BackgroundAs the population is aging, the number of persons living with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) is expected to increase. This review seeks to answer two research questions from the perspectives of older adults with MCC, their caregivers and their health care providers (HCPs): 1) What are the health and social care needs of community-dwelling older adults with MCC and their caregivers? and 2) How do social and structural determinants of health impact these health and social care needs?MethodsWe conducted a scoping review guided by a refinement of the Arksey & O’Malley framework. Articles were included if participants were 55 years or older and have at least two chronic conditions. We searched 7 electronic databases. The data were summarized using thematic analysis.ResultsThirty-six studies were included in this review: 28 studies included participants with MCC; 12 studies included HCPs; 5 studies included caregivers. The quality of the studies ranged from moderate to good. Five main areas of needs were identified: need for information; coordination of services and supports; preventive, maintenance and restorative strategies; training for older adults, caregivers and HCPs to help manage the older adults’ complex conditions; and the need for person-centred approaches. Structural and social determinants of health such as socioeconomic status, education and access influenced the needs of older adults with MCC.ConclusionThe review highlights that most of the needs of older adults with MCC focus on lack of access to information and coordination of care. The main structural and social determinants that influenced older adults’ needs were their level of education/health literacy and their socioeconomic status.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0925-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
ObjectiveAlthough adaptive e-learning environments (AEEs) can provide personalised instruction to health professional and students, their efficacy remains unclear. Therefore, this review aimed to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence regarding the efficacy of AEEs in improving knowledge, skills and clinical behaviour in health professionals and students.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesCINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science from the first year of records to February 2019.Eligibility criteriaControlled studies that evaluated the effect of an AEE on knowledge, skills or clinical behaviour in health professionals or students.Screening, data extraction and synthesisTwo authors screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and coded quality of evidence independently. AEEs were reviewed with regard to their topic, theoretical framework and adaptivity process. Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they had a non-adaptive e-learning environment control group and had no missing data. Effect sizes (ES) were pooled using a random effects model.ResultsFrom a pool of 10 569 articles, we included 21 eligible studies enrolling 3684 health professionals and students. Clinical topics were mostly related to diagnostic testing, theoretical frameworks were varied and the adaptivity process was characterised by five subdomains: method, goals, timing, factors and types. The pooled ES was 0.70 for knowledge (95% CI −0.08 to 1.49; p.08) and 1.19 for skills (95% CI 0.59 to 1.79; p<0.00001). Risk of bias was generally high. Heterogeneity was large in all analyses.ConclusionsAEEs appear particularly effective in improving skills in health professionals and students. The adaptivity process within AEEs may be more beneficial for learning skills rather than factual knowledge, which generates less cognitive load. Future research should report more clearly on the design and adaptivity process of AEEs, and target higher-level outcomes, such as clinical behaviour.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017065585
IntroductionSerious games (SGs) are interactive and entertaining digital software with an educational purpose. They engage the learner by proposing challenges and through various design elements (DEs; eg, points, difficulty adaptation, story). Recent reviews suggest the effectiveness of SGs in healthcare professionals’ and students’ education is mixed. This could be explained by the variability in their DEs, which has been shown to be highly variable across studies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, appraise and synthesise the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness of SGs and the impact of DEs on engagement and educational outcomes of healthcare professionals and students.Methods and analysisA systematic search of the literature will be conducted using a combination of medical subject headings terms and keywords in Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, Embase, Education Resources Information Center, PsycInFO, PubMed and Web of Science. Studies assessing SGs on engagement and educational outcomes will be included. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening as well as the data extraction process. The risk of bias of included studies will also be assessed by two reviewers using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria. Data regarding DEs in SGs will first be synthesised qualitatively. A meta-analysis will then be performed, if the data allow it. Finally, the quality of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of SGs on each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationAs this systematic review only uses already collected data, no Institutional Review Board approval is required. Its results will be submitted in a peer-reviewed journal by the end of 2018.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017077424.
Serious games (SGs) are interactive and entertaining software designed primarily with an educational purpose. This systematic review synthesizes evidence from experimental studies regarding the efficacy of SGs for supporting engagement and improving learning outcomes in healthcare professions education. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2005 and April 2019 were included. Reference selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate, independently. Thirty-seven RCTs were found and 29 were included in random-effect meta-analyses. Compared with other educational interventions, SGs did not lead to more time spent with the intervention {mean difference 23.21 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI) = −1.25 to 47.66]}, higher knowledge acquisition [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.16 (95% CI = −0.20 to 0.52)], cognitive [SMD 0.08 (95% CI = −0.73 to 0.89)], and procedural skills development [SMD 0.05 (95% CI = −0.78 to 0.87)], attitude change [SMD = −0.09 (95% CI = −0.38 to 0.20)], nor behavior change [SMD = 0.2 (95% CI = −0.11 to 0.51)]. Only a small SMD of 0.27 (95% CI = 0.01 to 0.53) was found in favor of SGs for improving confidence in skills.
Reflective practice is a widespread concept in nursing; however, few empirical studies have demonstrated the possible effects of such a practice. The goal of this article is to present a review of the empirical literature on nursing reflective practice. Thirty-seven studies published between 1995 and 2012 were selected and analyzed to identify their common characteristics and structure. Most of them are qualitative in nature and were conducted in an academic context. Generally, few authors clearly define the reflective practice concept and the frames of reference on which their research is based. Furthermore, when reflective practice interventions are described, they have few points of comparison, which makes it hard to choose which intervention to prioritize to maximize the positive effects on nursing practice. Although a lot has been written on the advantages of reflective practice, nursing research on this concept remains at an early stage. The authors recommend various paths for future research.
Background The importance of supporting caregivers is recognized in home care for older persons, and facilitating their help-seeking process is a way to meet that need. The use of electronic health (eHealth) is a potentially promising solution to facilitate caregivers’ help-seeking process. Objective The aim of this research was to develop, in partnership with community organizations, health and social service professionals and caregivers, an eHealth tool promoting the earlier identification of needs of older persons and an optimal use of available resources. Methods To design the tool, 8 co-design sessions (CoDs) were conducted and 3 advisory committees were created (in 11 regions) in Quebec between May 2017 and May 2018. A variety of methods were used, including the sorting method, the use of personas, eHealth tool analysis, brainstorming, sketching, prototyping, and pretesting. Results A total of 74 co-designers (women n=64 and men n=10) were recruited to participate in the CoDs or the advisory committees. This number allowed for the identification of needs to which the tool must respond and for the identification of its requirements (functionalities and content), as well as for the development of the information architecture. Throughout the study, adjustments were made to the planning of CoD, notably because certain steps required more sessions than expected. Among others, this was true for the identification of functionalities. Conclusions This study led to the development of an eHealth tool for caregivers of functionally dependent older persons to help them identify their needs and the resources available to meet them. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/11634
Background It is often only when the initial signs of exhaustion appear that caregivers first may engage in help-seeking behavior, but it is difficult for them to know which is the most appropriate formal service in their situation. Electronic health (eHealth) can support caregivers in keeping the older person they are caring for at home, but few eHealth tools designed for supporting the process of help-seeking by caregivers of functionally impaired older persons have been developed using a co-design approach. Objective This paper aims to describe the protocol of a project that tries to assist caregivers to target their needs and those of the older person they support early in their help-seeking process, and guide them effectively to the formal service most appropriate for their situation. This project aims to answer the following questions: (1) What type of tool can better support caregivers to identify their needs and those of the older person they are caring for and then refer them to an appropriate formal service? and (2) What information should be found in such a tool? Methods This study presents a description of the process of an ongoing multicenter research project based on a co-design approach, which includes 3 phases (1) identification of caregivers’ needs in terms of tools to support their help-seeking behavior, (2) development of a tool, and (3) evaluation of its usability. Results The project began in January 2016 with the ethics application for the 3 phases of the project. For phase 1, recruitment began in December 2016 and ended in September 2017. Phase 2 began in the spring of 2017 and ended in June 2018. All the co-design sessions have been completed. Phase 3 of the project will begin in September 2018. Conclusions Although there are some challenges associated with this type of methodology, the methodology still remains relevant, as it involves future users in the development of a tool, which increases the chances that the tool will meet the users' needs. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/11634
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.