Patients’ experiences of mechanical ventilation in intensive care units in low- and lower-middle-income countries: protocol of a systematic review

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Mayank Gupta, Priyanka Gupta, Preeti Devi, Utkarsh, Damini Butola, Savita Butola
{"title":"Patients’ experiences of mechanical ventilation in intensive care units in low- and lower-middle-income countries: protocol of a systematic review","authors":"Mayank Gupta, Priyanka Gupta, Preeti Devi, Utkarsh, Damini Butola, Savita Butola","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02630-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) is a stressful experience for patients. However, these experiences have not been systematically explored in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). This systematic review (SR) aims to explore the patients’ experiences of MV in ICUs in LLMICs and the factors influencing their experiences. The PICO framework will be used to operationalize the review question into key concepts: population (mechanically ventilated adult patients in ICUs), phenomenon of interest (experiences) and context (LLMICs). PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science will be systematically searched since database inception. Citation, reference list and PubMed-related article searching of included studies will be done to ensure literature saturation. Empirical peer-reviewed literature exploring adult patients’ (aged ≥ 18 years) experiences of MV in ICUs in LLMIC will be included. All study designs (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) will be included. Two independent reviewers will perform screening, data extraction and critical appraisal. The mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT) and Popay’s narrative synthesis will be used for critical appraisal and data synthesis, respectively. This SR aims to bridge a gap in knowledge as previous evidence synthesis has described this phenomenon in developed countries. The review design, with the inclusion of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies, intends to provide a rich and in-depth exploration of the issue. The findings will be presented as themes, subthemes and their explanatory narratives. The gaps in available literature will be identified, and implications of SR findings on policy, practice and future research will be presented. The strength of this SR lies in its systematic, comprehensive, transparent, robust and explicit methodology of identifying, collating, assessing and synthesizing available evidence. By prior registration and reporting of this SR protocol, we aim to ensure transparency and accountability and minimize bias. PROSPERO CRD42024507187","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02630-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) is a stressful experience for patients. However, these experiences have not been systematically explored in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). This systematic review (SR) aims to explore the patients’ experiences of MV in ICUs in LLMICs and the factors influencing their experiences. The PICO framework will be used to operationalize the review question into key concepts: population (mechanically ventilated adult patients in ICUs), phenomenon of interest (experiences) and context (LLMICs). PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science will be systematically searched since database inception. Citation, reference list and PubMed-related article searching of included studies will be done to ensure literature saturation. Empirical peer-reviewed literature exploring adult patients’ (aged ≥ 18 years) experiences of MV in ICUs in LLMIC will be included. All study designs (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) will be included. Two independent reviewers will perform screening, data extraction and critical appraisal. The mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT) and Popay’s narrative synthesis will be used for critical appraisal and data synthesis, respectively. This SR aims to bridge a gap in knowledge as previous evidence synthesis has described this phenomenon in developed countries. The review design, with the inclusion of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies, intends to provide a rich and in-depth exploration of the issue. The findings will be presented as themes, subthemes and their explanatory narratives. The gaps in available literature will be identified, and implications of SR findings on policy, practice and future research will be presented. The strength of this SR lies in its systematic, comprehensive, transparent, robust and explicit methodology of identifying, collating, assessing and synthesizing available evidence. By prior registration and reporting of this SR protocol, we aim to ensure transparency and accountability and minimize bias. PROSPERO CRD42024507187
低收入和中低收入国家患者在重症监护室接受机械通气的经历:系统性审查方案
重症监护室(ICU)中的机械通气(MV)对患者来说是一种压力体验。然而,这些经历在低收入和中低收入国家(LLMICs)尚未得到系统探讨。本系统综述(SR)旨在探讨低中低收入国家 ICU 中患者的 MV 体验以及影响其体验的因素。将采用 PICO 框架将综述问题操作化为关键概念:人群(重症监护室中接受机械通气的成年患者)、感兴趣的现象(体验)和背景(内陆发展中国家)。自数据库建立以来,将对 PubMed、Embase、PsycINFO、CINAHL、Cochrane Library、Scopus 和 Web of Science 进行系统检索。将对纳入的研究进行引文、参考文献列表和 PubMed 相关文章检索,以确保文献饱和度。将收录探究 LLMIC ICU 中成年患者(年龄≥ 18 岁)使用 MV 的经验的经验性同行评审文献。将纳入所有研究设计(定量、定性和混合方法)。两名独立审稿人将进行筛选、数据提取和批判性评估。关键评价和数据综合将分别使用混合方法评价工具(MMAT)和 Popay 的叙事综合法。本研究旨在弥补以往证据综述中对发达国家这一现象的描述所存在的知识空白。综述设计包括定量、定性和混合方法研究,旨在对这一问题进行丰富而深入的探讨。研究结果将以主题、次主题及其解释性说明的形式呈现。将确定现有文献中的空白,并介绍研究结果对政策、实践和未来研究的影响。本研究报告的优势在于它采用了系统、全面、透明、稳健和明确的方法来识别、整理、 评估和综合现有证据。通过事先登记和报告本研究方案,我们旨在确保透明度和问责制,并最大限度地减少偏见。PROCROPERO CRD42024507187
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信