BackgroundReporting guidelines have been available for the past 17 years since the inception of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement in 1996. These guidelines were developed to improve the quality of reporting of studies in medical literature. Despite the widespread availability of these guidelines, the quality of reporting of medical literature remained suboptimal. In this study, we assess the current adherence practice to reporting guidelines; determine key factors associated with better adherence to these guidelines; and provide recommendations to enhance adherence to reporting guidelines for future studies.MethodsWe undertook a systematic scoping review of systematic reviews of adherence to reporting guidelines across different clinical areas and study designs. We searched four electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline) from January 1996 to September 2012. Studies were included if they addressed adherence to one of the following guidelines: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND), Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). A protocol for this study was devised. A literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors in duplicate. This study reporting follows the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsOur search retrieved 5159 titles, of which 50 were eligible. Overall, 86.0% of studies reported suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with better adherence included journal impact factor and endorsement of guidelines, publication date, funding source, multisite studies, pharmacological interventions and larger studies.ConclusionReporting guidelines in the clinical literature are important to improve the standards of reporting of clinical studies; however, adherence to these guidelines remains suboptimal. Action is therefore needed to enhance the adherence to these standards. Strategies to enhance adherence include journal editorial policies endorsing these guidelines.

IntroductionElder abuse, a universal human rights problem, is associated with many negative consequences. In most jurisdictions, however, there are no comprehensive hospital-based interventions for elder abuse that address the totality of needs of abused older adults: psychological, physical, legal, and social. As the first step towards the development of such an intervention, we undertook a systematic scoping review.ObjectivesOur primary objective was to systematically extract and synthesize actionable and applicable recommendations for components of a multidisciplinary intersectoral hospital-based elder abuse intervention. A secondary objective was to summarize the characteristics of the responses reviewed, including methods of development and validation.MethodsThe grey and scholarly literatures were systematically searched, with two independent reviewers conducting the title, abstract and full text screening. Documents were considered eligible for inclusion if they: 1) addressed a response (e.g., an intervention) to elder abuse, 2) contained recommendations for responding to abused older adults with potential relevance to a multidisciplinary and intersectoral hospital-based elder abuse intervention; and 3) were available in English.AnalysisThe extracted recommendations for care were collated, coded, categorized into themes, and further reviewed for relevancy to a comprehensive hospital-based response. Characteristics of the responses were summarized using descriptive statistics.Results649 recommendations were extracted from 68 distinct elder abuse responses, 149 of which were deemed relevant and were categorized into 5 themes: Initial contact; Capacity and consent; Interview with older adult, caregiver, collateral contacts, and/or suspected abuser; Assessment: physical/forensic, mental, psychosocial, and environmental/functional; and care plan. Only 6 responses had been evaluated, suggesting a significant gap between development and implementation of recommendations.DiscussionTo address the lack of evidence to support the recommendations extracted in this review, in a future study, a group of experts will formally evaluate each recommendation for its inclusion in a comprehensive hospital-based response.

ObjectiveWe have undertaken a multi-phase, multi-method program of research to develop, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive hospital-based nurse examiner elder abuse intervention that addresses the complex functional, social, forensic, and medical needs of older women and men. In this study, we determined the importance of possible participating professionals and respective roles and responsibilities within the intervention.MethodsUsing a modified Delphi methodology, recommended professionals and their associated roles and responsibilities were generated from a systematic scoping review of relevant scholarly and grey literatures. These items were reviewed, new items added for review, and rated/re-rated for their importance to the intervention on a 5-point Likert scale by an expert panel during a one day in-person meeting. Items that did not achieve consensus were subsequently re-rated in an online survey.AnalysisThose items that achieved a mean Likert rating of 4+ (rated important to very important), and an interquartile range<1 in the first or second round, and/or for which 80% of ratings were 4+ in the second round were retained for the model elder abuse intervention.ResultsTwenty-two of 31 recommended professionals and 192 of 229 recommended roles and responsibilities rated were retained for our model elder abuse intervention. Retained professionals were: public guardian and trustee (mean rating = 4.88), geriatrician (4.87), police officer (4.87), GEM (geriatric emergency management) nurse (4.80), GEM social worker (4.78), community health worker (4.76), social worker/counsellor (4.74), family physician in community (4.71), paramedic (4.65), financial worker (4.59), lawyer (4.59), pharmacist (4.59), emergency physician (4.57), geriatric psychiatrist (4.33), occupational therapist (4.29), family physician in hospital (4.28), Crown prosecutor (4.24), neuropsychologist (4.24), bioethicist (4.18), caregiver advocate (4.18), victim support worker (4.18), and respite care worker (4.12).ConclusionA large and diverse group of multidisciplinary, intersectoral collaborators was deemed necessary to address the complex needs of abused older adults, each having important roles and responsibilities to fulfill within a model comprehensive elder abuse intervention.