FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Self-help friendliness and cooperation with self-help groups among rehabilitation clinics in Germany (KoReS): a mixed-methods study protocol

Por: Ziegler · E. · Bartzsch · T. · Trojan · A. · Usko · N. · Krahn · I. · Bütow · S. · Kofahl · C.
Introduction

Self-help is an important complement to medical rehabilitation for people with chronic diseases and disabilities. It contributes to stabilising rehabilitation success and further coping with disease and disability. Rehabilitation facilities are central in informing and referring patients to self-help groups. However, sustainable cooperation between rehabilitation and self-help, as can be achieved using the concept of self-help friendliness in healthcare, is rare, as is data on the cooperation situation.

Methods and analysis

The KoReS study will examine self-help friendliness and cooperation between rehabilitation clinics and self-help associations in Germany, applying a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design. In the first qualitative phase, problem-centred interviews and focus groups are conducted with representatives of self-help-friendly rehabilitation clinics, members of their cooperating self-help groups and staff of self-help clearinghouses involved based on a purposeful sampling. Qualitative data collected will be analysed through content analysis using MAXQDA. The findings will serve to develop a questionnaire for a quantitative second phase. Cross-sectional online studies will survey staff responsible for self-help in rehabilitation clinics nationwide, representatives of self-help groups and staff of self-help clearinghouses. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS will include descriptive statistics, correlation, subgroup and multiple regression analyses. Additionally, a content analysis of rehabilitation clinics’ websites will evaluate the visibility of self-help in their public relations.

Ethics and dissemination

The University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf Local Psychological Ethics Committee at the Center for Psychosocial Medicine granted ethical approval (reference number LPEK-0648; 10.07.2023). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Results dissemination will comprise various formats such as workshops, presentations, homepages and publications for the international scientific community, rehabilitation centres, self-help organisations and the general public in Germany. For relevant stakeholders, practical guides and recommendations to implement self-help friendliness will derive from the results to strengthen patient orientation and cooperation between rehabilitation and self-help to promote the sustainability of rehabilitation processes.

Efficacy of cell-based immunotherapies on patients with glioma: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis protocol

Por: Nikoobakht · M. · Shamshiripour · P. · Mostafavi Zadeh · S. M. · Rahnama · M. · Hajiahmadi · F. · Ramezani · A. · Farzam Rad · V. · Nazari · E. · Moradi · A.-R. · Akbarpour · M. · Ahmadvand · D.
Introduction

Glial brain tumours are highly mortal and are noted as major neurosurgical challenges due to frequent recurrence or progression. Despite standard-of-care treatment for gliomas, the prognosis of patients with higher-grade glial tumours is still poor, and hence empowering antitumour immunity against glioma is a potential future oncological prospect. This review is designed to improve our understanding of the efficacy of cell-based immunotherapies for glioma.

Methods and analysis

This systematic review will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search of main electronic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ISI Web of Science EMBASE and ProQuest will be done on original articles, followed by a manual review of review articles. Only records in English and only clinical trials will be encountered for full-text review. All the appropriate studies that encountered the inclusion criteria will be screened, selected and then will undergo data extraction step by two independent authors. For meta-analyses, data heterogeneity for each parameter will be first evaluated by Cochran’s Q and I2 statistics. In case of possible heterogeneity, a random-effects meta-analysis will be performed and for homogenous data, fixed-effects models will be selected for reporting the results of the proportional meta-analysis. Bias risk will be assessed through Begg’s and Egger’s tests and will also be visualised by Funnel plots.

Ethics and dissemination

As this study will be a systematic review without human participants’ involvement, no ethical registration is required and meta-analysis will be presented at a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42022373297

Determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate informed values-based decision-making: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

Por: Berger-Höger · B. · Lewis · K. B. · Cherry · K. · Finderup · J. · Gunderson · J. · Kaden · J. · Kienlin · S. · Rahn · A. C. · Sikora · L. · Stacey · D. · Steckelberg · A. · Zhao · J.
Introduction

Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients’ involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use.

Methods and analysis

We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane’ Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.

Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42022338299.

❌