Dataset Information

Experiences of healthcare providers during the coronavirus pandemic and its impact on them: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Frontline healthcare providers are redeployed to areas outside their clinical expertise and assigned high-loading workload to address the surge of patients with each coronavirus outbreak. Their importance in crisis is not in doubt. However, they experienced considerable physical distress and psychological stressors, even leading to psychological illness and infection in this environment. There is an urgent need to accurately, comprehensively and objectively understand their experiences, perceptions and current situation of burnout, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, insomnia and coronavirus infection. Therefore, this protocol is to conduct a mixed-methods systematic review to summarise the evidence on the experiences of healthcare providers and impacts of the coronavirus on their psychological status and infection during the pandemics.

Methods

Published studies on experience, perspective, impact, burnout, PTSD, anxiety, depression, insomnia, and infection of healthcare providers with SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome and COVID-19, and written in English and Chinese will be accepted. Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, PubMed, Psychology Information, WanFang and SinoMed) from inception until 30 July 2020 will be searched. Two reviewers will select, screen, extract data and assess the risk of bias independently. Risk of bias of results will be using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Using a convergent integrated approach on qualitative/quantitative studies, we will synthesise qualitative and quantitative data separately. The incidence and number of cases about burnout, PTSD, anxiety, depression, insomnia and coronavirus infection among medical staff will be extracted. Then we will transform quantitative data to synthesise narrative findings. This protocol will be reported per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical assessment is not required due to the nature of the proposed systematic review. Findings of our research will be disseminated at conferences related to this field and through publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020198506.

SUBMITTER: Xu N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7918807 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Experiences of healthcare providers during the coronavirus pandemic and its impact on them: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

Xu Na N Lv AiLi A Li TianZi T Li XiaoFeng X Huang Mei M Su Yan Y

BMJ open 20210226 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Frontline healthcare providers are redeployed to areas outside their clinical expertise and assigned high-loading workload to address the surge of patients with each coronavirus outbreak. Their importance in crisis is not in doubt. However, they experienced considerable physical distress and psychological stressors, even leading to psychological illness and infection in this environment. There is an urgent need to accurately, comprehensively and objectively understand their ...[more]

PMID: 33637546

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:When certain complications arise during the second stage of labour, assisted vaginal delivery (AVD), a vaginal birth with forceps or vacuum extractor, can effectively improve outcomes by ending prolonged labour or by ensuring rapid birth in response to maternal or fetal compromise. In recent decades, the use of AVD has decreased in many settings in favour of caesarean section (CS). This review aimed to improve understanding of experiences, barriers and facilitators for AVD use. METHODS:Systematic searches of eight databases using predefined search terms to identify studies reporting views and experiences of maternity service users, their partners, health care providers, policymakers, and funders in relation to AVD. Relevant studies were assessed for methodological quality. Qualitative findings were synthesised using a meta-ethnographic approach. Confidence in review findings was assessed using GRADE CERQual. Findings from quantitative studies were synthesised narratively and assessed using an adaptation of CERQual. Qualitative and quantitative review findings were triangulated using a convergence coding matrix. RESULTS:Forty-two studies (published 1985-2019) were included: six qualitative, one mixed-method and 35 quantitative. Thirty-five were from high-income countries, and seven from LMIC settings. Confidence in the findings was moderate or low. Spontaneous vaginal birth was most likely to be associated with positive short and long-term outcomes, and emergency CS least likely. Views and experiences of AVD tended to fall somewhere between these two extremes. Where indicated, AVD can be an effective, acceptable alternative to caesarean section. There was agreement or partial agreement across qualitative studies and surveys that the experience of AVD is impacted by the unexpected nature of events and, particularly in high-income settings, unmet expectations. Positive relationships, good communication, involvement in decision-making, and (believing in) the reason for intervention were important mediators of birth experience. Professional attitudes and skills (development) were simultaneously barriers and facilitators of AVD in quantitative studies. CONCLUSIONS:Information, positive interaction and communication with providers and respectful care are facilitators for acceptance of AVD. Barriers include lack of training and skills for decision-making and use of instruments.

Project description:BackgroundThe Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) Model of continuing tele-education is an innovative guided-practice model aiming at amplifying healthcare professionals' competencies in the management of chronic and complex health conditions. While data on the impact of the ECHO model is increasingly available in the literature, what influences the model effectiveness remains unclear. Therefore, the overarching aim of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and synthesize the available quantitative (QUAN) and qualitative (QUAL) evidence regarding the ECHO Model effectiveness and the experiences/views of ECHO's participants about what influences the development of competencies in healthcare professionals.MethodsThe proposed systematic review was inspired by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews (MMSR) and will follow a convergent segregated approach. A systematic search will be undertaken using QUAN, QUAL and mixed methods (MM) studies of ECHO-affiliated programs identified in six databases. A publication date filter will be applied to find the articles published from 2003 onwards. Sources of unpublished studies and gray literature will be searched as well. Retrieved citations will independently be screened by two reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion until a consensus is reached or by including a third reviewer. Studies meeting the predefined inclusion criteria will be assessed on methodological quality and the data will be extracted using standardized data extraction forms. Separate QUAN and QUAL synthesis will be performed, and findings will be integrated using a matrix approach for the purpose of comparison and complementarity.DiscussionThis MMSR will fulfill important gaps in the current literature on the ECHO Model as the first to provide estimates on its effectiveness and consider simultaneously the experiences/views of ECHO's participants. As each replication of the ECHO Model greatly varies depending on the context, topic, and targeted professionals, a better understanding of what influences the model effectiveness in developing healthcare professionals' competencies is crucial to inform future implementation.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020197579.

Project description:ObjectiveTo review the impact of clinical supervision of post-registration/qualification healthcare professionals on healthcare organisational outcomes.BackgroundClinical supervision is a professional support mechanism that benefits patients, healthcare professionals and healthcare organisations. Whilst evidence is growing on the impact of clinical supervision on patient and healthcare professional outcomes, the evidence base for the impact of clinical supervision on organisational outcomes remains weak.MethodsThis review used a convergent segregated approach to synthesise and integrate quantitative and qualitative research findings, as per the Joanna Briggs Institute's recommendations for mixed methods systematic reviews. Databases searched included CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, PschINFO, and Scopus. Whilst a narrative synthesis was performed to present the findings of the quantitative and qualitative studies, the evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies was subsequently integrated for a combined presentation. The review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.ResultsThirty-two studies including 27 quantitative, two qualitative and three mixed methods studies, were included in the review. The results of the quantitative analysis showed that effective clinical supervision was associated with lower burnout and greater staff retention, and effective supervisor was associated with lower burnout and greater job satisfaction. Qualitative findings showed that healthcare professionals believed that adequate clinical supervision could mitigate the risk of burnout, facilitate staff retention, and improve the work environment, while inadequate clinical supervision can lead to stress and burnout. The evidence from quantitative and qualitative studies were complementary of each other.ConclusionClinical supervision can have a variable effect on healthcare organisational outcomes. The direction of this effect appears to be influenced by the effectiveness of both the clinical supervision provided and that of the clinical supervisor. This highlights the need for organisations to invest in high quality supervision practices if maximal gains from clinical supervision are to be attained.

Project description:BackgroundAn awareness campaign set to accompany the Global Maternal Sepsis Study (GLOSS) was launched in 2017. In order to better develop and evaluate the campaign, we sought to understand the factors that influence awareness of maternal sepsis by exploring healthcare providers' knowledge, perception of enabling environments, and perception of severity of maternal sepsis.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods approach that included 13 semi-structured interviews to GLOSS regional and country coordinators and 1555 surveys of providers working in GLOSS participating facilities. Directed content analysis and grounded theory were used for qualitative analysis, based on a framework including four overarching themes around maternal health conditions, determinants of maternal health, barriers and facilitators to sepsis identification and management, plus 24 additional sub-topics that emerged during the interviews. Descriptive statistics for frequencies and percentages were used for the quantitative analysis; significance was tested using Pearson χ2. Logistic regressions were performed to adjust for selected variables.ResultsAnalysis of interviews described limited availability of resources, poor quality of care, insufficient training and lack of protocols as some of the barriers to maternal sepsis identification and management. Analysis from the quantitative survey showed that while 92% of respondents had heard of maternal sepsis only 15% were able to correctly define it and 43% to correctly identify initial management. Provider confidence, perceived availability of resources and of a supportive environment were low (33%, 38%, and 48% respectively). Overall, the predictor that most explained awareness was training. Respondents from the survey and interviewees identified sepsis among the main conditions affecting women at their facilities.ConclusionsAwareness on maternal sepsis, while acknowledged as important, remains low. Healthcare providers need resources and support to feel confident about the correct identification and management of sepsis, as a prerequisite for the improvement of awareness of maternal sepsis. Similarly, providers need to know about maternal sepsis and its severity to understand the importance of reducing sepsis-related mortality and morbidity. Awareness raising campaigns can help bring neglected maternal health conditions, such as sepsis, to the forefront of global and local agendas.

Project description:BackgroundWith the accumulation of evidence regarding potential harms of cancer screening in recent years, researchers, policy-makers, and the public are becoming more critical of population-based cancer screening. Consequently, a high-quality cancer screening program should consider individuals’ values and preferences when determining recommendations. In cervical cancer screening, offering women autonomy is considered a “person-centered” approach to health care services; however, it may impact the effectiveness of the program should women choose to not participate. As part of a larger project to investigate women’s cervical screening preferences and correlates of these preferences, this systematic review will capture quantitative and qualitative investigations of women’s cervical screening preferences and the methods used to elicit them.Design and methodsThis mixed methods synthesis will use a thematic analysis approach to synthesize qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence. This protocol describes the methods that will be used in this investigation. A search strategy has been developed with a health librarian and peer reviewed using PRESS. Based on this strategy, five databases and the gray literature will be searched for studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included individual studies will be examined using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Three reviewers will extract data from the primary studies on the tools or instruments used to elicit women’s preferences regarding cervical cancer screening, theoretical frameworks used, outcomes measured, the outstanding themes from quantitative and qualitative evidence, and the identified preferences for cervical cancer screening. We will describe the relationships between study results and the study population, “intervention” (e.g., tool or instrument), and context. We will follow the PRISMA reporting guideline. We will compare findings across studies and between study methods (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative study designs). The strength of the synthesized findings will be assessed using the validated GRADE and CERQual tool.DiscussionThis review will inform the development of a tool to elicit women’s cervical screening preferences. Understanding the methods used to elicit women’s preferences and what is known about women’s cervical screening preferences will be useful for guideline developers who wish to incorporate a woman-centered approach specifically for cervical screening guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016035737Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0310-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough the sustainability of the health workforce has been identified as essential to achieving health and wider development objectives, challenges with securing and retaining the healthcare workforce persist. In the UK, there are notable shortages across a wide range of National Health Service (NHS) staff groups, with a high staff turnover indicating retention issues in the healthcare workforce. In addition, gaps exist in understanding the root cause of individual organisation's workforce deficiencies and how their practice environment factors interact to impact workforce recruitment and retention.Methods and analysisAn exploratory mixed-methods approach will be conducted to investigate the impact of organisational practice environment factors on healthcare workforce recruitment and retention in two Integrated Care Systems (ICS) in the East of England. We will conduct an online survey of newly qualified and established nurses and allied health professionals using a questionnaire adapted from two validated instruments. Our calculation suggests a sample size of 373 participants, we will aim to surpass this in our recruitment to strengthen the statistical analyses. Multilevel linear regression models will be fitted to evaluate the association between organisational practice environmental factors and staff recruitment and retention. The qualitative interviews will explore the experiences and perspectives of staff and senior leaders to explain the survey results and any significant associations therein. Also, the interviews will explore how to strengthen the partnership between higher education institutions, Health Education England, health and care service providers, NHS nursing and allied health professional staff to enhance recruiting and retaining staff. An exploratory inductive coding and analysis will follow Braun and Clarke's recommendations to generate key themes from transcribed interview data.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained through the University of Suffolk Research Ethics Committee (approval number: RETH(S)22/051). Findings from our work will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals; presentations at stakeholders' events, professional and academic conferences; and short reports for stakeholders, including participating ICSs.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led to major changes in people's lives via protective strategies aimed at limiting the transmission of COVID-19, including social distancing, lockdowns, cancelled or limited leisure activities and tutorials and supervision for students taking place digital. All of these changes may have influenced students' health and quality of life.AimTo describe and explore fear of COVID-19 and psychological distress, as well as general health and quality of life, among baccalaureate nursing students at 1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodWe used a mixed method study design, including quantitative data from University of Agder, data that was a part of a national survey of baccalaureate nursing students nearly one year into the pandemic. All the nursing students at the university were invited to take part between 27 January and 28 February 2021. The quantitative survey included 396 (out of total 858) baccalaureate nursing students (response rate: 46%). The quantitative data were collected using well-validated measures of fear of COVID-19, psychological distress, general health and quality of life, and the data were analysed using the ANOVA-tests for continuous data and chi-square tests for categorical data. Qualitative data were gathered from focus group interviews from the same university two-three months later. Five focus group interviews were conducted with a total of 23 students (7 men, 16 women). The qualitative data were analysed using systematic text condensation.ResultsThe mean score (standard deviation [SD]) for fear of COVID-19 was 2.32 (0.71), for psychological distress was 1.53 (1.00), for general health was 3.51 (0.96) and for overall quality of life was 6.01 (2.06). In the qualitative data, we identified the overarching theme effect of COVID-19 on students' quality of life and the three main themes; importance of personal relations, physical health challenges and mental health challenges.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic influenced negatively nursing students' quality of life and physical and mental health, and they often felt lonely. However, most of the participants also adapted strategies and resilience factors to cope with the situation. Via the pandemic situation, the students learned additional skills and mental mindsets that may be useful in their future professional lives.

Dataset Information

Experiences of healthcare providers during the coronavirus pandemic and its impact on them: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

Introduction

Methods

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Experiences of healthcare providers during the coronavirus pandemic and its impact on them: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets