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 frequent handwashing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of handwashing.</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 handwashing 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 and 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 Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with handwashing, 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. 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, determinant, behav
{"title":"Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID-related handwashing 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/cl2.1421","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1421","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 frequent handwashing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of handwashing.</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 handwashing 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 and 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 Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with handwashing, 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. 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, determinant, behav","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/PMC11247476/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141621185","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}
Tarun M. Khanna, Diana Danilenko, Mark Andor, Max Callaghan, Julian H. Elliott, Tim Repke, Luke A. Smith, Jorge Sanchez, T. V. Bhumika, Jan C. Minx
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: Our proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will integrate the evidence available from all sources to answer the following questions: (1) to what extent can information, behavioral and monetary interventions reduce energy consumption of households in residential buildings? (average treatment effect of interventions) (2) what is the relative effectiveness of interventions? (account for heterogeneity in treatment effects across and within studies) (3) how effective are combinations of different interventions?
{"title":"PROTOCOL: Behavioral, information and monetary interventions to reduce energy consumption in households: A “living” systematic review","authors":"Tarun M. Khanna, Diana Danilenko, Mark Andor, Max Callaghan, Julian H. Elliott, Tim Repke, Luke A. Smith, Jorge Sanchez, T. V. Bhumika, Jan C. Minx","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1424","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1424","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: Our proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will integrate the evidence available from all sources to answer the following questions: (1) to what extent can information, behavioral and monetary interventions reduce energy consumption of households in residential buildings? (average treatment effect of interventions) (2) what is the relative effectiveness of interventions? (account for heterogeneity in treatment effects across and within studies) (3) how effective are combinations of different interventions?</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11237337/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141591636","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}
Trine Filges, Elizabeth Bengtsen, Edith Montgomery, Malene Wallach Kildemoes
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>The number of people fleeing persecution and regional conflicts is rising. Western countries have applied increasingly stringent measures to discourage those seeking asylum from entering their country, amongst them, to confine asylum seekers in detention facilities. Clinicians have expressed concerns over the mental health impact of detention on asylum seekers, a population already burdened with trauma, advocating against such practices.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>The main objective of this review is to assess evidence about the effects of detention on the mental and physical health and social functioning of asylum seekers.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search methods</h3> <p>Relevant literature was identified through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, internet search engines, hand searching of core journals and citation tracking of included studies and relevant reviews. Searches were performed up to November 2023.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection criteria</h3> <p>Studies comparing detained asylum-seekers with non-detained asylum seekers were included. Qualitative approaches were excluded.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Data collection and analysis</h3> <p>Of 22,226 potential studies, 14 met the inclusion criteria. These studies, from 4 countries, involving a total of 13 asylum-seeker populations. Six studies were used in the data synthesis, all of which reported only mental health outcomes. Eight studies had a critical risk of bias. Meta-analyses, inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models, were conducted on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main results</h3> <p>A total of 27,797 asylum seekers were analysed. Four studies provided data while the detained asylum seekers were still detained, and two studies after release. All outcomes are reported such that a positive effect size favours better outcomes for the non-detained asylum seekers. The weighted average SMD while detained is 0.45 [95% CI 0.19, 0.71] for PTSD and after release 0.91 [95% CI 0.24, 1.57]; for anxiety 0.42 [95% CI 0.18, 0.66] and for depression 0.68 [95% CI 0.10, 1.26] both while detained. Based on single-study data, the SMD was 0.60 [95% CI 0.02, 1.17] for depression and 0.76 [95% CI 0.17, 1.34] for anxiety, both after
背景：逃离迫害和地区冲突的人数不断增加。西方国家采取了越来越严厉的措施来阻止寻求庇护者入境，其中包括将寻求庇护者关押在拘留设施中。临床医生对拘留对寻求庇护者心理健康的影响表示担忧，他们主张反对这种做法：本综述的主要目的是评估有关拘留对寻求庇护者的身心健康和社会功能影响的证据：通过书目数据库的电子检索、互联网搜索引擎、核心期刊的人工检索以及对纳入研究和相关综述的引文追踪，确定了相关文献。检索时间截至 2023 年 11 月：包括比较被拘留的寻求庇护者和未被拘留的寻求庇护者的研究。数据收集与分析：在 22226 项潜在研究中，14 项符合纳入标准。这些研究来自 4 个国家，共涉及 13 个寻求庇护者群体。六项研究被用于数据综合，所有这些研究都只报告了心理健康结果。八项研究存在严重的偏倚风险。利用随机效应统计模型对创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）、抑郁和焦虑进行了反方差加权元分析：共分析了 27797 名寻求庇护者。四项研究提供了寻求庇护者被拘留期间的数据，两项研究提供了寻求庇护者获释后的数据。报告的所有结果都表明，正效应大小有利于未被拘留的寻求庇护者获得更好的结果。在被拘留期间，创伤后应激障碍的加权平均 SMD 为 0.45 [95% CI 0.19, 0.71]，释放后为 0.91 [95% CI 0.24, 1.57]；在被拘留期间，焦虑症的加权平均 SMD 为 0.42 [95% CI 0.18, 0.66]，抑郁症的加权平均 SMD 为 0.68 [95% CI 0.10, 1.26]。根据单项研究数据，抑郁的SMD为0.60 [95% CI 0.02, 1.17]，焦虑的SMD为0.76 [95% CI 0.17, 1.34]，均为释放后的数据。三项研究（各一项）报告了与心理困扰、自残和社会福利相关的结果。心理困扰对被拘留者有利，但并不显著；而自残和社会福利的效应大小都表明拘留产生了非常负面的影响；特别是对自残的影响非常大。分别报告了被拘留在三种类型拘留所的寻求庇护者的自我伤害或然率：马努斯岛、瑙鲁和陆上拘留。OR值介于12.18至74.44之间，均具有显著性：尽管对比组中的移民后逆境相似，但研究结果表明，拘留对寻求庇护者的心理健康产生了独立的不利影响，影响大小处于重要的临床范围内。这些影响在被释放到社区后依然存在。虽然基于有限的证据，但本综述支持人们对拘留对已经遭受创伤的寻求庇护者的心理健康产生不利影响的担忧。要全面探讨这些影响，还需要进一步的研究。寻求庇护者已经饱受精神创伤，拘留他们似乎会加剧他们的心理健康问题。政策制定者和从业人员在制定移民和庇护政策时应考虑这些研究结果，重点是尽量减少对弱势人群的伤害。
{"title":"The impact of detention on the health of asylum seekers: An updated systematic review: A systematic review","authors":"Trine Filges, Elizabeth Bengtsen, Edith Montgomery, Malene Wallach Kildemoes","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1420","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1420","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The number of people fleeing persecution and regional conflicts is rising. Western countries have applied increasingly stringent measures to discourage those seeking asylum from entering their country, amongst them, to confine asylum seekers in detention facilities. Clinicians have expressed concerns over the mental health impact of detention on asylum seekers, a population already burdened with trauma, advocating against such practices.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The main objective of this review is to assess evidence about the effects of detention on the mental and physical health and social functioning of asylum seekers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Relevant literature was identified through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, internet search engines, hand searching of core journals and citation tracking of included studies and relevant reviews. Searches were performed up to November 2023.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Studies comparing detained asylum-seekers with non-detained asylum seekers were included. Qualitative approaches were excluded.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data collection and analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of 22,226 potential studies, 14 met the inclusion criteria. These studies, from 4 countries, involving a total of 13 asylum-seeker populations. Six studies were used in the data synthesis, all of which reported only mental health outcomes. Eight studies had a critical risk of bias. Meta-analyses, inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models, were conducted on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 27,797 asylum seekers were analysed. Four studies provided data while the detained asylum seekers were still detained, and two studies after release. All outcomes are reported such that a positive effect size favours better outcomes for the non-detained asylum seekers. The weighted average SMD while detained is 0.45 [95% CI 0.19, 0.71] for PTSD and after release 0.91 [95% CI 0.24, 1.57]; for anxiety 0.42 [95% CI 0.18, 0.66] and for depression 0.68 [95% CI 0.10, 1.26] both while detained. Based on single-study data, the SMD was 0.60 [95% CI 0.02, 1.17] for depression and 0.76 [95% CI 0.17, 1.34] for anxiety, both after","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11228430/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141564687","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>Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials sought to identify the overall impact of mobile devices to support literacy and numeracy outcomes in mainstream primary classrooms.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>The aim of this systematic review was to understand how mobile devices are used in primary/elementary education around the world, and in particular, determine how activities undertaken using mobile devices in the primary classroom might impact literacy and numeracy attainment for the pupils involved. Within this context, mobile devices are defined as tablets (including iPads and other branded devices), smartphones (usually those with a touchscreen interface and internet connectivity) and handheld games consoles (again usually with touchscreen and internet-enabled). The interventions of interest were those aimed at improving literacy and/or numeracy for children aged 4–12 within the primary/elementary school (or equivalent) classroom.</p> <div>Specifically, the review aimed to answer the following research questions: <ul> <li><span>- </span> <p>What is the effect of mobile device integration in the primary school classroom on children's literacy and numeracy outcomes?</p> </li> <li><span>- </span> <p>Are there specific devices which are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Tablets, smartphones, or handheld games consoles)</p> </li> <li><span>- </span> <p>Are there specific classroom integration activities which moderate effectiveness in supporting literacy and numeracy?</p> </li> <li><span>- </span> <p>Are there specific groups of children for whom mobile devices are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Across age group and gender).</p> </li> <li><span>- </span> <p>Do the benefits of mobile devices for learning last for any time beyond the study?</p> </li> <li><span>- </span> <p>What is the quality of availa
{"title":"A systematic review of mobile device use in the primary school classroom and impact on pupil literacy and numeracy attainment: A systematic review","authors":"Claire Dorris, Karen Winter, Liam O'Hare, Edda Tandi Lwoga","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1417","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1417","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials sought to identify the overall impact of mobile devices to support literacy and numeracy outcomes in mainstream primary classrooms.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The aim of this systematic review was to understand how mobile devices are used in primary/elementary education around the world, and in particular, determine how activities undertaken using mobile devices in the primary classroom might impact literacy and numeracy attainment for the pupils involved. Within this context, mobile devices are defined as tablets (including iPads and other branded devices), smartphones (usually those with a touchscreen interface and internet connectivity) and handheld games consoles (again usually with touchscreen and internet-enabled). The interventions of interest were those aimed at improving literacy and/or numeracy for children aged 4–12 within the primary/elementary school (or equivalent) classroom.</p>\u0000 \u0000 <div>Specifically, the review aimed to answer the following research questions:\u0000\u0000 <ul>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>- </span>\u0000 \u0000 <p>What is the effect of mobile device integration in the primary school classroom on children's literacy and numeracy outcomes?</p>\u0000 </li>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>- </span>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Are there specific devices which are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Tablets, smartphones, or handheld games consoles)</p>\u0000 </li>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>- </span>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Are there specific classroom integration activities which moderate effectiveness in supporting literacy and numeracy?</p>\u0000 </li>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>- </span>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Are there specific groups of children for whom mobile devices are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Across age group and gender).</p>\u0000 </li>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>- </span>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Do the benefits of mobile devices for learning last for any time beyond the study?</p>\u0000 </li>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>- </span>\u0000 \u0000 <p>What is the quality of availa","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1417","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141439615","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>Psychological antecedents of financial planning for retirement in working-age adults: A scoping review</p><p>Zafira Shabrina, Olaf Simonse, Mirre Stallen, Lotte van Dillen, Wilco van Dijk</p><p>21 May 2024</p><p>Attitudinal factors related to the use of digital technologies in health by older adults: An overview of reviews</p><p>Elzbieta Malgorzata, Bobrowicz Campos, Cristina Camilo, Guilherme Pinheiro</p><p>4 May 2024</p><p>Association of antenatal cytokine concentrations with neurodevelopmental disorders of the offspring: A scoping review</p><p>Imasha Jayasinghe, Hannah Jones, Scott Graham, Kyle Eggleton, Russell Dale, Jane Alsweiler</p><p>3 April 2024</p><p>Improving information understanding by the child-patients and the parents: A review of interventions</p><p>Julie Lienard, Gaelle Guyon, Vivien Garcia, Frédérique Claudot</p><p>3 April 2024</p><p>Effect of regulated recreational cannabis marketing policies on the consumption of adolescents from socially disadvantaged groups: A systematic review of the literature</p><p>Agustín Mora-Concha, Francisca Roman Mella, Sebastián Neira</p><p>11 March 2024</p><p>Gender-responsive macro-level policies and women's economic empowerment in sub-Saharan Africa: An evidence and gap map</p><p>David Sarfo Ameyaw, Takyiwaa Manuh, Sheila Agyemang Oppong, Clarice Panyin Nyan</p><p>14 February 2024</p><p>Effects of marketing strategies on upcycled food acceptance: A systematic review and meta-analysis</p><p>Shuai Ma, Zhihong Xu, Peng Lu, Jean Parrella, Ashlynn Kogut</p><p>22 February 2024</p><p>Does intermittent fasting combined with calorie restriction versus calorie restriction alone provide additional health benefits when calories are equated?</p><p>Mohammed Hamsho, Wijdan Shkorfu, Yazan Ranneh, Abdulmannan Fadel</p><p>8 May 2024</p><p>Resolving jingle-jangle fallacies in self-compassion research</p><p>Ramona Schöne-Hoffmann, Manuela Benick, Dorota Reis, Sarah Schäfer, Franziska Perels</p><p>10 March 2024</p><p>The effect of digital intervention programmes for improving parent-adolescent communication on sexual health and relationship: A systematic review</p><p>Laura Joseph, Pascal Navelle, Chinwendu Ngozi, Abdulmajeed Abdulsalam, Chimdindu Okafor, Rebekah McNaughton, Lawrence Nnyanzi</p><p>2 April 2024</p><p>Proactive resilience programmes for improving resilience and psychological adaptation in employees in high-risk occupati
{"title":"Campbell title registrations to date – May 2024, and discontinued protocols","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1418","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1418","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>Psychological antecedents of financial planning for retirement in working-age adults: A scoping review</p><p>Zafira Shabrina, Olaf Simonse, Mirre Stallen, Lotte van Dillen, Wilco van Dijk</p><p>21 May 2024</p><p>Attitudinal factors related to the use of digital technologies in health by older adults: An overview of reviews</p><p>Elzbieta Malgorzata, Bobrowicz Campos, Cristina Camilo, Guilherme Pinheiro</p><p>4 May 2024</p><p>Association of antenatal cytokine concentrations with neurodevelopmental disorders of the offspring: A scoping review</p><p>Imasha Jayasinghe, Hannah Jones, Scott Graham, Kyle Eggleton, Russell Dale, Jane Alsweiler</p><p>3 April 2024</p><p>Improving information understanding by the child-patients and the parents: A review of interventions</p><p>Julie Lienard, Gaelle Guyon, Vivien Garcia, Frédérique Claudot</p><p>3 April 2024</p><p>Effect of regulated recreational cannabis marketing policies on the consumption of adolescents from socially disadvantaged groups: A systematic review of the literature</p><p>Agustín Mora-Concha, Francisca Roman Mella, Sebastián Neira</p><p>11 March 2024</p><p>Gender-responsive macro-level policies and women's economic empowerment in sub-Saharan Africa: An evidence and gap map</p><p>David Sarfo Ameyaw, Takyiwaa Manuh, Sheila Agyemang Oppong, Clarice Panyin Nyan</p><p>14 February 2024</p><p>Effects of marketing strategies on upcycled food acceptance: A systematic review and meta-analysis</p><p>Shuai Ma, Zhihong Xu, Peng Lu, Jean Parrella, Ashlynn Kogut</p><p>22 February 2024</p><p>Does intermittent fasting combined with calorie restriction versus calorie restriction alone provide additional health benefits when calories are equated?</p><p>Mohammed Hamsho, Wijdan Shkorfu, Yazan Ranneh, Abdulmannan Fadel</p><p>8 May 2024</p><p>Resolving jingle-jangle fallacies in self-compassion research</p><p>Ramona Schöne-Hoffmann, Manuela Benick, Dorota Reis, Sarah Schäfer, Franziska Perels</p><p>10 March 2024</p><p>The effect of digital intervention programmes for improving parent-adolescent communication on sexual health and relationship: A systematic review</p><p>Laura Joseph, Pascal Navelle, Chinwendu Ngozi, Abdulmajeed Abdulsalam, Chimdindu Okafor, Rebekah McNaughton, Lawrence Nnyanzi</p><p>2 April 2024</p><p>Proactive resilience programmes for improving resilience and psychological adaptation in employees in high-risk occupati","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11180673/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141421275","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}
Anita Rizvi, Madeleine Kearns, Michael Dignam, Alison Coates, Melissa K. Sharp, Olivia Magwood, Patrick R. Labelle, Nour Elmestekawy, Sydney Rossiter, Ali A. A. Al-Zubaidi, Omar Dewidar, Leanne Idzerda, Jean Marc P. Aguilera, Harshita Seal, Julian Little, Alba M. Antequera Martín, Jennifer Petkovic, Janet Jull, Lucas Gergyek, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu, Beverley Shea, Cristina Atance, Holly Ellingwood, Christina Pollard, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, George A. Wells, Vivian Welch, Elizabeth Kristjansson
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>High-income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly conditional and stringent in recent decades based on the premise that transitioning people from government support to paid work will improve their circumstances. However, many people end up with low-paying and precarious jobs that may cause more poverty because they lose benefits such as housing subsidies and health and dental insurance, while incurring job-related expenses. Conditional assistance programs are also expensive to administer and cause stigma. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) has been proposed as a more effective approach for alleviating poverty, and several experiments have been conducted in high-income countries to investigate whether GBI leads to improved outcomes compared to existing social programs.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>The aim of this review was to conduct a synthesis of quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high-income countries, to compare the effectiveness of various types of GBI versus “usual care” (including existing social assistance programs) in improving poverty-related outcomes.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>Searches of 16 academic databases were conducted in May 2022, using both keywords and database-specific controlled vocabulary, without limits or restrictions on language or date. Sources of gray literature (conference, governmental, and institutional websites) were searched in September 2022. We also searched reference lists of review articles, citations of included articles, and tables of contents of relevant journals in September 2022. Hand searching for recent publications was conducted until December 2022.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>We included all quantitative study designs except cross-sectional (at one timepoint), with or without control groups. We included studies in high income countries with any population and with interventions meeting our criteria for GBI: unconditional, with regular payments in cash (not in-kind) that were fixed or predictable in amount. Although two primary outcomes of interest were selected a priori (food insecurity, and poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures), we did not screen studies on the basis of reported outcomes because it was not possible to define all potentially relevant poverty-related outcomes in advance.</p> </section>
{"title":"Effects of guaranteed basic income interventions on poverty-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Anita Rizvi, Madeleine Kearns, Michael Dignam, Alison Coates, Melissa K. Sharp, Olivia Magwood, Patrick R. Labelle, Nour Elmestekawy, Sydney Rossiter, Ali A. A. Al-Zubaidi, Omar Dewidar, Leanne Idzerda, Jean Marc P. Aguilera, Harshita Seal, Julian Little, Alba M. Antequera Martín, Jennifer Petkovic, Janet Jull, Lucas Gergyek, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu, Beverley Shea, Cristina Atance, Holly Ellingwood, Christina Pollard, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, George A. Wells, Vivian Welch, Elizabeth Kristjansson","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1414","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1414","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>High-income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly conditional and stringent in recent decades based on the premise that transitioning people from government support to paid work will improve their circumstances. However, many people end up with low-paying and precarious jobs that may cause more poverty because they lose benefits such as housing subsidies and health and dental insurance, while incurring job-related expenses. Conditional assistance programs are also expensive to administer and cause stigma. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) has been proposed as a more effective approach for alleviating poverty, and several experiments have been conducted in high-income countries to investigate whether GBI leads to improved outcomes compared to existing social programs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The aim of this review was to conduct a synthesis of quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high-income countries, to compare the effectiveness of various types of GBI versus “usual care” (including existing social assistance programs) in improving poverty-related outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Searches of 16 academic databases were conducted in May 2022, using both keywords and database-specific controlled vocabulary, without limits or restrictions on language or date. Sources of gray literature (conference, governmental, and institutional websites) were searched in September 2022. We also searched reference lists of review articles, citations of included articles, and tables of contents of relevant journals in September 2022. Hand searching for recent publications was conducted until December 2022.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included all quantitative study designs except cross-sectional (at one timepoint), with or without control groups. We included studies in high income countries with any population and with interventions meeting our criteria for GBI: unconditional, with regular payments in cash (not in-kind) that were fixed or predictable in amount. Although two primary outcomes of interest were selected a priori (food insecurity, and poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures), we did not screen studies on the basis of reported outcomes because it was not possible to define all potentially relevant poverty-related outcomes in advance.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 ","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11180702/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141421276","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}
Runjing Dai, Tiantian Feng, Xiaoting Ma, Juan Cao, Kehu Yang, Jingchun Fan
This is the protocol for an updated Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effect of behavioral interventions on smoking cessation among homeless individuals.
这是坎贝尔系统综述的更新协议。目标如下评估行为干预对无家可归者戒烟的影响。
{"title":"PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation among homeless persons: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Runjing Dai, Tiantian Feng, Xiaoting Ma, Juan Cao, Kehu Yang, Jingchun Fan","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1416","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1416","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for an updated Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effect of behavioral interventions on smoking cessation among homeless individuals.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1416","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141326705","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}
Martin Ringsten, Branimir Ivanic, Susanne Iwarsson, Eva Månsson Lexell
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>Around 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>To assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>Standard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>Only randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3> <p>Standard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health-related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2-tool and the GRADE-framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main Results</h3> <p>The screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall hig
{"title":"Interventions to improve outdoor mobility among people living with disabilities: A systematic review","authors":"Martin Ringsten, Branimir Ivanic, Susanne Iwarsson, Eva Månsson Lexell","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1407","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1407","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Around 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Standard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Only randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Standard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health-related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2-tool and the GRADE-framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall hig","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1407","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141326706","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> Review Rationale and Context</h3> <p>Many intervention studies of summer programmes examine their impact on employment and education outcomes, however there is growing interest in their effect on young people's offending outcomes. Evidence on summer employment programmes shows promise on this but has not yet been synthesised. This report fills this evidence gap through a systematic review and meta-analysis, covering summer education and summer employment programmes as their contexts and mechanisms are often similar.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Research Objective</h3> <p>The objective is to provide evidence on the extent to which summer programmes impact the outcomes of disadvantaged or ‘at risk’ young people.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Methods</h3> <p>The review employs mixed methods: we synthesise quantitative information estimating the impact of summer programme allocation/participation across the outcome domains through meta-analysis using the random-effects model; and we synthesise qualitative information relating to contexts, features, mechanisms and implementation issues through thematic synthesis. Literature searches were largely conducted in January 2023. Databases searched include: Scopus; PsychInfo; ERIC; the YFF-EGM; EEF's and TASO's toolkits; RAND's summer programmes evidence review; key academic journals; and Google Scholar. The review employed PICOSS eligibility criteria: the <i>population</i> was disadvantaged or ‘at risk’ young people aged 10–25; <i>interventions</i> were either summer education or employment programmes; a valid <i>comparison</i> group that did not experience a summer programme was required; studies had to estimate the summer programme's impact on violence and offending, education, employment, socio-emotional and/or health <i>outcomes</i>; eligible <i>study designs</i> were experimental and quasi-experimental; eligible <i>settings</i> were high-income countries. Other eligibility criteria included publication in English, between 2012 and 2022. Process/qualitative evaluations associated with eligible impact studies or of UK-based interventions were also included; the latter given the interests of the sponsors. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration. The search identified 68 eligible studies; with 41 eligible for meta-analysis. Forty-nine studies evaluated 36 summer education programmes, and 19 studies evaluated six summer employment programmes. The number of participants within these studies ranged from less than 100 to nearly 300,000. The PICOSS criteria affects the external applicability of the body of evidence – allowances made regarding study de
{"title":"Impact of summer programmes on the outcomes of disadvantaged or ‘at risk’ young people: A systematic review","authors":"Daniel Muir, Cristiana Orlando, Becci Newton","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1406","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Review Rationale and Context</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Many intervention studies of summer programmes examine their impact on employment and education outcomes, however there is growing interest in their effect on young people's offending outcomes. Evidence on summer employment programmes shows promise on this but has not yet been synthesised. This report fills this evidence gap through a systematic review and meta-analysis, covering summer education and summer employment programmes as their contexts and mechanisms are often similar.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Research Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The objective is to provide evidence on the extent to which summer programmes impact the outcomes of disadvantaged or ‘at risk’ young people.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The review employs mixed methods: we synthesise quantitative information estimating the impact of summer programme allocation/participation across the outcome domains through meta-analysis using the random-effects model; and we synthesise qualitative information relating to contexts, features, mechanisms and implementation issues through thematic synthesis. Literature searches were largely conducted in January 2023. Databases searched include: Scopus; PsychInfo; ERIC; the YFF-EGM; EEF's and TASO's toolkits; RAND's summer programmes evidence review; key academic journals; and Google Scholar. The review employed PICOSS eligibility criteria: the <i>population</i> was disadvantaged or ‘at risk’ young people aged 10–25; <i>interventions</i> were either summer education or employment programmes; a valid <i>comparison</i> group that did not experience a summer programme was required; studies had to estimate the summer programme's impact on violence and offending, education, employment, socio-emotional and/or health <i>outcomes</i>; eligible <i>study designs</i> were experimental and quasi-experimental; eligible <i>settings</i> were high-income countries. Other eligibility criteria included publication in English, between 2012 and 2022. Process/qualitative evaluations associated with eligible impact studies or of UK-based interventions were also included; the latter given the interests of the sponsors. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration. The search identified 68 eligible studies; with 41 eligible for meta-analysis. Forty-nine studies evaluated 36 summer education programmes, and 19 studies evaluated six summer employment programmes. The number of participants within these studies ranged from less than 100 to nearly 300,000. The PICOSS criteria affects the external applicability of the body of evidence – allowances made regarding study de","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1406","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141315498","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}
Pierre Marion, Etienne Lwamba, Andrea Floridi, Suvarna Pande, Megha Bhattacharyya, Sarah Young, Paul Fenton Villar, Shannon Shisler
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>An estimated two billion people do not have sufficient access to nutritious food, and nearly half are dependent on small-scale and subsistence farming. Projections show that the global population is not on track to reach the Sustainable Development Goals. With this in mind, development actors are increasingly seeking to better integrate rural farmers into agricultural markets. This synthesis of the literature can help to inform policy decisions to improve outcomes for smallholder farmers in low- and middle-income countries, and to enable the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals. This work is the most comprehensive and up-to-date review synthesizing evidence from 262 interventions.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>The purpose of this systematic review is to appraise and synthesize evidence of the effects of five types of interventions facilitating farmers' access to output markets in low- and middle-income countries. We examine how these effects vary across contexts and subgroups. We also identify evidence on program costs and evidence gaps in the literature.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>The search of included studies was based on nine major databases/search engines and 25 institutional websites, using a set of English search terms. We also conducted forward and backward citation tracking of literature, published a public call for papers, and contacted key experts.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>We included studies on the effects of five types of <i>output market access interventions</i>, focusing on participants residing in low- and middle-income countries: (1) <i>Farm-to-market transport infrastructure interventions</i>; (2) <i>Access to output market information interventions</i>; (3) <i>New marketplaces or alternative marketing opportunities interventions</i>; (4) <i>Contract farming interventions</i>; (5) <i>Improved storage infrastructure and technologies interventions</i>. We included published and unpublished studies from 2000 onwards, with experimental and quasi-experimental study designs focusing on relevant outcomes.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3> <p>We screened 52,366 studies, identifying a total of 439 papers representing 289 unique studies on the effects of 262 interventions in 53 countries. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were completed by two independent reviewers.</p>
{"title":"The effects of agricultural output market access interventions on agricultural, socio-economic, food security, and nutrition outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review","authors":"Pierre Marion, Etienne Lwamba, Andrea Floridi, Suvarna Pande, Megha Bhattacharyya, Sarah Young, Paul Fenton Villar, Shannon Shisler","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1411","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>An estimated two billion people do not have sufficient access to nutritious food, and nearly half are dependent on small-scale and subsistence farming. Projections show that the global population is not on track to reach the Sustainable Development Goals. With this in mind, development actors are increasingly seeking to better integrate rural farmers into agricultural markets. This synthesis of the literature can help to inform policy decisions to improve outcomes for smallholder farmers in low- and middle-income countries, and to enable the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals. This work is the most comprehensive and up-to-date review synthesizing evidence from 262 interventions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The purpose of this systematic review is to appraise and synthesize evidence of the effects of five types of interventions facilitating farmers' access to output markets in low- and middle-income countries. We examine how these effects vary across contexts and subgroups. We also identify evidence on program costs and evidence gaps in the literature.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The search of included studies was based on nine major databases/search engines and 25 institutional websites, using a set of English search terms. We also conducted forward and backward citation tracking of literature, published a public call for papers, and contacted key experts.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included studies on the effects of five types of <i>output market access interventions</i>, focusing on participants residing in low- and middle-income countries: (1) <i>Farm-to-market transport infrastructure interventions</i>; (2) <i>Access to output market information interventions</i>; (3) <i>New marketplaces or alternative marketing opportunities interventions</i>; (4) <i>Contract farming interventions</i>; (5) <i>Improved storage infrastructure and technologies interventions</i>. We included published and unpublished studies from 2000 onwards, with experimental and quasi-experimental study designs focusing on relevant outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We screened 52,366 studies, identifying a total of 439 papers representing 289 unique studies on the effects of 262 interventions in 53 countries. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were completed by two independent reviewers.</p>\u0000 ","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1411","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141245910","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：