Caring for families experiencing stillbirth: evidence-based guidance for maternity care providers

Abstract not availableMicah D.J. Peters, Karolina Lisy, Dagmara Riitano, Zoe Jordan, Edoardo Aromatari

Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach

BACKGROUND: The importance of findings derived from syntheses of qualitative research has been increasingly acknowledged. Findings that arise from qualitative syntheses inform questions of practice and policy in their own right and are commonly used to complement findings from quantitative research syntheses. The GRADE approach has been widely adopted by international organisations to rate the quality and confidence of the findings of quantitative systematic reviews. To date, there has been no widely accepted corresponding approach to assist health care professionals and policy makers in establishing confidence in the synthesised findings of qualitative systematic reviews. METHODS: A methodological group was formed develop a process to assess the confidence in synthesised qualitative research findings and develop a Summary of Findings tables for meta-aggregative qualitative systematic reviews. RESULTS: Dependability and credibility are two elements considered by the methodological group to influence the confidence of qualitative synthesised findings. A set of critical appraisal questions are proposed to establish dependability, whilst credibility can be ranked according to the goodness of fit between the author's interpretation and the original data. By following the processes outlined in this article, an overall ranking can be assigned to rate the confidence of synthesised qualitative findings, a system we have labelled ConQual. CONCLUSIONS: The development and use of the ConQual approach will assist users of qualitative systematic reviews to establish confidence in the evidence produced in these types of reviews and can serve as a practical tool to assist in decision making.Zachary Munn, Kylie Porritt, Craig Lockwood, Edoardo Aromataris and Alan Pearso

Evaluating a research capacity strengthening program for Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations

A Masterclass Program was developed to strengthen the research capacity of staff within Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) and featured three Masterclasses delivered across Australia, including Understanding Research, Undertaking Research and Research Evaluation. A mixed-method process and impact evaluation of the Masterclass Program was undertaken. The process evaluation examined the reach of the Program and the impact evaluation comprised an online survey (n=45) and semi-structured interviews (n=21) with Masterclass participants. During 2014-17, 27 Masterclasses were delivered to 260 people, including predominantly ACCHO personnel but also Indigenous doctors and research institute staff who work closely with the ACCHO sector. Most survey respondents felt the Masterclasses improved their understanding of research and their willingness to participate in and undertake research. The qualitative analysis confirmed this and suggested that Masterclasses were implemented in a supportive learning environment which led to increased research capacity (increased research awareness, changed perceptions, increased understanding, critical thinking and new confidence) and ultimately enhanced research engagement (willingness to participate, motivating others, empowered critique of research partners and proposals, interest in further research training). Barriers to research engagement and areas for improvement of the Masterclass Program before, during and after Masterclasses were also identified.Janet Stajic, Stephen Harfield, Alex Brown, Anna Dawson, Carol Davy, Edoardo Aromataris and Annette Braunack-Maye

Enablers and barriers to the implementation of primary health care interventions for Indigenous people with chronic diseases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Access to appropriate, affordable, acceptable and comprehensive primary health care (PHC) is critical for improving the health of Indigenous populations. Whilst appropriate infrastructure, sufficient funding and knowledgeable health care professionals are crucial, these elements alone will not lead to the provision of appropriate care for all Indigenous people. This systematic literature review synthesised international evidence on the factors that enable or inhibit the implementation of interventions aimed at improving chronic disease care for Indigenous people. METHODS: A systematic review using Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) (PubMed platform), Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), ATSIHealth, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet via Informit Online and Primary Health Care Research and Information Service (PHCRIS) databases was undertaken. Studies were included if they described an intervention for one or more of six chronic conditions that was delivered in a primary health care setting in Australia, New Zealand, Canada or the United States. Attitudes, beliefs, expectations, understandings and knowledge of patients, their families, Indigenous communities, providers and policy makers were of interest. Published and unpublished qualitative and quantitative studies from 1998 to 2013 were considered. Qualitative findings were pooled using a meta-aggregative approach, and quantitative data were presented as a narrative summary. RESULTS: Twenty three studies were included. Meta-aggregation of qualitative data revealed five synthesised findings, related to issues within the design and planning phase of interventions, the chronic disease workforce, partnerships between service providers and patients, clinical care pathways and patient access to services. The available quantitative data supported the qualitative findings. Three key features of enablers and barriers emerged from the findings: (1) they are not fixed concepts but can be positively or negatively influenced, (2) the degree to which the work of an intervention can influence an enabler or barrier varies depending on their source and (3) they are inter-related whereby a change in one may effect a change in another. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions should consider the findings of this review as it provides an evidence-base that contributes to the successful design, implementation and sustainability of chronic disease interventions in primary health care settings intended for Indigenous people.Odette Gibson, Karolina Lisy, Carol Davy, Edoardo Aromataris, Elaine Kite, Craig Lockwood, Dagmara Riitano, Katharine McBride, Alex Brow

The relationship between childhood body weight and dental caries experience:an umbrella systematic review protocol

Abstract Background Obesity and dental caries are global public health problems which can impact in childhood and throughout the life course. In simple terms, childhood dental caries and body weight are linked via the common risk factor of diet. An association between dental caries and obesity has been described in a number of studies and reviews. However, similarly, a relationship has also been noted between low body weight and caries experience in children. This protocol will provide the framework for an umbrella review to address the following question: Does the available evidence support a relationship between dental caries experience and body weight in the child population? Methods This review protocol outlines the process to carry out an umbrella systematic review which will synthesise previous reviews of childhood dental caries experience and body weight. An umbrella review methodology will be used to examine the methodological and reporting quality of existing reviews. Discussion The final umbrella review aims to aggregate the available evidence in order to provide a summary for policymakers and to inform healthcare interventions. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD4201604730

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

This is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.Background Overviews of systematic reviews are an increasingly popular method of evidence synthesis; there is a lack of clear guidance for completing overviews and a number of methodological challenges. At the UK Cochrane Symposium 2016, methodological challenges of five overviews were explored. Using data from these five overviews, practical implications to support methodological decision making of authors writing protocols for future overviews are proposed. Methods Methods, and their justification, from the five exemplar overviews were tabulated and compared with areas of debate identified within current literature. Key methodological challenges and implications for development of overview protocols were generated and synthesised into a list, discussed and refined until there was consensus. Results Methodological features of three Cochrane overviews, one overview of diagnostic test accuracy and one mixed methods overview have been summarised. Methods of selection of reviews and data extraction were similar. Either the AMSTAR or ROBIS tool was used to assess quality of included reviews. The GRADE approach was most commonly used to assess quality of evidence within the reviews. Eight key methodological challenges were identified from the exemplar overviews. There was good agreement between our findings and emerging areas of debate within a recent published synthesis. Implications for development of protocols for future overviews were identified. Conclusions Overviews are a relatively new methodological innovation, and there are currently substantial variations in the methodological approaches used within different overviews. There are considerable methodological challenges for which optimal solutions are not necessarily yet known. Lessons learnt from five exemplar overviews highlight a number of methodological decisions which may be beneficial to consider during the development of an overview protocol.The overview conducted by Pollock [19] was supported by a project grant from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. The overview conducted by McClurg [21] was supported by a project grant by the Physiotherapy Research Foundation. The overview by Hunt [22] was supported as part of doctoral programme funding by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC). The overview conducted by Estcourt [20] was supported by an NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant for the Safe and Appropriate Use of Blood Components. The overview conducted by Brunton [23] was commissioned by the Department of Health as part of an ongoing programme of work on health policy research synthesis. Alex Pollock is employed by the Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, which is supported by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. Pauline Campbell is supported by the Chief Nurses Office of the Scottish Government

'Umbrella' review of family-focused care interventions supporting families where a family member has a long-term condition

Aim: To summarise reviews of family-focused care interventions that support families with a family member with a long-term condition across the life course. Design: Umbrella review. Data sources: Medline (1946- 2019), Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews (2019), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect and EMBASE (1947- 2019), CINAHL (1981-2019), Health Technology Assessment Database (2019) and PsycInfo (1806-2019). Review Methods: All authors independently undertook title/abstract screening, data extraction and quality appraisal on a cluster of papers, working in groups of two or three to reach a consensus. The AMSTAR tool was used to appraise the quality of the studies and descriptive syntheses were undertaken. Results: Fifteen reviews met the selection criteria. Overall family-focussed care and associated terms were poorly defined. Typically interventions were educational or psychological therapy/counselling with the goal of empowering individuals to manage their condition. There is some evidence that family-focused care interventions can improve clinical/biological health measures and self-care outcomes such as treatment adherence. Multi-component psychosocial interventions that include cognitive-behavioral therapy, skills training, education and support and are focused on wider family members appear to improve family relationships and martial functioning. Conclusion: Long-term conditions have an impact on individual and family health and well-being, yet the impact of family-focused care interventions on family outcomes was overall inconclusive. A better understanding of how family-focused care interventions improve the health and well-being of individuals and their families is needed to promote the inclusion of family-focused care into practice. Impact: Supporting people with a long-term condition is a key health and social care priority. Family-focused care interventions have potential to improve the health and well-being of individuals and families but there is a need to evaluate their clinical and cost effectiveness. The findings from this review could be used by funding bodies when commissioning research for long-term conditions

The Pandora's Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy.

Have we, as an evidence-based health community, opened the Pandora's box of evidence synthesis? There now exists a plethora of overlapping evidence synthesis approaches and duplicate, redundant and poor-quality reviews.1-4 After years of advocating for the need for systematic reviews of the evidence, there is a risk that this message been disseminated too widely and has been misinterpreted in this process. We have reached a point where in some fields more reviews exist than clinical trials, where same topic reviews are being conducted in parallel, and evidence syntheses possess limited utility for decision-making because of their poor quality or poor reporting.To paraphrase the late Douglas Altman,5 it is possible we are now at a stage where we need less reviews, better reviews and reviews done for the right reason - as opposed to the current state of mass production (approximately 80 reviews per day)6.Zachary Munn, Danielle Pollock, Timothy Hugh Barker, Jennifer Stone, Cindy Stern, Edoardo Aromataris, Holger J Schünemann, Barbara Clyne, Hanan Khalil, Reem A Mustafa, Christina Godfrey, Andrew Booth, Andrea C Tricco, Alan Pearso

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

This chapter explores the processes of reviewing literature as a research method. The logic of the family of research approaches called systematic review is analysed and the variation in techniques used in the different approaches explored using examples from existing reviews. The key distinctions between aggregative and configurative approaches are illustrated and the chapter signposts further reading on key issues in the systematic review process

The impact of Baby Friendly Initiative accreditation: An overview of systematic reviews

Abstract: Despite its reported benefits, breastfeeding rates are low globally, and support systems such as the Baby Friendly Initiative (BFI) have been established to support healthy infant feeding practices and infant bonding. Increasingly reviews are being undertaken to assess the overall impact of BFI accreditation. A systematic synthesis of current reviews has therefore been carried out to examine the state of literature on the effects of BFI accreditation. A systematic search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, Maternal and Infant Health, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and PROSPERO was undertaken. Study selection, data extraction and critical appraisal of included reviews using the AMSTAR‐2 tool were undertaken by two authors, with disagreements resolved through discussion with the third author. Due to heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis of findings was applied. Fourteen reviews met the inclusion criteria. Overall confidence in the results of the review was rated as high for three reviews, low for two reviews and critically low for nine reviews. Most evidence suggests some increase in breastfeeding initiation, exclusivity and duration of breastfeeding, and one main trial suggests decreased gastrointestinal infection and allergic dermatitis in infants. However, overall certainty in the evidence was rated as very low across all outcomes due to concerns over risk of bias within and heterogeneity between the original studies. More contemporary, good‐quality randomised controlled trials or well‐controlled prospective comparative cohorts are required to better evaluate the impact of full BFI accreditation, with particular attention paid to the context of the research and to long‐term maternal and infant health outcomes