JBI evidence synthesis最新文献

{"title":"Addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion in JBI qualitative systematic reviews: a methodological scoping review.","authors":"Catrin Evans, Zeinab M Hassanein, Manpreet Bains, Clare Bennett, Merete Bjerrum, Alison Edgley, Deborah Edwards, Kylie Porritt, Susan Salmond","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00025","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00025","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this methodological scoping review was to investigate ways in which qualitative review teams are addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the process of conducting and reporting qualitative systematic reviews that use JBI guidelines.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To promote health equity, there is a need for evidence synthesis processes and practices to develop approaches that incorporate EDI. Some guidance is available to guide equity-focused review methods and reporting, but this is primarily oriented to quantitative systematic reviews. There is currently limited knowledge about how review teams are addressing EDI within qualitative evidence syntheses.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review included English-language qualitative systematic reviews, published in 2022, that used all the stjpg outlined in the JBI guidance for qualitative reviews.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 1-year sample of published reviews was identified from a search undertaken on March 17, 2023, of 2 health care databases: MEDLINE (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). Data extraction followed a framework approach, using an adapted pre-existing equity template. This included attention to i) the reporting of a range of characteristics associated with EDI, ii) search approaches, and iii) analytical approaches (including reflexivity, intersectionality, and knowledge user engagement). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative summary.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-three reviews met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the reviews (n = 30) framed their questions and aims in a generic/universal (rather than EDI-focused) way. Six reviews justified their population focus in terms of an EDI-related issue. Only 1 review included a knowledge user. The sociodemographic and other key characteristics of the samples in underpinning studies were poorly reported, making it hard to discern EDI-related issues or to undertake EDI-related analyses. Thirteen of the reviews included non-English-language evidence sources, and 31 reviews included gray literature sources. Ten reviews demonstrated an element of intersectional or otherwise critical approach within their analyses of categories and synthesized findings (whereby issues of power and/or representation were explicitly considered). Only 8 reviews included discussions of review team composition and reflexivity within the review process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This EDI-focused methodological enquiry has highlighted some limitations within current qualitative evidence synthesis practice. Without closer attention to EDI, there is a danger that systematic reviews may simply serve to amplify, rather than illuminate, existing gaps, silences, and inequitable knowledge claims based on dominant representations. This review sets out a range of suggestions to help qualitative evidence synthesis teams to more systematically embed EDI w","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"454-479"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11893006/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142120791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Methodological components, structure, and quality assessment tools for evidence summaries: a scoping review.","authors":"Ashley Whitehorn, Craig Lockwood, Yan Hu, Weijie Xing, Zheng Zhu, Kylie Porritt","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00557","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00557","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review was to identify and map the available information related to the definition, structure, and core methodological components of evidence summaries, as well as to identify any indicators of quality.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Evidence summaries offer a practical solution to overcoming some of the barriers present in evidence-based health care, such as lack of access to evidence at the point of care, and the knowledge and expertise to evaluate the quality and translate the evidence into clinical decision-making. However, lack of transparency in reporting and inconsistencies in the methodology of evidence summary development have previously been cited and pose problems for end users (eg, clinicians, policymakers).</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Any English-language resource that described the methodological development or appraisal of an evidence summary was included.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL (EBSCOhost) were systematically searched in November 2019, with no limits on the search. The search was updated in June 2021 and January 2023. Gray literature searches and pearling of references of included sources were also conducted at the same time as the database searches. All resources (ie, articles, papers, books, dissertations, reports, and websites) were eligible for inclusion in the review if they evaluated or described the development or appraisal of an evidence summary methodology within a point-of-care context and were published in English. Literature reviews (eg, systematic reviews, rapid reviews)-including summaries of evidence on interventions or health care activities that measure effects, a phenomenon of interest, or where the objective was the development, description, or evaluation of methods without a clear point-of-care target-were excluded from the review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 76 resources (n = 56 articles from databases and n = 20 reports from gray literature sources) were included in the review. The most common type/name of resource included critically appraised topic (n = 18) and evidence summary (n = 17). A total of 25 resources provided a definition of an evidence summary: commonalities included a clinical question; a structured, systematic literature search; a description of literature selection; and appraisal of evidence. Of these 25 resources, 16 included descriptors such as brief, concise, rapid, short, succinct , and snapshot . The reported methodological components closely reflected the definition results, with the most reported methodological components being a systematic, multi-database search, and critical appraisal. Evidence summary examples were mostly presented as narrative summaries and usually included a reference list, background or clinical context, and recommendations or implications for practice or policy. Four quality assessment tools and a systematic review of tools were included.<","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"493-516"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142082059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Update to the PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses and scoping reviews and development of guidelines for rapid reviews: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Brian Hutton, Adrienne Stevens, Joanne E McKenzie, Matthew J Page, David Moher, Jessie McGowan, Sharon E Straus, Tianjing Li, Zachary Munn, Danielle Pollock, Heather Colquhoun, Christina Godfrey, Maureen Smith, Janice Tufte, Sherrie Logan, Ferrán Catalá-López, David Tovey, Juan V A Franco, Stephanie Chang, Chantelle Garritty, Lisa Hartling, Tanya Horsley, Etienne V Langlois, Matthew McInnes, Martin Offringa, Vivian Welch, Chris Pritchard, Hanan Khalil, Nicole Mittmann, Micah Peters, Menelaos Konstantinidis, Ellen B M Elsman, Shannon E Kelly, Adrian Aldcroft, Sai Surabi Thirugnanasampanthar, Jasmeen Dourka, Dipika Neupane, George Well, Elie Akl, Michael Wilson, Karla Soares-Weiser, Andrea C Tricco","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00308","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00308","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this scoping review is to develop a list of items for potential inclusion in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines for network meta-analysis (NMA), scoping reviews (ScRs), and rapid reviews (RRs).</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The PRISMA extensions for NMA and ScRs were published in 2015 and 2018. However, since then, their methodologies and innovations, including automation, have evolved. There is no reporting guideline for RRs. In 2020, an updated PRISMA statement was published, reflecting advances in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. These advances are not yet incorporated into these PRISMA extensions. We will update our previous methods for scoping reviews to inform the update of PRISMA-NMA and PRISMA-ScR as well as the development of the PRISMA-RR reporting guidelines.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review will include any study design evaluating the completeness of reporting, offering reporting guidance, or assessing methods relevant to NMA, ScRs, or RRs. Editorial guidelines and tutorials that describe items related to reporting completeness will also be eligible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We will follow the JBI guidance for scoping reviews. For each PRISMA extension, we will i) search multiple electronic databases from inception to present, ii) search for unpublished studies, and iii) scan the reference lists of included studies. There will be no language limitations. Screening and data extraction will be conducted by 2 researchers independently. A third researcher will resolve discrepancies. We will conduct frequency analyses of the identified items. The final list of items will be considered for potential inclusion in the relevant PRISMA reporting guidelines.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>NMA protocol (OSF: osf.io/7bkwy ); ScR protocol (OSF: osf.io/7bkwy ); RR protocol (OSF: osf.io/3jcpe ); EQUATOR registration link: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-systematic-reviews/.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"517-526"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11892999/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143013260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Long-term care insurance and implementation for older people in China: a systematic review of textual evidence protocol.","authors":"Xiaoman Yang, Shuqi Yuan, Yan Hu","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00315","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00315","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize and compare policies and implementation strategies on long-term care insurance for older people in China.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Current information about China's long-term care insurance from a textual perspective is limited. Due to late inception and fragmented management, textual evidence on this topic will offer a unique perspective on the structure and implementation strategies of long-term care insurance policies in China.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>The population of this review will be adults aged 60 years or older. The phenomena of interest will be long-term care insurance policies and implementation strategies in China. Published sources and gray literature in English and Chinese since 2016 will be included. Exclusions will apply to hospitalized individuals as well as those under 60 years of age who are permanently disabled due to illness or disability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The proposed systematic review will be conducted in line with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of textual evidence. Databases to be searched will include PubMed, Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Social Science Citation Index, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the National Social Science Database. For gray literature, we will conduct an advanced Google search as well as searching ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and ProQuest Central. Additionally, we will search the websites of local governments in pilot cities. The JBI critical appraisal checklist for textual evidence will be used to evaluate the quality of textual sources. All identified sources will be retrieved and assessed in detail by 2 independent reviewers. Data extraction and synthesis will be conducted, and a meta-aggregative approach will be employed to synthesize data and conclusions, which will be graded using ConQual. A recommendation will be issued as a Good Practice Statement.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023414967.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"554-563"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143081447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Tools, techniques, methods, and processes for the detection and mitigation of fraudulent or erroneous data in evidence synthesis: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Timothy Hugh Barker, Grace McKenzie McBride, Amanda Ross-White, Danielle Pollock, Cindy Stern, Sabira Hasanoff, Raju Kanukula, Mafalda Dias, Anna Scott, Edoardo Aromataris, Ashley Whitehorn, Jennifer C Stone, Larissa Shamseer, Patrick Palmieri, Miloslav Klugar, Zachary Munn","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00167","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00167","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review aims to identify, catalogue, and characterize previously reported tools, techniques, methods, and processes that have been recommended or used by evidence synthesizers to detect fraudulent or erroneous data and mitigate its impact.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Decision-making for policy and practice should always be underpinned by the best available evidence-typically peer-reviewed scientific literature. Evidence synthesis literature should be collated and organized using the appropriate evidence synthesis methodology, best exemplified by the role systematic reviews play in evidence-based health care. However, with the rise of \"predatory journals,\" fraudulent or erroneous data may be invading this literature, which may negatively affect evidence syntheses that use this data. This, in turn, may compromise decision-making processes.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review will include peer-reviewed articles, commentaries, books, and editorials that describe at least 1 tool, technique, method, or process with the explicit purpose of identifying or mitigating the impact of fraudulent or erroneous data for any evidence synthesis, in any topic area. Manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations, universities, and libraries will also be considered.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will be conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases and relevant organizational websites will be searched for eligible studies. Title and abstract, and, subsequently, full-text screening will be conducted in duplicate. Data from identified full texts will be extracted using a pre-determined checklist, while the findings will be summarized descriptively and presented in tables.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework https://osf.io/u8yrn.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"536-545"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142297431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Conducting pairwise and network meta-analyses in updated and living systematic reviews: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Menelaos Konstantinidis, Catherine Stratton, Sofia Tsokani, Julian Elliott, Mark Simmonds, Jessie McGowan, David Moher, Andrea C Tricco, Areti-Angeliki Veroniki","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00279","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00279","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this scoping review is to describe existing guidance documents or studies reporting on the conduct of meta-analyses in updated systematic reviews (USRs) or living systematic reviews (LSRs).</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The rapid increase in the medical literature poses a substantial challenge in keeping systematic reviews up to date. In LSRs, a review is updated with a pre-specified frequency or when some other signalling criterion is triggered. While the LSR framework is well-established, there is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate methods for conducting repeated meta-analyses over time, which may result in sub-optimal decision-making.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Studies of any design (including commentaries, books, manuals) providing guidance on conducting meta-analysis in USRs or LSRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will use the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will search multiple medical bibliographic databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, JBI Evidence Synthesis , and PsycINFO), statistical and mathematics databases (COBRA, Current Index to Statistics, MathSciNet, Project Euclid Complete, and zbMATH), pre print archives (Arvix, BioRxiv, and MedRxiv), and unpublished (or gray) literature sources. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-text documents, and extract data. Characteristics of recommendations for meta-analysis in USRs and LSRs will be presented using descriptive statistics and categorized concepts.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9c27g.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"527-535"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11892990/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143025059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effectiveness of self-management digital interventions in improving health-related outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an umbrella review protocol.","authors":"Ricardo Salgado, Hugo Fernandes, Véronique de Goumoëns, Blanche Kiszio, Patrício Costa, Philippe Delmas, Miguel Padilha","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00195","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review will aim to assess the effectiveness of self-management digital interventions in improving health-related outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Respiratory rehabilitation programs that promote self-management are crucial for COPD patients. However, current face-to-face strategies involve challenges, such as low participation, high dropout rates, and short-lived post-intervention benefits. Digital self-management interventions may address these issues by improving access to support and enhancing health-related outcomes. Several systematic reviews have examined the effectiveness of these interventions in improving health-related outcomes, prompting the current umbrella review to summarize the existing evidence.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review will consider systematic reviews that examine the effectiveness of self-management digital interventions in improving health-related outcomes in COPD patients. It will not be restricted by COPD stage, phase, comorbidity, sex or gender, setting, or context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The JBI methodology for umbrella reviews will be followed. A comprehensive search will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, ProQuest, and COPD-related websites to identify reviews published in any language from inception to date. Titles and abstracts, and then full texts, will be screened independently by 2 reviewers against the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality will be assessed using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses. Data will be extracted using an adapted and piloted JBI data extraction tool. The findings will be presented in tabular format, along with narrative descriptions and visual support. A citation matrix will be produced to assess study overlap.</p><p><strong>Umbrella review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024517476.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143516999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Simulated clinical placements in health care education: a scoping review and evidence and gap map protocol.","authors":"Danielle Pollock, Charles Marley, Grace McBride, Mafalda Dias, Raju Kanukula, Sabira Hasanoff, Carrie Price, Matthew Tieu, Adam Montagu, Zachary Munn, Ellen Davies","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00298","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00298","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This protocol details the methods for a scoping review that will examine the evidence on the design, implementation, delivery, and evaluation of simulated clinical placements.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical placements allow health professions students to apply theoretical knowledge in clinical settings. For various economical, practical, and preferential reasons, some programs and institutions have trialed and established simulated clinical placements.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>The review will include sources that have examined the design, implementation, delivery, and evaluation of simulated clinical placements in tertiary undergraduate and postgraduate education programs for health professions. Primary research studies, evidence syntheses, discussion articles, and commentaries will be included.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review will be conducted according to the JBI guidance for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The following electronic databases will be searched: PubMed (NCBI), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost). Forward and backward citation searching of the included evidence sources will be conducted using SpiderCite. At least 2 reviewers will assess sources for eligibility at title and abstract, and full-text screening stage, and extract data from included sources. Data will be analyzed using qualitative content analysis and frequencies and will be presented as a narrative summary. Data will also be presented in an evidence and gap map, and as tables and other visual summaries.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143493902","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Improving neurodiversity awareness in school students: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Mandira Hiremath, Nerelie Freeman, Mohammed Alshawsh, Alexandra Ure","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00315","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00315","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review aims to map and characterize existing programs present in mainstream schools internationally that are targeted at improving children's awareness about neurodiversity.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Neurodiversity is a term used to describe human neurocognitive heterogeneity. Increased understanding and awareness about neurodiversity among school students has the potential to improve general student health and well-being. However, there is currently no standardized approach to raising children's awareness about neurodiversity in schools and the associated literature is diffuse.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Literature will be included if it describes and/or evaluates programs designed to be delivered in mainstream schools aimed at increasing awareness of neurodiversity among students aged 5 to 18 years, regardless of geographical location. Published, unpublished, and gray literature from 2013 to the present will be considered.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An academic literature search will be conducted across 5 databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, and ERIC. A gray literature search will also be performed across sources including ProQuest and Google Scholar, as well as targeted websites, expert opinion, and reference lists of relevant peer-reviewed literature. Articles will be selected based on eligibility criteria. Data extraction will be conducted independently by 2 extractors using a pre-determined form documenting study methods, population, interventions, and outcomes. Analysis and presentation of results will be reported according to the study objectives.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework https://osf.io/6b378.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143493891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluations of clinical practice guidelines, protocols, and pathways used in rural and remote Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Luke Arkapaw, Sonia Hines, Anthea Brand, Oliver Black, Mary Byrne, Gillian Harvey, James A Smith","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00356","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00356","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review protocol is to scope the extent and type of evidence describing evaluations of clinical practice guidelines, protocols, and pathways that are used in the rural and remote areas of Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Given the important role that clinical guidance resources can play in minimizing health disparities, it will be useful to understand what resources are being used in rural and remote health contexts and how these are being developed, implemented, and evaluated.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Records will be included from 3 high-income countries which have rural or remote regions and First Nations populations. Records will only be included if they explicitly identify the clinical guidance resource, have the resource as a primary focus of the evaluation, and show that the resource has been endorsed or implemented for use in the rural or remote health service. Evaluations of point-of-care testing instruments will be excluded, as well as records from aged care facilities, even if they are from rural and remote areas.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The JBI methodology for scoping reviews will be followed. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Emcare (Ovid), Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Google. Records in English will be considered for inclusion. Covidence will be used to remove duplicates and organize the selection review process. Data will be extracted using a data charting tool created by the authors. The results will be analyzed using simple descriptive statistics and presented as a series of tables and a narrative summary.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>The review has been registered on Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6EM32.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143493889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}