For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
3
views
50
references
 Top references
cited by
0
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      234
      similar
       All similar

      To submit your manuscript, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Career Development of Academic Staff in Faculties of Dentistry by Means of Mentorship Programs: Protocol for a Scoping Review

      research-article
      Author(s): , PgDip (Health Professions Education), PhD 1 , , , BSc, BChD, PgDip, MSc 1 , , BChD, PgDip, MChD, PhD 1 , , BA, MA 1
      Editor(s):
      Other contributor(s): (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: JMIR Research Protocols
      Publisher: JMIR Publications
      Keywords: scoping review protocol, academic staff development, mentorship, capacity development, dental education, dentistry, dental educators

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Globally, the demands on dental educators continue to diversify and expand. Due to their importance and value, mentoring programs have been acknowledged as a means of recruiting, developing, and retaining academics in dental education.

          Objective

          This protocol is for a scoping review that aims to identify the goals of mentoring programs for academic staff in dental faculties and determine how these programs were structured, delivered, and evaluated.

          Methods

          The review will be performed in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodology for scoping reviews, which covers both qualitative and quantitative scientific literature as well as grey literature written in English and published between 2000 and 2020. The databases will include PubMed, Ovid, the Educational Resources Information Center database, Science Direct, Scopus, Google Scholar, Trove, Web of Science, Openthesis.org, and the website of the American Dental Education Association. A manual search will also be conducted by using the reference lists of included studies to identify additional articles. Working independently, the authors will participate iteratively in literature screening, paper selection, and data extraction. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion until a consensus is reached or after consultation with the research team. Key information that is relevant to the review questions will be extracted from the selected articles and imported into a Microsoft Excel file. The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) will be used to guide the reporting of this protocol.

          Results

          The search for appropriate literature has commenced, and we aim to present the results before the end of the 2021 academic year.

          Conclusions

          The development of formal mentorship programs for academics in dental education will enhance the retention of academic staff.

          International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

          PRR1-10.2196/27239

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)
          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
          Article 0 comments Cited 6910 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

            Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz … (2017)
            Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
            Article 0 comments Cited 4002 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

              Spencer L James, Degu Abate, Kalkidan Hassen Abate … (2020)
              Summary Background The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017) includes a comprehensive assessment of incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 354 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017. Previous GBD studies have shown how the decline of mortality rates from 1990 to 2016 has led to an increase in life expectancy, an ageing global population, and an expansion of the non-fatal burden of disease and injury. These studies have also shown how a substantial portion of the world's population experiences non-fatal health loss with considerable heterogeneity among different causes, locations, ages, and sexes. Ongoing objectives of the GBD study include increasing the level of estimation detail, improving analytical strategies, and increasing the amount of high-quality data. Methods We estimated incidence and prevalence for 354 diseases and injuries and 3484 sequelae. We used an updated and extensive body of literature studies, survey data, surveillance data, inpatient admission records, outpatient visit records, and health insurance claims, and additionally used results from cause of death models to inform estimates using a total of 68 781 data sources. Newly available clinical data from India, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Nepal, China, Brazil, Norway, and Italy were incorporated, as well as updated claims data from the USA and new claims data from Taiwan (province of China) and Singapore. We used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, as the main method of estimation, ensuring consistency between rates of incidence, prevalence, remission, and cause of death for each condition. YLDs were estimated as the product of a prevalence estimate and a disability weight for health states of each mutually exclusive sequela, adjusted for comorbidity. We updated the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary development indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and total fertility rate. Additionally, we calculated differences between male and female YLDs to identify divergent trends across sexes. GBD 2017 complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting. Findings Globally, for females, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and haemoglobinopathies and haemolytic anaemias in both 1990 and 2017. For males, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and tuberculosis including latent tuberculosis infection in both 1990 and 2017. In terms of YLDs, low back pain, headache disorders, and dietary iron deficiency were the leading Level 3 causes of YLD counts in 1990, whereas low back pain, headache disorders, and depressive disorders were the leading causes in 2017 for both sexes combined. All-cause age-standardised YLD rates decreased by 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·1–4·6) from 1990 to 2017; however, the all-age YLD rate increased by 7·2% (6·0–8·4) while the total sum of global YLDs increased from 562 million (421–723) to 853 million (642–1100). The increases for males and females were similar, with increases in all-age YLD rates of 7·9% (6·6–9·2) for males and 6·5% (5·4–7·7) for females. We found significant differences between males and females in terms of age-standardised prevalence estimates for multiple causes. The causes with the greatest relative differences between sexes in 2017 included substance use disorders (3018 cases [95% UI 2782–3252] per 100 000 in males vs s1400 [1279–1524] per 100 000 in females), transport injuries (3322 [3082–3583] vs 2336 [2154–2535]), and self-harm and interpersonal violence (3265 [2943–3630] vs 5643 [5057–6302]). Interpretation Global all-cause age-standardised YLD rates have improved only slightly over a period spanning nearly three decades. However, the magnitude of the non-fatal disease burden has expanded globally, with increasing numbers of people who have a wide spectrum of conditions. A subset of conditions has remained globally pervasive since 1990, whereas other conditions have displayed more dynamic trends, with different ages, sexes, and geographies across the globe experiencing varying burdens and trends of health loss. This study emphasises how global improvements in premature mortality for select conditions have led to older populations with complex and potentially expensive diseases, yet also highlights global achievements in certain domains of disease and injury. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
              Article 0 comments Cited 3837 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Seyi Amosun:
                ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7385-227X
                Faculty of DentistryUniversity of the Western CapePrivate Bag X17, Bellville 7535Cape Town, 7535South Africa27 21 937 3000samosun@uwc.ac.za
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): JMIR Res Protoc
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): JMIR Res Protoc
                Journal ID (publisher-id): ResProt
                Title: JMIR Research Protocols
                Publisher: JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1929-0748
                Publication date Collection: July 2021
                Publication date (Electronic): 21 July 2021
                Volume: 10
                Issue: 7
                Electronic Location Identifier: e27239
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Faculty of Dentistry University of the Western Cape Cape Town South Africa
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Seyi Amosun samosun@ 123456uwc.ac.za
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7385-227X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2919-6193
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6324-4251
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2117-1605
                Article
                Publisher ID: v10i7e27239
                DOI: 10.2196/27239
                PMC ID: 8339986
                PubMed ID: 34287219
                SO-VID: 01d57473-b922-4a14-8cd5-102a2a6e1dfa
                Copyright © ©Seyi Amosun, Faheema Kimmie-Dhansay, Greta Geerts, Reneda Basson. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 21.07.2021.
                License:

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                Date received : 18 January 2021
                Date revision requested : 2 March 2021
                Date revision received : 19 April 2021
                Date accepted : 12 May 2021
                Categories
                Subject: Protocol
                Subject: Protocol

                Keywords: scoping review protocol,academic staff development,mentorship,capacity development,dental education,dentistry,dental educators
                Data availability:
                Keywords: scoping review protocol, academic staff development, mentorship, capacity development, dental education, dentistry, dental educators

                Comments

                Comment on this article