A healthy nurse work environment is a workplace that is safe, empowering, and satisfying. Many research studies were conducted on nurse work environments in the last decade; however, it lacks an overview of these research studies. The purpose of this review is to identify, evaluate, and summarize the major foci of studies about nurse work environments in the United States published between January 2005 and December 2017 and provide strategies to improve nurse work environments. Databases searched included MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Nursing and Allied Health, and the Cochrane Library. The literature search followed the PRISMA guideline. Fifty-four articles were reviewed. Five major themes emerged: 1) Impacts of healthy work environments on nurses' outcomes such as psychological health, emotional strains, job satisfaction, and retention; 2) Associations between healthy work environments and nurse interpersonal relationships at workplaces, job performance, and productivity; 3) Effects of healthy work environments on patient care quality; 4) Influences of healthy work environments on hospital accidental safety; and 5) Relationships between nurse leadership and healthy work environments. This review shows that nurses, as frontline patient care providers, are the foundation for patient safety and care quality. Promoting nurse empowerment, engagement, and interpersonal relationships at work is rudimental to achieve a healthy work environment and quality patient care. Healthier work environments lead to more satisfied nurses who will result in better job performance and higher quality of patient care, which will subsequently improve healthcare organizations' financial viability. Fostering a healthy work environment is a continuous effort.

Background Treadmills are often used in research, clinical practice, and training. Biomechanical investigations comparing treadmill and overground running report inconsistent findings. Objective This study aimed at comparing biomechanical outcomes between motorized treadmill and overground running. Methods Four databases were searched until June 2019. Crossover design studies comparing lower limb biomechanics during non-inclined, non-cushioned, quasi-constant-velocity motorized treadmill running with overground running in healthy humans (18-65 years) and written in English were included. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible. Results 33 studies (n = 494 participants) were included. Most outcomes did not differ between running conditions. However, during treadmill running, sagittal foot-ground angle at footstrike (mean difference (MD) − 9.8° [95% confidence interval: − 13.1 to − 6.6]; low GRADE evidence), knee flexion range of motion from footstrike to peak during stance (MD 6.3° [4.5 to 8.2]; low), vertical displacement center of mass/pelvis (MD − 1.5 cm [− 2.7 to − 0.8]; low), and peak propulsive force (MD − 0.04 body weights [− 0.06 to − 0.02]; very low) were lower, while contact time (MD 5.0 ms [0.5 to 9.5]; low), knee flexion at footstrike (MD − 2.3° [− 3.6 to − 1.1]; low), and ankle sagittal plane internal joint moment (MD − 0.4 Nm/kg [− 0.7 to − 0.2]; low) were longer/higher, when pooled across overground surfaces. Conflicting findings were reported for amplitude of muscle activity. Conclusions Spatiotemporal, kinematic, kinetic, muscle activity, and muscle-tendon outcome measures are largely comparable between motorized treadmill and overground running. Considerations should, however, particularly be given to sagittal plane kinematic differences at footstrike when extrapolating treadmill running biomechanics to overground running. Protocol registration CRD42018083906 (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

No abstract

ObjectiveWe sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence to inform policies that reduce density and proximity of tobacco retailers.Data sourcesTen databases were searched on 16 October 2020: MEDLINE via PubMed, PsycINFO, Global Health, LILACS, Embase, ABI/Inform, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, Web of Science and Scopus, plus grey literature searches using Google and the RAND Publication Database.Study selectionIncluded studies used inferential statistics about adult participants to examine associations between tobacco retailer density/proximity and tobacco use behaviours and health outcomes. Of 7373 studies reviewed by independent coders, 37 (0.5%) met inclusion criteria.Data extractionEffect sizes were converted to a relative risk reduction (RRR) metric, indicating the presumed reduction in tobacco use outcomes based on reducing tobacco retailer density and decreasing proximity.Data synthesisWe conducted a random effects meta-analysis and examined heterogeneity across 27 studies through subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Tobacco retailer density (RRR=2.55, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.19, k=155) and proximity (RRR=2.38, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.37, k=100) were associated with tobacco use behaviours. Pooled results including both density and proximity found an estimated 2.48% reduction in risk of tobacco use from reductions in tobacco retailer density and proximity (RRR=2.48, 95% CI 1.95 to 3.02, k=255). Results for health outcomes came from just two studies and were not significant. Considerable heterogeneity existed.ConclusionsAcross studies, lower levels of tobacco retailer density and decreased proximity are associated with lower tobacco use. Reducing tobacco supply by limiting retailer density and proximity may lead to reductions in tobacco use. Policy evaluations are needed.

No abstract