Barriers and enablers to implementation of pressure injury prevention in hospitalized adults: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

Objective: The objective of the proposed systematic review is to determine the barriers and enablers (or facilitators) to the implementation of pressure injury prevention among adults receiving care in the hospital setting. Introduction: Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are preventable; however, they remain an ongoing safety and quality healthcare concern in many countries. There are various evidence-based preventative interventions for pressure injuries, but their implementation in clinical practice is limited. An understanding of the different factors that support (enablers or facilitators) and inhibit (barriers) the implementation of these interventions from different perspectives is important, so that targeted strategies can be incorporated into implementation plans. Inclusion criteria: This review will include quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies that investigate barriers and/or enablers in relation to hospital-acquired pressure injury prevention in hospitalized adults. Only English publications will be considered, with no publication date restrictions. Methods: The systematic review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for mixed methods systematic review. Published studies will be searched in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus. Gray literature will also be considered. Critical appraisal and data extraction will be performed using standardized tools, followed by data transformation. Data synthesis will follow the convergent integrated approach

Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews.

Objective: The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach for conducting a JBI MMSR with a focus on data synthesis, specifically, methods related to how data are combined and the overall integration of the quantitative and qualitative evidence. Introduction: Mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs) provide a more complete basis for complex decision making than that currently offered by single method reviews, thereby maximizing their usefulness to clinical and policy decision makers. Although MMSRs are gaining traction, guidance regarding the methodology of combining quantitative and qualitative data is limited. In 2014, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group developed guidance for MMSRs; however, since the introduction of this guidance, there have been significant developments in mixed methods synthesis. As such, the methodology group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align it with the current state of knowledge on evidence synthesis methodology Methods: Between 2015 and 2019, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group undertook an extensive review of the literature, held annual face-to-face meetings (which were supplemented by teleconferences and regular email correspondence), sought advice from experts in the field and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to the development of guidance in the form of a chapter included in the JBI Reviewer’s Manual, the official guidance for conducting JBI systematic reviews. In 2019, the guidance was ratified by the JBI International Scientific Committee. Results: The updated JBI methodological guidance for conducting an MMSR recommends that reviewers take a convergent approach to synthesis and integration whereby the specific method utilized is dependent on the nature/type of question(s) that is (are) posed in the systematic review. The JBI guidance is primarily based on Hong et al. and Sandelowski’s typology on MMSRs. If the review question can be addressed by both quantitative and qualitative research designs, the convergent integrated approach should be followed, which involves data transformation and allows reviewers to combine quantitative and qualitative data. If the focus of the review is on different aspects or dimensions of a particular phenomenon of interest, the convergent segregated approach is undertaken, which involves independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data leading to the generation of quantitative and qualitative evidence, which are then integrated together. Conclusions: The updated guidance on JBI MMSRs provides foundational work to a rapidly evolving methodology and aligns with other seminal work undertaken in the field of mixed methods synthesis. Limitations to the current guidance are acknowledged, and a series of methodological projects identified by the JBI Mixed Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are proposed. Mixed methods review offers an innovative framework for generating unique insights related to the complexities associated with healthcare quality and safety

The experiences and effectiveness of canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care: a mixed methods systematic review protocol. [Protocol]

The aim of this mixed methods review is to synthesize and integrate the best available evidence on the experiences and effectiveness of canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care. More specifically the review questions are: 1) What are the experiences of older people residing in long-term care who receive CAIs? 2) What are the views of people directly or indirectly involved in delivering CAIs to older adults (such as family and friends of the residents, healthcare workers and volunteers) regarding CAIs for older people residing in long-term care facilities? 3) What is the effectiveness of CAIs on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care facilities

Building Bridges Through Understanding the Village Workshop: Transforming Nursing Students\u27 Perspectives of Indigenous People and Canadian History - Atelier « Building Bridges Through Understanding the Village » : Transformer la vision qu’ont les étudiantes en sciences infirmières des peuples autochtones et de l’histoire du Canada

A mixed methods design using a cross-sectional survey was used to describe participants’ experiences of an experiential workshop entitled Building Bridges Through Understanding the Village. The Building Bridges workshops were held at a university located in Western Canada in 2016 with 213 attendees. Informed by Indigenous epistemology, cultural safety, and Kolb’s experiential learning theory, a student-led team comprised of undergraduates, graduates, and faculty members planned, implemented, and evaluated an arts-based experiential workshop. Following acquisition of a signed informed consent, 159 participants consented to evaluate the workshop. The majority of workshop participants were undergraduate nursing students. Overall, the workshop was positively reviewed and highly rated. The overarching theme in the narrative responses about the workshop was “Words can only do so much.” This theme encapsulated three categories: 1) Imaginative empathy, 2) Made me feel made me think, and 3) Moving towards reconciliation. The results support the evidence that meaningful learning occurs through personal experience, reflection on those experiences, and integration of the new knowledge. The role-playing aspect of this workshop engaged attendees in a novel learning activity and facilitated an iterative cycle of experience (role-playing) and reflection (group discussion and narrative responses). By inviting participants to step into the lives of Indigenous peoples throughout history and feel what they might feel, deep insights were elicited at both a cognitive and emotional level. This workshop is one of many strategies to ensure that the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action are honored. Nursing educators from across Canada are encouraged to consult Elders from local Indigenous communities and implement similar experiential workshops for their students to enhance their understanding of Canada’s history and promote culturally safe nursing practice. Further research is needed to explore the impact of other educational strategies to adequately prepare nursing students for entry-level competencies. In particular, a future study is needed to explore Indigenous patients’ perspectives of their interactions with these workshop participants. Résumé Un devis mixte à partir d’un sondage transversal a été utilisé afin de décrire les expériences des participantes dans le cadre d’un atelier expérientiel nommé Building Bridges Through Understanding the Village [Construire des ponts en comprenant le village]. Ces ateliers, auxquels ont participé 213 personnes, ont eu lieu dans une université de l’ouest du Canada en 2016. Se basant sur une épistémologie autochtone, la sécurisation culturelle et la théorie de l’apprentissage expérientiel de Kolb, une équipe menée par des étudiantes et comprenant des étudiantes de premier cycle, des cycles supérieurs et des membres du corps professoral a planifié, tenu et évalué un atelier expérientiel utilisant les arts. Après une approbation éthique, 159 participantes ont signé un formulaire de consentement éclairé et accepté d’évaluer l’atelier. La majorité d’entre elles étaient des étudiantes de premier cycle en sciences infirmières. De manière générale, l’atelier a reçu une évaluation positive et des scores élevés. Le thème central tiré des réponses rédigées au sujet de l’atelier était “Words can only do so much.” [ Il y a une limite à ce que l’on peut faire avec les mots]. Ce thème englobait trois sous-thèmes : [traductions] 1) Empathie créative, 2) M’amène à ressentir, m’amène à penser et 3) Avancer vers la réconciliation. Les résultats soutiennent ceux des recherches antérieures à l’effet que des apprentissages significatifs sont réalisés grâce aux expériences personnelles, à la réflexion sur ces expériences et à l’intégration des nouvelles connaissances. L’élément jeu de rôle de l’atelier engageait les participantes dans une activité d’apprentissage innovante tout en facilitant le cycle itératif d’expérience (jeu de rôle) et de réflexion (discussions de groupe et réponses sous forme de récits). En invitant les participantes à jouer le rôle de personnes autochtones à travers l’histoire et à ressentir ce qu’elles ont sans doute ressenti, des prises de conscience profondes sur les plans cognitif et émotionnel ont été suscitées. Cet atelier est l’une des stratégies conçues pour assurer que les Appels à l’action du Rapport sur la vérité et la réconciliation soient respectés. Les professeures en sciences infirmières au Canada sont encouragées à consulter les Anciens de leurs communautés autochtones locales et à créer des ateliers expérientiels similaires pour leurs étudiantes, afin d’améliorer leur compréhension de l’histoire du Canada et de promouvoir une pratique infirmière culturellement sécuritaire. D’autres recherches s’imposent pour explorer les retombées d’autres stratégies d’apprentissage qui visent à bien préparer les étudiantes de sciences infirmières à exercer les compétences requises à l’entrée dans la pratique. Plus particulièrement, une étude explorant le point de vue des patients autochtones concernant leurs interactions avec les participantes de cet atelier serait nécessaire

Protocol for a systematic review of living labs in healthcare

Introduction Healthcare is increasingly challenged to meet the demands of user involvement and knowledge mobilisation required by the 21st-century patient-centred and knowledge-based economies. Innovations are needed to reduce problematic barriers to knowledge exchange and improve collaborative problem solving. Living labs, as open knowledge systems, have the potential to address these gaps but are underexplored in healthcare.Methods and analysis We will conduct the first systematic review of living labs across healthcare contexts. We will comprehensively search the following online databases from inception to 31 December 2020: Scopus, the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Web of Science, PsycINFO (OVID) and EBSCOhost databases including Academic Search Complete, Business Source Premier, Canadian Reference Centre, CINAHL, MasterFILE Premier, SPORTDiscus, Library & Information Science Source, Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, AgeLine, EconLit, Art Full Text, Women’s Studies International and Social Work Abstracts. We will search for grey literature using Google advanced techniques and books/book chapters through scholarly and bibliographical databases. We will use a dual-reviewer, two-step selection process with pre-established inclusion criteria and limit to English language publications. Empirical studies of any design examining living lab development, implementation or evaluation in health or healthcare will be included. We will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for methodological quality appraisal and Covidence software for review management, and we will extract data on pre-established variables such as lab context and technological platforms. We will create evidence tables and analyse across variables such as focal aim and achievement of living lab principles, such as the use of cocreation and multimethod approaches. We will tabulate data for descriptive reporting and narrative synthesis to identify current applications, approaches and promising areas for living lab development across health contexts.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was not required for this review. This review will inform research into living labs in health environments, including guidance for a living lab in paediatric rehabilitation. Academic publications shared through collaborative networks and social media channels will provide substantive knowledge to the growing tech-health development sector and to researchers, practitioners and organisations seeking enhanced patient/stakeholder engagement and innovations in knowledge translation and evidence-based practice.PROSPERO registration number CRD4202017527

Digital storytelling as a method in health research: a systematic review protocol

Abstract Background Digital storytelling is an arts-based research method with potential to elucidate complex narratives in a compelling manner, increase participant engagement, and enhance the meaning of research findings. This method involves the creation of a 3- to 5-min video that integrates multimedia materials including photos, participant voices, drawings, and music. Given the significant potential of digital storytelling to meaningfully capture and share participants’ lived experiences, a systematic review of its use in healthcare research is crucial to develop an in-depth understanding of how researchers have used this method, with an aim to refine and further inform future iterations of its use. Methods We aim to identify and synthesize evidence on the use, impact, and ethical considerations of using digital storytelling in health research. The review questions are as follows: (1) What is known about the purpose, definition, use (processes), and contexts of digital storytelling as part of the research process in health research? (2) What impact does digital storytelling have upon the research process, knowledge development, and healthcare practice? (3) What are the key ethical considerations when using digital storytelling within qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research studies? Key databases and the grey literature will be searched from 1990 to the present for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that utilized digital storytelling as part of the research process. Two independent reviewers will screen and critically appraise relevant articles with established quality appraisal tools. We will extract narrative data from all studies with a standardized data extraction form and conduct a thematic analysis of the data. To facilitate innovative dissemination through social media, we will develop a visual infographic and three digital stories to illustrate the review findings, as well as methodological and ethical implications. Discussion In collaboration with national and international experts in digital storytelling, we will synthesize key evidence about digital storytelling that is critical to the development of methodological and ethical expertise about arts-based research methods. We will also develop recommendations for incorporating digital storytelling in a meaningful and ethical manner into the research process. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registry number CRD42017068002