Search

Objective The objective of the proposed systematic review is to determine the barriers and enablers (or facilitators) to the implementation of pressure injury prevention among adults receiving care in the hospital setting. Introduction Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are preventable; however, they remain an ongoing safety and quality health care concern in many countries. There are various evidence-based preventative interventions for pressure injuries, but their implementation in clinical practice is limited. An understanding of the different factors that support (enablers or facilitators) and inhibit (barriers) the implementation of these interventions from different perspectives is important, so that targeted strategies can be incorporated into implementation plans. Inclusion criteria This review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies that investigate barriers and/or enablers in relation to hospital-acquired pressure injury prevention in hospitalized adults. Only English publications will be considered, with no publication date restrictions. Methods The systematic review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for mixed methods systematic review. Published studies will be searched in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus. Gray literature will also be considered. Critical appraisal and data extraction will be performed using standardized tools, followed by data transformation. Data synthesis will follow the convergent integrated approach.

Objective\ud Mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSR) combine quantitative and qualitative evidence within a single review. Since the revision of the JBI Methodology for MMSRs in 2020, there has been an increasing number of reviews published that claim to follow this approach. A preliminary examination of these indicated that authors frequently deviated from the methodology. This paper outlines five common ‘pitfalls’ associated with undertaking MMSR and provides direction for future reviewers attempting MMSR.\ud \ud Methods\ud Forward citation tracking identified 17 reviews published since the revision of the JBI mixed methods methodological guidance. Methods used in these reviews were then examined against the JBI methodology to identify deviations.\ud \ud Results\ud The issues identified related to the rationale for choosing the methodological approach; incorrect synthesis and integration approach chosen to answer the review question/s posed; the exclusion of primary mixed methods studies in the review; the lack of detail regarding the process of data transformation and a lack of ‘mixing’ of the quantitative and qualitative components.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud This exercise was undertaken to assist systematic reviewers considering conducting a MMSR as well as MMSR users to identify potential areas where authors tend to deviate from the methodological approach. Based on these findings a series of recommendations are provided.

Review objective/questions: The objective of this scoping review is to map the evidence relating to the reporting and evaluation of health technologies for the prevention and detection of falls in adult hospital in-patients. The following questions will guide this scoping review: i) What falls prevention and detection health technologies have been reported in the literature? ii) What outcomes have been reported that measure falls prevention and detection health technologies in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability and feasibility of use?

Objective The objective of this scoping review was to examine and map the evidence relating to the reporting and evaluation of technologies for the prevention and detection of falls in adult hospital inpatients. Introduction Falls are a common cause of accidental injury, leading to significant safety issues in hospitals globally, and resulting in substantial human and economic costs. Previous research has focused on community settings with less emphasis on hospital settings. Inclusion criteria Participants included adult inpatients, aged 18 years and over; the concept included the use of fall-prevention or fall-detection technologies; the context included any hospital ward setting. Methods This scoping review was conducted according to JBI methodology for scoping reviews, guided by an a priori protocol. A wide selection of databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, PEDro, Epistimonikos, and Science Direct were searched for records from inception to October 2019. Other sources included gray literature, trial registers, government health department websites, and websites of professional bodies. Only studies in the English language were included. A three-step search strategy was employed, with all records exported for subsequent title and abstract screening prior to full-text screening. Screening was performed by two independent reviewers and data extraction by one reviewer following agreement checks. Data are presented in narrative and tabular form. Results Over 13,000 records were identified with 404 included in the scoping review: 336 reported on fall-prevention technologies, 51 targeted detection, and 17 concerned both. The largest contributions of studies came from the USA (n=185), Australia (n=65), the UK (n=36), and Canada (n=18). There was a variety of study designs including 77 prospective cohort studies, 33 before-after studies, and 35 systematic reviews; however, relatively few randomized controlled trials were conducted (n = 25). The majority of records reported on multifactorial and multicomponent technologies (n = 178), followed by fall detection devices (n = 86). Few studies reported on the following interventions in isolation: fall risk assessment (n = 6), environment design (n = 8), sitters (n = 5), rounding (n = 3), exercise (n = 3), medical/pharmaceutical (n = 2), physiotherapy (n = 1), and nutritional (n = 1). The majority (57%) of studies reported clinical effectiveness outcomes, with smaller numbers (14%) reporting feasibility and/or acceptability outcomes, or cost-effectiveness outcomes (5%). Conclusions This review has mapped the literature on fall-prevention and fall-detection technology and outcomes for adults in the hospital setting. Despite the volume of available literature, there remains a need for further high-quality research on fall-prevention and fall-detection technologies.

Objective The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach for conducting a JBI mixed methods systematic review with a focus on data synthesis, specifically, methods related to how data are combined and the overall integration of the quantitative and qualitative evidence. Introduction Mixed methods systematic reviews provide a more complete basis for complex decision-making than that currently offered by single method reviews, thereby maximizing their usefulness to clinical and policy decision-makers. Although mixed methods systematic reviews are gaining traction, guidance regarding the methodology of combining quantitative and qualitative data is limited. In 2014, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group developed guidance for mixed methods systematic reviews; however, since the introduction of this guidance, there have been significant developments in mixed methods synthesis. As such, the methodology group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align it with the current state of knowledge on evidence synthesis methodology. Methods Between 2015 and 2019, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group undertook an extensive review of the literature, held annual face-to-face meetings (which were supplemented by teleconferences and regular email correspondence), sought advice from experts in the field, and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to the development of guidance in the form of a chapter in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, the official guidance for conducting JBI systematic reviews. In 2019, the guidance was ratified by the JBI International Scientific Committee. Results The updated JBI methodological guidance for conducting a mixed methods systematic review recommends that reviewers take a convergent approach to synthesis and integration whereby the specific method utilized is dependent on the nature/type of questions that are posed in the systematic review. The JBI guidance is primarily based on Hong et al. and Sandelowski's typology on mixed methods systematic reviews. If the review question can be addressed by both quantitative and qualitative research designs, the convergent integrated approach should be followed, which involves data transformation and allows reviewers to combine quantitative and qualitative data. If the focus of the review is on different aspects or dimensions of a particular phenomenon of interest, the convergent segregated approach is undertaken, which involves independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data leading to the generation of quantitative and qualitative evidence, which are then integrated together. Conclusions The updated guidance on JBI mixed methods systematic reviews provides foundational work to a rapidly evolving methodology and aligns with other seminal work undertaken in the field of mixed methods synthesis. Limitations to the current guidance are acknowledged, and a series of methodological projects identified by the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are proposed. Mixed methods reviews offer an innovative framework for generating unique insights related to the complexities associated with health care quality and safety.

The objective of this review is to synthesize and integrate the best available evidence on the impact of canine-assisted interventions on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care.Canine-assisted interventions are commonly used as an adjunct therapy to enhance health and well-being, and are often implemented in long-term care facilities. The number of studies undertaken in this area has increased substantially over the previous five years; therefore, an update of two previous systematic reviews is warranted.This review will consider older people who reside in long-term care facilities and who receive canine-assisted interventions. For the quantitative component, canine-assisted interventions will be compared to usual care, alternative therapeutic interventions, or no interventions, and outcomes will be grouped under the following headings: biological, psychological, and social. For the qualitative component, the experiences of older people receiving canine-assisted interventions, as well as the views of people directly or indirectly involved in delivering canine-assisted interventions, will be explored. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published from 2009 to the present will be considered.A search of 10 bibliographic databases and other resources for published and unpublished English language studies will be undertaken. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis will be undertaken by two independent reviewers following the segregated JBI approach to mixed methods reviews.PROSPERO CRD42020161235.

The current article provides an overview of an approach to incorporating a range of evidence, including qualitative research findings, which the authors piloted when developing a clinical guideline on epilepsies in children and young people. We describe methods used for incorporating literature types not usually included in Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network guidelines, including critical appraisal, and establishing dependability and credibility of qualitative findings. We highlight limitations encountered and make suggestions for future work.

OBJECTIVE:To synthesize and integrate the best available evidence on the experiences and effectiveness of canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care. INTRODUCTION:Canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) are commonly used as an adjunct therapy to enhance health and well-being and are often implemented in long-term care facilities. The number of studies undertaken in this area has increased substantially over the last five years; therefore, an update of two previous systematic reviews is warranted. INCLUSION CRITERIA:This review will consider older people who reside in long-term care facilities and who receive CAIs. For the quantitative component, CAIs will be compared to usual care, alternative therapeutic interventions or no interventions, and outcomes will be grouped under the following headings: biological, psychological and social. For the qualitative component, the experiences of older people receiving CAIs, as well as the views of people directly or indirectly involved in delivering CAIs, will be explored. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies published from 2009 to the present will be considered. METHODS:A search of 10 bibliographic databases and other various resources for published and unpublished English language studies will be undertaken. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction and data synthesis will be undertaken following the segregated JBI approach to mixed methods reviews.

Purpose To synthesise the quantitative and qualitative evidence on the views and experiences of children and young people with epilepsy (CYPwE), their family members/caregivers and healthcare professionals on conversations between healthcare professionals and CYPwE/caregivers about the possibility of sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Methods Mixed methods systematic review in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, PRISMA guidelines and guided by an a-priori protocol. Results 656 potentially relevant studies were identified, 11 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the review: 6 quantitative studies, 4 qualitative studies and 1 opinion/text article. Data synthesis resulted in the following 2 integrated findings: (i) Caregivers, and where appropriate CYPwE, should be provided with information on SUDEP and how it relates to them; (ii) Information on SUDEP should be delivered face-to-face, with supporting written information, by a suitably knowledgeable healthcare professional whom the caregiver/CYPwE feels comfortable with, at an appropriate time at or close to diagnosis. Conclusion This review confirms that healthcare professionals should discus SUDEP with CYPwE and/or their caregivers at or around the time of diagnosis and that the discussion should include prevalence of SUDEP, risk factors and risk reduction methods relative to the individual concerned. Apart from delivering SUDEP information face-to-face, with written or online information provided to reinforce messages, there is a lack of evidence on “how” to impart this sensitive information. Further research exploring the most acceptable and effective methods of discussing SUDEP with CYPwE and their caregivers is therefore indicated.

Introduction The World Health Organization estimates that 10% of the 35.6 million people worldwide with dementia are aged under 65 years. In an ageing workforce this has implications for employers, employees, and statutory and third sector services. Limited research has been conducted into this emerging global issue. Method This systematic review, employing the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute, aimed to identify and synthesise the best available qualitative evidence regarding the needs, experiences and perspectives of people with early onset dementia or mild cognitive impairment who were either in employment or wished to gain employment. Results Of 69 studies identified, eight met the inclusion criteria. From these, four themes emerged: disease progression and recognition; the emotional impact of change; the employer’s management of the worker; and changes to the worker role. Conclusion There are health benefits to the individual with dementia or mild cognitive impairment of continuing to engage in meaningful occupation. Retirement policy changes have resulted in an ageing workforce with concurrent risk factors for dementia. A lack of understanding of reasonable adjustments and sheltered employment opportunities was evident from the literature. This review highlights the potential for occupational therapists to engage this client group in vocational rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Effective nutritional screening, nutritional care planning and nutritional support are essential in all settings, and there is no doubt that a health service seeking to increase safety and clinical effectiveness must take nutritional care seriously. Screening and early detection of malnutrition is crucial in identifying patients at nutritional risk. There is a high prevalence of malnutrition in hospitalized patients undergoing treatment for colorectal cancer.OBJECTIVES: To synthesize the best available evidence regarding the diagnostic test accuracy of nutritional tools (sensitivity and specificity) used to identify malnutrition (specifically undernutrition) in patients with colorectal cancer (such as the Malnutrition Screening Tool and Nutritional Risk Index) compared to reference tests (such as the Subjective Global Assessment or Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment).INCLUSION CRITERIA: TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: Patients with colorectal cancer requiring either (or all) surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy in secondary care. Focus of the review: The diagnostic test accuracy of validated assessment tools/instruments (such as the Malnutrition Screening Tool and Nutritional Risk Index) in the diagnosis of malnutrition (specifically under-nutrition) in patients with colorectal cancer, relative to reference tests (Subjective Global Assessment or Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment). Types of studies: Diagnostic test accuracy studies regardless of study design.SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies published in English, German, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian were considered for inclusion in this review. Databases were searched from their inception to April 2014.METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY: Methodological quality was determined using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist.DATA COLLECTION: Data was collected using the data extraction form: the Standards for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy checklist for the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy.DATA SYNTHESIS: The accuracy of diagnostic tests is presented in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. In addition, the positive likelihood ratio (sensitivity/ [1 - specificity]) and negative likelihood ratio (1 - sensitivity)/ specificity), were also calculated and presented in this review to provide information about the likelihood that a given test result would be expected when the target condition is present compared with the likelihood that the same result would be expected when the condition is absent. Not all trials reported true positive, true negative, false positive and false negative rates, therefore these rates were calculated based on the data in the published papers. A two-by-two truth table was reconstructed for each study, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were calculated for each study. A summary receiver operator characteristics curve was constructed to determine the relationship between sensitivity and specificity, and the area under the summary receiver operator characteristics curve which measured the usefulness of a test was calculated. Meta-analysis was not considered appropriate, therefore data was synthesized in a narrative summary.RESULTS: 1. One study evaluated the Malnutrition Screening Tool against the reference standard Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment. The sensitivity was 56% and the specificity 84%. The positive likelihood ratio was 3.100, negative likelihood ratio was 0.59, the diagnostic odds ratio (CI 95%) was 5.20 (1.09-24.90) and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) represents only a poor to fair diagnostic test accuracy. A total of two studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) (index test) compared to both Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) (reference standard) and PG-SGA (reference standard) in patients with colorectal cancer. In MUST vs SGA the sensitivity of the tool was 96%, specificity was 75%, LR+ 3.826, LR- 0.058, diagnostic OR (CI 95%) 66.00 (6.61-659.24) and AUC represented excellent diagnostic accuracy. In MUST vs PG-SGA the sensitivity of the tool was 72%, specificity 48.9%, LR+ 1.382, LR- 0.579, diagnostic OR (CI 95%) 2.39 (0.87-6.58) and AUC indicated that the tool failed as a diagnostic test to identify patients with colorectal cancer at nutritional risk,. The Nutrition Risk Index (NRI) was compared to SGA representing a sensitivity of 95.2%, specificity of 62.5%, LR+ 2.521, LR- 0.087, diagnostic OR (CI 95%) 28.89 (6.93-120.40) and AUC represented good diagnostic accuracy. In regard to NRI vs PG-SGA the sensitivity of the tool was 68%, specificity 64%, LR+ 1.947, LR- 0.487, diagnostic OR (CI 95%) 4.00 (1.23-13.01) and AUC indicated poor diagnostic test accuracy.CONCLUSIONS: There are no single, specific tools used to screen or assess the nutritional status of colorectal cancer patients. All tools showed varied diagnostic accuracies when compared to the reference standards SGA and PG-SGA. Hence clinical judgment combined with perhaps the SGA or PG-SGA should play a major role.IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The PG-SGA offers several advantages over the SGA tool: 1) the patient completes the medical history component, thereby decreasing the amount of time involved; 2) it contains more nutrition impact symptoms, which are important to the patient with cancer; and 3) it has a scoring system that allows patients to be triaged for nutritional intervention. Therefore, the PG-SGA could be used as a nutrition assessment tool as it allows quick identification and prioritization of colorectal cancer patients with malnutrition in combination with other parameters.IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: This systematic review highlights the need for the following: Further studies needs to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of already existing nutritional screening tools in the context of colorectal cancer patients. If new screenings tools are developed, they should be developed and validated in the specific clinical context within the same patient population (colorectal cancer patients).

Review questions/objectives: The objective of this scoping review is to examine and map absolute clinical skill decay in the medical, nursing and allied health professions and to map the range of approaches used to address decay of clinical skills in these professions. Review questions/objectives: Specifically, the review questions are: which clinical skills, performed by which professional groups, are reported to be most susceptible to absolute clinical skill decay, and what approaches have been reported for addressing absolute clinical skill decay in the medical, nursing and allied health professions? Review questions/objectives: In addressing the review questions, the following sub-questions will also be addressed: Review questions/objectives: It is anticipated that this scoping review will inform further systematic review/s on the topic of addressing clinical skill decay in the medical, nursing and allied health professions, as well as identify gaps in the research knowledge base that will inform further primary research.

Review question What are the experiences of acute mental health /psychiatric nurses of clinical supervision in promoting their well-being in their place of work? Objectives The objective of this review is to synthesise the best available qualitative evidence on the positive aspects of clinical supervision experiences of acute mental health /psychiatric nurses, such as a sense of individual well-being Inclusion criteria Types of participants This review will consider studies that include nurses working in acute mental health in-patient care settings, who have first hand experience of clinical supervision regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, length of time since registration as a mental health nurse, work experience, or country of origin. For this systematic review we will use the following definitions: •The term mental health or (psychiatric) nurse is used interchangeably to reflect international preferences and refers to nurses who have completed a recognised approved training in mental health nursing by the relevant professional body, and awarded a licence to practice, and to use the legal title of ‘nurse’. •The term acute mental health (psychiatric) in-patient care settings or environments refers to wards or units providing hospitalisation and care for patients with acute mental disorders. •The term clinical supervision refers to a formal process of professional support and learning which enables individual practitioners to develop knowledge and competence, assume responsibility for their own practice and enhance consumer protection and the safety of care in complex clinical situations. It is central to the process of learning and to the expansion of the scope of practice and should be seen as a means of encouraging self-assessment and analytical and reflective skills, and nurses’ well-being in the work place. Phenomena of interest The experiences of acute mental health/psychiatric nurses of clinical supervision in promoting their well-being in the work place.The types of data that include experiential accounts of acute mental health /psychiatric nurses of the contribution of CS to their well-being, for example reduced stress, less feelings of burn out and exhaustion, job satisfaction, and enhanced coping skills.

There are an increasing number of published single-method systematic reviews that focus on different types of evidence related to a particular topic. As policy makers and practitioners seek clear directions for decision-making from systematic reviews, it is likely that it will be increasingly difficult for them to identify 'what to do' if they are required to find and understand a plethora of syntheses related to a particular topic.Mixed-methods systematic reviews are designed to address this issue and have the potential to produce systematic reviews of direct relevance to policy makers and practitioners.On the basis of the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute International Mixed Methods Reviews Methodology Group in 2012, the Institute adopted a segregated approach to mixed-methods synthesis as described by Sandelowski et al., which consists of separate syntheses of each component method of the review. Joanna Briggs Institute's mixed-methods synthesis of the findings of the separate syntheses uses a Bayesian approach to translate the findings of the initial quantitative synthesis into qualitative themes and pooling these with the findings of the initial qualitative synthesis.

Background Many women from socially disadvantaged groups discontinue breastfeeding in the early postnatal period before lactation is fully established. This suggests that existing health service practices do not adequately meet the breastfeeding support needs of this population. The aim of this meta-synthesis is to review the literature exploring how women from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds experience breastfeeding establishment and to identify factors associated with supportive practice. Methods The meta-synthesis includes qualitative studies exploring the perception of women from disadvantaged groups of in-hospital and professionally led interventions to support the establishment of breastfeeding. Searches were conducted for studies published between 1992 and 2013; after critical appraisal, eight studies were retained. Results Three overarching themes of the influences on maternal perception of the efficacy of breastfeeding support were identified. These included practical skill and knowledge of the breastfeeding process, the influence of psychological factors on perceived breastfeeding ability, and the provision of a person-centered approach to infant feeding support. Conclusions The findings illustrate that the factors associated with supportive breastfeeding practice are extensive, complex, and interrelated. Strategies which enable mothers to gain confidence in their ability to successfully breastfeed by acquiring technical expertise, which offer positive encouragement, and which are culturally specific are more likely to be perceived as supportive by women from socially disadvantaged groups.

Bariatric surgery is the only intervention leading to sustained weight reduction for severely obese individuals. However, there is variability across the UK in organisation of bariatric services, and perceptions of how to develop and deliver optimum care. This means lack of clarity on competencies and skills required for roles within the multidisciplinary bariatric surgical team. This systematic review was carried out to synthesise literature identifying the competencies required by members of the multidisciplinary team for provision of safe, meaningful and appropriate care for severely obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. The databases CINAHL; Medline; ERIC; PsycINFO; IngentaConnect; The Knowledge Network, and Web of Knowledge were searched to identify key papers. Papers selected were independently appraised for methodological quality by two reviewers using Joanna Briggs Institute systems. Thirty-six papers were included in the review. The literature was poorly developed, largely consisting of text and opinion, and lacking evaluative content. Pooling of papers generated three synthesised findings: 1) Safe, meaningful and appropriate care may be delivered if staff in each role in the multidisciplinary team achieve a minimum set of competencies; 2) Safe, effective and meaningful care may require a minimum set of competencies for managing a bariatric surgery unit and the multidisciplinary team; 3) To achieve competencies for safe, effective and meaningful care certain approaches to education may be developed. Sensitive care, pre-operative psychological assessment, post-operative care and identification of complications, and team management may be areas in which educational interventions develop, but the conclusion remains tentative because of lack of empirical research in the area.