This is the protocol for a Campbell Collaboration systematic review. Our objective is to conduct an umbrella review to synthesize published and unpublished systematic reviews focused on risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse and effectiveness of interventions against child sexual abuse perpetration and victimization. Specific research questions are: (i) what are the risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse victimization, and what are their relative strength and/or magnitude for predicting child sexual abuse victimization? (ii) what are the risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse perpetration, and what are their relative strength and/or magnitude for predicting child sexual abuse perpetration? (iii) are interventions aimed at reducing and/or preventing child sexual abuse effective? (iv) what are the moderators that increase or decrease effectiveness of the interventions? Efforts to decrease child sexual abuse need to be based on research, but more accessible evidence regarding the breadth of risk and protective factors and effectiveness of interventions to reduce child sexual abuse needs to be provided to policymakers. This will be the first umbrella review that comprehensively synthesizes findings of the previous systematic reviews that focus on risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse and interventions to prevent or reduce child sexual abuse. The results will be able to inform enhanced prevention policy and programs, and regulatory measures for specific contexts of child sexual abuse.
{"title":"PROTOCOL: Risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse and interventions against child sexual abuse: An umbrella review","authors":"Izabela Zych, Inmaculada Marín-López","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70000","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell Collaboration systematic review. Our objective is to conduct an umbrella review to synthesize published and unpublished systematic reviews focused on risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse and effectiveness of interventions against child sexual abuse perpetration and victimization. Specific research questions are: (i) what are the risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse victimization, and what are their relative strength and/or magnitude for predicting child sexual abuse victimization? (ii) what are the risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse perpetration, and what are their relative strength and/or magnitude for predicting child sexual abuse perpetration? (iii) are interventions aimed at reducing and/or preventing child sexual abuse effective? (iv) what are the moderators that increase or decrease effectiveness of the interventions? Efforts to decrease child sexual abuse need to be based on research, but more accessible evidence regarding the breadth of risk and protective factors and effectiveness of interventions to reduce child sexual abuse needs to be provided to policymakers. This will be the first umbrella review that comprehensively synthesizes findings of the previous systematic reviews that focus on risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse and interventions to prevent or reduce child sexual abuse. The results will be able to inform enhanced prevention policy and programs, and regulatory measures for specific contexts of child sexual abuse.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70000","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142579671","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}
There is growing evidence of a link between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and health and economic outcomes. Previous systematic reviews synthesised evidence of the relationships between ACEs and various health and some economic outcomes such as healthcare costs and educational attainment. The primary aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the evidence on the relationship between ACEs and employment outcomes. MEDLINE, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection (APA PsycInfo), ECONLIT, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and Scopus will be searched using a predefined search strategy. Cross-sectional, cohort, or longitudinal studies published between 2000 and 2024 will be included. ACEs include abuse, neglect, household dysfunction, bullying, foster care, and racism that occur during childhood or adolescence. Employment outcomes include employment status, occupation, and income. Risk of bias of individual studies will be assessed using appropriate NHLBI-NHI quality assessment tools for each type of study. Proportions or means will be used to analyse and compare outcomes. If data allows, we will conduct meta-analysis. Sub-group analyses (e.g., by gender, age group, type and number of ACEs, and intersections of identities of study subjects will be conducted. Further analysis will be conducted to assess the mediators of the effect of ACEs on employment outcomes. By sythesising evidence of the association between ACEs and economic wellbeing later in life, this review will add evidence to the broader literature on poverty. The results of this synthesis will inform policies on child welfare and employment. Results of the review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
{"title":"PROTOCOL: The association between adverse childhood experiences and employment outcomes: Protocol for a systematic review","authors":"Amarech Obse, Evdoxia Gkaintatzi, Paul McCrone","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70002","url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is growing evidence of a link between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and health and economic outcomes. Previous systematic reviews synthesised evidence of the relationships between ACEs and various health and some economic outcomes such as healthcare costs and educational attainment. The primary aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the evidence on the relationship between ACEs and employment outcomes. MEDLINE, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection (APA PsycInfo), ECONLIT, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and Scopus will be searched using a predefined search strategy. Cross-sectional, cohort, or longitudinal studies published between 2000 and 2024 will be included. ACEs include abuse, neglect, household dysfunction, bullying, foster care, and racism that occur during childhood or adolescence. Employment outcomes include employment status, occupation, and income. Risk of bias of individual studies will be assessed using appropriate NHLBI-NHI quality assessment tools for each type of study. Proportions or means will be used to analyse and compare outcomes. If data allows, we will conduct meta-analysis. Sub-group analyses (e.g., by gender, age group, type and number of ACEs, and intersections of identities of study subjects will be conducted. Further analysis will be conducted to assess the mediators of the effect of ACEs on employment outcomes. By sythesising evidence of the association between ACEs and economic wellbeing later in life, this review will add evidence to the broader literature on poverty. The results of this synthesis will inform policies on child welfare and employment. Results of the review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142563012","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}
Cédric Velghe, Anders McIlquham-Schmidt, Pinar Celik, Martin Storme, Stan De Spiegelaere
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: One goal of this systematic review is to identify whether merit pay predicts employee work motivation, effort, and performance; a second goal is to determine whether the association between merit pay and subsequent employee work motivation, effort, and performance is stronger depending on the actual relationship between the performance ratings and merit increases received, as well as on the perceived relationship by employees between their performance and their pay; a third goal is to identify whether the association between merit pay and subsequent employee motivation depends on what type of motivation is measured (i.e., intrinsic vs. extrinsic/general work motivation).
{"title":"PROTOCOL: Employee work motivation, effort, and performance under a merit pay system: A systematic review","authors":"Cédric Velghe, Anders McIlquham-Schmidt, Pinar Celik, Martin Storme, Stan De Spiegelaere","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70001","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70001","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: One goal of this systematic review is to identify whether merit pay predicts employee work motivation, effort, and performance; a second goal is to determine whether the association between merit pay and subsequent employee work motivation, effort, and performance is stronger depending on the actual relationship between the performance ratings and merit increases received, as well as on the perceived relationship by employees between their performance and their pay; a third goal is to identify whether the association between merit pay and subsequent employee motivation depends on what type of motivation is measured (i.e., intrinsic vs. extrinsic/general work motivation).</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11522831/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142548097","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>Anxiety and stress responses are often considered normative experiences, and children and adolescents may benefit from anxiety prevention programmes. One such programme is FRIENDS which is based on a firm theoretical model which addresses cognitive, physiological and behavioural processes. FRIENDS is manualised and can, thus, easily be integrated into school curriculums.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>What are the effects of the FRIENDS preventive programme on anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents? Do the effects differ between participant age groups, participant socio-economic status, type of prevention, type of provider, country of implementation and/or implementation issues in relation to the booster sessions and parent sessions?</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>The database searches were carried out in September 2023, and other sources were searched in October 2023. We searched to identify both published and unpublished literature. A date restriction from 1998 and onwards was applied.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>The intervention was three age-appropriate preventive anxiety programmes: Fun FRIENDS, FRIENDS for Life, and My FRIENDS Youth. Primary outcome was anxiety symptoms and secondary outcome was self-esteem. Studies that used a control group were eligible, whereas qualitative approaches were not.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3> <p>The number of potentially relevant studies was 2865. Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-eight studies were used in the data synthesis. Four studies had a critical risk of bias. Six studies did not report data that enabled calculation of effect sizes and standard errors. Two studies had partial overlap of data to other studies used, and two were written in Persian. Meta-analyses were conducted on each outcome separately. All analyses were inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main Results</h3> <p>Studies came from 15 different countries. Intervention start varied from 2001 to 2016. The average number of participants analysed was 240, and the average number of controls was 212. Twenty-five comparisons reported on anxiety symptoms post-intervention. The weighted average standardised mean difference
{"title":"The FRIENDS preventive programme for reducing anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Trine Filges, Geir Smedslund, Tine Eriksen, Kirsten Birkefoss, Malene Wallach Kildemoes","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1443","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1443","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Anxiety and stress responses are often considered normative experiences, and children and adolescents may benefit from anxiety prevention programmes. One such programme is FRIENDS which is based on a firm theoretical model which addresses cognitive, physiological and behavioural processes. FRIENDS is manualised and can, thus, easily be integrated into school curriculums.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>What are the effects of the FRIENDS preventive programme on anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents? Do the effects differ between participant age groups, participant socio-economic status, type of prevention, type of provider, country of implementation and/or implementation issues in relation to the booster sessions and parent sessions?</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The database searches were carried out in September 2023, and other sources were searched in October 2023. We searched to identify both published and unpublished literature. A date restriction from 1998 and onwards was applied.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The intervention was three age-appropriate preventive anxiety programmes: Fun FRIENDS, FRIENDS for Life, and My FRIENDS Youth. Primary outcome was anxiety symptoms and secondary outcome was self-esteem. Studies that used a control group were eligible, whereas qualitative approaches were not.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The number of potentially relevant studies was 2865. Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-eight studies were used in the data synthesis. Four studies had a critical risk of bias. Six studies did not report data that enabled calculation of effect sizes and standard errors. Two studies had partial overlap of data to other studies used, and two were written in Persian. Meta-analyses were conducted on each outcome separately. All analyses were inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Studies came from 15 different countries. Intervention start varied from 2001 to 2016. The average number of participants analysed was 240, and the average number of controls was 212. Twenty-five comparisons reported on anxiety symptoms post-intervention. The weighted average standardised mean difference ","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1443","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142451276","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}
Lyubov Lytvyn, Jennifer Petkovic, Joanne Khabsa, Olivia Magwood, Pauline Campbell, Ian D. Graham, Kevin Pottie, Julia Bidonde, Heather Limburg, Danielle Pollock, Elie A. Akl, Thomas W. Concannon, Peter Tugwell
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize empirical research on the impacts of interest-holder engagement on the guideline development process and content. Our research questions are as follows: (1) What are the empirical examples of impact on the process in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the empirical examples of impact on the content in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist?
{"title":"Protocol: Assessing the impact of interest-holder engagement on guideline development: A systematic review","authors":"Lyubov Lytvyn, Jennifer Petkovic, Joanne Khabsa, Olivia Magwood, Pauline Campbell, Ian D. Graham, Kevin Pottie, Julia Bidonde, Heather Limburg, Danielle Pollock, Elie A. Akl, Thomas W. Concannon, Peter Tugwell","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1444","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1444","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize empirical research on the impacts of interest-holder engagement on the guideline development process and content. Our research questions are as follows: (1) What are the empirical examples of impact on the process in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the empirical examples of impact on the content in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist?</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1444","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142439039","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}
Hazel M. Chapman, Robert McSherry, Josette Bettany-Saltikov, Mridula Mohan, Debbie Spencer
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. This review's objectives are to find out (in relation to health and/or social care): (1) What is known about the outcomes and impact of completing (or not completing) a professional doctorate in health and/or social care on the individual professional? (2) What is known about the outcome and impact of completing (or not completing) a professional doctorate in health and/or social care on the employing organisation? (3) What is known about the outcome and impact of completing (or not completing) a professional doctorate in health and/or social care on the profession? (4) What is known about the outcome and impact of completing (or not completing) a professional doctorate in health and/or social care on service users and the wider society? (5) How do we use the findings from this review to inform educators, higher education institutions, professionals, investors in employing organisations and policymakers? (6) What further research will be needed to answer any knowledge gaps or recommendations? (7) Where possible, we will identify and report on any demographic data and discuss their relevance to the impact and outcomes from professional doctorates.
{"title":"Protocol: Assessing the outcomes and impact of professional doctorate programmes in health and social care on the individual, their profession, their employing organisation and wider society: A comprehensive systematic review","authors":"Hazel M. Chapman, Robert McSherry, Josette Bettany-Saltikov, Mridula Mohan, Debbie Spencer","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1446","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. This review's objectives are to find out (in relation to health and/or social care): (1) What is known about the outcomes and impact of completing (or not completing) a professional doctorate in health and/or social care on the individual professional? (2) What is known about the outcome and impact of completing (or not completing) a professional doctorate in health and/or social care on the employing organisation? (3) What is known about the outcome and impact of completing (or not completing) a professional doctorate in health and/or social care on the profession? (4) What is known about the outcome and impact of completing (or not completing) a professional doctorate in health and/or social care on service users and the wider society? (5) How do we use the findings from this review to inform educators, higher education institutions, professionals, investors in employing organisations and policymakers? (6) What further research will be needed to answer any knowledge gaps or recommendations? (7) Where possible, we will identify and report on any demographic data and discuss their relevance to the impact and outcomes from professional doctorates.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1446","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142439038","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mary Catlin, David Wilson, Allison D. Redlich, Talley Bettens, Christian Meissner, Sujeeta Bhatt, Susan Brandon
Background
False confessions are often the product of an interrogation process, and the method by which an interrogation is conducted likely affects both the rate of truthful confessions and false confessions. An optimal interrogation method will maximize the former and minimize the latter.
Objectives
The current study was a partial update and extension of Meissner and colleagues' (2012) prior Campbell systematic review titled Interview and Interrogation Methods and their Effects on True and False Confessions. Our objective was to assess the effects of interrogation approach on the rates of true and false confessions for criminal (mock) suspects.
Search Methods
PsycINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and 15 other databases were searched starting October 20, 2022, with the final search conducted on May 23, 2023; together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with authors to identify additional studies.
Selection Criteria
All eligible studies experimentally manipulated interrogation approach (i.e., accusatorial, information-gathering, or direct questioning) were conducted with mock suspects accused of wrongdoing where ground truth was known, and included information about confession rates.
Data Collection and Analysis
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration for our selection of studies and data collection. However, we developed our own risk of bias items and analyzed our data using network meta-analysis methods. Data were synthesized via random-effects network meta-analysis based on the logged odds ratio.
Main Results
Across the 27 research articles that provided statistical information sufficient to calculate an effect size, 29 individual studies provided a total of 81 effect sizes. Most studies were conducted with college students in the United States. Overall, our risk of bias assessment indicated that authors generally adhered to double-blind procedures and avoided selective reporting of outcomes. Of note, however, it was often unclear how violations of the randomization process were dealt with.
{"title":"Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A systematic review update and extension","authors":"Mary Catlin, David Wilson, Allison D. Redlich, Talley Bettens, Christian Meissner, Sujeeta Bhatt, Susan Brandon","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1441","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1441","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>False confessions are often the product of an interrogation process, and the method by which an interrogation is conducted likely affects both the rate of truthful confessions and false confessions. An optimal interrogation method will maximize the former and minimize the latter.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The current study was a partial update and extension of Meissner and colleagues' (2012) prior Campbell systematic review titled <i>Interview and Interrogation Methods and their Effects on True and False Confessions</i>. Our objective was to assess the effects of interrogation approach on the rates of true and false confessions for criminal (mock) suspects.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>PsycINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and 15 other databases were searched starting October 20, 2022, with the final search conducted on May 23, 2023; together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with authors to identify additional studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>All eligible studies experimentally manipulated interrogation approach (i.e., accusatorial, information-gathering, or direct questioning) were conducted with mock suspects accused of wrongdoing where ground truth was known, and included information about confession rates.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration for our selection of studies and data collection. However, we developed our own risk of bias items and analyzed our data using network meta-analysis methods. Data were synthesized via random-effects network meta-analysis based on the logged odds ratio.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Across the 27 research articles that provided statistical information sufficient to calculate an effect size, 29 individual studies provided a total of 81 effect sizes. Most studies were conducted with college students in the United States. Overall, our risk of bias assessment indicated that authors generally adhered to double-blind procedures and avoided selective reporting of outcomes. Of note, however, it was often unclear how violations of the randomization process were dealt with.</p>\u0000 \u0000 <p>For true confessions, there were 1","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11465838/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142401556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jennifer Hanratty, Rachel Leonard, Sean R. O'Connor, Ciara Keenan, Yuan Chi, Janet Ferguson, Ariana Axiaq, Anna Volz, Ceri Welsh, Kerry Campbell, Victoria Hawkins, Sarah Miller, Declan Bradley, Martin Dempster
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is distancing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of distancing.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to distancing aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL & Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID-19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with distancing, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <p>Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and distancing (social and/or physical) at an individual level, amongst the general public. We defined physical distancing as, maintaining the recommended distance from others when physically present. And social distancing being defined as, minimising social contact with those outside of your own household. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Studies' titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full-text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>
{"title":"Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID related distancing behaviours: A systematic review","authors":"Jennifer Hanratty, Rachel Leonard, Sean R. O'Connor, Ciara Keenan, Yuan Chi, Janet Ferguson, Ariana Axiaq, Anna Volz, Ceri Welsh, Kerry Campbell, Victoria Hawkins, Sarah Miller, Declan Bradley, Martin Dempster","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1442","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is distancing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of distancing.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to distancing aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL & Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID-19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with distancing, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and distancing (social and/or physical) at an individual level, amongst the general public. We defined physical distancing as, maintaining the recommended distance from others when physically present. And social distancing being defined as, minimising social contact with those outside of your own household. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Studies' titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full-text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 ","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1442","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142435116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ariel M. Aloe, Omar Dewidar, Emily A. Hennessy, Terri Pigott, Gavin Stewart, Vivian Welch, David B. Wilson, Campbell MECCIR Working Group
Introduction
The authors formed a small working group to modernize the Methodological Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). We reviewed comments and feedback from editors, peer reviewers of Campbell submissions, and authors; for example, that the Campbell MECCIR was long and some of the items in the reporting and conduct checklists were difficult to cross-reference. We also wanted to make the checklist more relevant for reviews of associations or risk factors and other quantitative non-intervention review types, which we welcome in Campbell. Thus, our aim was to develop a shorter, more holistic guidance and checklist of Campbell Standards, encompassing both conduct and reporting of these standards within the same checklist.
Methods
Our updated Campbell Standards will be a living document. To develop this first iteration, we invited Campbell members to join a virtual working group; we sought experience in conducting Campbell systematic reviews and in conducting methods editor reviews for Campbell. We aligned the items from the MECCIR for conduct and reporting, then compared the principles of conduct that apply across review types to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-literature search extension (S) and PRISMA-2020 reporting standards. We discussed each section with the aim of developing a parsimonious checklist with explanatory guidance while avoiding losing important concepts that are relevant to all types of reviews. We held nine meetings to discuss each section in detail between September 2022 and March 2023. We circulated this initial checklist and guidance to all Campbell editors, methods editors, information specialists and co-chairs to seek their feedback. All feedback was discussed by the working group and incorporated to the Standards or, if not incorporated, a formal response was returned about the rationale for why the feedback was not incorporated.
Campbell Policy
The guidance includes seven main sections with 35 items multifaceted but distinct concepts that authors must adhere to when conducting Campbell reviews. Authors and reviewers must be mindful that multiple factors need to be assessed for each item. According to the Campbell Standards, the reporting of Campbell reviews must adhere to appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines(s) such as PRISMA-2020.
How to Use
The editorial board recommends authors use the checklist dur
{"title":"Campbell Standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR)","authors":"Ariel M. Aloe, Omar Dewidar, Emily A. Hennessy, Terri Pigott, Gavin Stewart, Vivian Welch, David B. Wilson, Campbell MECCIR Working Group","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1445","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.1445","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The authors formed a small working group to modernize the Methodological Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). We reviewed comments and feedback from editors, peer reviewers of Campbell submissions, and authors; for example, that the Campbell MECCIR was long and some of the items in the reporting and conduct checklists were difficult to cross-reference. We also wanted to make the checklist more relevant for reviews of associations or risk factors and other quantitative non-intervention review types, which we welcome in Campbell. Thus, our aim was to develop a shorter, more holistic guidance and checklist of Campbell Standards, encompassing both conduct and reporting of these standards within the same checklist.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our updated Campbell Standards will be a living document. To develop this first iteration, we invited Campbell members to join a virtual working group; we sought experience in conducting Campbell systematic reviews and in conducting methods editor reviews for Campbell. We aligned the items from the MECCIR for conduct and reporting, then compared the principles of conduct that apply across review types to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-literature search extension (S) and PRISMA-2020 reporting standards. We discussed each section with the aim of developing a parsimonious checklist with explanatory guidance while avoiding losing important concepts that are relevant to all types of reviews. We held nine meetings to discuss each section in detail between September 2022 and March 2023. We circulated this initial checklist and guidance to all Campbell editors, methods editors, information specialists and co-chairs to seek their feedback. All feedback was discussed by the working group and incorporated to the Standards or, if not incorporated, a formal response was returned about the rationale for why the feedback was not incorporated.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Campbell Policy</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The guidance includes seven main sections with 35 items multifaceted but distinct concepts that authors must adhere to when conducting Campbell reviews. Authors and reviewers must be mindful that multiple factors need to be assessed for each item. According to the Campbell Standards, the reporting of Campbell reviews must adhere to appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines(s) such as PRISMA-2020.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> How to Use</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The editorial board recommends authors use the checklist dur","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11456310/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142393928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Liping Guo, Jieyun Li, Zheng Xu, Xiaoling Hu, Chunyan Liu, Xin Xing, Xiuxia Li, Howard White, Kehu Yang
<div> <section> <h3> Background</h3> <p>Homework is a common educational task given to students around the world. It demands mental exertion, but staying focused can be challenging, especially for K-12 students. Too much homework can increase their cognitive load and mental fatigue, leading to decreased motivation and performance. This can cause boredom with homework and learning. To lessen their load and make homework more effective, it is important to establish the connection between homework duration and academic achievement.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>To evaluate the relationship between homework time and academic performance among K-12 students.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Search Methods</h3> <p>On November 5, 2021, we retrieved articles from a variety sources. Firstly, we searched 10 electronic databases for related publications, including Academic Search Premier, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Business Source Premier, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Journal Storage (JSTOR), Learning and Technology Library (LearnTechLib), OCLC FirstSearch, Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), and Teacher Reference Center. We also searched two publisher platforms: ScienceDirect and Taylor & Francis Online Database. Secondly, we consulted five educational organization website such as, American Educational Research Association, Best Evidence Encyclopedia, Education Endowment Foundation, European Educational Research Association, What Works Clearinghouse, and the Open Grey database for unpublished studies. We then searched Open Dissertations and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global databases to locate the relevant dissertations and theses. Additionally, we hand-searched seven educational journals to identify unpublished documents, reports, and potential studies not indexed in the databases. Lastly, we searched Campbell Library to identify relevant reviews and primary (and nearly eligible studies) in these reviews. We also searched Google Scholar for related studies and checked the citations of eligible studies as well as their bibliographies.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Selection Criteria</h3> <div>Studies with the following criteria were included: <ul> <li><span>− </span> <p><i>Population:</i> K-12 school students with no disabilities or not attending special education schools;</p> </li> <li><span>− </span>
背景 家庭作业是全世界学生的一项常见教育任务。家庭作业需要耗费脑力，但保持注意力集中却很有挑战性，尤其是对 K-12 年级的学生而言。过多的家庭作业会增加他们的认知负担和精神疲劳，导致学习动力和学习成绩下降。这会导致学生对家庭作业和学习产生厌烦情绪。为了减轻他们的负担，使家庭作业更有效，必须建立家庭作业时间与学习成绩之间的联系。 目标 评估 K-12 学生的家庭作业时间与学习成绩之间的关系。 检索方法 2021 年 11 月 5 日，我们从各种来源检索了文章。首先，我们在10个电子数据库中检索了相关出版物，包括Academic Search Premier、APA PsycArticles、APA PsycInfo、Business Source Premier、教育资源信息中心（ERIC）、期刊存储（JSTOR）、学习与技术图书馆（LearnTechLib）、OCLC FirstSearch、社会科学引文索引（Web of Science）和教师参考资料中心。我们还搜索了两个出版商平台：ScienceDirect 和 Taylor & Francis 在线数据库。其次，我们查阅了五个教育组织的网站，如美国教育研究协会、最佳证据百科全书、教育捐赠基金会、欧洲教育研究协会、What Works Clearinghouse 和 Open Grey 数据库，以查找未发表的研究。然后，我们搜索了 Open Dissertations 和 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global 数据库，以查找相关学位论文和论文。此外，我们还手工搜索了七种教育期刊，以确定未发表的文件、报告和数据库未收录的潜在研究。最后，我们搜索了坎贝尔图书馆，以确定这些综述中的相关综述和主要研究（以及几乎符合条件的研究）。我们还在谷歌学术（Google Scholar）中搜索了相关研究，并检查了符合条件的研究的引文及其参考书目。 筛选标准 我们纳入了符合以下标准的研究： - 研究对象干预措施：学校教师定期布置的家庭作业：干预措施：由学校教师定期布置给学生在非上课时间完成的家庭作业； - 对比：结果：结果：学习成绩是主要结果。研究设计：治疗-对照组设计或对比组设计研究。 数据收集与分析 我们审查了检索到的记录的标题、摘要和全文。我们的团队从符合纳入标准的研究中提取了所有相关信息并进行了编码。为了评估偏倚风险，我们对随机对照试验使用了 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具，对非随机对照试验使用了 ROBINS-I。我们进行了随机效应荟萃分析，以确定与没有家庭作业相比，家庭作业对学业成绩的影响。采用漏斗图、修剪填充法和 Egger 检验来检测是否存在发表偏差。由于有关家庭作业持续时间和学业成绩的数据不足，我们采用定性综合法对这些数据进行了分析。 主要结果 我们发现有 11 篇出版物采用实验设计研究了家庭作业持续时间与学习成绩之间的关系。根据这些文章的侧重点，我们将其分为两类：家庭作业与无家庭作业的比较，以及家庭作业与少家庭作业的比较。有 10 篇文章和 14 篇独立报告比较了做家庭作业和不做家庭作业的学生的学习成绩。
{"title":"The relationship between homework time and academic performance among K-12: A systematic review","authors":"Liping Guo, Jieyun Li, Zheng Xu, Xiaoling Hu, Chunyan Liu, Xin Xing, Xiuxia Li, Howard White, Kehu Yang","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1431","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1431","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Homework is a common educational task given to students around the world. It demands mental exertion, but staying focused can be challenging, especially for K-12 students. Too much homework can increase their cognitive load and mental fatigue, leading to decreased motivation and performance. This can cause boredom with homework and learning. To lessen their load and make homework more effective, it is important to establish the connection between homework duration and academic achievement.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To evaluate the relationship between homework time and academic performance among K-12 students.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>On November 5, 2021, we retrieved articles from a variety sources. Firstly, we searched 10 electronic databases for related publications, including Academic Search Premier, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Business Source Premier, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Journal Storage (JSTOR), Learning and Technology Library (LearnTechLib), OCLC FirstSearch, Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), and Teacher Reference Center. We also searched two publisher platforms: ScienceDirect and Taylor & Francis Online Database. Secondly, we consulted five educational organization website such as, American Educational Research Association, Best Evidence Encyclopedia, Education Endowment Foundation, European Educational Research Association, What Works Clearinghouse, and the Open Grey database for unpublished studies. We then searched Open Dissertations and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global databases to locate the relevant dissertations and theses. Additionally, we hand-searched seven educational journals to identify unpublished documents, reports, and potential studies not indexed in the databases. Lastly, we searched Campbell Library to identify relevant reviews and primary (and nearly eligible studies) in these reviews. We also searched Google Scholar for related studies and checked the citations of eligible studies as well as their bibliographies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <div>Studies with the following criteria were included:\u0000\u0000 <ul>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>− </span>\u0000 \u0000 <p><i>Population:</i> K-12 school students with no disabilities or not attending special education schools;</p>\u0000 </li>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>− </span>\u0000 ","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1431","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142245033","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号