我们是否使用了正确的证据来指导中低收入国家的自杀预防工作?综述》。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Archives of Suicide Research Pub Date : 2024-03-13 DOI:10.1080/13811118.2024.2322144
Ivie Itua, Kamal Shah, Patrick Galway, Faiza Chaudhry, Tatiana Georgiadi, Juhi Rastogi, Shameer Naleer, Duleeka Knipe
{"title":"我们是否使用了正确的证据来指导中低收入国家的自杀预防工作?综述》。","authors":"Ivie Itua, Kamal Shah, Patrick Galway, Faiza Chaudhry, Tatiana Georgiadi, Juhi Rastogi, Shameer Naleer, Duleeka Knipe","doi":"10.1080/13811118.2024.2322144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Suicide disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries and evidence regarding prevention approaches developed in high income countries may not be applicable in these settings. We conducted an umbrella review to assess whether the conclusions of suicide prevention systematic reviews accurately reflect the studies contained within those reviews in terms of setting generalizability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted database searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, PsychExtra, OVID global health, and LILACS/BECS. We included systematic reviews with the outcome of suicide, including bereavement studies where suicide death was also the exposure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 147 reviews assessed, we found that over 80% of systematic reviews on suicide deaths do not provide an accurate summary of review findings with relation to geographic relevance and ultimately generalizability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Systematic reviews are often the resource used by practitioners and policymakers to guide services. Misleading reviews can detrimentally impact suicide prevention efforts in LMICs. We call for systematic reviewers to be responsible when generalizing the findings of their reviews particularly in the abstracts.</p>","PeriodicalId":8325,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Suicide Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are we Using the Right Evidence to Inform Suicide Prevention in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? An Umbrella Review.\",\"authors\":\"Ivie Itua, Kamal Shah, Patrick Galway, Faiza Chaudhry, Tatiana Georgiadi, Juhi Rastogi, Shameer Naleer, Duleeka Knipe\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13811118.2024.2322144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Suicide disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries and evidence regarding prevention approaches developed in high income countries may not be applicable in these settings. We conducted an umbrella review to assess whether the conclusions of suicide prevention systematic reviews accurately reflect the studies contained within those reviews in terms of setting generalizability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted database searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, PsychExtra, OVID global health, and LILACS/BECS. We included systematic reviews with the outcome of suicide, including bereavement studies where suicide death was also the exposure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 147 reviews assessed, we found that over 80% of systematic reviews on suicide deaths do not provide an accurate summary of review findings with relation to geographic relevance and ultimately generalizability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Systematic reviews are often the resource used by practitioners and policymakers to guide services. Misleading reviews can detrimentally impact suicide prevention efforts in LMICs. We call for systematic reviewers to be responsible when generalizing the findings of their reviews particularly in the abstracts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8325,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Suicide Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Suicide Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2024.2322144\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Suicide Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2024.2322144","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:自杀对中低收入国家的影响尤为严重,而在高收入国家开发的预防方法的相关证据可能不适用于这些环境。我们进行了一项总括性综述,以评估自杀预防系统性综述的结论是否准确反映了这些综述中所包含的研究在环境中的可推广性:我们在 PubMed/Medline、Embase、PsycInfo、PsychExtra、OVID global health 和 LILACS/BECS 中进行了数据库检索。我们纳入了以自杀为结果的系统性综述,包括以自杀死亡为结果的丧亲研究:在评估的 147 篇综述中,我们发现 80% 以上的自杀死亡系统性综述没有就地域相关性和最终的可推广性提供准确的综述结论:系统性综述通常是从业人员和政策制定者用于指导服务的资源。误导性综述会对低收入和中等收入国家的自杀预防工作产生不利影响。我们呼吁系统综述作者在概括其综述结果时,尤其是在摘要中概括时要负责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are we Using the Right Evidence to Inform Suicide Prevention in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? An Umbrella Review.

Objective: Suicide disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries and evidence regarding prevention approaches developed in high income countries may not be applicable in these settings. We conducted an umbrella review to assess whether the conclusions of suicide prevention systematic reviews accurately reflect the studies contained within those reviews in terms of setting generalizability.

Methods: We conducted database searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, PsychExtra, OVID global health, and LILACS/BECS. We included systematic reviews with the outcome of suicide, including bereavement studies where suicide death was also the exposure.

Results: Out of the 147 reviews assessed, we found that over 80% of systematic reviews on suicide deaths do not provide an accurate summary of review findings with relation to geographic relevance and ultimately generalizability.

Conclusion: Systematic reviews are often the resource used by practitioners and policymakers to guide services. Misleading reviews can detrimentally impact suicide prevention efforts in LMICs. We call for systematic reviewers to be responsible when generalizing the findings of their reviews particularly in the abstracts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: Archives of Suicide Research, the official journal of the International Academy of Suicide Research (IASR), is the international journal in the field of suicidology. The journal features original, refereed contributions on the study of suicide, suicidal behavior, its causes and effects, and techniques for prevention. The journal incorporates research-based and theoretical articles contributed by a diverse range of authors interested in investigating the biological, pharmacological, psychiatric, psychological, and sociological aspects of suicide.
期刊最新文献
Development and Validation of Electronic Health Record Measures of Safety Planning Practices as Part of Zero Suicide Implementation. Acceptability and Feasibility of an Ecological Momentary Intervention for Managing Emotional Distress Among Psychiatric Inpatients at Risk for Suicide. The Progression of Lethality Across Multiple Suicide Attempts: A Systematic Review. The Transtheoretical Model of Change and Recovery from a Suicidal Episode. Assessing a Suicide Prevention Helpline's Impact on Caller Crisis Level and Suicidality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1