JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports最新文献

Objective: The objective of this review is to identify, appraise and synthesize the best available qualitative evidence on participation in outdoor therapeutic recreation programs for adults with a mental illness living in the community.

Introduction: Therapeutic recreation is posited to be beneficial for persons living with a mental illness. Research indicates that therapeutic recreation programs can foster mental health recovery. It is necessary to understand how nature-based therapeutic recreation programs are beneficial from the perspective of persons living with mental illness.

Inclusion criteria: The review will consider studies that have collected qualitative data on the experiences and perspectives of adults with a mental illness of their participation in nature-based therapeutic recreation programs.

Methods: The databases PsycINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus and Informit and unpublished sources in gray literature databases (Google) will be searched and reference lists will be checked to locate any additional studies. Studies published in English will be considered with no date limit. Two reviewers will independently assess the methodological quality of the studies which meet the inclusion criteria using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research. Data will be extracted by one reviewer using the standardized qualitative extraction tool and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. The qualitative research findings will be pooled using JBI methodology. The JBI process of meta-aggregation will be used to identify categories and synthesized findings.

Objectives: The objective of this review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy for patients with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection.

Introduction: Among the main multi-resistant microorganisms, carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae is responsible for the mortality of 40% of patients following 30 days of infection. Treatment for carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infection entails the use of high-cost antimicrobials. Inappropriate use of antimicrobials can increase the cost of treatment fourfold. This review aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy treatment for patients with carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infection to better inform decision making in hospital services.

Inclusion criteria: The review included studies on participants 18 years or over with carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infection who had undergone antimicrobial therapy in hospital and acute care services. Studies that compared the cost-effectiveness of different antimicrobial therapy for carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infection were included. Outcome measures were cost per unit of effect expressed in clinical outcome units; this included cost per avoided death, cost per prevention of sepsis and cost per duration of stay. Economic studies with a cost-effectiveness design were considered, as well as modeling studies.

Methods: A three-step search strategy was utilized to locate studies published in English, Spanish or Portuguese, with no date restrictions. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and the full texts of potentially relevant studies for eligibility. Methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations. Data were extracted from included studies using the standardized JBI data extraction tool. Data were synthesized using narrative, tables and the JBI Dominance Ranking Matrix.

Results: This review identified eight studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infection. The results of this study demonstrated that there was no gold standard treatment for carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infection, hence treatment was generally directed by colonization pressure and resistance profiles. Furthermore, due to the moderate quality and limited number of studies, there was high uncertainty of the values of the cost-effectiveness ratio.

Conclusions: Ofloxacin appears to be the most cost-effective treatment; however, conclusions are limited due to the small number and low quality of studies.

Objective: This scoping review aims to identify the known impact of unit design on intensive care unit clinicians, and more specifically, to explore similarities and differences across critical care settings.

Introduction: Construction and infrastructure renewal represent great opportunities for designing units that enhance patient care, as well as support the work of clinicians. A growing body of evidence is showing how unit design can impact clinical staff, but no reviews have been found that focus exclusively on clinicians within intensive care units.

Inclusion criteria: The review will consider studies that include healthcare staff who offer direct patient care in adult or pediatric intensive care units. Studies that focus on the impact of design (related to physical environment features) on clinicians will be included.

Methods: The proposed systematic review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The search strategy aims to find published and unpublished studies. The databases to be searched will include Embase MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Healthstar and CINAHL. Retrieved studies will be assessed against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. For the papers included in the scoping review, data will be extracted and quality assessed by two independent reviewers. The extracted data will be presented in tabular form, and a narrative summary will describe how the results relate to the review objective.