Search

This article presents a current knowledge synthesis of empirical studies on cross-cultural psychotherapy since 1980. Guided by a critical review framework, our search in seven relevant databases generated 80 studies published in English. Main themes are organized into (1) therapists’ cultural competence ( n = 46); (2) therapy process in cross-cultural dyads ( n = 22); and (3) cross-cultural differences in gender, sexual orientation, or social class ( n = 12). Compared to previous reviews on cross-cultural psychotherapy, the findings of this review highlight a broad range of methodological rigor in both quantitative and qualitative studies. Most studies examined actual therapy participants rather than participants in analog studies, thus emulating more therapy-near experiences in cross-cultural psychotherapy research. Also, several studies explored cross-cultural compositions beyond racial and ethnic majority therapist-minority client dyads, and included therapists of color as the participants, exploring reverse power dynamics in therapy and giving voices to foreign-born therapists. The therapy process research provides rich and full descriptions around the dynamic and interactional therapy process in cross-cultural dyads, which can be used to foster cultural sensitivities among therapists in their practice and training. We discuss the limitations of the studies included in the review and its implications for psychotherapy practice, training, and future research.

A protocol for a scoping review that will systematically identify and characterize the nature of scientific literature on accelerated induction regimens of TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The increasing application of genome-wide sequencing (GWS) is leading to a growing number of people with genetic diagnoses. Understanding how people interpret and respond to receiving a genetic diagnosis is important as it allows services to be tailored to optimize patient outcomes. A number of publications have addressed components of the adolescent perspective of genetic counselling. Examples include papers on the ethical standpoints of genetic testing of minors for adult-onset conditions (McConkie-Rosell and Spiridigliozzi, 2004; Gaff, Lynch and Spencer, 2006). Others have focussed on the informational needs of adolescents who have genetic conditions and whether or not genetic counselling is a useful means of supporting these needs (Szybowska et al., 2007). A minority of these, address informational needs and decisional preferences in the context of GWS research amongst adolescents who did not have a clinical indication for genetic testing (McGowan et al., 2018; Pervola et al., 2019). Little is known about the needs of adolescents with genetic diagnoses with regard to their experience of GWS and clinical services. The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of published, peer-reviewed, and other articles on the experience of adolescent genetic counselling and to identify gaps in our current knowledge.

Project Overview Evidence synthesis (for example systematic reviews) and meta-epidemiology are fields that are undergoing radical transformation and expansion due to the need for policy makers, practitioners and the community to have access to summarised and trustworthy evidence to guide decision making. Historically, evidence synthesis strategies focused on answering whether or not something works (i.e. questions relating to effectiveness). However, there now exists a multitude of approaches, methods and methodologies to conduct evidence synthesis. Enabling researchers to ensure that they are undertaking the “right” evidence synthesis approach to respond to a clinical or policy question appropriately has strategic implications from a broader evidence-based healthcare perspective. This project proposes the idea of developing a taxonomy of evidence synthesis to provide some much needed structure to this burgeoning field. Such a taxonomy will assist in improving the ability of potential evidence synthesisers to navigate through the complexities of evidence synthesis thus reducing redundant evidence synthesis efforts, saving scarce research resources and ensuring evidence synthesis projects are conducted to a higher standard. This will ensure and facilitate the translation of evidence from these syntheses into policy and practice, and as a comprehensive resource, will be of benefit to many in the international community of knowledge generation and translation. This project is envisaged as a collaborative initiative with key stakeholders across many scientific fields to establish an online, interactive and scalable evidence synthesis taxonomy in the form of a freely available online resource. A variety of research activities (both qualitative and quantitative) will be required during the formation of this taxonomy to determine the current approaches, methodologies and methods in the field of evidence synthesis and to generate a taxonomy for guidance purposes.

A rapid scoping review of the effectiveness and safety of drug treatments currently under investigation for COVID-19 or that have been previously tested in SARS or MERS.

This project will determine what rapid review report formats exist based on an international sample of rapid reviews, and will compare the layout features and content structure of journal-published rapid reviews with those not published in journals.

A Coordinator Multicenter Team approach describing a series of complementary literature reviews conducted across six Canadian universities, exploring unique aspects of different types of research partnership approaches, predominantly in the health sciences.

The protocol for a rapid scoping review to describe the prevalence of gaming disorder in people of all ages across all geographic areas.

The objective of this review is to summarize the evidence for the use of animal-associated interventions in emergency department and urgent care settings. More specifically, the review question to be answered is: “Are animal-assisted interventions (i.e., animal assisted therapy and animal-assisted activities) effective at improving patient, family, and healthcare provider experiences in the emergency department and ambulatory care settings?”

ADVANCE is a scoping review that aims to summarise and evaluate current practice of reporting of adverse events-related data in published exercise oncology trials with further exploration of factors associated with suboptimal reporting of adverse events.

IntroductionThe Truth and Reconciliation Commission drew attention to the inequalities and systemic harms experienced by Indigenous peoples in Canada and called on the Canadian government and healthcare professionals to close the gap related to Indigenous communities’ access to appropriate healthcare services. The Manitoba Métis Federation (self-governing organization representing Red River Métis) identified a need for Red River Métis families to have meaningful resources when seeking emergency care for their children. A better understanding of Métis families’ experiences in seeking child health information is needed to develop culturally relevant pediatric resources. To date, the literature on Indigenous families’ experiences seeking child health information has not been synthesized. A scoping review will map the literature on Indigenous families’ experiences seeking health information to care for a sick or injured child; and identify the barriers and facilitators to accessing this information.Methods and analysisJoanna Briggs Institute methodology was used to develop the research question, What is the extent and nature of the literature available on the experiences of Indigenous families seeking health information for their sick or injured child? The search strategy, developed with a research librarian with extensive experience in Indigenous Peoples’ health, includes searching MEDLINE, EMBASE PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases; grey literature, by searching the internet and consulting reference lists of key publications; examining key Indigenous research journal articles not indexed in the major biomedical databases; and snowball sampling. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria, then screen the full texts of selected citations. Data will be extracted, collated and charted to summarize the types of studies, healthcare contexts, health information accessed, how health information was accessed, barriers and facilitators to accessing information and related measures.Ethics and DisseminationA consultation exercise with a community advisory committee will review results and inform future research. Results will be integrated with findings from other project stages to inform the adaptation of a child health resource for Red River Métis families.

The protocol for a prospective controlled study that will compare rapid reviews to systematic reviews conducted concurrently on the same topic, to understand the balance between quality (strength of evidence), efficiency (time, cost), and the impact on decisions.

This workbook is designed to take you through the process of planning and conducting a knowledge synthesis. It is intended to be used in consultation with a librarian.

Background To support evidence-informed education, health professions education (HPE) stakeholders encourage the creation and use of knowledge syntheses or reviews. However, it is unclear if these knowledge syntheses are ready for translation into educational practice. Without understanding the readiness, defined by three criteria—quality, accessibility and relevance—we risk translating weak evidence into practice and/or providing information that is not useful to educators. Methods A librarian searched Web of Science for knowledge syntheses, specifically Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Guides. This meta-synthesis focuses on BEME Guides because of their explicit goal to inform educational practice and policy. Two authors extracted data from all Guides, guided by the 25-item STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis (STORIES). Results Forty-two Guides published in Medical Teacher between 1999 and 2017 were analyzed. No Guide met all STORIES criteria, but all included structured summaries and most described their literature search (n = 39) and study inclusion/exclusion (n = 40) procedures. Eleven Guides reported the presence of theory and/or educational principles, and eight consulted with external subject matter experts. Accessibility to each Guide’s full-text and supplemental materials was variable. Discussion For a subset of HPE knowledge syntheses, BEME Guides, this meta-synthesis identifies factors that support readiness and indicates potential areas of improvement, such as consistent access to Guides and inclusion of external subject matter experts on the review team. This analysis is useful for understanding the current readiness of HPE knowledge syntheses and informing future reviews to evolve so they can catalyze translation of evidence into educational practice.

Scoping review

Although the physical environment can influence people's activity, there are few knowledge syntheses for indoor environments and older adults' daily life routines. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed evidence to inform future research and practice. Inclusion criteria were studies with any research designs, across all years and languages focused on older adults 60 years of age or more, on physical activity/sedentary behaviour and the indoor environment. After searching five databases, two authors completed title/abstract and full-text screening. The last search was on December 19, 2020. We screened 1,367 citations, and included 23 studies situated in private or collective dwellings (e.g., assisted living). We identified physical activity-supportive indoor features across three domains: campus (e.g., amenities, pathways), building (e.g., area, floor level), and fixtures (e.g., elevators, hallways). Knowledge of indoor environmental factors for older adults' engagement in daily activities can guide future research and policy on housing design.

Poster presented at the World Biodiversity Forum at Davos, June 2022, including an oral summary. Abstract: Biological invasions are on the rise, and their global impacts on ecosystems, economies and human health are a major challenge. Invasion science is critical to mitigate invader impacts, yet due to the strong increase of data and information in this area, it has become difficult to acquire and maintain an overview of the field. Additionally, relevant information is often hidden behind paywalls. As a result, existing evidence is often not found, knowledge is too rarely transferred to practice, and research is sometimes conducted in pursuit of dead ends. With an ongoing project, we aim to address these challenges by developing an interactive atlas of invasion science that can be extended to other disciplines in the future. This online portal will be an evolving knowledge resource providing FAIR information for researchers. Users will be able to get an overview of the major research questions and hypotheses in invasion science, will be able to “zoom in” and find out about refined versions of these research questions and hypotheses, and discover relevant studies connected to them. The portal will apply cutting-edge visualization techniques, artificial intelligence and novel methods for knowledge synthesis. In the presentation, we will introduce our approach and discuss ideas for a complementary initiative in the field of restoration ecology. &nbsp

Background A growing literature describes promising practices for patient‐oriented research (POR) generally; however, those for systematic reviews are largely derived through the lens of a researcher. This rapid review sought to understand meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews from the patient partner (PP) perspective. Design The review team comprised PPs, librarians, SCPOR staff and academic faculty. We searched OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and core POR websites. Documents describing PP reflections on their involvement in synthesis reviews were included. Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Thematic analysis was employed to identify themes in the data regarding PP perceptions of engagement in synthesis reviews. Results The literature search yielded 1386 citations. Eight journal articles and one blog post were included. Seven studies focused on conducting systematic reviews on a particular health or patient‐related topic to which PP involvement was an important part and two studies focused specifically on the experience of including PP in synthesis reviews. PPs engaged in the review process through a variety of mechanisms, levels and stages of the review process. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) foster partnerships through team development, (2) provide opportunities for outcomes valued by PP and (3) strengthen the research endeavour. Conclusion Fostering partnerships through team development is foundational for meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews. It requires sensitively balancing of various needs (eg overburdening with contributions). Meaningful involvement in reviews has both personal and research benefits. Patient Involvement Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the review.

Background Knowledge synthesis (KS) reviews rely on good quality literature searches to capture a complete set of relevant studies, and peer review of the search strategy is one quality control mechanism that contributes to better quality reviews. Guidelines for peer review of electronic search strategies (PRESS) have been available since 2008. Objectives This overview provides a snapshot of KS indexed in Scopus, published between 2009 and 2018, that reported peer review of the literature search strategy. Methods Articles were identified through citation chasing for PRESS guidance documents and supplementary keyword searches. The characteristics of individual articles and the journals that published them were documented, and descriptive statistics were compiled. Results 415 articles from 169 journals met inclusion criteria. Approximately half were published in 14 journal titles. Most reviews reported the involvement of an information professional, but PRESS reviewers were rarely acknowledged. An overwhelming majority of review teams were based in Canada. Discussion Reported use of PRESS was low during the period examined, but under-reporting may be a factor. Investigation of the barriers and facilitators of PRESS adoption is needed. Conclusion Despite its value, adoption of PRESS appears low. Advocacy for, and education about, PRESS may be required.

Purpose This bibliometric analysis maps the landscape of knowledge syntheses in medical education. It provides scholars with a roadmap for understanding where the field has been and where it might go in the future, thereby informing research and educational practice. In particular, this analysis details the venues in which knowledge syntheses are published, the types of syntheses conducted, citation rates they produce, and altmetric attention they garner. Method In 2020, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of knowledge syntheses published in 14 core medical education journals from 1999 to 2019. To characterize the studies, metadata were extracted from PubMed, Web of Science, Altmetrics Explorer, and Unpaywall. Results The authors analyzed 963 knowledge syntheses representing 3.1% of the total articles published (n = 30,597). On average, 45.9 knowledge syntheses were published annually (SD = 35.85, median = 33), and there was an overall 2620% increase in the number of knowledge syntheses published from 1999 to 2019. The journals each published, on average, a total of 68.8 knowledge syntheses (SD = 67.2, median = 41) with Medical Education publishing the most (n = 189; 19%). Twenty-one types of knowledge synthesis were identified, the most prevalent being systematic reviews (n = 341; 35.4%) and scoping reviews (n = 88; 9.1%). Knowledge syntheses were cited an average of 53.80 times (SD = 107.12, median = 19) and received a mean Altmetric Attention Score of 14.12 (SD = 37.59, median = 6). Conclusions There has been considerable growth in knowledge syntheses in medical education over the past 20 years, contributing to medical education’s evidence base. Beyond this increase in volume, researchers have introduced methodological diversity in these publications, and the community has taken to social media to share knowledge syntheses. Implications for the field, including the impact of synthesis types and their relationship to knowledge translation, are discussed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40037-020-00626-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose This bibliometric analysis maps the landscape of knowledge syntheses in medical education. It provides scholars with a roadmap for understanding where the field has been and where it might go in the future, thereby informing research and educational practice. In particular, this analysis details the venues in which knowledge syntheses are published, the types of syntheses conducted, citation rates they produce, and altmetric attention they garner.Method In 2020, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of knowledge syntheses published in 14 core medical education journals from 1999 to 2019. To characterize the studies, metadata were extracted from PubMed, Web of Science, Altmetrics Explorer, and Unpaywall.Results The authors analyzed 963 knowledge syntheses representing 3.1% of the total articles published (n= 30,597). On average, 45.9 knowledge syntheses were published annually (SD= 35.85, median= 33), and there was an overall 2620% increase in the number of knowledge syntheses published from 1999 to 2019. The journals each published, on average, a total of 68.8 knowledge syntheses (SD= 67.2, median= 41) with Medical Education publishing the most (n= 189; 19%). Twenty-one types of knowledge synthesis were identified, the most prevalent being systematic reviews (n= 341; 35.4%) and scoping reviews (n= 88; 9.1%). Knowledge syntheses were cited an average of 53.80 times (SD= 107.12, median= 19) and received a mean Altmetric Attention Score of 14.12 (SD= 37.59, median= 6).Conclusions There has been considerable growth in knowledge syntheses in medical education over the past 20 years, contributing to medical education's evidence base. Beyond this increase in volume, researchers have introduced methodological diversity in these publications, and the community has taken to social media to share knowledge syntheses. Implications for the field, including the impact of synthesis types and their relationship to knowledge translation, are discussed.

Introduction Programmatic assessment was introduced as an approach to design assessment programmes with the aim to simultaneously optimize the decision-making and learning function of assessment. An integrative review was conducted to review and synthesize results from studies investigating programmatic assessment in health care professions education in practice. Methods The authors systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and ERIC to identify studies published since 2005 that reported empirical data on programmatic assessment. Characteristics of the included studies were extracted and synthesized, using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results Twenty-seven studies were included, which used quantitative methods (n= 10), qualitative methods (n= 12) or mixed methods (n= 5). Most studies were conducted in clinical settings (77.8%). Programmatic assessment was found to enable meaningful triangulation for robust decision-making and used as a catalyst for learning. However, several problems were identified, including overload in assessment information and the associated workload, counterproductive impact of using strict requirements and summative signals, lack of a shared understanding of the nature and purpose of programmatic assessment, and lack of supportive interpersonal relationships. Thematic analysis revealed that the success and challenges of programmatic assessment were best understood by the interplay between quantity and quality of assessment information, and the influence of social and personal aspects on assessment perceptions. Conclusion Although some of the evidence may seem compelling to support the effectiveness of programmatic assessment in practice, tensions will emerge when simultaneously stimulating the development of competencies and assessing its result. The identified factors and inferred strategies provide guidance for navigating these tensions.

The article reviews the main theoretical and empirical contributions about digitalnews media and online political communication in Hungary. Our knowledge synthesis focuses on three specific subfields: citizens, media platforms, and political actors. Representatives of sociology, political communication studies, psychology, and linguistics have responded to the challenges of the internet over the past two decades, which has resulted in truly interdisciplinary accounts of the different aspects of digitalization in Hungary. In terms of methodology, both normative and descriptive approaches have been applied, mostly with single case-study methods. Based on an extensive review of the literature, we assess that since the early 2000s the internet has become the key subject of political communication studies, and that it has erased the boundaries between online and offline spaces. We conclude, however, that despite the richness of the literature on the internet and politics, only a limited number of studies have researched citizens’ activity and provided longitudinal analyses.

Objectives Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. Method The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA‐ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. Results One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA‐ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. Conclusions Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised., Over the last 20 years, the number of #MedEd reviews has grown >2600% (4200% for scoping reviews). To explore this growth, Maggio et al. conducted a scoping review of 101 scoping reviews across 14 journals.

The demand for rapid reviews has exploded in recent years. A rapid review is an approach to evidence synthesis that provides timely information to decision-makers (eg, health care planners, providers, policymakers, and patients) by simplifying the evidence synthesis process. A rapid review is particularly appealing for urgent decisions. JBI is a world-renowned international collaboration for evidence synthesis and implementation methodologies. The principles for JBI evidence synthesis include comprehensiveness, rigor, transparency, and a focus on applicability to clinical practice. As such, JBI has not yet endorsed a specific approach for rapid reviews. In this paper, we compare rapid reviews versus other types of evidence synthesis, provide a range of rapid evidence products, outline how to appraise the quality of rapid reviews, and present the JBI position on rapid reviews. JBI-affiliated Centers conduct rapid reviews for decision-makers in specific circumstances, such as limited time or funding constraints. A standardized approach is not used for these cases; instead, the evidence synthesis methods are tailored to the needs of the decision-maker. The urgent need to deliver timely evidence to decision-makers poses challenges to JBI's mission to produce high quality, trustworthy evidence. However, JBI recognizes the value of rapid reviews as part of the evidence synthesis ecosystem. As such, it is recommended that rapid reviews be conducted with the same methodological rigor and transparency expected of JBI reviews. Most importantly, transparency is essential, and the rapid review should clearly report where any simplification in the steps of the evidence synthesis process have been taken. Refereed/Peer-reviewed