Framing the time while designing and conducting reviews: A Focused Mapping Review and Synthesis

Nursing in a prison context: A focused mapping review and synthesis of international nursing literature

AIM

To provide a snapshot of the extent to which nursing and the prison context features in non-specialist/generic nursing journals.

DESIGN

Focused mapping review and synthesis.

METHODS

Relevant articles were examined for the extent to which they featured nursing and the prison context. A descriptive and contextual analysis of the data was carried out to provide a topography and synthesis of the key trends identified.

DATA SOURCES

Articles meeting criteria for nursing and the prison context in relevant non-specialized, generic nursing journals (n = 7) from January 2018 to December 2022.

RESULTS

Four thousand, nine hundred and twelve (n = 4912) articles were published during the review period of which (n = 14) met inclusion criteria. The key trends identified are presented under three headings: taking an advocacy approach for better health and well-being, examining self-determination and autonomy in prison populations and nursing in the prison context.

CONCLUSION

Nursing and the prison context features in non-specialized and generic nursing journals but sparsely and infrequently. There is a need for greater visibility of nursing and the prison context in nursing journals to help reduce stigma and marginalization of those working and those detained in prison.

IMPLICATION FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Nurses working in prison environments often manage extremely complex care needs. It is necessary to feature all nursing care environments in nursing journals so as to increase visibility and to act as a source of education for all. IMPACT (WHAT PROBLEM DID THE STUDY ADDRESS? MAIN FINDINGS? WHERE/WHOM WILL THE RESEARCH HAVE IMPACT ON): The findings of this review will have impact on all nurses engaged in practice and research as it highlights the extent to which nursing in a prison context is featured in non-specialized nursing journals and also speaks to the challenges faced by those working and detained in prison.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution. This was a review of existing literature.

Outcomes of patient education in adult oncologic patients receiving oral anticancer agents: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

A large variety of oral anticancer agents have become available and while at first glance these therapies appear to provide only benefits, patients have expressed their need for educational interventions and raised safety issues. Although both patients and providers have recognized patient education's importance, and an interplay with safety has been acknowledged, no systematic reviews of the literature that summarize all of the current evidence related to patient education's outcomes for patients who receive oral anticancer agents have been performed to date. Accordingly, this systematic review will attempt to fill the gap in the literature as well as to map (1) contents, (2) methodologies, (3) settings, (4) timing/duration, and (5) healthcare professionals involved.

METHODS

This protocol is being reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic review will be performed. Studies that targeted eligible adult patients (≥ 18 years old) in hospital, outpatient, and home settings, and reported patient education's outcomes for those taking oral anticancer agents will be included. Searches will be conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus, and gray literature will be also sought. Two researchers will screen the search results independently and blindly in two phases: (1) title/abstract screening and (2) full-text screening using the Rayyan AI platform. An electronic data extraction form will be implemented and piloted, and then, two trained data extractors will extract the data cooperatively. Thereafter, a quality appraisal will be conducted using the Critical Appraisal Tools from The Joanna Briggs Institute. The results will be analyzed, grouped, clustered into categories, and discussed until a consensus is reached. Emerging evidence will be synthesized narratively and reported in accordance with the synthesis without meta-analysis guidelines.

DISCUSSION

The systematic review's results will be relevant to (1) policymakers and management at an institutional level, and (2) for clinical practice, in an evidence-based paradigm, potentially leading to a quality improvement with respect to safety and patient satisfaction.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022341797.

Nurse manager intentional rounding and outcomes: Findings of a systematic review

AIM

To summarize the evidence available on Nurse Manager Intentional Rounding (NMIR) describing the main characteristics and methodological quality of studies available, the features of rounding and the outcomes as measured to date.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases, including MEDLINE-EBSCHOST, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, Clinicalkey, ScienceDirect, OVID, Sage Journals and Web of Science, were searched up to June 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guideline was used to summarize methods and report findings. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools were used to evaluate the methodology quality of the studies included.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included with pre-post-test (n = 3), longitudinal, two-group post-tests, quasi-experimental, and retrospective study designs (n = 1, respectively). In five studies, the nurse managers were trained to conduct the rounding, which was shaped according to three main features: a structured (n = 4), a semi-structured (n = 1) and an unstructured rounding (n = 2) delivered from high (twice a day 7/7) to low intensity (once a day, 5/7). Two main outcomes have been measured to date, the patient satisfaction and some aspects related to the care quality. Five studies reported that the satisfaction scores of patients who received rounding were significantly higher than that perceived by patients not receiving rounding. About the other aspects of the quality of care, two studies documented significant improvements as a consequence of the NMIR (e.g. information accessibility, discharge instructions, coordination of care after discharge).

CONCLUSION

Studies available report in general a low methodological quality, mainly due to their pragmatic nature as quality improvement projects. Therefore, transforming this field of research by establishing a methodological rigour and a theoretical foundation in both interventions and outcomes and by designing experimental approaches, might expand the evidence available on the effects of nurse managers intentional rounding.