Conectar
The aim of this scoping review was to identify hard-to-reach and hidden groups in health-related research and to understand the recruitment methods used with these groups.
The presented scoping review has an exploratory perspectiveand was conducted in accordance with Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines.
A comprehensive search of CINAHL and MEDLINE databases was performed for studies published up to November 2022. The searches were updated in December 2024.
Relevant papers were identified via specific search terms and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two authors independently assessed eligible literature and extracted relevant data, which was analysed and synthesised to answer the research questions. The analysis method used was descriptive analysis with quantification.
Overall, 1024 studies were screened. The included studies were published between 2001 and 2022. A total of 41 studies were included in the review. In this data, groups were defined mostly as hard-to-reach and hidden. The groups were divided into eight categories: LGBTQ+ community, intoxicant users, sex workers and their clients, marginalised groups, mental health care seekers and users, impaired persons, people living outside their original home country and victims of abuse or neglect. Recruitment methods were varied, with snowball sampling, respondent-based sampling and websites being the most used.
This review provides insight into the current knowledge on hard-to-reach and hidden study groups. In studies targeting hard-to-reach and hidden groups, the use of concepts is variable and inconsistent.
In clinical nursing practice, it is important to identify hidden and hard-to-reach groups, as the goal of equality is to improve the health and well-being of all individuals, including marginalised groups.
Reporting was guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis ex-tension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
No patient or public contribution.
The aim of this umbrella review was to summarise the existing evidence on the effectiveness of nursing interventions targeted at adult patients in hospitals.
Existing systematic reviews were synthesised.
The literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL Complete, and the Cochrane Library by two of the authors until June 6th 2024 without a time limit.
A total of 2652 records were identified. After screening the titles and abstracts, 2421 records were excluded. Then two records were excluded as they were not retrieved, and 125 records were excluded during full-text review as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Finally, 11 reviews (141 original studies) were included in the quality assessment and were analysed narratively.
The most commonly used interventions were educational, followed by preventive, observative, or combinations of various interventions. All interventions were targeted at the care of somatic patients. The interventions lacked detailed descriptions of their content and duration. Nursing interventions were found to reduce anxiety, depression, disorder symptoms, pain intensity, length of hospital stay, serious adverse effects, mortality, infections and pressure ulcer prevalence.
There is limited high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of nursing interventions used by nurses at hospital settings. While nursing interventions can improve hospital patient outcomes, more high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses are needed. Only preventive interventions (such as pressure ulcer prevention and use of early warning scores) consistently showed positive effects and are relatively easy to implement in hospital nursing practice. Other interventions are not yet widely integrated into standard care in hospitals. It is necessary to study the cost-effectiveness of nursing interventions.
This umbrella review did not include any patient or public involvement.
This umbrella review of systematic reviews adheres to the PRISMA statement.
FreshRSS 