Campbell Systematic Reviews最新文献

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The aim of the present review is to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for at-risk families aimed at preventing the out-of-home placement of children or increasing the likelihood that children are reunited with their birth families following temporary care arrangements. The review has two objectives: (1) To assess the effectiveness of interventions for at-risk families with children aged between 0 and 17 years old on measures of out-of-home placement and on secondary outcomes. (2) To identify factors that modify intervention effectiveness (e.g., prior placements, parental risk factors such as substance abuse, mental health issues, age, minority status, child risk factors such as disabilities, age, and gender).

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review. The objectives are as follows. This paper aims to describe a protocol for a systematic review that will synthesise the qualitative evidence regarding factors influencing the implementation of non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) management in residential aged care homes (RACHs). The planned systematic review aims to answer the research question: ‘What are the factors influencing the implementation of NPIs in the management of BPSD at RACHs?’. Additionally, the planned systematic review also aims to generate recommendations to guide stakeholders (e.g., clinicians and aged care staff) and policymakers in the implementation of NPIs for managing BPSD at RACHs.

This is a protocol for a Campbell Review following JBI scoping review methodology. The objectives are to answer the following questions: What has been reported in the literature about collaborative learner-educator design, implementation, or evaluation of learner assessment in health professional education? (1) Where is learner-educator co-creation of assessment occurring? (i.e., which disciplines, course types, level of learner, year of study). (2) What course assessment decisions are influenced or being made together? (i.e., assessment instructions and/or grades). (3) How much influence do learners have on decision-making? (i.e., where does it fall on Bovill and Bulley's ladder of participation). (4) How do learners and educators go about making decisions together? (i.e., discussion or voting, with a whole class or portion of the class). (5) What are the perceived benefits, disadvantages, barriers, and/or facilitators reported by the authors?

The Campbell collaboration is the preeminent source for high quality evidence synthesis in the social sectors. Over the past 5 years that I have been editor in chief, we have doubled our publishing of systematic reviews, evidence and gap maps and methods research papers. We have also doubled our team of editors, methods editors and information specialists. However, we need to grow the community of content reviewers who provide external feedback on the domain or content of our articles.

As part of our new strategy to make evidence synthesis faster and more useful (https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/news-and-events/news/stepping-up-evidence-synthesis.html), this month, we are delighted to launch a new Editorial Advisory Board of peer referees, who are committed to contributing three to four referee assessments per year. These referees are now named on our Editorial Advisory Board page at the following link (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/18911803/homepage/editorial-board). We have reached out to our networks to seek geographic and disciplinary diversity in this board. We see this peer referee board as a means to build the Campbell community, inviting new participants as well as those who are already members to continue their contributions beyond authorship. In future, we see the new Editorial Advisory Board as a pathway for people to join our other editorial activities as editors, methods editors or information specialists.

As a research-based organization, we will monitor the effectiveness of this new Editorial Advisory Board in reducing our editorial turnaround times. These turnaround times will be publicly available next year through our journal site at Wiley online library.

If you would like to get involved in Campbell in this way, we outline our expectations for the role of these referees, available here (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/18911803/homepage/referees). We invite you to get in touch by writing to [email protected]. Referees are expected to have substantive content expertise in one or more social science sectors relevant to Campbell, and to be willing to review three to four Campbell articles per year. We offer recognition through Publons for peer referee contributions. For funded reviews, we can compensate peer referees for their time. We plan to launch an early career researcher network in the next 3 months, to which peer referees will be invited.

Please join us!

Donolato, E., Toffalini, E., Rogde, K., Nordahl-Hansen, A., Lervåg, A., Norbury, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2023). Oral language interventions can improve language outcomes in children with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(4), e1368.

Affiliations of three of the authors were incorrect and the correct affiliations should read:

Enrica Donolato¹ | Enrico Toffalini² | Kristin Rogde³ | Anders Nordahl-Hansen⁴ | Arne Lervåg^1,5 | Courtenay Norbury^3,6 | Monica Melby-Lervåg^3,5

¹Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

²Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

³Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

⁴Department of Education, ICT and Learning, Østfold University College, Halden, Norway

⁵Centre for Research on Equality in Education (CREATE), University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

⁶Division of Psychology & Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK

We apologize for this error.