Search

The detrimental impact of smoking on health and wellbeing are irrefutable. Additionally, smoking is associated with the development of cancer, a reduction treatment outcomes and poorer health outcomes. Nevertheless, a significant number of people continue to smoke following a cancer diagnosis. Little is understood of the smoking cessation services provided to smokers with cancer or their engagement with them. This systematic review aimed to identify existing smoking cessation interventions for this cohort diagnosed with breast, head and neck, lung and cervical cancers (linked to risk). Systematic searches of Pubmed, Embase, Psych Info and CINAHL from 1 January 2015 to 15 December 2020 were conducted. Included studies examined the characteristics of smoking cessation interventions and impact on referrals and quit attempts. The impact on healthcare professionals was included if reported. Included studies were restricted to adults with a cancer diagnosis and published in English. No restriction was placed on study designs, and narrative data synthesis was conducted due to heterogeneity. A review protocol was registered on PROSPERO CRD 42020214204, and reporting adheres to PRISMA reporting guidelines. Data were screened, extracted in duplicate and an assessment of the quality of evidence undertaken using Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. 23 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing USA, Canada, England, Lebanon, Australia and including randomized controlled trials (9), observational studies (10), quality improvement (3), and one qualitative study. Hospital and cancer clinics [including a dental clinic] were the settings for all studies. 43% (10/23) of studies reported interventions for smokers diagnosed with head and neck cancer, 13% (3/23) for smokers diagnosed with lung cancer, one study provides evidence for breast cancer, and the remaining nine studies (39%) report on multiple cancers including the ones specified in this review. Methodological quality was variable. There were limited data to identify one optimal intervention for this cohort. Key elements included the timing and frequency of quit conversations, use of electronic records, pharmacotherapy including extended use of varenicline, increased counselling sessions and a service embedded in oncology departments. More studies are required to ensure tailored smoking cessation pathways are co-developed for smokers with a diagnosis of cancer to support this population.

ObjectivesThe global COVID-19 pandemic produced large-scale health and economic complications. Older people and those with comorbidities are particularly vulnerable to this virus, with nursing homes and long term care facilities (LTCF) experiencing significant morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 outbreaks. The aim of this rapid systematic review was to investigate measures implemented in LTCF to reduce transmission of COVID-19 and their effect on morbidity and mortality of residents, staff and visitors.SettingLong-term care facilities.ParticipantsResidents, staff and visitors of facilities.Primary and secondary outcome measuresDatabases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Databases and repositories and MedRXiv prepublished database) were systematically searched from inception to 27 July 2020 to identify studies reporting assessment of interventions to reduce transmission of COVID-19 in nursing homes among residents, staff or visitors. Outcome measures include facility characteristics, morbidity data, case fatalities and transmission rates. Due to study quality and heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was conducted.ResultsThe search yielded 1414 articles, with 38 studies included. Reported interventions include mass testing, use of personal protective equipment, symptom screening, visitor restrictions, hand hygiene and droplet/contact precautions, and resident cohorting. Prevalence rates ranged from 1.2% to 85.4% in residents and 0.6% to 62.6% in staff. Mortality rates ranged from 5.3% to 55.3% in residents.ConclusionsNovel evidence in this review details the impact of facility size, availability of staff and practices of operating between multiple facilities, and for-profit status of facilities as factors contributing to the size and number of COVID-19 outbreaks. No causative relationships can be determined; however, this review provides evidence of interventions that reduce transmission of COVID-19 in LTCF.Prospero registration numberCRD42020191569.

BACKGROUND: The homeless population are among the most vulnerable groups to experience suicide ideation and behavior. Several studies have shown that people who are homeless experience more significant suicidal ideation and behavior than the general population. However, there is limited information about what suicide interventions exist, to what extent they are grounded in robust research, and which intervention components effectively reduce suicidal ideation and behavior in the homeless community. This research aimed to characterise the current evidence base in the area of suicide prevention for homeless individuals. METHODS: A scoping review guided by Arksey and OMalleys five-stage framework was conducted and a narrative synthesis was performed. Pubmed, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Open Grey, and Bielefeld Academic Search Engine were searched up to 8 May 2020. RESULTS: A total of 3209 records were identified through database and grey literature searching. Three studies are included in this review. Key outcomes identify suicide intervention prevention programmes; similarities and differences across interventions, and examples of staff training. A quality review of the studies was completed. CONCLUSION: A stark gap in the evidence of suicide specific prevention interventions targeted at homeless populations.

Aim: To summarize the evidence regarding the unmet care needs of women who have undergone breast cancer surgery and identify research gaps. Design: A scoping review. Data Sources: This review entailed a systematic search in EMBASE, Medline via PubMed, CINAHL Complete, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus (up until 30 July 2023). Review Methods: This review was guided by Arksey and O'Malley's Framework (2005) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis‐Scoping Review extension (PRISMA‐ScR). Results: Twenty‐five studies that included 4914 participants were retrieved. Fourteen studies employed quantitative designs, eight used qualitative methods, two were mixed‐methods studies and one used a qualitative meta‐synthesis. Women who have undergone breast cancer surgery experience a wide range of complex and multifaceted unmet care needs. The informational/educational and psychological/emotional domains were the most frequently reported among the identified domains. Meanwhile, the sexual and spiritual/religious beliefs domains remained relatively underexplored. Furthermore, none of the assessment tools used in these studies captured the entirety of the possible domains of unmet care needs. Conclusion: Needs assessment should be integrated into the routine care of women who have undergone breast cancer surgery. Interventions should be developed to address the unmet informational/educational and psychological/emotional needs of women. Future studies should employ high‐quality mixed‐methods approaches to explore women's sexual and spiritual/religious concerns. Impact: This review provides a comprehensive overview of the unmet care needs of women who have undergone the breast cancer surgery. These findings will contribute to the development of tailored interventions. This review also informs future studies to explore distinct domains of unmet care needs. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ensuring access for older people to Primary Health Care (PHC) is vital to achieve universal health coverage, improve health outcomes, and health-system performance. However, older people living in Low-and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) face barriers constraining their timely access to appropriate care. This review aims to summarize the nature and breadth of literature examining older people's experiences with access to PHC in LMICs, and access barriers and enablers. Methods: Guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework, four databases [CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase] were systematically searched for all types of peer-reviewed articles published between 2002 and 2023, in any language but with English or French abstract. Gray literature presenting empirical data was also included by searching the United Nations, World Health Organization, and HelpAge websites. Data were independently screened and extracted. Results: Of 1165 identified records, 30 are included. Data were generated mostly in Brazil (50%) and through studies adopting quantitative designs (80%). Older people's experiences varied across countries and were shaped by several access barriers and enablers classified according to the Patient-Centered Access to Healthcare framework, featuring the characteristics of the care delivery system at the supply side and older people's attributes from the demand side. The review identifies that most access barriers and enablers pertain to the availability and accommodation dimension, followed by the appropriateness, affordability, acceptability, and approachability of services. Socio-economic level and need perception were the most reported characteristics that affected older people's access to PHC. Conclusions: Older people's experiences with PHC access varied according to local contexts, socioeconomic variables, and the provision of public or private health services. Results inform policymakers and PHC practitioners to generate policies and services that are evidence-based and responsive to older people's needs. Identified knowledge gaps highlight the need for research to further understand older people's access to PHC in different LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Action Research is the property of Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents the discussion on the concerns for social justice in a local and global healthcare context focusing on theory and action bringing an increased emphasis on the application of action research in healthcare.