Barriers and facilitators to a healthy lifestyle in postpartum women: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies in postpartum women and healthcare providers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Makama ◽  
Mamaru Ayenew Awoke ◽  
Helen Skouteris ◽  
Lisa J. Moran ◽  
Siew Lim
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthy Lifestyle ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Postpartum Women ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Quantitative Studies

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators to asthma self‐management in adolescents: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies

2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 430-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Holley ◽  
Ruth Morris ◽  
Rebecca Knibb ◽  
Sue Latter ◽  
Christina Liossi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Quantitative Studies

scholarly journals The Online Health Information Needs of Family Physicians: Systematic Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piet van der Keylen ◽  
Johanna Tomandl ◽  
Katharina Wollmann ◽  
Ralph Möhler ◽  
Mario Sofroniou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Information Retrieval ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Family Physicians ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Quantitative Studies

BACKGROUND Digitalization and the increasing availability of online information have changed the way in which information is searched for and retrieved by the public and by health professionals. The technical developments in the last two decades have transformed the methods of information retrieval. Although systematic evidence exists on the general information needs of specialists, and in particular, family physicians (FPs), there have been no recent systematic reviews to specifically address the needs of FPs and any barriers that may exist to accessing online health information. OBJECTIVE This review aims to provide an up-to-date perspective on the needs of FPs in searching, retrieving, and using online information. METHODS This systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies searched a multitude of databases spanning the years 2000 to 2020 (search date January 2020). Studies that analyzed the online information needs of FPs, any barriers to the accessibility of information, and their information-seeking behaviors were included. Two researchers independently scrutinized titles and abstracts, analyzing full-text papers for their eligibility, the studies therein, and the data obtained from them. RESULTS The initial search yielded 4541 studies for initial title and abstract screening. Of the 144 studies that were found to be eligible for full-text screening, 41 were finally included. A total of 20 themes were developed and summarized into 5 main categories: <i>individual needs</i> of FPs before the search; <i>access needs</i>, including factors that would facilitate or hinder information retrieval; <i>quality needs</i> of the information to hand; <i>utilization needs</i> of the information available; and <i>implication needs</i> for everyday practice. CONCLUSIONS This review suggests that searching, accessing, and using online information, as well as any pre-existing needs, barriers, or demands, should not be perceived as separate entities but rather be regarded as a sequential process. Apart from accessing information and evaluating its quality, FPs expressed concerns regarding the applicability of this information to their everyday practice and its subsequent relevance to patient care. Future online information resources should cater to the needs of the primary care setting and seek to address the way in which such resources may be adapted to these specific requirements.

scholarly journals International barriers and facilitators for cervical cancer screening among young people: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abirami Kirubarajan ◽  
Shannon Leung ◽  
Xinglin Li ◽  
Matthew Yau ◽  
Mara Sobel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Young People ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Age Group

Background Though cervical cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally, its incidence is nearly entirely preventable. Young people have been an international priority for screening. However, in both high-income and low-income countries, young people have not been screened appropriately according to country-specific guidelines and in many countries, screening rates for this age-group have even dropped. Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to systematically characterize the existing literature on barriers and facilitators for cervical cancer screening among young people globally. Search Strategy We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines of four databases: Medline-OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.Gov. Selection Criteria We only examined original, peer-reviewed literature. Databases were examined from inception until the date of our literature searches (12/03/2020). Articles were excluded if they did not specifically discuss cervical cancer screening, were not specific to young people, or did not report outcomes or evaluation. Data Collection and Analysis All screening and extraction was completed in duplicate with two independent reviewers. Main Results Of the 2177 original database citations, we included 36 studies that met inclusion criteria. Our systematic review found that there are three large categories of barriers for young people: lack of knowledge/awareness, negative perceptions of the test, and practical barriers to testing. Facilitators included stronger relationships with healthcare providers, social norms, support from family, and self-efficacy. Conclusions Health systems worldwide should address the barriers and facilitators to increase cervical cancer screening rates in young people. Further research is required to understand this age group.

scholarly journals Barriers to and facilitators for using nutrition apps: a scoping review and conceptual framework (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Maria König ◽  
Christiane Attig ◽  
Thomas Franke ◽  
Britta Renner
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Goal Attainment ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Extraction Process ◽  
Design Guidelines ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Quantitative Studies

BACKGROUND Nutrition apps are a prototypical mobile health (mHealth) technology supporting healthy eating behavior that are seen as promising tools for health promotion by policy makers. Although nutrition apps are increasingly popular, wide-spread adoption is yet to be achieved. Hence, profound knowledge regarding factors motivating and hindering (long-term) nutrition app use is crucial for developing design guidelines aiming at supporting uptake and prolonged use of nutrition apps. OBJECTIVE In this scoping review, we synthesized the literature on barriers to and facilitators for nutrition app use across disciplines including empirical qualitative and quantitative studies with current users, ex-users, and/or non-users of nutrition apps. METHODS A systematic literature search including six databases as well as backward and forward citation search was conducted. Search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the planned data extraction process were preregistered. All empirical qualitative and quantitative studies published in German or English were eligible for inclusion if they examined adults or adolescents (aged 13 to 18) who were either current users, ex-users and/ or non-users of nutrition apps. Based on qualitative content analysis, extracted individual barriers and facilitators were grouped into categories. RESULTS Twenty-eight publications were identified as eligible. A framework with a three-level hierarchy was designed which grouped 326 individual barriers and facilitators into 21 sub-categories, twelve categories, and four clusters that focus on either the individual user (goals, goal attainment, goal abandonment, personal living conditions, lack of knowledge or skill, lack or loss of motivation, habit), different aspects of the app and the smartphone (features, usability of the app or food database, technical issues, data security, accuracy/trustworthiness, costs), positive and negative outcomes of nutrition app use, or interactions between the user and their social environment. CONCLUSIONS The resulting conceptual framework underlines a pronounced diversity of reasons for (not) using nutrition apps indicating that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach for uptake and prolonged use of nutrition aps. Hence, tailoring nutrition apps to needs of specific user groups seems promising for increasing engagement.

scholarly journals Factors influencing oral anticoagulant prescribing decisions for patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i36-i37
Author(s):  
R Jarrar ◽  
C Wilkinson ◽  
T Chadwick ◽  
J Lally ◽  
R Thomson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Professional ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
Factors Influencing

Abstract Introduction Despite their efficacy in reducing stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), oral anticoagulants (OACs) remain under-prescribed [1]. Until recently, warfarin has been the dominant OAC. The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) led to changes in anticoagulant prescribing patterns, with an increase in OAC prescribing and a shift towards DOACs [2]. Treatment decisions for OACs are complicated, and require a discussion between clinicians and patients when deciding on a treatment [1]. Aim To investigate the main factors that influence initial and ongoing OAC prescribing decisions for patients with AF according to patient and health professional views. Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the Toolkit for Mixed-Methods Reviews, and was registered on PROSPERO: CRD42019145406. Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge and PsychInfo were searched in August, 2019. Primary qualitative and quantitative studies, published between 2009 and 2019, exploring patient and health professional perceptions, views and experiences of OACs in AF were included. McMaster critical appraisal tool for quantitative studies and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies were used for quality assessment. The review followed a convergent integrated approach to data extraction and analysis, which involves extracting and analysing results of quantitative and qualitative studies at the same time using the same method. A data extraction form was adapted from Joanna-Briggs Institute (JBI) mixed-methods extraction form. Study author interpretation of quantitative data was summarised as qualitative statements which were coded together with primary qualitative data using NVIVO 12 software; codes were applied to each sentence in the findings, and were grouped into a hierarchical tree structure Results The systematic review included 62 papers (58 studies) discussing clinical and non-clinical factors influencing decisions to initiate OACs, the choice between warfarin and DOACs, and the choice between individual OACs. The balance of stroke and bleeding risks was the most influential when making the decision to initiate anticoagulation according to both patients and health professionals. Convenience-related factors, such as monitoring requirements, dosing regimens, and interactions impacted the choice between warfarin and DOACs, whereas, reversibility and dosing regimen influenced the choice between individual medications according to the views of both groups. Health professional specialty and years of experience affected all aspects of treatments, with specialists and senior clinicians more willing to initiate anticoagulation and choose DOACs. Even though health professionals often expressed that patient views were considered when deciding on a treatment, patients generally said that they followed their physician’s recommendations without questioning. Conclusion The review revealed similarities and differences across patient and professional views, experiences, and preferences of anticoagulation. The main discrepancies were related to the decision-making process, and whether patient views are being considered when prescribing. Combining quantitative and qualitative evidence helped explore a wide range of views of OAC and AF, however the review only included published research papers in English, which might have led to exclusion of valuable evidence. More research is needed to explore the factors driving the choice between OACs, especially the choice between individual DOACs. References 1. Noseworthy PA, Brito JP, Kunneman M, Hargraves IG, Zeballos-Palacios C, Montori VM, Ting HH. Shared decision-making in atrial fibrillation: navigating complex issues in partnership with the patient. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2019;56(2):159–163. 2. Loo, S.Y., Dell'Aniello, S., Huiart, L. and Renoux, C. Trends in the prescription of novel oral anticoagulants in UK primary care. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2017; 83(9): 2096–2106.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document