Introduction Though the importance of knowledge mobilisation has been established globally in health and wellness research, a certain degree of ambiguity remains regarding the meaning and extent of knowledge mobilisation activities and how they have been implemented. In this study, we aim to explore the different descriptions of knowledge mobilisation and the diverse ways mobilisation activities have been realised by different researchers working for the betterment of health and wellness of immigrant communities in their host countries. Methods and analysis We aimed to conduct an integrative review to organise the available literature describing knowledge mobilisation pertaining to health and wellness in immigrant communities. We will employ a comprehensive search, using appropriate search-terms, to identify relevant literature and will qualitatively synthesise the information toward fulfilling our objectives. Specific methodological and analytical frameworks related to the integrative review process will guide each step of the process. A librarian designed the systematic search of the academic and grey literature from database inception to December 2019. The databases include MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL and SocINDEX. For grey literature, we will conduct searches in AHS Insite, Google, Google Scholar, OAISter and government websites. A two-stage (title–abstract and full-text) screening will be conducted, including single-citation tracking and hand search of reference lists. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this review. We first plan to disseminate the results of our systematic review protocol through meetings with key stakeholders, followed by appropriate publications and presentations at applicable platforms. We also have opted for an integrated knowledge translation or community-engaged knowledge mobilisation approach where we have engaged with community-based citizen researchers from the inception of our research.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for generating evidence to inform clinical oncology practice. Knowledge gained through qualitative research methodologies can be complementary to that gained through RCTs. How qualitative research has been combined with RCTs in oncology has not been previously characterized.This scoping review was conducted to summarize how qualitative research associated with RCTs in the oncology setting has been conducted and examine the quality of reporting.Manuscripts reporting on qualitative research linked with RCTs in the cancer context that involved patients (both adult and pediatric) and/or informal caregiver (friends/family) were included.Peer-reviewed manuscripts indexed in MEDLINE (OVID) and CINAHL, published in English between 2008 and January 2019.Formal scoping review methods were followed. A data extraction tool informed by the research questions as well as the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) was utilized. Extraction was conducted independently by two authors, with disagreements resolved by a third.Fifty-four articles were included. Assessing information sharing, diet/exercise, and psychotherapeutic interventions were the most common focuses of the RCTs. The most common focus of the qualitative component was on gaining insight into the experience of receiving the intervention or participating in RCT procedures. How the intervention impacted the cancer experience was not a common focus of the qualitative components. Some reports provided insufficient information to understand how the qualitative components aligned with the RCT components. The results of the qualitative and RCT components were not integrated to draw meaningful conclusions about the efficacy of the intervention under study in most cases. Reports focusing on only qualitative methods had higher median (Mdn) reporting of COREQ items compared to reports that included both the qualitative and RCT components (Mdn = 18 vs. Mdn = 14, respectively; p <0.001).This review identified that qualitative research has been combined with RCTs in the cancer context in a number of ways, most commonly to understand the experience of receiving study interventions or participating in trial procedures. Exploring how interventions impact other aspects of the cancer experience is an approach that should be considered in future work. Formalized guidelines for the design and reporting of investigations that combine qualitative and RCT approaches in the cancer context are expected to be of value.Combining qualitative research with randomized controlled trials in oncology: an impornt opportunity for discovery.
The purpose is to systematically review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to change family physicians' laboratory test-ordering. We searched 15 electronic databases (no language/date limitations). We identified 29 RCTs (4,111 physicians, 175,563 patients). Six studies specifically focused on reducing unnecessary tests, 23 on increasing screening tests. Using Cochrane methodology 48.5% of studies were low risk-of-bias for randomisation, 7% concealment of randomisation, 17% blinding of participants/personnel, 21% blinding outcome assessors, 27.5% attrition, 93% selective reporting. Only six studies were low risk for both randomisation and attrition. Twelve studies performed a power computation, three an intention-to-treat analysis and 13 statistically controlled clustering. Unweighted averages were computed to compare intervention/control groups for tests assessed by >5 studies. The results were that fourteen studies assessed lipids (average 10% more tests than control), 14 diabetes (average 8% > control), 5 cervical smears, 2 INR, one each thyroid, fecal occult-blood, cotinine, throat-swabs, testing after prescribing, and urine-cultures. Six studies aimed to decrease test groups (average decrease 18%), and two to increase test groups. Intervention strategies: one study used education (no change): two feedback (one 5% increase, one 27% desired decrease); eight education + feedback (average increase in desired direction >control 4.9%), ten system change (average increase 14.9%), one system change + feedback (increases 5-44%), three education + system change (average increase 6%), three education + system change + feedback (average 7.7% increase), one delayed testing. The conclusions are that only six RCTs were assessed at low risk of bias from both randomisation and attrition. Nevertheless, despite methodological shortcomings studies that found large changes (e.g. >20%) probably obtained real change.
Unlike many workshops that deal broadly with the entire review process, Linda's focused closely on the librarian's role in conducting the search.She discussed the differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, and offered lots of advanced search tips.Linda also covered research question and strategy development, methodology filters, grey literature searching, and more.She particularly encouraged those undertaking a systematic review to use the PRISMA statement (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) to assist in documentation of the review process.During the afternoon, the 21 attendees, well-represented across SAHLA's entire membership, learned about the skills necessary to conduct an intensive literature search for the purpose of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.The nature of the computer classroom enabled frequent discussions and provided the opportunity to apply concepts gleaned from the session via a number of interactive practice exercises.
Over one billion Muslims worldwide fast during the month of Ramadan. Ramadan fasting brings about some changes in the daily lives of practicing Muslims, especially in their diet and sleep patterns, which are associated with the risk of cardiovascular diseases. Over the years, many original studies have made the effort to identify the possible impact of the Ramadan fast on cardiovascular diseases. This systematic review and meta-analysis is an attempt to present the summary of key findings from those articles and an appraisal of selected literature. A systematic search using keywords of ";Ramadan fasting" and ";cardiovascular diseases" was conducted in primary research article and gray-literature repositories, in combination with hand searching and snow balling. Fifteen studies were finally selected for data extraction on the outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction, and congestive heart failure. The analysis revealed that the incidence of cardiovascular events during the Ramadan fast was similar to the nonfasting period. Ramadan fast is not associated with any change in incidence of acute cardiovascular disease.
