Health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity: the protocol for an evidence map

Introduction: Interaction of conditions and treatments, complicated care needs and substantial treatment burden make patient–physician encounters involving multimorbid older patients highly complex. To optimally integrate patients’ preferences, define and prioritise realistic treatment goals and individualise care, a patient-centred approach is recommended. However, the preferences of older patients, who are especially vulnerable and frequently multimorbid, have not been systematically investigated with regard to their health status. The purpose of this evidence map is to explore current research addressing health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity, and to identify the knowledge clusters and research gaps. Methods and analysis: To identify relevant research, we will conduct searches in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL, Social Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index Expanded and the Cochrane library from their inception. We will check reference lists of relevant articles and carry out cited reference research (forward citation tracking). Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, check full texts for eligibility and extract the data. Any disagreement will be resolved and consensus reached with the help of a third reviewer. We will include both qualitative and quantitative studies, and address preferences from the patients’ perspectives in a multimorbid population of 60 years or older. There will be no restrictions on the publication language. Data extraction tables will present study and patient characteristics, aim of study, methods used to identify preferences and outcomes (ie, type of preferences). We will summarise the data using tables and figures (ie, bubble plot) to present the research landscape and to describe clusters and gaps. Ethics and dissemination: Due to the nature of the proposed evidence map, ethics approval will not be required. Results from our research will be disseminated by means of specifically prepared materials for patients, at relevant (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals

How explicable are differences between reviews that appear to address a similar research question? A review of reviews of physical activity interventions

Background Systematic reviews are promoted as being important to inform decision-making. However, when presented with a set of reviews in a complex area, how easy is it to understand how and why they may differ from one another? Methods An analysis of eight reviews reporting evidence on effectiveness of community interventions to promote physical activity. We assessed review quality and investigated overlap of included studies, citation of relevant reviews, consistency in reporting, and reasons why specific studies may be excluded. Results There were 28 included studies. The majority (n = 22; 79%) were included only in one review. There was little cross-citation between reviews (n = 4/28 possible citations; 14%). Where studies appeared in multiple reviews, results were consistently reported except for complex studies with multiple publications. Review conclusions were similar. For most reviews (n = 6/8; 75%), we could explain why primary data were not included; this was usually due to the scope of the reviews. Most reviews tended to be narrow in focus, making it difficult to gain an understanding of the field as a whole. Conclusions In areas where evaluating impact is known to be difficult, review findings often relate to uncertainty of data and methodologies, rather than providing substantive findings for policy and practice. Systematic ‘maps’ of research can help identify where existing research is robust enough for multiple in-depth syntheses and also show where new reviews are needed. To ensure quality and fidelity, review authors should systematically search for all publications from complex studies. Other relevant reviews should be searched for and cited to facilitate knowledge-building

The Performativity of Literature Reviewing: Constituting the Corporate Social Responsibility Literature through Re-Presentation and Intervention

Although numerous books and articles provide toolkit approaches to explain how to conduct literature reviews, these prescriptions regard literature reviewing as the production of representations of academic fields. Such representationalism is rarely questioned. Building on insights from social studies of science, we conceptualize literature reviewing as a performative endeavor that co-constitutes the literature it is supposed to “neutrally” describe, through a dual movement of re-presenting—constructing an account different from the literature, and intervening—adding to and potentially shaping this literature. We discuss four problems inherent to this movement of performativity—description, explicitness, provocation, and simulacrum—and then explore them through a systematic review of 48 reviews of the literature on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for the period 1975-2019. We provide evidence for the performative role of literature reviewing in the CSR field through both re-presenting and intervening. We find that reviews performed the CSR literature and, accordingly, the field’s boundaries, categories, priorities in a self-sustaining manner. By reflexively subjecting our own systematic review to the four performative problems we discuss, we also derive implications of performative analysis for the practice of literature reviewing

Interventions for behaviour change and self-management in stroke secondary prevention: protocol for an overview of reviews

Abstract Background Stroke secondary prevention guidelines recommend medication prescription and adherence, active education and behavioural counselling regarding lifestyle risk factors. To impact on recurrent vascular events, positive behaviour/s must be adopted and sustained as a lifestyle choice, requiring theoretically informed behaviour change and self-management interventions. A growing number of systematic reviews have addressed complex interventions in stroke secondary prevention. Differing terminology, inclusion criteria and overlap of studies between reviews makes the mechanism/s that affect positive change difficult to identify or replicate clinically. Adopting a two-phase approach, this overview will firstly comprehensively summarise systematic reviews in this area and secondly identify and synthesise primary studies in these reviews which provide person-centred, theoretically informed interventions for stroke secondary prevention. Methods An overview of reviews will be conducted using a systematic search strategy across the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed and Epistomonikas. Inclusion criteria: systematic reviews where the population comprises individuals post-stroke or TIA and where data relating to person-centred risk reduction are synthesised for evidence of efficacy when compared to standard care or no intervention. Primary outcomes of interest include mortality, recurrent stroke and other cardiovascular events. In phase 1, two reviewers will independently (1) assess the eligibility of identified reviews for inclusion; (2) rate the quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool; (3) identify unique primary studies and overlap between reviews; (4) summarise the published evidence supporting person-centred behavioural change and self-management interventions in stroke secondary prevention and (5) identify evidence gaps in this field. In phase 2, two independent reviewers will (1) examine person-centred, primary studies in each review using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR checklist), itemising, where present, theoretical frameworks underpinning interventions; (2) group studies employing theoretically informed interventions by the intervention delivered and by the outcomes reported (3) apply GRADE quality of evidence for each intervention by outcome/s identified from theoretically informed primary studies. Disagreement between reviewers at each process stage will be discussed and a third reviewer consulted. Discussion This overview will comprehensively bring together the best available evidence supporting person-centred, stroke secondary prevention strategies in an accessible format, identifying current knowledge gaps

Meta-evaluation of the impacts and legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games : Developing methods paper

This report brings together the interim findings from the Developing Meta-Evaluation Methods study, which is being undertaken in conjunction with the Meta-Evaluation of the Impacts and Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. The work on methods is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The aim of this paper is to review the existing evidence on conducting meta-evaluation, and provide guidance appropriate to the Meta Evaluation of the Games as well as other meta-evaluation studies

How reliable are systematic reviews in empirical software engineering?

BACKGROUND – the systematic review is becoming a more commonly employed research instrument in empirical software engineering. Before undue reliance is placed on the outcomes of such reviews it would seem useful to consider the robustness of the approach in this particular research context. OBJECTIVE – the aim of this study is to assess the reliability of systematic reviews as a research instrument. In particular we wish to investigate the consistency of process and the stability of outcomes. METHOD – we compare the results of two independent reviews under taken with a common research question. RESULTS – the two reviews find similar answers to the research question, although the means of arriving at those answers vary. CONCLUSIONS – in addressing a well-bounded research question, groups of researchers with similar domain experience can arrive at the same review outcomes, even though they may do so in different ways. This provides evidence that, in this context at least, the systematic review is a robust research method

Developing the content of two behavioural interventions : using theory-based interventions to promote GP management of upper respiratory tract infection without prescribing antibiotics #1

Background: Evidence shows that antibiotics have limited effectiveness in the management of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) yet GPs continue to prescribe antibiotics. Implementation research does not currently provide a strong evidence base to guide the choice of interventions to promote the uptake of such evidence-based practice by health professionals. While systematic reviews demonstrate that interventions to change clinical practice can be effective, heterogeneity between studies hinders generalisation to routine practice. Psychological models of behaviour change that have been used successfully to predict variation in behaviour in the general population can also predict the clinical behaviour of healthcare professionals. The purpose of this study was to design two theoretically-based interventions to promote the management of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) without prescribing antibiotics. Method: Interventions were developed using a systematic, empirically informed approach in which we: selected theoretical frameworks; identified modifiable behavioural antecedents that predicted GPs intended and actual management of URTI; mapped these target antecedents on to evidence-based behaviour change techniques; and operationalised intervention components in a format suitable for delivery by postal questionnaire. Results: We identified two psychological constructs that predicted GP management of URTI: "Self-efficacy," representing belief in one's capabilities, and "Anticipated consequences," representing beliefs about the consequences of one's actions. Behavioural techniques known to be effective in changing these beliefs were used in the design of two paper-based, interactive interventions. Intervention 1 targeted self-efficacy and required GPs to consider progressively more difficult situations in a "graded task" and to develop an "action plan" of what to do when next presented with one of these situations. Intervention 2 targeted anticipated consequences and required GPs to respond to a "persuasive communication" containing a series of pictures representing the consequences of managing URTI with and without antibiotics. Conclusion: It is feasible to systematically develop theoretically-based interventions to change professional practice. Two interventions were designed that differentially target generalisable constructs predictive of GP management of URTI. Our detailed and scientific rationale for the choice and design of our interventions will provide a basis for understanding any effects identified in their evaluation. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00376142This study is funded by the European Commission Research Directorate as part of a multi-partner program: Research Based Education and Quality Improvement (ReBEQI): A Framework and tools to develop effective quality improvement programs in European healthcare. (Proposal No: QLRT-2001-00657)