Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of mortality in India. Economic threats due to CVDs have surged, as diagnostic and treatment costs are out-of-pocket expenses. The increasing prevalence of CVDs in India is due to globalization, industrialization, aging, tobacco and alcohol consumption, diet, and sleep patterns. This scoping review provides a summary of the costs incurred in diagnosing and treating CVDs in India. Methods: The JBI updated methodology aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will guide this scoping review. Searches will be conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Embase, Econ Papers, and ProQuest databases. Google Scholar and Shodhganga will be used to search for relevant gray literature. Bibliographic mining will be performed to identify additional relevant studies. The literature published from 2000 onwards will be the primary focus. All direct and indirect costs for the diagnosis and treatment of CVDs across various levels of healthcare settings will be included. A two-stage independent screening, consisting of title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening, will be conducted to identify eligible articles. Data will be extracted from full-text studies using a customized data extraction form. The results will be compiled and presented in the scoping review performed. Ethics and dissemination: A conference presentation and scientific peer-reviewed journal publication will be the sources for disseminating the review results. This study does not require an ethics review because publicly available sources were used to retrieve data.

PurposeThe present study develops, conceptualizes and validates a scale based on the transactional stress theory to assess the perceived challenge and hindrance demands of doctoral programs that impact doctoral students’ psychological well-being.Design/methodology/approachThis research employs an exploratory-mixed methodology comprising five phases with a sequential qualitative-quantitative approach. A rigorous scale development process is adopted to validate the instrument’s psychometric properties. The study respondents are Indian full-time doctoral students in the management discipline.FindingsThe findings show that the construct of perceived challenge and hindrance demands is a first-order four-factor and a second-order two-factor model. The study has validated the scale to capture the challenge and hindrance demands of doctoral research programs with the following sub-constructs: doctoral program resource inadequacies, doctoral program ambiguity, doctoral program workload and complexity.Practical implicationsThe recommended challenge demands and hindrance demands (CHD) scale provides a benchmark for doctoral institutes and program supervisors in focussing on research students’ perception of their doctoral education demands to reduce the strain and increase their well-being during their doctoral program journey.Originality/valueHindrance demands adversely influence the motivation resources needed for doctoral education; challenge demands positively impact the research students’ internal resources.

Background: Research on doctoral students’ mental well-being has gained significant importance in recent years. The findings of such studies were uncertain about the critical demands and resources of a doctoral program that substantially influence the students’ mental health. This review aims to integrate the current evidence in bringing out the nature and significance of differentiated demands, contextual and personal resources, and their influence on the well-being of the students.  Methods: An integrative literature review was conducted based on the five-stage framework of Whittemore and Knafl. The study identified 45 articles published from 2000 onwards following the Joanna Briggs Institute quality evaluation criteria and PRISMA reporting guidelines for selecting eligible articles.  Results: The integrative review findings divulge that differentiated demands of doctoral programs were categorized into challenge-hindrance demands. The differentiated demands experienced by doctoral students were grouped as ambiguity in doctoral program structure, resource inadequacy, workload, complexity, and responsibility. Additionally, institutional support, research supervisory support, and intrinsic motivation were treated as essential resource in mitigating the effects of the differentiated demands of the doctoral program. Conclusions: An integrated conceptual model was built exclusively for doctoral programs and suggests that the universities and supervisors design and structure healthy, constructive doctoral programs. As an outcome of the review, theoretical underpinnings of demands-resources and mental well-being are reported. The current review is an initial attempt to synthesize challenge-hindrance demands and contextual-personal resources in determining the mental well-being of doctoral students.

Background: Well-being among teachers contributes toward quality work and better student support. Teachers’ well-being persists to be a concern in school settings; there is a lacuna in understanding the concept of well-being among them. This scoping review identifies the stress factors and map their association with the psychological well-being of teachers employed in schools. Additionally, to identify the methodology and the interventions used in reducing teachers' stress and their relevance on their psychological well-being.  Methods: First, Pubmed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for eligible studies with MeSH terms for stress factors, well-being, and teachers from 2010 to 2022. Identified studies were screened thoroughly and excluded or included based on prior established criteria. Data from the included studies were extracted and summarized according to the study protocol.   Results: Among the 60 studies that met our inclusion criteria, the majority were quantitative, with cross-sectional studies. Several studies focused on emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and diminished personal accomplishment aspect among teachers. Almost half of the included studies focused on organizational and social pressures such as administration workload, classroom management issues, lack of supervisor and team support, students’ behaviour, and pressure from parents. The most used interventions to overcome stress were coping strategies and mindfulness training intervention tools.   Conclusions: The findings from the current scoping review will reveal the different stressors which impact psychological well-being. Focus on the most used interventions to overcome stress among schoolteachers. This will also provide recommendations to regulators and management to identify the factors causing stress among teachers and their relevance to their psychological well-being, overcome employee turnover and absenteeism issues. Also, different alternatives available to reduce the stress may benefit the stakeholders and policymakers to confirm a suitable intervention that will benefit the teaching profession.

IntroductionType 2 diabetes mellitus affects an individual’s quality of life (QoL); and there are multiple instruments that can be used to measure QoL. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify the existing instruments that have been used to measure QoL in people living with diabetes, and to enlist the major domains (such as physical and psychological components) available in the identified instruments. Additionally, we plan to determine the psychometric properties of the identified QoL instruments using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology.Methods and analysisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol guideline was followed to report this systematic review protocol. Searches will be conducted on MEDLINE (via PubMed, Web of Science), SCOPUS and CINAHL. Predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria will be applied to the search results, to include studies with adult individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus, with and without complications, and exclude studies with type 1 diabetes or other clinical illness. Studies conducted outside India will be excluded. Five authors in pairs will independently screen the articles and extract the data that meets the inclusion criteria. The COSMIN criteria will be used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. Narrative synthesis will be performed to analyse the findings of the instruments.Ethics and disseminationEthical permission is not applicable, as this is a systematic review. We intend to disseminate the systematic review findings through a national or international conference and publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020180432.