Dataset Information

Operational definitions of paediatric asthma used in epidemiological studies: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Researchers use different definitions to identify children with asthma in epidemiological surveys. We conducted a systematic review to describe the definitions used in epidemiologic studies for wheeze and asthma in the paediatric population, aimed to inform the development of a uniform definition of paediatric asthma for future epidemiological research.

Methods

We systematically searched terms to identify asthma and/or wheeze among children aged <13 years and published between 1995-2020 across seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health, AMED, LILACS and CINAHL). PRISMA guidelines were followed for this review.

Results

We extracted a total of 11 886 records, where 190 met our eligibility criteria and included in the analysis. Among the included studies, 62.1% (n = 118/190) used the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) questionnaires, predominantly in developing countries (80%, n = 64/80). 'Wheeze' was reported in five categories, subdivided by 14 different definitions. "Current wheeze", defined as caregivers report of wheezing sounds from the chest of the child in the past 12 months and "Wheeze ever", defined as caregivers' report of wheezing or whistling in the chest of the child at any previous time, were the most common wheeze category reported in 129 and 95 studies, respectively. Asthma was reported in nine categories using 53 definitions. The most common asthma category was "Asthma ever", which was reported in 89 studies, based on caregiver statement that the child had asthma in the past.

Conclusion

Definitions of wheeze and asthma for children used in surveys are primarily based on parent-reported clinical features. Studies from developing countries more frequently used the ISAAC definitions to report childhood asthma and wheeze compared to the studies from developed counties. The use of a uniform asthma definition will aid the interpretation of research findings globally.

SUBMITTER: Islam MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8285759 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a lack of standardization regarding how to assess and categorize alcohol intake in older adults. The aim of this study was to systematically review methods used in epidemiological studies to define drinking patterns and measure alcohol consumption among older adults.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in the MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for studies published from January 2009 to April 2021. Studies were included if they were observational studies with a quantitative design; the mean age of the participants was ≥ 65 years; questionnaires, screening tools, or diagnostic tools were used to define alcohol consumption; and alcohol consumption was self-reported.ResultsOf 492 studies considered, 105 were included. Among the 105 studies, we detected 19 different drinking patterns, and each drinking pattern had a wide range of definitions. The drinking patterns abstaining from alcohol, current drinking, and risk drinking had seven, 12 and 21 diverse definitions, respectively. The most used questionnaire and screening tools were the quantity-frequency questionnaire, with a recall period of 12 months, and the full and short versions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, respectively.ConclusionNo consensus was found regarding methods used to assess, define, and measure alcohol consumption in older adults. Identical assessments and definitions must be developed to make valid comparisons of alcohol consumption in older adults. We recommend that alcohol surveys for older adults define the following drinking patterns: lifetime abstainers, former drinkers, current drinkers, risk drinking, and heavy episodic drinking. Standardized and valid definitions of risk drinking, and heavy episodic drinking should be developed. The expanded quantity-frequency questionnaire including three questions focused on drinking frequency, drinking volume, and heavy episodic drinking, with a recall period of 12 months, could be used.

Project description:BackgroundOrganizational Participatory Research (OPR) seeks organizational learning and/or practice improvement. Previous systematic literature reviews described some OPR processes and outcomes, but the link between these processes and outcomes is unknown. We sought to identify and sequence the key processes of OPR taking place with and within healthcare organizations and the main outcomes to which they contribute, and to define ideal-types of OPR.MethodsThis article reports a participatory systematic mixed studies review with qualitative synthesis A specialized health librarian searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, Social Work Abstracts and Business Source Complete, together with grey literature data bases were searched from inception to November 29, 2012. This search was updated using forward citation tracking up to June 2014. Reporting quality was appraised and unclear articles were excluded. Included studies clearly reported OPR where the main research related decisions were co-constructed among the academic and healthcare organization partners. Included studies were distilled into summaries of their OPR processes and outcomes, which were subsequently analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. All summaries were analysed; that is, data analysis continued beyond saturation.ResultsEighty-three studies were included from the 8873 records retrieved. Eight key OPR processes were identified. Four follow the phases of research: 1) form a work group and hold meetings, 2) collectively determine research objectives, 3) collectively analyse data, and 4) collectively interpret results and decide how to use them. Four are present throughout OPR: 1) communication, 2) relationships; 3) commitment; 4) collective reflection. These processes contribute to extra benefits at the individual and organizational levels. Four ideal-types of OPR were defined. Basic OPR consists of OPR processes leading to achieving the study objectives. This ideal-type and may be combined with any of the following three ideal-types: OPR resulting in random additional benefits for the individuals or organization involved, OPR spreading to other sectors of the organization and beyond, or OPR leading to subsequent initiatives. These results are illustrated with a novel conceptual model.ConclusionThe model provides operational guidance to help OPR stakeholders collaboratively address organizational issues and achieve desired outcomes and more.Review registrationAs per PROSPERO inclusion criteria, this review is not registered.