Effekt av, og erfaringer med tiltak for unge som er blitt utsatt for tvangsekteskap eller æresrelatert vold: Systematisk litteratursøk med sortering

Source at https://www.fhi.no/The unit for Social Welfare Services in the Division for Health Ser-vices at the Norwegian Institute for Public Health was commis-sioned by The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Fam-ily Affairs to identify empirical research on the effect of and experi-ences of interventions for young people exposed to forced mar-riage or honour-based violence.Seksjon for velferdstjenester iområde for helsetjenester i Folkehel-seinstituttet fikk i oppdrag av Barne-, ungdoms-og familiedirektora-tet å identifisere forskning om effekt av og erfaring med tiltak for unge som er blitt utsatt for tvangsekteskap eller æresrelatert vold

Children and youths’ involvement in child welfare services: a systematic mapping review

Barn har rett til å medvirke i alle saker som vedrører dem. Barne-, ungdoms- og familiedirektoratet (Bufdir) ønsket en oversikt over forskning som har undersøkt barn og unges medvirkning i barnevernet: 1) hvordan barn og unge involveres i barnevernet, 2) barn og unges opplevelser med og preferanser for medvirkning, 3) dilemmaer knyttet til medvirkning, og 4) effektene av medvirkning. Metode - Vi utførte en systematisk kartleggingsoversikt, dvs. en presentasjon av studiene sortert etter forskningsspørsmål. Vi inkluderte studier publisert i 2000-2020, utført i de nordiske land, Irland, Storbritannia, Nederland eller Belgia. Resultater - Vi inkluderte 77 studier. De fleste av studiene var utført i Storbritannia eller Norge og var kvalitative studier. De fleste av studiene hadde høy (41 %) eller middels (46 %) metodisk kvalitet. Mange av studiene besvarte to eller flere av forskningsspørsmålene. Resultatene var i korte trekk: Involvering: 52 studier beskrev spesifikke tiltak for å fremme barn og unges medvirkning, samt situasjoner/settinger hvor barn og unge blir involvert Erfaringer: 55 studier undersøkte barn og unges opplevelser med og preferanser for medvirkning Dilemmaer: 22 studier undersøkte barrierer, dilemmaer og tilretteleggere knyttet til barn og unges medvirking Effekt: én studie undersøkte effekt av barn og unges medvirkning</ul

Quality care in residential childcare institutions: a systematic scoping review

Source at https://www.fhi.no/publ/2020/gode-barnevernsinstitusjoner/Vi undersøkte hva forskning fra 2010-2019 sier om tiltak, metoder og strategier som skal legge til rette for god omsorg for barn og unge i barnevernsinstitusjoner

Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention. METHODS: A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling. RESULTS: 1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed

Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions: An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual)

Published onlineJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tThis is the final version of the article. Available from Public Library of Science via the DOI in this record.Simon Lewin and colleagues present a methodology for increasing transparency and confidence in qualitative research synthesis.This work was supported by funding from the Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO (www.who.int/reproductivehealth/about_us/en/) and Norad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation: www.norad.no) to the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services. Additional funding for several of the pilot reviews was provided by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/en/). We also received funding for elements of this work through the Cochrane supported "Methodological Investigation of Cochrane reviews of Complex Interventions" (MICCI) project (www.cochrane.org). SL is supported by funding from the South African Medical Research Council (www.mrc.ac.za). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, preparation of the manuscript or the decision to publish

User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach

Abstract Background Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform decision‐making in health, education, social care and environmental protection. However, decision makers still experience barriers to using reviews, including not knowing how findings might translate to their own contexts, and lack of collaboration with systematic review authors. The TRANSFER approach is a novel method that aims to support review authors to systematically and transparently collaborate with stakeholders to consider context and the transferability of review findings from the beginning of the review process. Such collaboration is intended to improve the usefulness and relevance of review findings for decision makers. Objectives We aim to explore the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide, and in doing so gain a better understanding of the role and perceived value of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews for informed decision‐making. Methods We conducted four user tests of groups using the guide, organized around simulated meetings between review authors and stakeholders. Review authors led the meeting using the TRANSFER approach conversation guide. We audio‐recorded and observed the meetings, collected feedback forms and conducted semi‐structured interviews with review authors following the meeting. We analysed the data using framework analysis to examine the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide and of stakeholder engagement more generally. Results Seventeen participants in four user groups participated in the user tests. Most participants were generally positive toward the structured approach using the conversation guide, and felt it would be useful in systematic review projects. We observed examples of misunderstanding of the terminology included in the guide, and received multiple suggestions for how to make the conversation guide more user friendly. We observed numerous challenges related to the hypothetical nature of a user test, including lack of familiarity with the review question/topic among participants and lack of preparation for the meeting. Conclusions Review authors and stakeholders are positive toward using a structured approach to guide collaboration within the context of a systematic review. The TRANSFER conversation guide helps participants to discuss the review question and context in a structured way. Such structured collaboration could help to improve the usefulness and relevance of systematic reviews for decision making by improving the review question, inclusion criteria and consideration of transferability of review findings. The conversation guide needs to be modified to improve user experience. Further research is needed to explore stakeholder collaboration and the use of the TRANSFER conversation guide in systematic review processes

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness. A systematic review

Despite work to prevent and reduce homelessness over the last 15 years, the number of homeless persons in Norway has remained stable since the first mapping of homelessness was published in 1997. We conducted a systematic review on the effectiveness of housing programs and case management to improve housing stability and reduce homelessness among people who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless. The results of the review are based on evidence from 43 randomized controlled studies. The key findings show that high intensity case management is probably better than usual services at reducing the number of people who are homeless. The program called Housing First is probably better than usual services at reducing homelessness, improving housing stability and increasing the amount of time in housing. Furthermore, the following interventions may be better than usual services at reducing homelessness and/or improving housing stability: Critical time intervention Abstinence-contingent housing Non-abstinence-contingent housing with high intensity case management Housing vouchers Residential treatment It seems that many of these interventions may have similar beneficial effects, and it is unclear which of these is best with respect to reducing homelessness and increasing housing stability. We found that a range of different housing programs and case management interventions appear to improve housing stability and reduce homelessness compared to usual services. The findings showed no indication of housing programs or case management resulting in poorer outcomes for homeless or at-risk individuals than usual services