No abstract

No abstract

The systematic review of evidence is the research method which underpins the traditional approach to evidence-based healthcare. There is currently no uniform methodology for conducting a systematic review of association (etiology). This study outlines and describes the Joanna Briggs Institute's approach and guidance for synthesizing evidence related to association with a predominant focus on etiology and contributes to the emerging field of systematic review methodologies. It should be noted that questions of association typically address etiological or prognostic issues.The systematic review of studies to answer questions of etiology follows the same basic principles of systematic review of other types of data. An a priori protocol must inform the conduct of the systematic review, comprehensive searching must be performed and critical appraisal of retrieved studies must be carried out.The overarching objective of systematic reviews of etiology is to identify and synthesize the best available evidence on the factors of interest that are associated with a particular disease or outcome. The traditional PICO (population, interventions, comparators and outcomes) format for systematic reviews of effects does not align with questions relating to etiology. A systematic review of etiology should include the following aspects: population, exposure of interest (independent variable) and outcome (dependent variable).Studies of etiology are predominantly explanatory or predictive. The objective of reviews of explanatory or predictive studies is to contribute to, and improve our understanding of, the relationship of health-related events or outcomes by examining the association between variables. When interpreting possible associations between variables based on observational study data, caution must be exercised due to the likely presence of confounding variables or moderators that may impact on the results.As with all systematic reviews, there are various approaches to present the results, including a narrative, graphical or tabular summary, or meta-analysis. When meta-analysis is not possible, a set of alternative methods for synthesizing research is available. On the basis of the research question and objectives, narrative, tabular and/or visual approaches can be used for data synthesis. There are some special considerations when conducting meta-analysis for questions related to risk and correlation. These include, but are not limited to, causal inference.Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies related to etiology is an emerging methodology in the field of evidence synthesis. These reviews can provide useful information for healthcare professionals and policymakers on the burden of disease. The standardized Joanna Briggs Institute approach offers a rigorous and transparent method to conduct reviews of etiology.

This 6-month pilot randomized controlled trial examined the effectiveness of a Mobile Health (mHealth) intervention for hypertension self-monitoring and management in an underserved urban community. The four health outcomes measured included changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), BP monitoring adherence, perceived medication adherence self-efficacy, and health-related quality of life. Thirty participants were randomly assigned to the mHealth group or a standard follow-up group; 25 participants completed the study. The mHealth group had statistically significant improvement in systolic BP decrease ( p = .01). The mHealth group had better adherence to BP monitoring and improved perceived medication adherence self-efficacy at 6 months, compared with the standard follow-up group. The results suggest that an mHealth intervention has the potential to facilitate hypertension management in underserved urban communities.

The purpose of this study was to explore prevalent health issues, perceived barriers to seeking health care, and utilization of health care among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations in New Jersey. A cross-sectional online survey was administered to 438 self-identified LGBT people. Results identified health needs, which included management of chronic diseases, preventive care for risky behaviors, mental health issues, and issues related to interpersonal violence. Barriers to seeking health care included scarceness of health professionals competent in LGBT health, inadequate health insurance coverage and lack of personal finances, and widely dispersed LGBT inclusive practices making transportation difficult. There is a need for better preparation of health care professionals who care for LGBT patients, to strengthen social services to improve access and for better integration of medical and social services.