0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Protocol of systematic reviews on implementation research on cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus and mental ailments in India

      other

      Read this article at

      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

          Introduction

          The burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is a major public health concern across the world. Various initiatives have tried to address these with varying degrees of success.

          Objective

          The objective is to assess and collate existing evidence in implementation research done in India on three broad domains of NCDs namely, cardiovascular diseases (CVD), diabetes mellitus (DM), and mental health (MH) in India.

          Materials and methods

          Three systematic review protocols have been drafted to explore and collate extant evidence of implementation research on cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, and mental health in India, in accordance with the PRISMA-P statement. Academic databases including PubMed, Embase and Science Direct will be searched. Search strategies will be formulated in iterative processes and in accordance with the formats that are specific to the databases that will be searched. In addition, grey literature and non-academic databases will also be explored. Data extracted from the selected studies will be analysed and a narrative summary of the selected articles, using the SWiM (Synthesis without meta-analysis) guidelines will be produced.

          Intended Outcomes

          The outputs of these systematic reviews could help in a better understanding of implementation research gaps and also how to address them. Apart from giving insights into how healthcare initiatives for CVDs, diabetes and mental health could be implemented in a better way, the study could also advocate the need to build and consolidate capacity for implementation research in the country.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

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

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

            Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Writing – Original Draft Preparation
                Role: Data CurationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – Original Draft Preparation
                Role: Data CurationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – Original Draft Preparation
                Role: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                F1000Res
                F1000Res
                F1000Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2046-1402
                16 January 2024
                2023
                : 12
                : 100
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Research, ICMR-National Institute for Implementation Research on Non-Communicable Diseases,, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India
                [2 ]Professor, Faculty of Life and Allied Health Sciences, MS Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560054, India
                [1 ]University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [1 ]University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [1 ]Department of Community Medicine, Government Medical College, Parippally, Kerala, India
                Author notes

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9685-5190
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4340-2264
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5900-854X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8996-8998
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1239-3660
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4486-632X
                Article
                10.12688/f1000research.128549.2
                10904959
                38434648
                49658ef5-e5bf-4b09-a548-7f68b89627a6
                Copyright: © 2024 Moosan H et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 12 January 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: WHO Country Office, India
                WHO Reg.NO/2021/1157595-0 NCD/WCO India
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Articles

                implementation research,systematic review,india,cardiovascular diseases,diabetes mellitus,mental health ailments,implementation science,non-communicable diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article