Leadership development programmes in healthcare research: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-aggregation

Background: Academic institutions benefit from researchers adopting leadership positions and, subsequently, leadership development programmes are of increasing importance. Despite this, no evaluation of the evidence basis for leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers has been conducted. In this study, the authors reviewed leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers and aimed to identify their impact and the factors which influenced this impact. Methods: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 2000 and January 2023 for evaluations of leadership development programmes with healthcare researchers. The authors synthesised results through exploratory meta-analysis and meta-aggregation and used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Qualitative Studies to identify higher-reliability studies. Results: 48 studies met inclusion criteria, of which approximately half (22) met the criteria for higher reliability. The median critical appraisal score was 10.5/18 for the MERSQI and 3.5/10 for the JBI. Common causes of low study quality appraisal related to study design, data analysis and reporting. Evaluations principally consisted of questionnaires measuring self-assessed outcomes. Interventions were primarily focused on junior academics. Overall, 163/168 categorised programme outcomes were positive. Coaching, experiential learning/project work and mentoring were associated with increased organisational outcomes. Conclusion: Educational methods appeared to be more important for organisational outcomes than specific educational content. To facilitate organisational outcomes, educational methods should include coaching, project work and mentoring. Programmes delivered by external faculty were less likely to be associated with organisational outcomes than those with internal or mixed faculty, but this needs further investigation. Finally, improving evaluation design will allow educators and evaluators to more effectively understand factors which are reliably associated with organisational outcomes of leadership development

Development of Research Leadership in Healthcare: A Systematic Review

Systematic Revie

Patients, family members and providers perceive family-administered delirium detection tools in the adult ICU as feasible and of value to patient care and family member coping: a qualitative focus group study

PurposeWhile studies report on perceptions of family participation in delirium prevention, little is known about the use of family-administered delirium detection tools in the care of critically ill patients. This study sought the perspectives of patients, their family members, and healthcare providers on the use of family-administered delirium detection tools to detect delirium in critically ill patients and barriers and facilitators to using family-administered delirium detection tools in patient care.MethodsIn this qualitative study, critical care providers (five physicians, six registered nurses) and participants from the Family ICU Delirium Detection Study (seven past patients and family members) took part in four focus groups at one hospital in Calgary, Alberta.ResultsKey themes identified following thematic analysis from 18 participants included: 1) perceptions of acceptability of family-administered delirium detection (e.g., family feels valued, intensive care unit (ICU) care team may not use a family member's results, intensification of work load), 2) considerations regarding feasibility (e.g., insufficient knowledge, healthcare team buy-in), and 3) overarching strategies to support implementation into routine patient care (e.g., value of family-administered delirium detection for patients and families is well understood in the clinical context, regular communication between the family and ICU providers, an electronic version of the tool).ConclusionsPatients, family members and healthcare providers who participated in the focus groups perceived family participation in delirium detection and the use of family-administered delirium detection tools at the bedside as feasible and of value to patient care and family member coping.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03379129); registered 15 December 2017

Plate 5 from: Mašán P (2017) A revision of the family Ameroseiidae (Acari, Mesostigmata), with some data on Slovak fauna. ZooKeys 704: 1-228. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.704.13304

The family Ameroseiidae Evans, 1961 (Acari: Mesostigmata) includes a total of 12 valid and adequately described genera, namely Afrocypholaelaps Elsen, 1972, Ameroseiella Bregetova, 1977, Ameroseius Berlese, 1904, Asperolaelaps Womersley, 1956, Brontispalaelaps Womersley, 1956, Epicriopsis Berlese, 1916, Hattena Domrow, 1963, Kleemannia Oudemans, 1930, Neocypholaelaps Vitzthum, 1942, Pseudoameroseius gen. n., Sertitympanum Elsen & Whitaker, 1985 and Sinoseius Bai & Gu, 1995. One of these genera includes subgenera, namely Kleemannia (Primoseius) Womersley, 1956. All genera are reviewed and re-diagnosed, and a dichotomous key is provided for their identification. Ameroseius (50 species), Kleemannia (28 species) and Neocypholaelaps (22 species) are the largest genera in the family. Ameroseiella, Kleemannia, Kleemannia (Primoseius) and Sinoseius are considered to be valid taxa and, in presented systematic classification, they are removed from synonymy with Ameroseius. The genus Pseudoameroseius gen. n., with type species Ameroseius michaelangeli Moraza, 2006 (from Canary Islands), is newly erected to further refine broad primary concept of Ameroseius as understood by some former authors (Karg, Bregetova). Asperolaelaps is removed from synonymy with Neocypholaelaps. Three new species are here described, namely Ameroseius renatae sp. n. (based on specimens from Slovakia), Kleemannia dolichochaeta sp. n. (from Spain) and Kleemannia miranda sp. n. (from U.S.A.). The following new junior synonymies are proposed: Ameroseius apodius Karg, 1971 = Ameroseiella macrochelae (Westerboer, 1963); Ameroseius bregetovae Livshits & Mitrofanov, 1975 = Neocypholaelaps favus Ishikawa, 1968; Ameroseius chinensis Khalili-Moghadam & Saboori, 2016 = Ameroseius guyimingi Ma, 1997; Ameroseius crassisetosus Ye & Ma, 1993, Ameroseius qinghaiensis Li & Yang, 2000 and Ameroseius norvegicus Narita, Abduch & Moraes, 2015 = Ameroseius corbiculus (Sowerby, 1806); Ameroseius dubitatus Berlese, 1918 = Kleemannia plumosa (Oudemans, 1902); Ameroseius eumorphus Bregetova, 1977 and Kleemannia potchefstroomensis Kruger & Loots, 1980 = Kleemannia pseudoplumosa (Rack, 1972); Ameroseius gilarovi Petrova, 1986 = Kleemannia plumigera Oudemans, 1930; Ameroseius imparsetosus Westerboer, 1963 = Ameroseius georgei (Turk, 1943); Ameroseius lanatus Solomon, 1969 and Ameroseius fimetorum Karg, 1971 = Kleemannia tenella (Berlese, 1916); Ameroseius lanceosetis Livshits & Mitrofanov, 1975 = Kleemannia pavida (C. L. Koch, 1839); Ameroseius marginalis Fan & Li, 1993 and Ameroseius sichuanensis Fan & Li, 1993 = Kleemannia insignis (Bernhard, 1963); Ameroseius pseudofurcatus Livshits & Mitrofanov, 1975 = Ameroseius furcatus Karg, 1971; Ameroseius stramenis Karg, 1976 and Lasioseius (Lasioseius) gracilis Halbert, 1923 = Kleemannia delicata (Berlese, 1918); Epicriopsis langei Livshits & Mitrofanov, 1975 and Epicriopsis baloghi Kandil, 1978 = Epicriopsis palustris Karg, 1971; Epicriopsis rivus Karg, 1971 = Epicriopsis mirabilis Willmann, 1956; Neocypholaelaps ewae Haitlinger, 1987 = Neocypholaelaps indicus Evans, 1963; Neocypholaelaps lindquisti Prasad, 1968, Afrocypholaelaps ranomafanaensis Haitlinger, 1987 and Afrocypholaelaps analicullus Ho, Ma, Wang & Severinghaus, 2010 = Afrocypholaelaps africanus (Evans, 1963); Sinoseius pinnatus Huhta & Karg, 2010 = Sinoseius lobatus Bai, Gu & Fang, 1995. Ameroseius womersleyi Mašán, is a replacement name proposed for Ameroseius ornatus Womersley, 1956, a junior secondary homonym of Cornubia ornata Turk, 1943 [= Ameroseius corbiculus (Sowerby, 1806)]. Cornubia georgei Turk, 1943 is removed from synonymy with Ameroseius corbiculus (Sowerby, 1806). An annotated catalogue of the world species of Ameroseiidae is provided, partly based on type (in more than 60 species) and non-type specimens from various museum deposits and personal collections, including new or revised material from Slovakia. It contains 206 named species (138 valid species, 37 synonyms, nine unrecognizable species, 15 species previously excluded from Ameroseiidae, and seven “nomina nuda”), with details of their authorship, synonyms, nomenclatural and bibliographic details, generic placement, and morphology. Altogether 23 new combinations are proposed. The genus Sertitympanum with Sertitympanum nodosum (Sheals, 1962) and two further species, namely Kleemannia kosi El-Badry, Nasr & Hafez, 1979 and Kleemannia parplumosa Nasr & Abou-Awad, 1986, are reported from Europe for the first time. New keys are given for identification of 37 species belonging to eight genera which have been found in Europe to date (Ameroseiella, Ameroseius, Epicriopsis, Kleemannia, Neocypholaelaps, Pseudoameroseius gen. n., Sertitympanum and Sinoseius). All of these genera except Pseudoameroseius gen. nov. and Sertitympanum occur in Slovakia. So, the fauna of Slovakia includes six genera and 27 species, including ten first reports for the country

Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation

Biodiversity priority areas together should represent the biodiversity of the region they are situated in. To achieve this, biodiversity has to be measured, biodiversity goals have to be set and methods for implementing those goals have to be applied. Each of these steps is discussed. Because it is impossible to measure all of biodiversity, biodiversity surrogates have to be used. Examples are taxa sub-sets, species assemblages and environmental domains. Each of these has different strengths and weaknesses, which are described and evaluated. In real-world priority setting, some combination of these is usually employed. While a desirable goal might be to sample all of biodiversity from genotypes to ecosystems, an achievable goal is to represent, at some agreed level, each of the biodiversity features chosen as surrogates. Explicit systematic procedures for implementing such a goal are described. These procedures use complementarity, a measure of the contribution each area in a region makes to the conservation goal, to estimate irreplaceability and flexibility, measures of the extent to which areas can be substituted for one another in order to take competing land uses into account. Persistence and vulnerability, which also play an important role in the priority setting process, are discussed briefly