Dataset Information

Do systematic reviews address community healthcare professionals' wound care uncertainties? Results from evidence mapping in wound care.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Complex wounds such as leg and foot ulcers are common, resource intensive and have negative impacts on patients' wellbeing. Evidence-based decision-making, substantiated by high quality evidence such as from systematic reviews, is widely advocated for improving patient care and healthcare efficiency. Consequently, we set out to classify and map the extent to which up-to-date systematic reviews containing robust evidence exist for wound care uncertainties prioritised by community-based healthcare professionals. METHODS:We asked healthcare professionals to prioritise uncertainties based on complex wound care decisions, and then classified 28 uncertainties according to the type and level of decision. For each uncertainty, we searched for relevant systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts of reviews against the following criteria: meeting an a priori definition of a systematic review, sufficiently addressing the uncertainty, published during or after 2012, and identifying high quality research evidence. RESULTS:The most common uncertainty type was 'interventions' 24/28 (85%); the majority concerned wound level decisions 15/28 (53%) however, service delivery level decisions (10/28) were given highest priority. Overall, we found 162 potentially relevant reviews of which 57 (35%) were not systematic reviews. Of 106 systematic reviews, only 28 were relevant to an uncertainty and 18 of these were published within the preceding five years; none identified high quality research evidence. CONCLUSIONS:Despite the growing volume of published primary research, healthcare professionals delivering wound care have important clinical uncertainties which are not addressed by up-to-date systematic reviews containing high certainty evidence. These are high priority topics requiring new research and systematic reviews which are regularly updated. To reduce clinical and research waste, we recommend systematic reviewers and researchers make greater efforts to ensure that research addresses important clinical uncertainties and is of sufficient rigour to inform practice.

SUBMITTER: Christie J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5761849 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do systematic reviews address community healthcare professionals' wound care uncertainties? Results from evidence mapping in wound care.

Christie Janice J Gray Trish A TA Dumville Jo C JC Cullum Nicky A NA

PloS one 20180110 1

<h4>Background</h4>Complex wounds such as leg and foot ulcers are common, resource intensive and have negative impacts on patients' wellbeing. Evidence-based decision-making, substantiated by high quality evidence such as from systematic reviews, is widely advocated for improving patient care and healthcare efficiency. Consequently, we set out to classify and map the extent to which up-to-date systematic reviews containing robust evidence exist for wound care uncertainties prioritised by communi ...[more]

PMID: 29320522

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is a plethora of interventions and policies aimed at changing practice habits of primary healthcare professionals, but it is unclear which are the most appropriate, sustainable, and effective. We aimed to evaluate the evidence on behavior change interventions and policies directed at healthcare professionals working in primary healthcare centers.Study design: overview of reviews.MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EbscoHost), and grey literature (January 2005 to July 2015).two reviewers independently, and in duplicate, identified systematic reviews, overviews of reviews, scoping reviews, rapid reviews, and relevant health technology reports published in full-text in the English language.two reviewers extracted data pertaining to the types of reviews, study designs, number of studies, demographics of the professionals enrolled, interventions, outcomes, and authors' conclusions for the included studies. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies using the AMSTAR scale. For the comparative evaluation, we classified interventions according to the behavior change wheel (Michie et al.).Of 2771 citations retrieved, we included 138 reviews representing 3502 individual studies. The majority of systematic reviews (91%) investigated behavior and practice changes among family physicians. Interactive and multifaceted continuous medical education programs, training with audit and feedback, and clinical decision support systems were found to be beneficial in improving knowledge, optimizing screening rate and prescriptions, enhancing patient outcomes, and reducing adverse events. Collaborative team-based policies involving primarily family physicians, nurses, and pharmacists were found to be most effective. Available evidence on environmental restructuring and modeling was found to be effective in improving collaboration and adherence to treatment guidelines. Limited evidence on nurse-led care approaches were found to be as effective as general practitioners in patient satisfaction in settings like asthma, cardiovascular, and diabetes clinics, although this needs further evaluation. Evidence does not support the use of financial incentives to family physicians, especially for long-term behavior change.Behavior change interventions including education, training, and enablement in the context of collaborative team-based approaches are effective to change practice of primary healthcare professionals. Environmental restructuring approaches including nurse-led care and modeling need further evaluation. Financial incentives to family physicians do not influence long-term practice change.

Project description:BackgroundData breaches in health care are on the rise, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to mitigation efforts.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive framework for modeling and analyzing health care professionals' information security practices related to their individual characteristics, such as their psychological, social, and cultural traits.MethodsThe study area was a hospital setting under an ongoing project called the Healthcare Security Practice Analysis, Modeling, and Incentivization (HSPAMI) project. A literature review was conducted for relevant theories and information security practices. The theories and security practices were used to develop an ontology and a comprehensive framework consisting of psychological, social, cultural, and demographic variables.ResultsIn the review, a number of psychological, social, and cultural theories were identified, including the health belief model, protection motivation theory, theory of planned behavior, and social control theory, in addition to some social demographic variables, to form a comprehensive set of health care professionals' characteristics. Furthermore, an ontology was developed from these theories to systematically organize the concepts. The framework, called the psychosociocultural (PSC) framework, was then developed from the various combined psychological and sociocultural attributes of the ontology. The Human Aspect of Information Security Questionnaire was adopted as a comprehensive tool for gathering staff security practices as mediating variables in the framework.ConclusionsData breaches occur often in health care today. This frequency has been attributed to the lack of experience of health care professionals in information security, the lack of development of conscious care security practices, and the lack of motivation to incentivize health care professionals. The frequent data breaches in health care threaten the mutual trust between health care professionals and patients, which implicitly impacts the quality of the health care service. The modeling and analysis of health care professionals' security practices can be conducted with the PSC framework by combining methods of statistical survey, observations, and interviews in relation to PSC variables, such as perceptions (perceived benefits, perceived threats, and perceived barriers) or psychological traits, social factors, cultural factors, and social demographics.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals outside of medicine (HCPs), including nurses, midwives and allied health professionals, are increasingly involved in research for patient benefit. Their challenge is to negotiate inter-professional or professionally isolated contexts. The aims of this study were to evaluate the 'Healthcare Professionals in Research' (HPiR) Facebook group (a self-directed and confidential peer support group for doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs) including engagement, the experiences of doctoral and postdoctoral HPiR members and to identify future career challenges using an on-line survey.MethodsThe HPiR Facebook group was launched in May 2019. Five HCP Community managers (CMs) were trained in on-line platform curation, moderation and screening. An on-line survey was designed to capture data from HPiR members. A purposive sampling approach was applied. Respondents were required to be doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs and a registered member of the HPiR group. Respondents represented a range of healthcare professions, 79 % of whom had over ten years clinical experience. Membership growth and engagement was analysed. Descriptive statistics were used to present numerical data. Qualitative data were analysed thematically.Results96 members were admitted to the group within the first month. All members were actively engaged with group content. 34/96 doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs completed the survey. Most members joined for networking (88 %) and peer support (82 %) purposes. Analysis of text responses showed difficulties in balancing a clinical academic career and highlighted the consequences of undefined clinical academic roles and pathways.ConclusionsDoctoral and postdoctoral HCPs value the opportunities that HPiR provides for peer support and connection with fellow HCPs. HPiR has the potential to strengthen research capacity, support research skill development and drive change within the clinical academic community. Clinical academic roles and pathways need to be standardised. The creation of opportunities beyond doctoral studies is a priority.

Project description:ObjectiveThis meta-review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of overall mental health of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodWe conducted a comprehensive literature search on Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE. A predefined eligibility criterion was used to screen the articles. The methodology quality of eligible studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for systematic reviews. The data were narratively synthesised in line with the meta-review aim.ResultForty systematic reviews (represented as K = 40), which reported data from 1,828 primary studies (N) and 3,245,768 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The findings from a pooled prevalence indicate that anxiety (16-41%, K = 30, N = 701), depression (14-37%, K = 28, N = 584), and stress/post-traumatic stress disorder (18.6-56.5%, K = 24, N = 327) were the most prevailing COVID-19 pandemic-related mental health conditions affecting healthcare workers. Other reported concerns included insomnia, burnout, fear, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatization symptoms, phobia, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts. Considering regions/countries, the highest anxiety was reported in the United-Kingdom [22.3, 95% Confidence Interval (CI):7-38, N = 4] compared to other countries, while the highest depression was in the Middle-East, (41, 95% CI:16-60, N = 5) and stress in the Eastern Mediterranean region (61.6, 95% CI:56.4-66.8, N = 2) compared to other regions. The most significant risk factors include female gender, younger age, being a nurse, and frontline professional. The most-reported coping strategies include individual/group psychological support, family/relative support, training/orientation, and the adequacy of personal protective equipment.ConclusionIt was concluded that healthcare professionals (nurses, doctors, allied health) have experienced various mental health issues during COVID-19 pandemic. The meta-review, therefore, recommends targeted interventions and health policies that address specific mental health issues to support health professionals worldwide during the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and similar future health crises.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD4202126200, identifier: CRD42021262001.

Project description:Providing reliable environmental quality standards (EQSs) is a challenging issue in environmental risk assessment (ERA). These EQSs are derived from toxicity endpoints estimated from dose-response models to identify and characterize the environmental hazard of chemical compounds released by human activities. These toxicity endpoints include the classical x% effect/lethal concentrations at a specific time t (EC/LC(x, t)) and the new multiplication factors applied to environmental exposure profiles leading to x% effect reduction at a specific time t (MF(x, t), or denoted LP(x, t) by the EFSA). However, classical dose-response models used to estimate toxicity endpoints have some weaknesses, such as their dependency on observation time points, which are likely to differ between species (e.g., experiment duration). Furthermore, real-world exposure profiles are rarely constant over time, which makes the use of classical dose-response models difficult and may prevent the derivation of MF(x, t). When dealing with survival or immobility toxicity test data, these issues can be overcome with the use of the general unified threshold model of survival (GUTS), a toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TKTD) model that provides an explicit framework to analyse both time- and concentration-dependent data sets as well as obtain a mechanistic derivation of EC/LC(x, t) and MF(x, t) regardless of x and at any time t of interest. In ERA, the assessment of a risk is inherently built upon probability distributions, such that the next critical step is to characterize the uncertainties of toxicity endpoints and, consequently, those of EQSs. With this perspective, we investigated the use of a Bayesian framework to obtain the uncertainties from the calibration process and to propagate them to model predictions, including LC(x, t) and MF(x, t) derivations. We also explored the mathematical properties of LC(x, t) and MF(x, t) as well as the impact of different experimental designs to provide some recommendations for a robust derivation of toxicity endpoints leading to reliable EQSs: avoid computing LC(x, t) and MF(x, t) for extreme x values (0 or 100%), where uncertainty is maximal; compute MF(x, t) after a long period of time to take depuration time into account and test survival under pulses with different periods of time between them.

Dataset Information

Do systematic reviews address community healthcare professionals' wound care uncertainties? Results from evidence mapping in wound care.

Publications

Do systematic reviews address community healthcare professionals' wound care uncertainties? Results from evidence mapping in wound care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets