Search

Objective: This paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews., Study Design and Setting: The guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group., Results: This paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de-duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability., Conclusion: This paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high-quality scoping reviews., (© 2024 The Author(s). Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Objectives: Screening for elder abuse can improve detection, but many health providers lack the necessary skills and confidence. To address this, training for health providers on elder abuse screening was co-designed as part of a trial aimed at improving elder abuse detection and response., Research Design and Methods: Between March and April 2023, 7 health providers and 10 older people and family carers participated in two national Australian online codesign workshops. Using the World Café method, discussions focused on what knowledge and skills health providers needed for screening; clinical and social issues affecting screening and referral; and support older people needed throughout the process. Data were thematically analyzed., Results: Participants said health providers should take a trauma-informed, person-centered approach to screening, and explain the limits of confidentiality to older people. Clinical, social, and systemic issues such as dementia, ethnic diversity, and housing availability complicated screening and referrals. To facilitate disclosure, participants said health providers needed to reflect on whether they held ageist views. There were differing opinions on the length of the training and if all health providers or only social workers should screen for abuse., Discussion and Implications: Participants' feedback on trauma-informed care, consent, and cognitive impairment concorded with evidence on best practice responses to elder abuse and were integrated in the training. Given operational constraints in health services, feedback from health providers about the training length and the inclusion of all health providers in screening were prioritized. The training is being evaluated in a national trial., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.)

Objective: To identify evidence reporting on nurse practitioners working in aged care in Australia and to categorise the reported factors found to be barriers or facilitators to operation in terms of establishment, sustainability, and expansion., Introduction: Nurse practitioners work in a variety of aged care contexts throughout Australia but are underutilised and uncommon. Despite evidence for their effectiveness, it is unclear what barriers or enabling factors contribute to the successful and sustainable implementation of nurse practitioners working in this sector., Methods: Based on an a-priori protocol the JBI methodology for scoping reviews was used and the review reported against the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases searched included MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Web of Science, and Scopus. Peer reviewed and grey literature describing the role of Australian nurse practitioners in aged care were included., Results: Of 2968 retrieved sources, 18 were included representing studies of a variety of designs from all Australian states and territories. Residential care and in-home care contexts as well as metropolitan, regional, and remote locations were represented. Overall, 123 individual barriers and facilitators were identified across seven inductively derived categories: staff/individual, organisational, system, operational, resource, data, and consumers/clients/residents. In many cases, factors appeared across both positive (facilitators) and negative (barriers) categories., Conclusions: Nurse practitioners can improve the quality of care being provided to older people accessing aged care in Australia. When establishing or maintaining nurse practitioner roles in aged care knowledge users should have a comprehensive understanding of the range of factors potentially contributing to or limiting success or sustainability. As implementation is highly contextual, various types of organisational and sectoral factors as well as individual and overarching factors related to the regulation of nurse practitioners practice should be considered., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Micah Peters declares that he is an Associate Editor for the International Journal of Nursing Studies. Authors Micah Peters and Casey Marnie declare that their roles at UniSA are funded by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) however no funding was received in relation to the work underpinning this manuscript or in relation to the preparation of the manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Scoping reviews can identify a large number of evidence sources. This commentary describes and provides guidance on planning, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. This guidance is informed by experts in scoping review methodology, including JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Methodology group members, who have also conducted and reported large scoping reviews. We propose a working definition for large scoping reviews that includes approximately 100 sources of evidence but must also consider the volume of data to be extracted, the complexity of the analyses, and purpose. We pose 6 core questions for scoping review authors to consider when planning, developing, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. By considering and addressing these questions, scoping review authors might better streamline and manage the conduct and reporting of large scoping reviews from the planning to publishing stage., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest A.C.T. is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. Z.M. is supported by an NHMRC investigator grant APP1195676., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This discussion paper presents recent evidence regarding cancer screening and prevention among the transgender and gender diverse (TGD) community and highlights where and how advanced practice nurses (APNs), particularly those in primary care, can better contribute to closing the gap between healthcare disparities between TGD and cisgendered populations., Methods: Relevant publications on the topic and professional guidelines and evidence have formed the basis for this discussion paper., Results: TGD individuals are a vulnerable population with unique needs. They remain at risk of cancer and might be at greater risk of developing some cancers compared to cisgendered people but are underscreened. Barriers to gender-affirming care need to be addressed to improve access to prevention and screening services and improve the cancer care experiences and outcomes of TGD people., Conclusion: APNs can work in collaboration with TGD individuals and the healthcare system to improve access to culturally safe cancer screening and more effective prevention of cancer and poor cancer outcomes., Implications for Nursing Practice: APNs have the potential to improve access to cancer screening for TGD people by increasing their understanding of the needs of the population, providing culturally safe care, and advocating for more preventative care and cancer screening. With greater knowledge and understanding of the needs and preferences of TGD people both broadly and in relation to cancer screening and prevention, targeted interventions and care approaches can be implemented. APNs should also aim to conduct evaluations and research into cancer prevention and screening to build the currently limited evidence base and nursing knowledge in this important field., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Elder abuse often goes unreported and undetected. Older people may be ashamed, fearful, or otherwise reticent to disclose abuse, and many health providers are not confident in asking about it. In the No More Shame study, we will evaluate a co-designed, multi-component intervention that aims to improve health providers' recognition, response, and referral of elder abuse., Methods: This is a single-blinded, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Ten subacute hospital sites (i.e. clusters) across Australia will be allocated 1:1, stratified by state to a multi-component intervention comprising a training programme for health providers, implementation of a screening tool and use of site champions, or no additional training or support. Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 4 and 9 months. Our co-primary outcomes are change in health providers' knowledge of responding to elder abuse and older people's sense of safety and quality of life. We will include all inpatients at participating sites, aged 65 + (or aged 50 + if Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander), who are able to provide informed consent and all unit staff who provide direct care to older people; a sample size of at least 92 health providers and 612 older people will provide sufficient power for primary analyses., Discussion: This will be one of the first trials in the world to evaluate a multi-component elder abuse intervention. If successful, it will provide the most robust evidence base to date for health providers to draw on to create a safe environment for reporting, response, and referral., Trial Registration: ANZCTR, ACTRN12623000676617p . Registered 22 June 2023., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to explore formalized methods of reflection that are used in clinical settings in general practice when training medical students, postgraduate trainees, general practitioners, and family physicians., Introduction: Medical professionals are increasingly required to demonstrate competency in their ability to reflect on clinical practice. To accommodate this, the teaching of reflection is common in medical programs; however, there is a lack of clarity in the literature on how reflection is taught., Inclusion Criteria: This review will seek evidence describing the tools and approaches to reflection used by medical students, postgraduate trainees, and other registered medical professionals in general practice. The review will also include any evidence from those who teach reflection in a general practice setting. Evidence regarding reflection in training programs for other medical specialties will not be considered for inclusion., Methods: This review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), and the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched will include MEDLINE (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Extracted evidence will be presented using figurative, tabular, and accompanying narrative synthesis, in line with the review questions., Review Registration Number: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/uxw7d., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

Objective: The objective of this review is to identify barriers and enablers of the provision and accessibility of culturally safe care to transgender (trans) and gender-diverse patients in the emergency department., Introduction: Emergency departments have a unique role in creating patient experiences that influence positive or negative health outcomes. It is vital that emergency departments provide equitable experiences for all patients regardless of gender. Culturally safe care aims to support inclusive, effective, and appropriate care for trans and gender-diverse patients. Identifying the reported barriers and enablers of culturally safe care for trans and gender-diverse people in emergency departments will support knowledge users to advocate for and implement improvements to care., Inclusion Criteria: This review will consider studies that describe barriers and enablers of accessing culturally safe care in emergency departments reported by trans and gender-diverse people, their families and loved ones, as well as health care workers involved in the provision of care. English-language, published, and gray literature sources from January 1, 2000, to the present from all countries will be eligible., Methods: The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Database searches of MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase, ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ProQuest will be undertaken. Data will be presented in tabular format or graphs, with an accompanying narrative summary., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

Scoping reviewers often face challenges in the extraction, analysis, and presentation of scoping review results. Using best-practice examples and drawing on the expertise of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group and an editor of a journal that publishes scoping reviews, this paper expands on existing JBI scoping review guidance. The aim of this article is to clarify the process of extracting data from different sources of evidence; discuss what data should be extracted (and what should not); outline how to analyze extracted data, including an explanation of basic qualitative content analysis; and offer suggestions for the presentation of results in scoping reviews., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

Background: There is a recognized need for evidence to inform breast cancer screening guidelines and services for transgender people, who face barriers to accessing appropriate and inclusive health care., Aims: This review summarized evidence for breast cancer risk and screening guidelines in transgender individuals, including the potential impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT); factors that may influence screening decision-making and behaviors; and considerations for providing culturally safe, high-quality screening services., Methods: A protocol was developed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Searches were performed in Medline, Emcare, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for articles reporting information on the provision of culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for transgender people., Results: We identified 57 sources for inclusion: 13 cross-sectional studies, 6 case reports, 2 case series, 28 review or opinion articles, 6 systematic reviews, 1 qualitative study, and 1 book chapter. Evidence on rates of breast cancer screening among transgender people and the association between GAHT and breast cancer risk was inconclusive. Factors negatively associated with cancer screening behaviors included socioeconomic barriers, stigma, and lack of health provider awareness of transgender health issues. Breast cancer screening recommendations varied and were generally based on expert opinion due to the lack of clear evidence. Considerations for providing culturally safe care to transgender people were identified and mapped to the areas of workplace policies and procedures, patient information, clinic environment, professional conduct, communication, and knowledge and competency., Discussion: Screening recommendations for transgender individuals are complicated by the lack of robust epidemiological data and clear understanding of the role GAHT may play in breast cancer pathogenesis. Guidelines have been developed based on expert opinion and are subsequently not uniform or evidence based. Further work is required to clarify and consolidate recommendations., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.)

Objectives: Scoping reviews and evidence map methodologies are increasingly being used by researchers. The objective of this article is to examine how scoping reviews can reduce research waste., Study Design and Setting: This article summarizes the key issues facing the research community regarding research waste and how scoping reviews can make an important contribution to the reduction of research waste in both primary and secondary research., Results: The problem of research waste is an enduring challenge for global health, leading to a waste of human and financial resources and producing research outputs that do not provide answers to the most pressing research questions. Research waste occurs within primary research but also in secondary research such as evidence syntheses. The focus of scoping reviews on characterizing the nature of existing evidence on a topic and including all types of evidence, potentially reduces research waste in five ways: (1) identifying key research gaps on a topic, (2) determining appropriate outcome measures, (3) mapping existing methodological approaches, (4) developing a consistent understanding of terms and concepts used in existing evidence, and (5) ensuring scoping reviews do not exacerbate the issue of research waste., Conclusion: To ensure that scoping reviews do not themselves end up contributing to research waste, it is important to register the scoping review and to ensure that international reporting standards and methodological guidance are followed., (Crown Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this review is to identify current and potential use of nurse practitioner models of care in aged care and to examine factors that have been linked to their failure or success in terms of establishment, sustainability, and expansion., Introduction: Nurse practitioners work across a variety of sectors, including aged care. Nurse practitioner models of care have been found to be safe, effective, and highly regarded by clients and patients across many areas. They have particular benefit in areas where access to physicians is challenging, as well as for vulnerable populations. This review will provide a consolidated evidence base to determine the current state of the evidence on nurse practitioner models of care in the aged care sector., Inclusion Criteria: The review will consider studies on nurse practitioner models of care within aged care that report barriers/challenges and facilitators/success factors to their establishment, sustainability, and expansion. Evidence from all countries will be examined. Published and gray literature primary studies in English produced from 2010 onward will be eligible for inclusion. Expert opinion, including literature reviews, commentaries, and discussion, papers will be ineligible., Methods: This review will utilize the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Figurative, tabular, and accompanying narrative synthesis will be used to present the results, in line with the review questions., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 JBI.)

The Royal Commission's recommendation for nursing home minimum time standards and the Australian Government's response do not support best practice resident care. We recommend that higher mandated minimum staffing levels and skills mix should be phased in by mid-2026. What is known about the topic? The Australian Government has not committed to fully implementing the Commission's recommendations for mandated minimum staff time standards. What does this paper add? We highlight issues with the Commission's recommendations and the Australian Government's response where they do not support sufficient minimum time to provide best practice care. What are the implications for practitioners? Mandated evidence-based minimum staffing levels and skills mix should be phased in by mid-2026 to support best practice care.

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has had various degrees of success in different countries. Achieving high levels of vaccine coverage is key to responding to and mitigating the impact of the pandemic on health and aged care systems and the community. In many countries, vaccine hesitancy, resistance, and refusal are emerging as significant barriers to immunisation uptake and the relaxation of policies that limit everyday life. Vaccine hesitancy/ resistance/ refusal is complex and multi-faceted. Individuals and groups have diverse and often multiple reasons for delaying or refusing vaccination. These reasons include: social determinants of health, convenience, ease of availability and access, health literacy understandability and clarity of information, judgements around risk versus benefit, notions of collective versus individual responsibility, trust or mistrust of authority or healthcare, and personal or group beliefs, customs, or ideologies. Published evidence suggests that targeting and adapting interventions to particular population groups, contexts, and specific reasons for vaccine hesitancy/ resistance may enhance the effectiveness of interventions. While evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to address vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake is limited and generally unable to underpin any specific strategy, multi-pronged interventions are promising. In many settings, mandating vaccination, particularly for those working in health or high risk/ transmission industries, has been implemented or debated by Governments, decision-makers, and health authorities. While mandatory vaccination is effective for seasonal influenza uptake amongst healthcare workers, this evidence may not be appropriately transferred to the context of COVID-19. Financial or other incentives for addressing vaccine hesitancy may have limited effectiveness with much evidence for benefit appearing to have been translated across from other public/preventive health issues such as smoking cessation. Multicomponent, dialogue-based (i.e., communication) interventions are effective in addressing vaccine hesitancy/resistance. Multicomponent interventions that encompasses the following might be effective: (i) targeting specific groups such as unvaccinated/under-vaccinated groups or healthcare workers, (ii) increasing vaccine knowledge and awareness, (iii) enhanced access and convenience of vaccination, (iv) mandating vaccination or implementing sanctions against non-vaccination, (v) engaging religious and community leaders, (vi) embedding new vaccine knowledge and evidence in routine health practices and procedures, and (vii) addressing mistrust and improving trust in healthcare providers and institutions via genuine engagement and dialogue. It is universally important that healthcare professionals and representative groups, as often highly trusted sources of health guidance, should be closely involved in policymaker and health authority decisions regarding the establishment and implementation of vaccine recommendations and interventions to address vaccine hesitancy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Knowledge user consultation is often limited or omitted in the conduct of scoping reviews. Not including knowledge users within the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews could be due to a lack of guidance or understanding about what consultation requires and the subsequent benefits. Knowledge user engagement in evidence synthesis, including consultation approaches, has many associated benefits, including improved relevance of the research and better dissemination and implementation of research findings. Scoping reviews, however, have not been specifically focused on in terms of research into knowledge user consultation and evidence syntheses. In this paper, we will present JBI's guidance for knowledge user engagement in scoping reviews based on the expert opinion of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. We offer specific guidance on how this can occur and provide information regarding how to report and evaluate knowledge user engagement within scoping reviews. We believe that scoping review authors should embed knowledge user engagement into all scoping reviews and strive towards a co-creation model., (Copyright © 2022 JBI.)

Abstract: 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, 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 Collaborating 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 has been taken., Competing Interests: CG and ACT are co-directors of a JBI Collaborating Centre, but have no conflicts of interest to declare. ACT is a member of the editorial advisory board of JBI Evidence Synthesis. ZM, DP, TB, AM, and EA are employed by JBI, an evidence-based healthcare research and development organization situated within The University of Adelaide. EA is the editor-in-chief of JBI Evidence Synthesis. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 JBI.)

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to identify and report on evidence (such as guidance) or tools regarding methodological quality or risk of bias of scoping reviews., Introduction: Scoping reviews have gained popularity in recent years but have been criticized for variations in their approaches. This scoping review will examine evidence on the methodological quality of scoping reviews. It will also identify and describe potential methods to inform the development of a tool for appraising the methodological quality of scoping reviews., Inclusion Criteria: This review will consider all documents reporting on the development, evaluation, or use of tools addressing the critical appraisal or risk of bias of scoping reviews. The search will seek evidence published from 2005 onwards, corresponding with the publication of Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews., Methods: A three-step search strategy will be used to locate both published and unpublished documents. An initial search of MEDLINE identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL will follow. Google and Google Scholar will be searched for difficult-to-locate and unpublished literature. The authors will use their professional networks, social media accounts, and professional newsletters to contact methodologists to obtain any additional materials. Documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by two researchers, and the data will be presented in tables., (Copyright © 2022 JBI.)

Objective: The purpose of this article is to clearly describe how to develop a robust and detailed scoping review protocol, which is the first stage of the scoping review process. This paper provides detailed guidance and a checklist for prospective authors to ensure that their protocols adequately inform both the conduct of the ensuing review and their readership., Introduction: Scoping reviews are a common approach to evidence synthesis for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers across a variety of fields. Scoping reviews are not concerned with making analytical comparisons based on pooling results data from multiple primary sources of evidence, but rather on collating and describing the evidence and presenting the summation in a clearly illustrated format. Methods for undertaking and reporting scoping reviews continue to be refined. Some prospective reviewers may be uncertain how to plan, structure, and report scoping review protocols, as there is little or no specific guidance for scoping review protocols yet available., Methods: This guidance was developed by members of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group based on previous experience and expertise in developing scoping review and evidence synthesis methodologies, protocols, and reviews, as well as through experiences working with and guiding authors to develop scoping review protocols. Elements of a comprehensive scoping review protocol are outlined and explained in detail., Conclusion: Knowledge users of evidence syntheses rely on clear and transparent reporting to understand and use the results of published work to drive evidence-based improvements within health care and beyond. It is hoped that readers will be able to use this guidance when developing protocols to assist them in planning future scoping reviews and to carry them out with a high degree of transparency., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 JBI.)

What Is Known and Objective: Scoping reviews are a valuable evidence synthesis methodology. They can be used to map the evidence related to any topic to allow examination of practice, methods, policy and where (and how) future research could be undertaken. As such, they are a useful form of evidence synthesis for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to review a broad range of evidence sources., Comment: This commentary presents the most comprehensive and up to date methodology for scoping reviews published by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). This approach builds upon two older approaches by Arksey and O'Malley, and Levac. To assist reviewers working in the field of pharmacy with planning and conducting scoping reviews, this paper describes how to undertake scoping reviews from inception to publication with specific examples related to pharmacy topics., What Is New and Conclusion: The JBI scoping review methodology is a valuable evidence synthesis approach to the field of pharmacy and therapeutics. This approach can assist pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to gain an understanding of the extant literature, to identify gaps, to explore concepts, characteristics and to examine current practice., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: This scoping review aims to identify and map the outcomes reported from evaluations that measure the effectiveness and acceptability of palliative care programs and interventions in residential aged care facilities., Introduction: As the population ages, there is increasing attention on implementing new interventions and programs to improve palliative care in residential aged care facilities. However, there is no standard evaluation for intervention implementation. Mapping the outcome measures used in evaluations of diverse palliative care interventions in residential aged care facilities has not been explored recently., Inclusion Criteria: This review will consider studies involving older adults (aged 50 years and above) in any country living and receiving care in residential aged care facilities. This review will exclude literature that focuses on other age groups, and people receiving palliative care in other care settings, such as hospitals, palliative care inpatient units, sheltered housing, cancer centers, own homes, and hospices., Methods: This scoping review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. This scoping review will identify both published and unpublished (eg, gray literature) primary studies, as well as reviews. The databases to be searched for published studies will include MEDLINE, Emcare, ProQuest, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The search will be limited to evidence published in English from 2008 to the present. Visual, tabular, and accompanying narrative summaries will be used to present the results., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 JBI.)

Aim: To develop evidence-based recommendations for provision of culturally safe, high-quality services for breast cancer screening for transgender people., Design: The scoping review will follow the JBI methodological guidance for scoping reviews., Methods: A search using MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, the Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Methodology Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the World Health Organization, Australia Government Department of Health and Google Scholar will be undertaken. The review will include people of any age and ethnicity defined in the source of evidence as transgender. The review will include individuals who have used gender-affirming interventions or not and sources of evidence that report information relevant to the provision of culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for transgender people. English language sources of evidence published from database inception with information from any country will be eligible for inclusion. Sources will be screened for inclusion by three independent reviewers. Results will be extracted using a purpose-built tool and presented in relation to the review questions and objective in the final report using tables, figures and corresponding narrative. Project funding was approved by the Australian Government Department of Health in June 2020., Discussion: There are a range of factors that impact on the equity of health access and outcomes for people who are not cisgender. Transgender people are at risk of breast cancer but there is relatively little evidence about how their risks may or may not differ substantially from cis-gendered individuals and little guidance for health providers to ensure inclusive, culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for both transgender males, transgender females and gender diverse people who may not identify as male or as female., Impact: It is important to provide culturally safe, high-quality services for breast cancer screening for transgender people., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: The objective of this review is to identify and map the tools and approaches used for reflection as a learning strategy for nurses and nursing students in clinical settings., Background: Several types of reflection interventions exist to develop nurses' reflective competencies in clinical practice. This scoping review mapped the available literature on the use of reflection in the education of nurses and nursing students in clinical settings. Three questions guided the review: i) What tools and approaches for reflection have been reported? ii) What levels of reflection have been identified (low/descriptive, middle/application, or high/evaluative)? iii) What outcomes of reflection have been reported?, Inclusion Criteria: Studies investigated nursing students or nurses working in clinical settings involved in patient care, and described reflective interventions and definitions of reflection, descriptions of the contents reflected on, measurement instruments, and outcomes of interventions., Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Emcare (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), ERIC (ProQuest), CINAHL (Ovid), and Web of Science databases were searched for full-text studies published in English, Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian. Studies from any country and published from 2007 to September 2020 were eligible for inclusion. The review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and was based on an a priori protocol. Two independent reviewers assessed studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted data. Inclusion for review was determined according to the pre-determined eligibility criteria and consensus between researchers. Data were extracted using a standardized data extraction table and results were summarized narratively with accompanying tables., Results: Seventeen articles were included; nine quantitative studies and eight qualitative studies. Findings are presented separately due to varying study designs and outcomes. Most studies used physical tools and reflective dialogues in clinical settings. Some tools included specific questions for participants to reflect on, while others included open questions or no questions. Reflective approaches included lectures, workshops, or reflection with supervisors or peers in clinical settings. None of the 17 studies included the same combination of tools and approaches. Measurement of reflection was varied across articles, and there was a lack of standardization in how reflection outcomes were classified., Conclusions: Interventions, tools, approaches, and the measurement of nurses' reflection in clinical settings are highly varied, and none of the included studies had the same combination of elements. The studies indicate that reflection skills are achieved potentially according to the tools and approaches used, and the foci for reflection. There is little agreement among the research community on how best to assess the measurement and quality of reflection. It is recommended that future studies are explicit on the classification of low-, middle-, and high-level reflection according to standardized criteria., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 JBI.)

Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides readers with a brief update regarding ongoing work to enhance and improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews as well as information regarding the future steps in scoping review methods development. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a concise source of information regarding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types, the reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, and an update on methodological guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews.Despite available guidance, some publications use the term 'scoping review' without clear consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. Selection of the most appropriate review type for the stated research objectives or questions, standardised use of methodological approaches and terminology in scoping reviews, clarity and consistency of reporting and ensuring that the reporting and presentation of the results clearly addresses the review's objective(s) and question(s) are critical components for improving the rigour of scoping reviews.Rigourous, high-quality scoping reviews should clearly follow up to date methodological guidance and reporting criteria. Stakeholder engagement is one area where further work could occur to enhance integration of consultation with the results of evidence syntheses and to support effective knowledge translation. Scoping review methodology is evolving as a policy and decision-making tool. Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adherence to up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to identify and synthesise existing evidence on the experiences of international nursing students' and international nursing graduates' transition to the host country's nursing workforce., Background: International students' experiences of transition to the host country has been extensively explored by researchers. International students experience unique challenges related to communication and language, socialisation, finance, and temporary student visa. One under-researched area is the experiences of transition for international nursing students and international nursing graduates. This systematic review examined the existing evidence on international nursing students' and international nursing graduates' experiences of transition to the host country's nursing workforce., Inclusion Criteria: This review considered published and unpublished studies-qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, evidence syntheses, and grey literature-that included international nursing students enrolled in an undergraduate nursing programme outside their home country and international nursing graduates, either employed or not yet employed in nursing and within their first year of completing an undergraduate nursing programme outside their home country., Methods: A three-step search strategy was utilised in this review. The search strategy aimed to find published and unpublished literature in English from January 2000 to April 2020. The databases searched were Ovid Medline, Scopus, Emcare, ERIC, PsycINFO, ProQuest Central, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, JBI Evidence-based Practice Database, and ScienceDirect. Two reviewers independently screened the titles/abstracts and full texts of studies for inclusion and appraised the methodological quality of the included studies. Findings and accompanying illustrations were extracted by one reviewer, assigned a level of credibility, and checked by the others. Results were analysed using JBI's approach to qualitative meta-aggregation., Results: This review included three qualitative papers published between 2011 and 2018. All included studies were appraised as of moderate quality. Sixty-five study findings and nineteen categories were aggregated into the following six synthesised findings: international nursing graduates developed confidence and satisfaction through challenges; personal challenges; clinical challenges; discrimination and justice; academic barriers to success; and what international nursing students liked and wanted., Conclusion: The synthesised findings revealed ongoing anxiety, lack of preparedness and role uncertainty that was experienced by international nursing students and international nursing graduates as they transition to the host country's nursing workforce. They expressed the need for information about professional role expectations, guidance, and support to transition. University transition programmes and services could provide support to address the workforce transition challenges faced by international nursing students and international nursing graduates., Tweetable Abstract: Systematic review shows international nursing students and international nursing graduates experience anxiety, limited preparedness and role uncertainty when transitioning to the host country's nursing workforce., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Staffing levels and skill mix are critical issues within residential aged care. The positive impact of a sufficient number and skills mix of staff is upheld by abundant evidence within and beyond the sector. While being able to determine suitable staffing levels and skills mix to provide care to nursing home residents is vital, having an appropriate approach to funding the delivery of care is also critical. Beyond determining staffing levels and skills mix and funding care delivery, transparently rating the adequacy of staffing is also important to enable informed decision-making amongst consumers, policy makers, staff, and other stakeholders. There are existing tools for determining nursing home staffing levels and skills mix, funding care, and rating and reporting staffing, however there appears to be ongoing confusion regarding how these different tools might work together to achieve different things in order to ensure safe, quality care., Objectives: In order to explain the importance of ensuring at least a minimum number (staffing level) of the right kind of staff (skills mix) to provide care to nursing home residents, in this paper we briefly explain key differences and interrelationships between three tools; one for determining staffing and skills mix, one for determining funding, and one for rating and reporting the level of staffing within a facility as a measure of quality., Results: Our explanation of the three existing tools has resulted in the development of a conceptual model for how minimum staffing levels and skills mix supports the delivery of safe, quality care and how this can be understood in relation to determining, funding, and rating staffing levels and skills mix., Conclusions: Our conceptual model of how determining, funding, and rating staffing levels and skills mix relate to one another and fulfil different but related purposes can be used to demonstrate how minimum staffing levels and skills mix can be understood as foundational to ensuring respectful, safe, quality care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Micah Peters declares that he is an Associate Editor of the International Journal of Nursing Studies but will have no involvement in the editorial or review process for this manuscript. Micah Peters and Casey Marnie declare that his their positions at the University of South Australia are funded by the Federal Office of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF). No funds were received in relation to the work underpinning this manuscript or in relation to the preparation of the manuscript. Annie Butler declares that she is the Federal Secretary of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF). No funds were received in relation to the work underpinning this manuscript or in relation to the preparation of the manuscript., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the existing evidence regarding nurse-initiated protocols in the emergency department management of pediatric oncology patients with fever and suspected neutropenia., Introduction: Febrile neutropenia in pediatric oncology patients poses a significant burden of increased morbidity and mortality. Prompt, efficient emergency care and rapid antibiotic administration within 60 minutes of presentation to hospital is required to prevent clinical deterioration and reduce rates of intensive care admission and mortality. Efficient emergency department care delivery is impacted by modern day challenges, such as increasing user-demand, limited resources, and lack of flow. In response to this, to expedite care provision, practice guidelines have been developed to include nurse-initiated protocols that guide nurses to initiate specific predetermined investigations and interventions for patients meeting certain criteria. Febrile neutropenic pediatric patients may be a specific group that can benefit from nurse-initiated protocols due to the time-critical nature of required care., Inclusion Criteria: The scoping review will consider literature that reports on nurse-initiated protocols in the management of pediatric febrile oncology patients with suspected neutropenia in the emergency department setting., Methods: JBI methodology for scoping reviews will guide the review process. English-language literature from 2000 to present will be searched in Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Emcare, CINAHL Plus, and gray literature in Google Scholar, Open Grey, and Theses Global. Critical appraisal will not be performed. A tabular and accompanying narrative summary of the information will present extracted evidence aligned to the review's objective and questions., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 JBI.)

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to identify and examine the available evidence of domestically trained international nursing students' and new graduates' experiences of transition to the nursing workforce., Introduction: International students' workforce transition experiences are attracting researchers globally. One under-researched area relates to the workforce transition experiences of domestically trained international nursing students and new graduates. This scoping review will focus on identifying studies that examine factors that can directly or indirectly affect experiences of workforce transition., Inclusion Criteria: This review will consider studies that include domestically trained international nursing students enrolled in an undergraduate/baccalaureate nursing program (outside their country of origin) and new graduates within their first year of completing an undergraduate/baccalaureate nursing program (outside their country of origin). Participants may be either employed or not employed in the host country's nursing workforce. Studies that include participants from any other nursing programs will be excluded., Methods: The JBI approach for conducting and reporting scoping reviews will be followed. The review will include both published and unpublished literature. Research from 2000 onward that is available in English will be included. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, Emcare, ERIC, PsycINFO, ProQuest Central, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ScienceDirect. An assessment of methodological quality will be included, with results presented in the final report. One reviewer will carry out the data extraction process independently, which will be checked by another reviewer. Data will be presented in tabular form accompanied by a narrative summary that aligns with the objective of this scoping review., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 JBI.)

Aim: The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best-practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research., Design: Discussion Paper., Data Sources: Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA-ScR)., Implications for Nursing and Midwifery: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency., Conclusion: This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery., Impact: With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (the PRISMA-ScR)., Introduction: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to informing decision-making and research based on the identification and examination of the literature on a given topic or issue. Scoping reviews draw on evidence from any research methodology and may also include evidence from non-research sources, such as policy. In this manner, scoping reviews provide a comprehensive overview to address broader review questions than traditionally more specific systematic reviews of effectiveness or qualitative evidence. The increasing popularity of scoping reviews has been accompanied by the development of a reporting guideline: the PRISMA-ScR. In 2014, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group developed guidance for scoping reviews that received minor updates in 2017 and was most recently updated in 2020. The updates reflect ongoing and substantial developments in approaches to scoping review conduct and reporting. As such, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align with the current state of knowledge and reporting standards in evidence synthesis., Methods: Between 2015 and 2020, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group expanded its membership; extensively reviewed the literature; engaged via annual face-to-face meetings, regular teleconferences, and email correspondence; sought advice from methodological experts; facilitated workshops; and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to updated guidance for scoping reviews published in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The updated chapter was endorsed by JBI's International Scientific Committee in 2020., Results: The updated JBI guidance for scoping reviews includes additional guidance on several methodological issues, such as when a scoping review is (or is not) appropriate, and how to extract, analyze, and present results, and provides clarification for implications for practice and research. Furthermore, it is aligned with the PRISMA-ScR to ensure consistent reporting., Conclusions: The latest JBI guidance for scoping reviews provides up-to-date guidance that can be used by authors when conducting a scoping review. Furthermore, it aligns with the PRISMA-ScR, which can be used to report the conduct of a scoping review. A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned.

Problem: Lactational mastitis is a common condition amongst breastfeeding women. It is associated with decreased breastfeeding rates and often treated with antibiotics., Background: The anti-inflammatory effects of probiotics have been identified as a potential treatment or prevention strategy for lactational mastitis leading to increased commercial and public interest. Despite the marketing of probiotics to women, evidence is still emerging as to its efficacy., Aim/methods: This scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) to identify and examine the evidence around probiotic consumption and lactational mastitis. The review addressed the question; what is the evidence regarding probiotic consumption and human lactational mastitis? Studies were critically appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for randomised control trials (RCTs)., Findings: Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria; three concerned probiotic consumption for the treatment of mastitis, two for the prevention of mastitis. All reported a lower incidence of mastitis in the probiotic groups., Discussion: Although potentially promising results were reported across all studies there were significant methodological limitations concerning; appropriately described baseline characteristics, study hypotheses, lack of power calculations, definitional issues, and potential conflicts of interest., Conclusion: Probiotics may have utility for the treatment or prevention of lactational mastitis. However only a few studies with significant limitations have been published to date. Well designed and conducted studies are needed before evidence-based recommendations can be made for use of probiotics in the treatment or prevention of lactational mastitis., (Copyright © 2020 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (the PRISMA-ScR)., Introduction: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to informing decision-making and research based on the identification and examination of the literature on a given topic or issue. Scoping reviews draw on evidence from any research methodology and may also include evidence from non-research sources, such as policy. In this manner, scoping reviews provide a comprehensive overview to address broader review questions than traditionally more specific systematic reviews of effectiveness or qualitative evidence. The increasing popularity of scoping reviews has been accompanied by the development of a reporting guideline: the PRISMA-ScR. In 2014, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group developed guidance for scoping reviews that received minor updates in 2017 and was most recently updated in 2020. The updates reflect ongoing and substantial developments in approaches to scoping review conduct and reporting. As such, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align with the current state of knowledge and reporting standards in evidence synthesis., Methods: Between 2015 and 2020, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group expanded its membership; extensively reviewed the literature; engaged via annual face-to-face meetings, regular teleconferences, and email correspondence; sought advice from methodological experts; facilitated workshops; and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to updated guidance for scoping reviews published in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The updated chapter was endorsed by JBI's International Scientific Committee in 2020., Results: The updated JBI guidance for scoping reviews includes additional guidance on several methodological issues, such as when a scoping review is (or is not) appropriate, and how to extract, analyze, and present results, and provides clarification for implications for practice and research. Furthermore, it is aligned with the PRISMA-ScR to ensure consistent reporting., Conclusions: The latest JBI guidance for scoping reviews provides up-to-date guidance that can be used by authors when conducting a scoping review. Furthermore, it aligns with the PRISMA-ScR, which can be used to report the conduct of a scoping review. A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned.

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to identify and examine the evidence on probiotic consumption and its effect on human lactational mastitis., Introduction: Lactational mastitis is a painful, inflammatory condition of the breast tissue commonly occurring among breastfeeding women. It can lead to decreased breastfeeding rates, which then may lead to poorer maternal and newborn outcomes. There is growing interest and research on the use of probiotics to prevent or treat this condition following promising, but equivocal, evidence from studies of probiotics in relation to animals and other human conditions., Inclusion Criteria: Eligible studies will include women of any age who are planning a pregnancy, pregnant, breastfeeding, or expressing post-childbirth. There will be no exclusion based on comorbidity, previous history, or current diagnosis or treatment of lactational mastitis. All probiotic species and strains and all dosages, preparations, and timing/scheduling of probiotic administration will be eligible for inclusion. All concepts regarding the use of probiotics and their effect on lactational mastitis will be included, and all types of research will be considered., Methods: This scoping review will follow JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Sources of evidence published in English from 2000 to present will be included. The search will include the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, and Emcare, in addition to gray literature. A critical appraisal will be performed, and the results will be presented in the final review. A tabular and accompanying narrative summary of the information will be provided.

Background: Shared decision making in pregnancy, labour, and birth is vital to woman-centred care and despite strong evidence for the effectiveness of shared decision making in pregnancy care, practical uptake has been slow., Design and Aim: This scoping review aimed to identify and describe effective and appropriate shared decision aids designed to be provided to women in the antenatal period to assist them in making informed decisions for both pregnancy and birth. Two questions guided the enquiry: (i) what shared decision aids for pregnancy and perinatal care are of appropriate quality and feasibility for application in Australia? (ii) which of these decision aids have been shown to be effective and appropriate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, culturally diverse women, or those with low literacy?, Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used to conduct the review. Five key databases and selected grey literature sources were examined. English language evidence from Australia, Europe, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and United States of America produced from 2009 was eligible for inclusion, checked against apriori inclusion criteria, and assessed for quality and usability using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards., Results: From a total of 5,209 search results, 35 sources of evidence reporting on 27 decision aids were included following title/abstract and full-text review. Most of the decision aids concerned decisions around birth (52%, n = 14) or antenatal screening 37% (n = 10). The quality of the decision aids was moderate to high, with most communicating risks, benefits, and choice pathways via a mix of Likert-style scales, quizzes, and pictures or graphs. Use of decision aids resulted in significant reductions in decisional conflict and increased knowledge. The format of decision aids appeared to have no effect on these outcomes, indicating that paper-based are as effective as video- or audio-based decision aids. Eleven decision aids were suitable for low literacy or low health literacy women, and six were either developed for culturally diverse groups or have been translated into other languages. No decision aids found were specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples., Conclusions and Implications for Practice: The 27 decision aids are readily adoptable into westernised healthcare settings and can be used by midwives or multidisciplinary teams in conjunction with women. Decision aids are designed to support women, and families to arrive at informed choices and supplement the decision-making process rather than to replace consumer-healthcare professional interaction. If given before an appointment, high quality decision aids can increase a woman's familiarity with medical terminology, options for care, and an insight into personal values, thereby decreasing decisional conflict and increasing knowledge., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)