METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review according to the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar using a combination of terms such as "colorectal cancer", "screening" and "low-middle-income countries". Studies of CRC screening interventions/programmes conducted in the general adult population in LMICs as well as policy reviews (of interventions in LMICs) and commentaries on challenges and opportunities of delivering CRC screening in LMICs, published in the English language before February 2020 will be included in this review. The title and abstract screen will be conducted by one reviewer and two reviewers will screen full-texts and extract data from included papers, independently, into a data charting template that will include criteria from an adapted template for intervention description and replication checklist and implementation considerations. The presentation of the scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidance.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical concerns. The results will be used to inform colorectal screening interventions in LMICs. We will publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present them at relevant conferences.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be guided by the smart technology adoption behaviours of elder consumers theoretical model (Elderadopt) by Golant and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. First, we will conduct an internet search for nursing homes and websites and databases related to the stakeholders to retrieve the definitions, concepts and criteria of a smart nursing home (phase 1). Second, we will conduct an additional systematic electronic database search for published articles on any measures of technological feasibility and integration of medical services in nursing home settings and their acceptability by nursing home residents and caregivers (phase 2). The electronic database search will be carried out from 1999 to 30 September 2020 and limited to works published in English and Chinese languages. For phase 2, the selection of literature is further limited to residents of nursing homes aged ≥60 years old with or without medical needs but are not terminally ill or bed-bound. Qualitative data analysis will follow the Framework Methods and thematic analysis using combined inductive and deductive approaches, conducted by at least two reviewers.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol is registered on osf.io (URL: https://osf.io/qtwz2/). Ethical approval is not necessary as the scoping review is not a primary study, and the information is collected from selected articles that are publicly available sources. All findings will be disseminated at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.
METHODOLOGY: The scoping review will be carried out in six stages: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies through electronic databases (i.e., PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Reviews, Google Scholar, EBSCOHOST, Science Direct) and also gray literature, and (3) selection of studies to be included based on inclusion criteria. Search and initial screening of studies to be included will be conducted by two independent reviewers. Discrepancies will then be solved through discussion with other reviewers; (4) charting and categorizing extracted data in a pretested data extraction form; (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results; and lastly, (6) conducting consultation with stakeholders and experts in diabetes.
DISCUSSION: This scoping review protocol is aimed to provide a framework enabling us to map and summarize the findings from existing studies involving meal replacement. It will help researchers to identify the research gap and provide recommendations for future meal replacement studies. The results from this scoping review will be useful to various stakeholders in healthcare. It is also part of a research project in which the information obtained will be utilized in a clinical trial of a developed meal replacement plan. Dissemination of knowledge will also be done through presentations at related scientific conferences.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct the proposed scoping review following the method of Arksey and O'Malley. The literature search will include studies published from 2009 to 2019, and will be conducted on the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases; reference lists will be mined for literature not contained on these databases. A grey literature search will also be conducted. To be included in the review, studies should have been conducted on people with a history of infertility, with a focus on patient-centred fertility care. Studies that have not been published in full text and studies published in languages other than English will be excluded. After study selection, data will be charted in a prepared form. We will analyse the data using descriptive numerical and qualitative thematic analyses to answer the research questions. NVivo V.12 will be used for data extraction.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This work does not warrant any ethical or safety concerns. This scoping review will synthesise existing literature on PCIC, and the results will be published to be readily available for clinical audiences and policymakers. These findings may support clinicians and decision-makers in applying PCIC, thereby promoting high-quality healthcare in the concerned population.
METHODS: The following databases will be searched: Embase, MEDLINE, Emcare, EPPI-Centre database of health promotion research (BiblioMap) EPPI-Centre Database for promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER), Global Health, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database, Maternity and Infant Care Database, Education Resource Information Center, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and Global Index Medicus, which indexes Latin America and the Caribbean, Index Medicus for the South-East Asia Region, African Index Medicus, Western Pacific Region Index Medicus. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, conference proceedings, thesis and dissertations, policy and guidelines and their reference lists will also be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and full text based on predefined eligibility criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews using the Population, Concept and Context framework and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist will be used to structure and report the findings.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics permission to conduct the scoping review is not required as the information collected is publicly available through databases. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's framework and begin with a literature search using keywords in electronic databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and PsychINFO, covering the period from January 2013 to December 2022 and limited to English language publications. Four independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts based on predefined inclusion criteria, followed by full-text review of selected titles. Relevant references cited in the publications will also be examined. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram will be utilised to illustrate the methodology. Data from selected publications will be extracted, analysed, and categorised for further analysis.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of the scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the barriers and challenges encountered by oncology MDTs over the past decade. These findings will contribute to the existing literature and provide insights into areas that require improvement in the functioning of MDTs in oncology management. The results will be disseminated through publication in a scientific journal, which will help to share the findings with the wider healthcare community and facilitate further research and discussion in this field.
TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: The protocol for this scoping review is registered with Open Science Framework, available at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/R3Y8U.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library from inception to Feb 24th, 2017, to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials that assessed interventions or strategies to improve oral anticoagulant use in AF patients.
RESULTS: Thirty-four systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion but only 11 were included in the qualitative analyses, corresponding to 40 unique meta-analyses, as the remaining systematic reviews had overlapping primary studies. There was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of genotype-guided dosing and pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinics for stroke prevention in AF patients. Conversely, patient's self-management and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), in general were superior to warfarin for preventing stroke and reducing mortality. All interventions showed comparable risk of major bleeding with warfarin.
CONCLUSION: Findings from this overview support the superiority of NOACs and patient's self-management for preventing stroke in AF patients. However, uncertainties remain on the benefits of genotype-guided dosing and pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinics due to poor quality evidence, and future research is warranted.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to 31 August 2018 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of studies that examined the impact of distal technology and reported any clinical or patient-related outcomes among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
RESULTS: The umbrella review identified 95 reviews, including 162 meta-analyses with 46 unique outcomes. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies supports the use of distal technology, especially telehealth and mHealth (healthcare delivered by mobile technology), in people with diabetes for improving HbA1c values by 2-4 mmol/mol (0.2-0.4%). For other health outcomes, such as changes in fasting plasma glucose levels, risk of diabetic ketoacidosis or frequency of severe hypoglycaemia, the evidence was weaker. No evidence was reported for most patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, self-efficacy and medication-taking. The evidence base was poor, with most studies rated as low to very low quality.
CONCLUSION: Distal technologies were associated with a modest improvement in glycaemic control, but it was unclear if they improved major clinical outcomes or were cost-effective in people with diabetes. More robust research to improve wider outcomes in people with diabetes is needed before such technologies can be recommended as part of routine care for any patient group.