3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evidence of past and current collaborations between traditional health practitioners and biomedical health practitioners: a scoping review protocol

      other
      , ,
      BMJ Open
      BMJ Publishing Group
      mental health, health policy, organisation of health services

      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

          Healthcare seekers around the globe use more than one healthcare system, with most using the traditional and the Western approaches concurrently. To date, little collaboration between the two systems has taken place within the mental health space compared with other areas of medicine. In order to inform integrating plans for traditional health practitioners and biomedical health practitioners in the South African mental health system, it is important to know which models of collaboration are used in other medical settings and contexts. This study aims to document global evidence on collaboration practices between traditional health practitioners and biomedical professionals when working with various health conditions.

          Methods and analysis

          This scoping review will be guided by an improved Arksey and O’Malley framework, the 2010 Levac et al methodological framework and the 2017 Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. A systematic literature search will be carried out using seven different databases, EMBASE, PubMed, LILACS MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, CINAHL Plus, Academic Search Complete and Scopus, in addition to the WHO repository, bibliographical search engines, and Open Access Theses and Dissertations. Moreover, the references of relevant publications between January 1978 and March 2020 will be scanned. Two reviewers will independently screen articles for eligibility based on the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thematic analysis and descriptive numerical analysis will be performed using ATLAS.ti V.8 and Excel software, respectively. The results for this review will be presented using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Extension for Scoping Review.

          Ethics and dissemination

          This study will not require ethics approval because publicly available material will be used. Study findings will be published in an open-access journal and be presented to other key health system stakeholders and academic research gatherings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

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

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

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              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

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2021
                12 January 2021
                : 11
                : 1
                : e043452
                Affiliations
                [1]departmentSchool of Public health , University of the Western Cape , Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Ngcwalisa Amanda Jama; ngcwalisaj@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4339-6220
                Article
                bmjopen-2020-043452
                10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043452
                7805360
                33436474
                d42c9c73-1516-421d-af80-6ee4fdcf5f33
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 04 August 2020
                : 25 November 2020
                : 27 November 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation of South Africa;
                Award ID: 98918
                Categories
                Public Health
                1506
                1724
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                mental health,health policy,organisation of health services
                Medicine
                mental health, health policy, organisation of health services

                Comments

                Comment on this article