Prevalence of burnout in mental health nurses and related factors: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 1035-1044 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel María López‐López ◽  
José Luis Gómez‐Urquiza ◽  
Gustavo Raúl Cañadas ◽  
Emilia Inmaculada De la Fuente ◽  
Luis Albendín‐García ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Mental Health Nurses

scholarly journals Prognostic factors for chronic post-surgical pain after lung or pleural surgery: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e051554
Author(s):  
Pascal Richard David Clephas ◽  
Sanne Elisabeth Hoeks ◽  
Marialena Trivella ◽  
Christian S Guay ◽  
Preet Mohinder Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Surgical Pain ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Chronic Post Surgical Pain

IntroductionChronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) after lung or pleural surgery is a common complication and associated with a decrease in quality of life, long-term use of pain medication and substantial economic costs. An abundant number of primary prognostic factor studies are published each year, but findings are often inconsistent, methods heterogeneous and the methodological quality questionable. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are therefore needed to summarise the evidence.Methods and analysisThe reporting of this protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist. We will include retrospective and prospective studies with a follow-up of at least 3 months reporting patient-related factors and surgery-related factors for any adult population. Randomised controlled trials will be included if they report on prognostic factors for CPSP after lung or pleural surgery. We will exclude case series, case reports, literature reviews, studies that do not report results for lung or pleural surgery separately and studies that modified the treatment or prognostic factor based on pain during the observation period. MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Google Scholar and relevant literature reviews will be searched. Independent pairs of two reviewers will assess studies in two stages based on the PICOTS criteria. We will use the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool for the quality assessment and the CHARMS-PF checklist for the data extraction of the included studies. The analyses will all be conducted separately for each identified prognostic factor. We will analyse adjusted and unadjusted estimated measures separately. When possible, evidence will be summarised with a meta-analysis and otherwise narratively. We will quantify heterogeneity by calculating the Q and I2 statistics. The heterogeneity will be further explored with meta-regression and subgroup analyses based on clinical knowledge. The quality of the evidence obtained will be evaluated according to the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation guideline 28.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be necessary, as all data are already in the public domain. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021227888.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis of gestational diabetes mellitus and mental health among BAME populations

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 101016
Author(s):  
Gayathri Delanerolle ◽  
Peter Phiri ◽  
Yutian Zeng ◽  
Kathleen Marston ◽  
Nicola Tempest ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Meta Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document