An integrative literature review on factors affecting breastfeeding in public spaces

Breastfeeding in public spaces remains a challenge for mothers globally. This review aims to synthesise the available published evidence to understand factors that affect breastfeeding in public spaces globally. The current review was conducted using a systematic review methodology guided by Whittemore and Knafl's integrative literature review steps. The relevant studies were digitally searched on EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases. The review included literature from 2013 to 2018 to ascertain the factors affecting breastfeeding in public spaces. The screening concerned three rounds, including studying topics, abstract scrutinising, and ultimately checking content. Included studies were critically appraised by two reviewers using the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme checklist. Data were pooled from included studies using a matrix. Finally, the data were synthesised and analysed to identify new themes relevant to the review topic

Factors contributing to the decision by pregnant women to be tested for HIV

The objective of this study was to explore and describe the factors that influence the decision by pregnant women to be tested for HIV. This was achieved through a qualitative research study that was exploratory, descriptive and contextual in nature. A sample of 13 pregnant women participated. Data obtained from semi-structured interviews was analysed according to a protocol based on a combination of methods of analysis. The three main themes, namely factors that contribute to the decision by pregnant women to be tested for HIV, factors that contribute to the decision by pregnant women not to be tested for HIV and organisational factors that influence the decision by pregnant women to be tested for HIV, were divided into nine subthemes. Conclusions and recommendations to promote counselling to pregnant women being tested for HIV are provided. Opsomming Die doel van die studie was om die faktore wat die besluit van swanger vroue om vir MIV getoets te word, te verken en beskryf. Dit is gedoen deur middel van verkennende, beskrywende, kontekstuele kwalitatiewe navorsing. ’n Steekproef van 13 swanger vroue het deelgeneem. Inligting is verkry deur middel van semi-gestruktureerde onderhoude. Hierdie inligting is ontleed aan die hand van ’n protokol gebaseer op ’n kombinasie van ontledingsmetodes. Die drie hooftemas, naamlik faktore wat bydra tot swanger vroue se besluit om vir MIV getoets te word, faktore wat bydra tot swanger vroue se besluit om nie vir MIV getoets te word nie en organisatoriese faktore wat swanger vroue se besluit beïnvloed om vir MIV getoets te word, is in nege subtemas onderverdeel. Gevolgtrekkings en aanbevelings ter bevordering van berading van swanger vroue vir MIV-toetsing, word verskaf

Health care professionals' perspectives on the requirements facilitating the roll-out of kangaroo mother care in South Africa

Background: Using best evidence to inform practice is the cornerstone of quality patient care, and requires spread, uptake, implementation and roll-out of best practices. Kangaroo mother care (KMC) was used as a best practice which has been partly rolled-out in South Africa. In order for successful roll-out of best practices, it is important to understand what health professionals perceive as requirements for the rolling-out process. However, no published research was found on requirements for rolling-out a best practice in the South African context. Purpose: of the research: To explore and describe the perspectives of health professionals on the requirements for the rolling-out process of KMC as a best practice in South Africa. Methodology: Twelve semi-structured individual interviews were conducted in 2012 with health professionals from various South African healthcare levels, involved in the implementation and the rolling-out process of kangaroo mother care. Content analysis were guided in terms of the four requirements for roll-out of best practices, identified in Edwards and Grinspun's Evidence Informed Model of Care. Results: The requirements for the successful rollout of best practices mentioned by the participants in this study concur with the requirements of Edwards and Grinspun: personal alignment and protocol/policy alignment with the best practice; a roll-out plan; leadership; and supporting and reinforcing structures such as: resources, communicating, education and development regarding the best practice, and the organisational structure. The requirements were identified at four different levels: individual level (e.g. the nurse and medical specialists), management level (of the hospital), provincial level and national level. Conclusion: Although certain requirements, such as personal alignment and reinforcing structures can be used in the roll-out of best practices, further research is desirable to promote fuller understanding of how to devise and apply the requirements in the wider adoption of best practices in South African health care settings

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field