct their own original searches. We developed a data extraction form in part based on the conduct and reporting items in MECCIR and PRISMA. In addition, we extracted information about the general quality of searches based on the use of Boolean operators, keywords, database syntax and subject headings. Data extraction included information about reporting of sources searched, some aspects of search quality, the use and reporting of supplementary search methods, reporting of the search strategy, the involvement of information specialists, date of the most recent search, and citation of the Campbell search methods guidance. Items were rated as fully, partially or not conducted or reported. We cross-walked our data extraction items to the 2019 MECCIR standards and 2020 PRISMA guidelines and provide descriptive analyses of the conduct and reporting of searches in Campbell systematic reviews, indicating level of adherence to standards where applicable. We included 111 Campbell systematic reviews across all coordinating groups published since 2017 up to the search date. Almost all (98%) included reviews searched at least two relevant databases and all reported the databases searched. All reviews searched grey literature and most (82%) provided a full list of grey literature sources. Detailed information about databases such as platform and date range coverage was lacking in 16% and 77% of the reviews, respectively. In terms of search strategies, most used Boolean operators, search syntax and phrase searching correctly, but subject headings in databases with controlled vocabulary were","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11339316/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142037283","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}
Fiona Campbell, Rebecca Whear, Morwenna Rogers, Anthea Sutton, Jane Barlow, Andrew Booth, Andrew Tattersall, Louise Wolstenholme, Joanna Thompson-Coon
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>Societal changes have led to greater isolation and higher levels of loneliness particularly for older generations. Loneliness is a significant public health challenge leading to increased levels of poor mental health. Depression and anxiety are also increasing in prevalence amongst children and young people. Intergenerational activities are interventions designed to bring together older and younger generations with the purpose of allowing participants to utilise their experiences and skills, and to give participants a chance to experience the pleasure and excitement that occurs with the transmission of knowledge and skills from one generation to another. Intergenerational activities are therefore potential interventions that can address the growing problems associated with loneliness and lack of wellbeing.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>This systematic review aims to examine the impact of intergenerational interventions on the wellbeing and mental health in children and adolescents, and potential harmful effects. It also aims to identify areas for future research as well as key messages for service commissioners.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>We searched an evidence and gap map published in 2022 (comprehensive searches conducted July 2021 and updated June 2023) to identify randomised controlled trials of intergenerational interventions that report mental health and wellbeing outcomes for children and young people.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>Randomised controlled trials of intergenerational interventions that involved unrelated younger and older people with at least one skipped generation between them and reported mental health or wellbeing outcomes for children and young people were included in this review.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3> <p>We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration. We conducted data extraction and Cochrane risk of bias assessments in EPPI reviewer.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main Results</h3> <p>While we identified 500 evaluations of intergenerational interventions, where the impact on participating children and/or young people was evaluated this was most often limited to assessing their impact on attitudes to aging. We identified five studies eva
{"title":"What is the effect of intergenerational activities on the wellbeing and mental health of children and young people?: A systematic review","authors":"Fiona Campbell, Rebecca Whear, Morwenna Rogers, Anthea Sutton, Jane Barlow, Andrew Booth, Andrew Tattersall, Louise Wolstenholme, Joanna Thompson-Coon","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1429","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Societal changes have led to greater isolation and higher levels of loneliness particularly for older generations. Loneliness is a significant public health challenge leading to increased levels of poor mental health. Depression and anxiety are also increasing in prevalence amongst children and young people. Intergenerational activities are interventions designed to bring together older and younger generations with the purpose of allowing participants to utilise their experiences and skills, and to give participants a chance to experience the pleasure and excitement that occurs with the transmission of knowledge and skills from one generation to another. Intergenerational activities are therefore potential interventions that can address the growing problems associated with loneliness and lack of wellbeing.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This systematic review aims to examine the impact of intergenerational interventions on the wellbeing and mental health in children and adolescents, and potential harmful effects. It also aims to identify areas for future research as well as key messages for service commissioners.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched an evidence and gap map published in 2022 (comprehensive searches conducted July 2021 and updated June 2023) to identify randomised controlled trials of intergenerational interventions that report mental health and wellbeing outcomes for children and young people.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Randomised controlled trials of intergenerational interventions that involved unrelated younger and older people with at least one skipped generation between them and reported mental health or wellbeing outcomes for children and young people were included in this review.</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. We conducted data extraction and Cochrane risk of bias assessments in EPPI reviewer.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>While we identified 500 evaluations of intergenerational interventions, where the impact on participating children and/or young people was evaluated this was most often limited to assessing their impact on attitudes to aging. We identified five studies eva","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1429","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142002532","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}
Suchi Kapoor Malhotra, Swati Mantri, Neha Gupta, Ratika Bhandari, Ralph Nii Armah, Hamdiyah Alhassan, Sarah Young, Howard White, Ranjitha Puskur, Hugh Sharma Waddington, Edoardo Masset
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>Value chain interventions have become widespread throughout the international development sector over the last 20 years, and there is a need to evaluate their effectiveness in improving women's welfare across multiple dimensions. Agricultural value chains are influenced by socio-cultural norms and gender dynamics that have an impact on the distribution of resources, benefits, and access to opportunities. While women play a critical role in agriculture, they are generally confined to the least-valued parts of the value chain with the lowest economic returns, depending on the local, social and institutional contexts.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>The review assesses the effectiveness of approaches, strategies and interventions focused on women's engagement in agricultural value chains that lead to women's economic empowerment in low- and middle-income countries. It explores the contextual barriers and facilitators that determine women's participation in value chains and ultimately impact their effectiveness.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>We searched completed and on-going studies from Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection (Social Sciences Citation Index [SSCI], Science Citation Index Expanded [SCI-EXPANDED], Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science [CPCI-S], Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Social Science & Humanities [CPCI-SSH], and Emerging Sources Citation Index [ESCI]), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, EconLit, Business Source Premier, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane, Database of Systematic Reviews, CAB Abstracts and Sociological Abstracts. We also searched relevant websites such as Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR); the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); AgriProFocus; the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF); Donor Committee for Enterprise Development; the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO); the International Labour Organisation (ILO); the Netherlands Development Organisation; USAID; the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation; the International Food Policy Research Institute; World Agroforestry; the International Livestock Research Institute; the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office; the British Library for Development Studies (BLDS); AGRIS; the IMMANA grant database; the 3ie impact evaluation database; Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA); The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL); the World Bank IEG evaluations; the USAID Development Data Library; Experience Clearinghouse; the proceedings of the Agr
背景：在过去的 20 年中，价值链干预措施已在国际发展领域得到广泛应用，因此有必要评估这些措施在多方面改善妇女福利的有效性。农业价值链受到社会文化规范和性别动态的影响，对资源、利益和机会的分配产生了影响。虽然妇女在农业中发挥着关键作用，但根据当地、社会和制度环境的不同，她们通常被限制在价值链中价值最低、经济回报率最低的部分：本综述评估了以妇女参与农业价值链为重点的方法、战略和干预措施的有效性，这些方法、战略和干预措施可增强中低收入国家妇女的经济权能。它探讨了决定妇女参与价值链并最终影响其有效性的背景障碍和促进因素：我们检索了 Scopus、Web of Science Core Collection（社会科学引文索引[SSCI]、科学引文索引扩展版[SCI-EXPANDED]、会议录引文索引-科学[CPCI-S]、会议录引文索引-社会科学与人文科学[CPCI-SSH]）中已完成和正在进行的研究、和新兴资源引文索引 [ESCI]）、国际社会科学书目、EconLit、Business Source Premier、APA PsycInfo、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、Cochrane、Database of Systematic Reviews、CAB Abstracts 和 Sociological Abstracts。我们还搜索了相关网站，如国际农业研究中心联合会 (CGIAR)、国际农业发展基金 (IFAD)、AgriProFocus、比尔及梅林达-盖茨基金会 (BMGF)、企业发展捐助委员会、联合国粮食及农业组织 (FAO)、国际劳工组织 (ILO)、荷兰发展组织、美国国际开发署 (USAID)、瑞士发展与合作署、国际粮食政策研究所 (International Food Policy Research Institute)、世界农林业 (World Agroforestry)、国际家畜研究所 (International Livestock Research Institute)、外交、联邦与发展办公室 (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office)；英国发展研究图书馆 (BLDS)；AGRIS；IMMANA 赠款数据库；3ie 影响评估数据库；创新扶贫行动 (IPA)；阿卜杜勒-拉蒂夫-贾米尔扶贫行动实验室 (J-PAL)；世界银行 IEG 评估；美国国际开发署发展数据图书馆；经验交流中心；农业、营养与健康学院会议记录；非洲经济研究中心 (CSAE) 会议记录；东北大学发展联盟 (NEUDC) 会议记录；以及世界银行经济评论。数据库搜索于 2022 年 3 月进行，网站搜索于 2022 年 8 月完成：审查包括评估经济赋权成果的价值链干预措施。数据收集与分析：两位综述作者独立评估研究的纳入情况、提取数据、严格评估研究并综合研究结果：我们发现，价值链干预措施成功地改善了预期受益者的经济状况。干预措施可改善妇女的经济成果，如收入、资产持有量、生产率和储蓄，但这些效果的规模较小，且受到方法质量可信度低的限制。荟萃分析表明，这更多地是通过获得技能和改进投入实现的，而不是通过改善进入有利可图市场的机会实现的。有关干预措施的定性证据表明，文化障碍和其他制约因素依然存在。在撒哈拉以南非洲和南亚实施的干预措施在所考虑的所有结果方面一直较为成功，但在世界其他地区开展的研究很少：审查得出的结论是，价值链干预措施增强了妇女的权能，但程度可能低于预期。经济赋权并不能立即转化为家庭和社区的赋权。干预措施要么应降低对赋权目标的预期，要么应以确保提高妇女参与率和获得更大决策权的方式实施。
{"title":"Value chain interventions for improving women's economic empowerment: A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis: A systematic review","authors":"Suchi Kapoor Malhotra, Swati Mantri, Neha Gupta, Ratika Bhandari, Ralph Nii Armah, Hamdiyah Alhassan, Sarah Young, Howard White, Ranjitha Puskur, Hugh Sharma Waddington, Edoardo Masset","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1428","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1428","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Value chain interventions have become widespread throughout the international development sector over the last 20 years, and there is a need to evaluate their effectiveness in improving women's welfare across multiple dimensions. Agricultural value chains are influenced by socio-cultural norms and gender dynamics that have an impact on the distribution of resources, benefits, and access to opportunities. While women play a critical role in agriculture, they are generally confined to the least-valued parts of the value chain with the lowest economic returns, depending on the local, social and institutional contexts.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The review assesses the effectiveness of approaches, strategies and interventions focused on women's engagement in agricultural value chains that lead to women's economic empowerment in low- and middle-income countries. It explores the contextual barriers and facilitators that determine women's participation in value chains and ultimately impact their effectiveness.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched completed and on-going studies from Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection (Social Sciences Citation Index [SSCI], Science Citation Index Expanded [SCI-EXPANDED], Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science [CPCI-S], Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Social Science & Humanities [CPCI-SSH], and Emerging Sources Citation Index [ESCI]), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, EconLit, Business Source Premier, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane, Database of Systematic Reviews, CAB Abstracts and Sociological Abstracts. We also searched relevant websites such as Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR); the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); AgriProFocus; the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF); Donor Committee for Enterprise Development; the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO); the International Labour Organisation (ILO); the Netherlands Development Organisation; USAID; the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation; the International Food Policy Research Institute; World Agroforestry; the International Livestock Research Institute; the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office; the British Library for Development Studies (BLDS); AGRIS; the IMMANA grant database; the 3ie impact evaluation database; Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA); The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL); the World Bank IEG evaluations; the USAID Development Data Library; Experience Clearinghouse; the proceedings of the Agr","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11317815/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141972016","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}
Andrew Smith, Anton Roberts, Karolina Krzemieniewska-Nandwani, Elizabeth Eggins, Will Cook, Chris Fox, Shadd Maruna, Stephanie Wallace, Kirstine Szifris
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The proposed systematic review is an update to, and extension of, Lipsey et al. (2007). As such we build on their previous aims to: (i) Assess and synthesise the overall impact of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) on offender recidivism; (ii) Examine possible sources of variability in the effectiveness of CBT. Data permitting, we will examine if the effectiveness of CBT varies by: (a) Characteristics of the CBT intervention (e.g., cognitive restructuring vs. cognitive skills training, group v. individual implementation; and/or custodial v. community setting, and/or), (b) Characteristics of the population (e.g., juveniles vs. adult offenders), (c) Implementation factors (e.g., implementing practitioner, use of structured/manualised approaches, delivery mode, and/or programme duration or intensity), (d) Evaluation methods (e.g., randomised vs. non-randomised research designs); (iv) Determine whether there is a decline in the effect of CBT on recidivism over time; and (v) Investigate whether there is an interaction between implementation factors and time in terms of the effect on recidivism.
{"title":"Revisiting the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy for reducing reoffending in the criminal justice system: A systematic review","authors":"Andrew Smith, Anton Roberts, Karolina Krzemieniewska-Nandwani, Elizabeth Eggins, Will Cook, Chris Fox, Shadd Maruna, Stephanie Wallace, Kirstine Szifris","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1425","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1425","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The proposed systematic review is an update to, and extension of, Lipsey et al. (2007). As such we build on their previous aims to: (i) Assess and synthesise the overall impact of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) on offender recidivism; (ii) Examine possible sources of variability in the effectiveness of CBT. Data permitting, we will examine if the effectiveness of CBT varies by: (a) Characteristics of the CBT intervention (e.g., cognitive restructuring vs. cognitive skills training, group v. individual implementation; and/or custodial v. community setting, and/or), (b) Characteristics of the population (e.g., juveniles vs. adult offenders), (c) Implementation factors (e.g., implementing practitioner, use of structured/manualised approaches, delivery mode, and/or programme duration or intensity), (d) Evaluation methods (e.g., randomised vs. non-randomised research designs); (iv) Determine whether there is a decline in the effect of CBT on recidivism over time; and (v) Investigate whether there is an interaction between implementation factors and time in terms of the effect on recidivism.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11289900/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141861093","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}
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (prototype). The objectives are as follows: This systematic review aims to summarize the available scientific literature on the effect of mindfulness-based approaches in children and adults with Chronic Tic Disorder (CTD) or Tourette Disorder (TD). More specifically, the research question is: What is the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions in reducing tic severity and improving overall functioning, quality of life, and co-occurring symptoms in children and adults with CTD or TD?
{"title":"PROTOCOL: Mindfulness-based interventions for improving tic-related symptoms in children and adults with chronic tic disorder and Tourette's disorder: A systematic review","authors":"Ilana Singer, Méliza Gagnon, Julie B. Leclerc","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1427","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1427","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 <p>This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (prototype). The objectives are as follows: This systematic review aims to summarize the available scientific literature on the effect of mindfulness-based approaches in children and adults with Chronic Tic Disorder (CTD) or Tourette Disorder (TD). More specifically, the research question is: What is the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions in reducing tic severity and improving overall functioning, quality of life, and co-occurring symptoms in children and adults with CTD or TD?</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11260994/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141749181","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}
Rachel Leonard, Sean R. O'Connor, Jennifer Hanratty, Ciara Keenan, Yuan Chi, Jenny 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 face covering. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of face covering.</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 face covering 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 COVID19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with face covering, 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 handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. 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> <p>All data extraction was managed in EPPI-Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full-text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinan
{"title":"Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID related face covering behaviours: A systematic review","authors":"Rachel Leonard, Sean R. O'Connor, Jennifer Hanratty, Ciara Keenan, Yuan Chi, Jenny Ferguson, Ariana Axiaq, Anna Volz, Ceri Welsh, Kerry Campbell, Victoria Hawkins, Sarah Miller, Declan Bradley, Martin Dempster","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1422","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1422","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 face covering. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of face covering.</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 face covering 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 COVID19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with face covering, 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 handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. 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 \u0000 <p>All data extraction was managed in EPPI-Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full-text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinan","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11260276/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141735160","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}
Olivia Mercier, Sarah Yu Fu, Rachel Filler, Alexie Leclerc, Kari Sampsel, Karine Fournier, Mark Walker, Shi Wu Wen, Katherine Muldoon
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent global health problem. IPV that occurs before pregnancy often continues during the perinatal period, resulting in ongoing violence and many adverse maternal, obstetrical, and neonatal outcomes.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>This scoping review is designed to broadly capture all potential interventions for perinatal IPV and describe their core components and measured outcomes.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>We conducted a search for empirical studies describing IPV interventions in the perinatal population in June 2022. The search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov and MedRxiv. Hand searching of references from select articles was also performed.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>Included studies described an intervention for those experiencing IPV during the perinatal period, including 12 months before pregnancy, while pregnant or in the 12 months post-partum. The search encompassed January 2000 to June 2022 and only peer-reviewed studies written in either English or French were included. Included interventions focused on the survivor exposed to IPV, rather than healthcare professionals administering the intervention. Interventions designed to reduce IPV revictimization or any adverse maternal, obstetrical, or neonatal health outcomes as well as social outcomes related to IPV victimization were included.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Data Collections and Analysis</h3> <p>We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main Results</h3> <p>In total, 10,079 titles and abstracts were screened and 226 proceeded to full text screening. A total of 67 studies included perinatal IPV interventions and were included in the final sample. These studies included a total of 27,327 participants. Included studies originated from 19 countries, and the majority were randomized controlled trials (<i>n</i> = 43). Most studies were of moderate or low quality. Interventions included home visitation, educational modules, counseling, and cash transfer programs and occurred primarily in community obstetrician and gyn
{"title":"Interventions for intimate partner violence during the perinatal period: A scoping review: A systematic review","authors":"Olivia Mercier, Sarah Yu Fu, Rachel Filler, Alexie Leclerc, Kari Sampsel, Karine Fournier, Mark Walker, Shi Wu Wen, Katherine Muldoon","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1423","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1423","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent global health problem. IPV that occurs before pregnancy often continues during the perinatal period, resulting in ongoing violence and many adverse maternal, obstetrical, and neonatal outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This scoping review is designed to broadly capture all potential interventions for perinatal IPV and describe their core components and measured outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted a search for empirical studies describing IPV interventions in the perinatal population in June 2022. The search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov and MedRxiv. Hand searching of references from select articles was also performed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Included studies described an intervention for those experiencing IPV during the perinatal period, including 12 months before pregnancy, while pregnant or in the 12 months post-partum. The search encompassed January 2000 to June 2022 and only peer-reviewed studies written in either English or French were included. Included interventions focused on the survivor exposed to IPV, rather than healthcare professionals administering the intervention. Interventions designed to reduce IPV revictimization or any adverse maternal, obstetrical, or neonatal health outcomes as well as social outcomes related to IPV victimization were included.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collections and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In total, 10,079 titles and abstracts were screened and 226 proceeded to full text screening. A total of 67 studies included perinatal IPV interventions and were included in the final sample. These studies included a total of 27,327 participants. Included studies originated from 19 countries, and the majority were randomized controlled trials (<i>n</i> = 43). Most studies were of moderate or low quality. Interventions included home visitation, educational modules, counseling, and cash transfer programs and occurred primarily in community obstetrician and gyn","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11247475/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141621184","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：