Inter-Professional Collaboration and Patient Mortality: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pantha S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8608100 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundA child's risk of dying is highest in the neonatal period, i.e. the first 28 days of life. Newborn death accounts for nearly half of under-five death. More than 80% of newborn deaths are the result of preventable and treatable conditions. Ethiopia has made significant progress towards reducing under-five mortality; however, the rate of neonatal mortality (NMR) still accounts for 41% of under-five deaths. With this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to determine the magnitude, causes, and determinants of neonatal mortality in Ethiopia.MethodsWe will conduct a comprehensive search of the following electronic databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and maternity and infant care databases as well as grey literature. We will assess the quality of studies by using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist. Two reviewers will screen all retrieved articles, conduct data extraction, and then critically appraise all identified studies. We will analyse data by using STATA 11 statistical software. We will demonstrate pooled estimates and determinants of neonatal mortality with effect size and 95% confidence interval.DiscussionThe result from this systematic review will inform and guide health policy planners and researchers on the burden, causes, and determinants of neonatal mortality in Ethiopia. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review in Ethiopia. We will synthesise the findings to generate up-to-date knowledge on neonatal mortality in Ethiopia.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO-CRD42018099663.
| S-EPMC6486678 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is a core demand of policymakers, funding parties, and health care professionals in practice. Although the causal mechanism from increased IPC to improved patient outcomes seems to be intuitive, there is a lack of credible causal evidence concerning the effects not only on the objective but also on the subjective patient outcomes. The aim of the planned systematic review is to focus on the effect of IPC on patient-reported outcomes and experiences in inpatient care. METHODS:A systematic literature review will be undertaken by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science/Social Science Citation Index, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Current Contents (LIVIVO), CINAHL, and EMBASE. Additional studies will be identified through forward and backward citation tracking, manually searching the Internet and Google Scholar, and consultation of experts. Data will be synthesized through narrative description, grouping, and thematic analysis of the extracted data. If heterogeneity for some studies and outcomes is sufficiently low, a quantitative meta-analysis of effect sizes and standard errors will be applied. DISCUSSION:The systematic review will synthesize the evidence regarding the effectiveness of IPC and how it is perceived by patients in inpatient care. As the patients' perspective becomes increasingly relevant in the context of quality improvement, the results can help decision-makers in policy- and health care institutions to understand and develop strategies to ensure a high quality of care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017073900 ; date of registration in PROSPERO 07 August 2017.
| S-EPMC6102939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The current demographic shift raises the demand for provision of health care tailored to the complex care needs for older adults. Given the growing number of national care plans and best practice models there is an urgent need to build evidence for inter- and multiprofessional care provision for older people when offered an integrated care approach. The aim of this study was to determine whether an inter-professional or multi-professional care intervention, can improve geriatric patients' health determinants. A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA Guidelines. Databases were searched for clinical trials which compare inter-professional or multi-professional complex care interventions with usual care among people aged ?60 years, in hospital or emergency care settings. Based on nine studies, inter-professional or multi-professional intervention has no impact on mortality rate but either positive or neutral effects on physical health, psychosocial wellbeing and utilization of health care service. It shows that these inter-professional or multi-professional interventions were feasible. This systematic review highlights the scarcity of evidence showing either positive or neutral impact of intervention based on inter-professional or multi-professional teamwork across care settings on the health determinants among geriatric patients. International harmonization of assessment tools may allow direct comparisons for future interventions.
| S-EPMC7047763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Virtual patients are interactive digital simulations of clinical scenarios for the purpose of health professions education. There is no current collated evidence on the effectiveness of this form of education. OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual patients compared with traditional education, blended with traditional education, compared with other types of digital education, and design variants of virtual patients in health professions education. The outcomes of interest were knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction. METHODS:We performed a systematic review on the effectiveness of virtual patient simulations in pre- and postregistration health professions education following Cochrane methodology. We searched 7 databases from the year 1990 up to September 2018. No language restrictions were applied. We included randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized trials. We independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and then compared the information in pairs. We contacted study authors for additional information if necessary. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. RESULTS:A total of 51 trials involving 4696 participants met our inclusion criteria. Furthermore, 25 studies compared virtual patients with traditional education, 11 studies investigated virtual patients as blended learning, 5 studies compared virtual patients with different forms of digital education, and 10 studies compared different design variants. The pooled analysis of studies comparing the effect of virtual patients to traditional education showed similar results for knowledge (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.11, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.39, I2=74%, n=927) and favored virtual patients for skills (SMD=0.90, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32, I2=88%, n=897). Studies measuring attitudes and satisfaction predominantly used surveys with item-by-item comparison. Trials comparing virtual patients with different forms of digital education and design variants were not numerous enough to give clear recommendations. Several methodological limitations in the included studies and heterogeneity contributed to a generally low quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS:Low to modest and mixed evidence suggests that when compared with traditional education, virtual patients can more effectively improve skills, and at least as effectively improve knowledge. The skills that improved were clinical reasoning, procedural skills, and a mix of procedural and team skills. We found evidence of effectiveness in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries, demonstrating the global applicability of virtual patients. Further research should explore the utility of different design variants of virtual patients.
| S-EPMC6632099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The global spread of diabetes poses serious threats to public health requiring a patient-centered approach based both on interprofessional collaboration (IPC) given by the cooperation of several different health professionals, and patients' perspective through the assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). The aim of the present study is to evaluate the impact of interprofessional collaboration interventions, for the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care settings, through PROs. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted querying the PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases. Out of the 1961 papers initially retrieved, 19 met the inclusion criteria. Interprofessional collaboration is significantly associated with an increase in both patient's satisfaction (SMD 0.32 95% CI 0.05-0.59) and in the mental well-being component of the HRQoL (SMD 0.18; 95% CI 0.06-0.30), and there was also promising evidence supporting the association between an interprofessional approach and an increase in self-care and in generic and specific quality-of-life. No statistical differences were found, supporting the positive impact on IPC interventions on the physical component of the HRQoL, depression, emotional distress, and self-efficacy. In conclusion, the effect of IPC impacts positively on the few areas assessed by PROMs. Policymakers should promote the widespread adoption of a collaborative approach as well as to endorse an active engagement of patients across the whole process of care.
| S-EPMC9029958 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary outcome(s): Colorectal cancer incidence, Colorectal tumor incidence
| 79216 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:IntroductionDue to growth and ageing of the world's population, the number of individuals worldwide with vision impairment (VI) and blindness is projected to increase rapidly over the coming decades. VI and blindness are an important cause of years lived with disability. However, the association of VI and blindness with mortality, including the risk of bias in published studies and certainty of the evidence, has not been adequately studied in an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisThe planned systematic review and meta-analysis will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases, including MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and Global Health, will be searched for relevant studies. Two reviewers will then screen studies and review full texts to identify studies for inclusion. Data extraction will be performed, and for included studies, the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The prognostic factor in this study is visual function, which must have been measured using a standard objective ophthalmic clinical or research instrument. We will use standard criteria from WHO to categorise VI and blindness. All-cause mortality may be assessed by any method one or more years after baseline assessment of vision. Results from included studies will be meta-analysed according to relevant sections of the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist.Ethics and disseminationThis review will only include published data; therefore, ethics approval will not be sought. The findings of this review and meta-analysis will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and will be included in the ongoing Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health.
| S-EPMC7311038 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe high impact of a cancer diagnosis on patients and their families and the increasing costs of cancer treatment call for optimal and efficient oncological care. To improve the quality of care and to minimize healthcare costs and its economic burden, many healthcare organizations introduce care pathways to improve efficiency across the continuum of cancer care. However, there is limited research on the effects of cancer care pathways in different settings.MethodsThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis described in this protocol is to synthesize existing literature on the effects of oncological care pathways. We will conduct a systematic search strategy to identify all relevant literature in several biomedical databases, including Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We will follow the methodology of Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), and we will include randomized trials, non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. In addition, we will include full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, and cost-benefit analyses), cost analyses, and comparative resource utilization studies, if available. Two reviewers will independently screen all studies and evaluate those included for risk of bias. From these studies, we will extract data regarding patient, professional, and health systems outcomes. Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.DiscussionFollowing the protocol outlined in this article, we aim to identify, assess, and synthesize all available evidence in order to provide an evidence base on the effects of oncological care pathways as reported in the literature.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017057592 .
| S-EPMC5870525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among individuals with diabetes. Despite the beneficial effects of antidiabetic drugs (ADDs) in terms of lowering haemoglobin A1c, several ADDs have been shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular events. Given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease among individuals with diabetes, it is important to weigh the benefits of ADDs against their cardiovascular safety. Therefore, the objective of the current study is to conduct a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare the effects of different oral pharmacological classes of ADDs on cardiovascular safety.Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies published in English up to 31 January 2017, and which include direct and/or indirect evidence, will be included. Studies will be retrieved by searching four electronic databases and cross-referencing. Dual selection and abstraction of data will occur. The primary outcome will be cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes will include all-cause mortality, new event of acute myocardial infarction, stroke (haemorrhagic and ischaemic), hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome and urgent revascularisation procedures. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment instrument for RCTs and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology instrument for observational studies. Network meta-analysis will be performed using multivariate random-effects meta-regression models. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be used to provide a hierarchy of ADDs that increase cardiovascular mortality.The results of this study will be presented at a professional conference and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.CRD42017051220.
| S-EPMC5719279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHomelessness is a major contributor to health inequalities. People who experience homelessness are at markedly increased risk of multiple and complex health morbidities which likely increase their susceptibility to early, preventable death. Despite this, the mortality burden in this group remains poorly understood, limited in part by insufficient synthesis of data at a global level. This systematic review will synthesise international literature examining rates of risk and protective factors for mortality among people who have experienced homelessness.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and PubMed for peer-reviewed cohort studies examining mortality among people who have experienced homelessness. No study eligibility restrictions will be placed on the date, country of origin, or language of publications, or age of the sample. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Methodological Standards for Epidemiological Research scale. Our measures of mortality will include: (A) incidence-all cause and cause specific, expressed as a crude mortality rate (CMR) per 1000 person-years, with 95% CI and (B) all cause and cause specific, indirectly standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) with 95%CI. Associations between risk and protective factors and all-cause and cause-specific mortality will be reported using pooled relative risk ratios with 95% CI. Where there are sufficient data, the influence of subgroup and methodological factors on CMRs, SMRs and predictive factors will be examined using meta-regression.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require institutional ethics review or approval as it will synthesise findings from published studies that have previously been granted relevant ethics approvals. Study findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal article, conference and seminar presentations. A plain language summary will be distributed through the authors' academic and professional networks.Prospero registration numberCRD42021272937.
| S-EPMC9943969 | biostudies-literature