Conectar
Traditional peoples and communities (TPCs), such as indigenous peoples and quilombolas (communities descended from escaped African slaves), face challenges related to food security and the impact of the food environment on their health. Changes in food systems, urbanisation and loss of territorial rights have contributed to less healthy eating patterns, with increased consumption of ultra-processed foods and a higher prevalence of chronic non-communicable diseases. Despite this, there are gaps in knowledge about how the food environments of these communities are investigated, especially in relation to the physical, economic, political and sociocultural dimensions.
This scoping review will be conducted following the methodological framework developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute for scoping reviews, and its reporting will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. A systematic search will be carried out in the following databases: PubMed, SciELO, Web of Science, Embase and EBSCO, using terms related to traditional populations and food environments. The studies to be included will be selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined based on the population, concept and context technique. The study population will include TPCs, such as indigenous peoples and quilombolas; the concept will address the food environment in its physical, economic, political and sociocultural dimensions; and the context will encompass studies conducted at a global level, without any restrictions on geographic location. The study type will include original articles and grey literature. The screening of studies will involve independent reviewers and predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data synthesis will be presented in tables, including information on focus, geographic scope and methodology of the selected studies. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Exposure tool.
As the study does not involve the collection of primary data or human participants, it does not require ethical approval. The results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and presented at public health and nutrition conferences, contributing to the advancement of knowledge on food environments of TPCs.
Dysmenorrhea, or menstrual pain, is a subjective experience, and can only be assessed by patient-reported outcomes. These instruments should be reliable, valid and responsive.
To identify and critically appraise the available evidence for the measurement properties of specific patient-reported outcome measures used for dysmenorrhea.
The PRISMA statement was used to report this systematic review. Databases searched were PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar (April 2021; updated on February 2023). Original studies with primary data collection, with no restriction on language and publication date that reported psychometric properties of one or more dysmenorrhea-related patient-reported outcome measure. The literature searches, selection of studies, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias were performed independently by two reviewers and followed the COSMIN guidelines.
Thirty studies were analysed in this review, and 19 patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated. The instruments varied in relation to the measured construct and measurement properties (validity, reliability and responsiveness). The methodological quality of the studies and the quality of evidence of the patient-reported outcome measures were variable. Among the 13 studies that reported the development of patient-reported outcome measures, most had inadequate methodological quality, and the overall rating was insufficient or inconsistent.
The Dysmenorrhea Symptom Interference (DSI) scale was the only identified patient-reported outcome measure that has the potential to be recommended because of its sufficient rating combined with moderate quality of evidence for content validity. Future studies should further evaluate the measurement properties of the existing patient-reported outcome measures, or develop new patient-reported outcome measures following the COSMIN methodology.
Not applicable as this is a systematic review.
PROSPERO protocol: CRD42021244410. Registration on April 22, 2021.
Objetivo principal: revisar las evidencias disponibles en la literatura sobre la prematuridad y sus especificidades para el cuidado. Metodología: revisión integradora en la Base de Datos de Literatura de América Latina y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud (Lilacs); Índice Acumulativo de Enfermería y Literatura de la Salud Aliada (Cinahl); Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM-PubMed); Base de Datos de Enfermería (BDEnf); con descriptores: Familia, Prematuridad, Comportamiento maternal, Cuidado del bebé. Resultados principales: Fueron encontrados 11 artículos en Lilacs; 3 en el Cinahl; 7 en PubMed; y 2 en BDEnf, totalizando 26 artículos. Se realizó una lectura comprensiva y un análisis crítico del contenido de los artículos. El proceso comparativo constante se fue realizado para organizar y consolidar los datos en categorías, utilizando técnicas de investigación cualitativas. Fueron encontradas tres categorías: Prematuridad; Atención materna en el domicilio; Impacto del nacimiento prematuro en la familia. Conclusión principal: el bebé prematuro es un niño de alto riesgo y necesita de un cuidado especial por parte de la madre para un periodo prolongado. Se requiere una atención especializada de los profesionales de la salud y de la familia para su desarrollo saludable.
FreshRSS 