For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
10
views
75
references
 Top references
cited by
2
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      369
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How to Address the Health of Home Care Workers: A Systematic Review of the Last Two Decades

      research-article

      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

          Making home care a healthy workplace is a societal concern but research on specific interventions is still scarce. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an initial overview of interventions addressing home care workers’ health. All (quasi-) experimental studies, presenting any intervention among home care employees, and reporting any outcome related to occupational health, safety, or well-being were included. PsycArticles, Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 to February 2022. From 16,345 publications, 18 studies with 2432 participants were included and assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Organizational and training/educational approaches were found in five studies each, a behavioral approach in one, and seven studies presented a combined approach. Due to methodological limitations and the heterogeneity of interventions, the existing studies are insufficient to inform new programs, but emphasize the need for tailored approaches, integrated concepts, and participatory intervention development.

          Related collections

          Most cited references75

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

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

          Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)
          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.
          Article 0 comments Cited 13178 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 4180 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book Chapter: not found

              Chapter 3: Systematic Reviews of Effectiveness

              Catalin Tufanaru, Zachary Munn, Edoardo Aromataris … (2020)
              Article 0 comments Cited 90 times – based on 0 reviews
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Appl Gerontol
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Appl Gerontol
                Journal ID (hwp): spjag
                Journal ID (publisher-id): JAG
                Title: Journal of Applied Gerontology
                Publisher: SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                ISSN (Print): 0733-4648
                ISSN (Electronic): 1552-4523
                Publication date (Electronic): 28 November 2022
                Publication date (Print): April 2023
                Volume: 42
                Issue: 4 , Special Issue: The Homecare Workforce Caring for Older Adults
                Pages: 689-703
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Ringgold 9184, universityTechnical University of Munich; , Germany
                Author notes
                [*]Doris Gebhard, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 62, Munich 80992, Germany. Email: doris.gebhard@ 123456tum.de
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2984-3007
                Article
                Publisher ID: 10.1177_07334648221141084
                DOI: 10.1177/07334648221141084
                PMC ID: 9996797
                PubMed ID: 36440715
                SO-VID: 96531dd5-34ee-4804-9cd4-d0b7b3cdcad3
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2022
                License:

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Date received : 17 May 2022
                Date revision received : 27 October 2022
                Date accepted : 7 November 2022
                Categories
                Subject: Health and Well-being of Home Care Workers
                Custom metadata
                typesetter ts10

                Keywords: caregiving,health promotion,home care,systemic review
                Data availability:
                Keywords: caregiving, health promotion, home care, systemic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content369

                See all similar

                Cited by2

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,084

                See all reference authors