1,720,971 research outputs found
Pre-operative stress, anxiety, depression and coping strategies adopted by patients experiencing their first or recurrent brain neoplasm: an explorative study
No full textFraming the time while designing and conducting reviews: A Focused Mapping Review and Synthesis
No full textAims and Objectives: To identify the profile of time restrictions and their justifications as reported on a set of published reviews. Background: There is a body of methodological knowledge addressing how to design and perform reviews in their different designs. However, how the time restrictions should be set and the justifications that should be provided have received limited attention to date. Design: A Focused Mapping Review and Synthesis following three steps (Focus, Mapping and Synthesis) was performed on 2021. The ENTREQ checklist was followed to report methods and findings. Methods: All Journal of Clinical Nursing reviews published in online or printed version on 2020 (n = 85). Time limits imposed in the literature search, and justifications provided were mapped and synthetised with quantitative and a qualitative analysis. Results: Time restrictions in reviews are not always reported and, when available, reflect three different profiles: (a) including all studies, to provide a comprehensive review; (b) selecting a period, to provide reviews for a contemporary practice; and (b) including only recent studies for reviews reflecting current practice. Reasons justifying time restrictions are not always reported; when documented, justifications regard changes in the practice, in the research or in the theory occurred over time, recent or ongoing. Conclusions: In exploring the date restrictions applied in reviews published over the course of a year, it emerged that the time of access to the sources and the justifications are not always indicated. The attributes of the emerging concepts of “comprehensive reviews,” “contemporary practice reviews” and “current practice reviews” might be further developed to support researchers in selecting an appropriate time frame. Relevance to clinical practice: Reviews require improvements regarding the time restrictions and their justifications. Methodological efforts to standardise the approach ensuring transparency in review protocols and in the following review publication are recommended
The lived experience of healthcare workers in quarantine: Findings of a systematic review, meta-synthesis and meta-summary
No full textAims: In pandemics, infection exposure and quarantine represent critical occupational risks for healthcare workers (HCWs). However, while the psychological consequences of HCWs’ quarantine have been reviewed, other potential implications of quarantine on HCWs, such as those that are work-, professional-, social- and private-related, have not been summarised to date. Summarising quarantined HCWs’ experiences in the current and past pandemics, as investigated with qualitative studies, might improve awareness of their needs, concerns, and the consequences of quarantine on their personal lives. Therefore, the lived experience of quarantined HCWs was reviewed and subjected to meta-synthesis and -summary. Methods: A systematic review of qualitative studies followed by a meta-synthesis and -summary allowing an interpretative integration of the findings of qualitative studies, was performed. PubMed, CINHAL and Scopus databases were explored up to 31 January, 2021, without any limitation in time. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Methods and findings are reported according to the Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research statement. Results: A total of 635 records were retrieved and five studies were included. Overall, five themes summarised the lived experience of quarantined HCWs: 1) Being emotionally challenged; 2) Living the quarantine limitations; 3) Losing freedom; 4) Accepting the quarantine; and 5) Staying away from me. The most frequent categories across studies were ‘Feeling stressed’ and ‘Being constrained’ (both 100%). The least frequent were ‘Feeling sad’ (20%), ‘Enjoying my family’ (20%) and ‘Being refused as a family member’ (20%). Conclusions: The lived experience of HCWs is multidimensional, the implications of which also affect private spheres of life: the immediate family and wider relatives. Understanding and learning from HCWs’ lived experiences might support policymakers, public health authorities and managers with the goal of maintaining the highest physical and mental health of staff during outbreaks. Timely services supporting HCWs, both during and after episode(s) of quarantine, are suggested to prevent additional burdens on frontline professionals
Implications of quarantine among healthcare professionals: findings from a scoping review
No full text
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
