Dataset Information

Effects of positive psychology interventions in Arab countries: a protocol for a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Despite the growing volume of published studies on the effects of positive psychology interventions (PPIs), little is known about their effectiveness outside of Western countries, particularly in Arab countries. As the effectiveness of PPIs in this region remains unclear, a systematic review focusing on this area of research can offer a valuable contribution. Here, we present a protocol for the first systematic review that aims to examine the effects of PPIs on increasing well-being, quality of life and resilience and decreasing depression, anxiety and stress for both health and clinical, child and adult populations in Arab countries.

Methods and analysis

This protocol is carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. A systematic literature search for studies up to 30 April 2021 will be conducted in the following electronic databases: PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Dar Al Mandumah and Al Manhal. Experimental/quasi-experimental quantitative studies evaluating the effects of PPIs on healthy and clinical participants of all ages in the 22 Arab countries will be included. Outcomes will include psychological effects of PPIs on dimensions related to well-being (eg, happiness), quality of life, resilience, depression, anxiety and stress. The risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. A narrative synthesis with tables of study characteristics will be provided. A meta-analysis will be included if outcomes allow; in this instance, subgroups analysis will be conducted, depending on the data gathered, to examine differences in effect sizes based on age group, population type, duration of intervention and type of intervention.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval was not required for the performance of this systematic review. We intend to publish the study in a peer-reviewed journal and share the findings at relevant conferences.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020198092.

SUBMITTER: Basurrah A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8323366 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInterventions using positive psychology (PP), which build on positive qualities of healthcare personnel and institutions, could potentially enhance organisational performance in healthcare. The aim of this systematic review was to identify if PP interventions have an impact on organisational performance of healthcare personnel, and if so, how this impact can be achieved. We developed a logic model to explain the impact of PP interventions on organisational performance.MethodsWe searched Web of Science, Medline, Psychinfo, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL (from inception until March 2019) and references of included articles to identify studies that evaluated the impact of a PP intervention for health personnel. Study quality was assessed using the SQUIRE checklist for quality improvement studies. Data were extracted about study details, setting, participants, intervention, method of evaluation and results. Outcomes, mechanisms and contexts were coded in nVivo. Data synthesis was guided by Lewis' theory of the impact of PP interventions on organisational performance and Kneale et al.'s method for logic model development. Collected data were integrated into a logic model explaining initial inputs, processes, and intermediate outcomes of PP interventions that lead to improved organisational performance in healthcare settings.ResultsWe retrieved 4638 articles and identified five through references of included articles of which 29 studies (31 articles) met our inclusion criteria. Most articles were of low quality (n = 19) and outcome measures varied widely. We identified 54 different outcomes of PP interventions, including 'improved well-being' and 'improved interaction and support'. Forty-nine mechanisms were identified including 'recognising and reframing negative interpretations'. Twenty four contextual factors were identified of which seven acted as barriers. 'Managerial support' was a facilitator mentioned in eight studies. All identified outcomes, mechanisms and contextual factors were integrated into a logic model explaining how interventions using PP can impact organisational performance in healthcare.ConclusionFew identified outcomes were statistically significant, however, trends in both quantitative and qualitative outcomes show that PP interventions can increase well-being and interaction and support and thus improve organisational performance in healthcare. The developed logic model can be used in the implementation and evaluation of interventions using PP for health personnel.

Project description:IntroductionTask shifting interventions are intended to both deliver clinically effective treatments to reduce disease burden and address health inequities or population vulnerability. Little is known about how health equity and population vulnerability are defined and measured in research focused on task shifting. This systematic review will address the following questions: Among task shifting interventions in high-income settings that have been studied using randomised controlled trials or variants, how are health inequity or population vulnerability identified and defined? What methods and indicators are used to describe, characterise and measure the population's baseline status and the intervention's impacts on inequity and vulnerability?Methods and analysisStudies were identified through database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science). Eligible studies will be randomised controlled trials published since 2004, conducted in high-income countries, concerning task shifting interventions to treat any disease, in any population that may face health disadvantage as defined by the PROGRESS-Plus framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, social capital, socioeconomic position, age, disability, sexual orientation, other vulnerable groups). We will conduct independent and duplicate title and abstract screening, then identify related papers from the same programme of research through further database and manual searching. From each programme of research, we will extract study details, and definitions and measures of health equity or population vulnerability based on the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Two investigators will assess the quality of reporting and measurement related to health equity and vulnerability using a scale developed for this study. A narrative synthesis will highlight similarities and differences between the gathered studies and offer critical analyses and implications.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not involve primary data collection, does not constitute research on human subjects and is not subject to additional institutional ethics review or informed consent procedures. Dissemination will include open-access peer-reviewed publication and academic conference presentations.PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42017049959.

Project description:IntroductionSharps injuries, including needlestick injuries and splash exposures, constitute serious occupational health problems for healthcare workers, carrying the risk of bloodborne infections. However, data on such occupational incidents and their risk factors in healthcare settings are scarce and not systematically summarised in the Arab countries.The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to review published literature about sharps injuries and splash exposures of healthcare workers in Arab countries, with the objectives to determine the incidence and/or prevalence of these events, their identified risk factors and the applied preventive and postexposure prophylactic measures.Methods and analysisThe protocol is developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol guidelines. A comprehensive presearch developed in January to March 2021 in the database PubMed will be followed by a systematic search of six, core medical and health science databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and Africa-Wide Information in May 2021. The search will be performed without any filters or restrictions for publication years. Covidence systematic review tool will be used for document management, blinded screening and study selection. Two reviewers will independently screen the records, extract data and conduct risk of bias assessment. Results will be synthesised narratively in summary tables, and, if findings allow, meta-analysis will be conducted on the incidence and/or prevalence of sharps injuries and splash exposures, and on the effect size of risk factors.Ethics and disseminationThe systematic review methodology does not require ethics approval due to the nature of the study design based only on published studies. The results of the systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, disseminated to stakeholders and made publicly available.Prospero registration numberCRD42021242416.

Project description:BACKGROUND:North America is in the midst of an unabated opioid overdose epidemic due to the increasing non-medical use of fentanyl and ultra-potent opioids. Naloxone is an effective antidote to opioid toxicity, yet its optimal dosing in the context of fentanyl and ultra-potent opioid overdoses remains unknown. This review aims to determine the relationship between the first empiric dose of naloxone and reversal of toxicity, adverse events, and the total cumulative dose required among patients with undifferentiated opioid overdoses and those with suspected toxicity from ultra-potent opioids. Secondary objectives include evaluating the relationship between the cumulative naloxone dose and toxicity reversal and adverse events, among patients with undifferentiated opioid overdoses and those with suspected toxicity from ultra-potent opioids. METHODS:To identify studies, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, DARE, CDAG, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, multiple trial registries, and the gray literature. Included studies will evaluate patients with suspected or confirmed opioid toxicity from undifferentiated opioids and ultra-potent opioids, who received an empiric and possibly additional doses of naloxone. The main outcomes of interest are the relationship between naloxone dose and toxicity reversal and adverse events. We will include controlled and non-controlled interventional studies, observational studies, case reports/series, and reports from poison control centers. We will extract data and assess study quality in duplicate with discrepancies resolved by consensus or a third party. We will use the Downs and Black and Cochrane risk of bias tools for observational and randomized controlled studies. If we find sufficient variation in dose, we will fit a random effects one-stage model to estimate a dose-response relationship. We will conduct multiple subgroup analyses, including by type of opioid used and by suspected high and low prevalence of ultra-potent opioid use based on geographic location and time of the original studies. DISCUSSION:Our review will include the most up-to-date available data including ultra-potent opioids to inform the current response to the opioid epidemic, addressing the limitations of recent reviews. We anticipate limitations relating to study heterogeneity. We will disseminate study results widely to update overdose treatment guidelines and naloxone dosing in Take Home Naloxone programs.