scholarly journals Perspectives of people with aphasia post-stroke towards recovery & living successfully. A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 586
Author(s):  
Molly Manning ◽  
Anne Hickey ◽  
Anne MacFarlane ◽  
Sue Franklin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

scholarly journals Study protocol of a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis using two different approaches: Healthcare related needs and desires of older people with post-stroke aphasia

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e039348
Author(s):  
Nadine Janis Pohontsch ◽  
Thorsten Meyer ◽  
Yvonne Eisenmann ◽  
Maria-Inti Metzendorf ◽  
Verena Leve ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older People ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Treatment Success ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

IntroductionStroke is a frequent disease in the older population of Western Europe with aphasia as a common consequence. Aphasia is known to impede targeting treatment to individual patients’ needs and therefore may reduce treatment success. In Germany, the postacute care of patients who had stroke is provided by different healthcare institutions of different sectors (rehabilitation, nursing and primary care) with substantial difficulties to coordinate services. We will conduct two qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) aiming at exploring distinct healthcare needs and desires of older people living with poststroke aphasia. We thereby hope to support the development of integrated care models based on needs of patients who are very restricted to communicate them. Since various methods of QESs exist, the aim of the study embedding the two QESs was to determine if findings differ according to the approach used.Methods and analysisWe will conduct two QESs by using metaethnography (ME) and thematic synthesis (ThS) independently to synthesise the findings of primary qualitative studies. The main differences between these two methods are the underlying epistemologies (idealism (ME) vs realism (ThS)) and the type of research question (emerging (ME) vs fixed (ThS)).We will search seven bibliographical databases. Inclusion criteria comprise: patients with poststroke aphasia, aged 65 years and older, studies in German/English, all types of qualitative studies concerning needs and desires related to healthcare or the healthcare system. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and includes three items from the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative Research checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented on national conferences.

scholarly journals How do middle-aged and older adults with chronic hip pain view their health problem and its care? A protocol for a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e053084
Author(s):  
Travis Haber ◽  
Rana S Hinman ◽  
Fiona Dobson ◽  
Samantha Bunzli ◽  
Michelle Hall
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Hip Pain ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Middle Aged ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionChronic hip pain in middle-aged and older adults is common and disabling. Patient-centred care of chronic hip pain requires a comprehensive understanding of how people with chronic hip pain view their health problem and its care. This paper outlines a protocol to synthesise qualitative evidence of middle-aged and older adults' views, beliefs, expectations and preferences about their chronic hip pain and its care.Methods and analysisWe will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis using a framework approach. We will conduct this study in accord with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative research checklist. We will search MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and PsycINFO using a comprehensive search strategy. A priori selection criteria include qualitative studies involving samples with a mean age over 45 and where 80% or more have chronic hip pain. Two or more reviewers will independently screen studies for eligibility, assess methodological strengths and limitations using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative studies checklist, perform data extraction and synthesis and determine ratings of confidence in each review finding using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation—Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach. Data extraction and synthesis will be guided by the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation. All authors will contribute to interpreting, refining and finalising review findings. This protocol is registered on PROSPERO and reported according to the PRISMA Statement for Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this systematic review as primary data will not be collected. The findings of the review will be disseminated through publication in an academic journal and scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberPROSPERO registration number: CRD42021246305.

scholarly journals Nurses’ Experience of Caring for Patients with Delirium: Systematic Review and Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 164-174
Author(s):  
Nissy Thomas ◽  
Mardhie Coleman ◽  
Daniel Terry
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Early Recognition ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Conscious State ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Knowledge Deficit ◽  
Methodological Assessment

Delirium is an acute deterioration in attention, conscious state, perception, and cognition of a person. While nurses possess the theoretical understanding of the condition, they lack insight into its early recognition and management. This systematic review aims to understand what factors influence nurses as they care for patients with delirium, and to identify best practices to improve overall clinical care. The Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES), as a strategy process to identify gaps in research, formulate new models or strategies for care, underpinned the review. In addition to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, a methodological assessment, data were analysed using QES, as informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Review process. Ten studies were identified and synthesised to generate four key themes. The themes included (1) nurse’s knowledge deficit; (2) increased workload and stress; (3) safety concerns among nurse when caring for patients with delirium; and (4) strategies used when caring for patients with delirium. Overall, the review has highlighted the need for increased delirium education and coping strategies among nurses to effectively care for patients with delirium. This may be augmented through regular education sessions to provide nurses with the confidence and competence to care for the acutely confused person.

scholarly journals The experiences of trained breastfeeding support providers that influence how breastfeeding support is practised: A protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0254445
Author(s):  
Mary Jo Chesnel ◽  
Maria Healy ◽  
Jenny McNeill
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Breastfeeding Support ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Support Providers ◽  
Support Provision ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Review Team

Background Many women stop breastfeeding before they intend to as they cannot overcome breastfeeding difficulties. Breastfeeding support, as an evidence-based intervention by trained lay or professional breastfeeding support providers, can prevent early unintended cessation. Yet some women report dissatisfaction with support and reluctantly stop breastfeeding despite receiving this intervention. Understanding the experiences which shape how support is provided can inform effective implementation of breastfeeding support interventions. This review aims to synthesise experiences of trained breastfeeding support providers in high income settings and how these may influence their breastfeeding support practices. Methods A qualitative systematic review of trained breastfeeding supporters’ experiences of supporting women to breastfeed, as part of a generic healthcare role or focused breastfeeding support role, will be conducted. A systematic search will be performed of the databases: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL +), MEDLINE ALL, Maternity and Infant Care, EMBASE, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. Title and abstract screening using eligibility criteria will be conducted using Covidence software. Eligible papers will be agreed by the review team following full text screening and reported using PRISMA guidelines. CASP and COREQ tools will assess study methodological quality and quality of reporting. Data will be extracted using a bespoke form and coded, using Excel software for data management. Analysis will involve the three stages of thematic synthesis: initial free coding, development of descriptive and subsequent analytical themes. Confidence in findings will be assessed using the CERQual framework. Discussion This review is the first to date to synthesise qualitative evidence on experiences which influence how trained lay and professional providers support women with breastfeeding. Findings will enable deeper understanding of the underpinning mechanisms of breastfeeding support provision and inform the development of tailored interventions to improve breastfeeding rates. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020207380

scholarly journals Help-seeking by male victims of domestic violence and abuse (DVA): a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e021960 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alyson L Huntley ◽  
Lucy Potter ◽  
Emma Williamson ◽  
Alice Malpass ◽  
Eszter Szilassy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Support Services ◽  
Help Seeking ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Male Victims ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Domestic Violence And Abuse

ObjectivesTo understand help-seeking by male victims of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) and their experiences of support services by systematically identifying qualitative and mixed-method studies and thematically synthesising their findings.DesignSystematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. Searches were conducted in 12 databases and the grey literature with no language or date restrictions. Quality appraisal of the studies was carried out using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Reviewers extracted first and second order constructs related to help-seeking, identified themes and combined them by interpretative thematic synthesis.SettingDVA experienced by male victims and defined as any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse among people aged 18 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.ParticipantsMale victims of DVA.InterventionsAny intervention which provides practical and/or psychological support to male victims of DVA including but not limited to DVA-specific services, primary healthcare and sexual health clinics.Primary and secondary outcome measuresQualitative data describing help-seeking experiences and interactions with support services of male victims of domestic violenceResultsWe included twelve studies which were published between 2006 and 2017. We grouped nine themes described over two phases (a)barriers to help-seeking: fear of disclosure, challenge to masculinity, commitment to relationship, diminished confidence/despondency and invisibility/perception of services; and (b)experiences of interventions and support: initial contact, confidentiality, appropriate professional approaches and inappropriate professional approaches.ConclusionThe recent publication of the primary studies suggests a new interest in the needs of male DVA victims. We have confirmed previously identified barriers to help-seeking by male victims of DVA and provide new insight into barriers and facilitators to service provision.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016039999.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document