Reviewing the Evidence Base for the Children and Young People Safety Thermometer (CYPST): A Mixed Studies Review

Abstract

The objective was to identify evidence to support use of specific harms for the development of a children and young people’s safety thermometer (CYPST). We searched PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Library post-1999 for studies in pediatric settings about pain, skin integrity, extravasation injury, and use of pediatric early warning scores (PEWS). Following screening, nine relevant articles were included. Convergent synthesis methods were used drawing on thematic analysis to combine findings from studies using a range of methods (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods). A review of PEWS was identified so other studies on this issue were excluded. No relevant studies about extravasation injury were identified. The synthesized results therefore focused on pain and skin integrity. Measurement and perception of pain were complex and not always carried out according to best practice. Skin abrasions were common and mostly associated with device related injuries. The findings demonstrate a need for further work on perceptions of pain and effective communication of concerns about pain between parents and nursing staff. Strategies for reducing device-related injuries warrant further research focusing on prevention. Together with the review of PEWS, these synthesized findings support the inclusion of pain, skin integrity, and PEWS in the CYPST.

Exploring the evidence base for how people with dementia and their informal carers manage their medication in the community: a mixed studies review

“…Papers judged to be poorer quality were not excluded as it was still important to include their findings. However, studies rated to be higher in quality were given greater ‘weight’, in that these papers were discussed more in the synthesis [ 17 ].…”

“…Extracted qualitative and quantitative data comprise both verbatim extracts from participant accounts (in the case of qualitative work) and verbatim extracts from authors’ interpretations (in the case of qualitative research from the results section and in quantitative papers from the discussion section). It is commonplace for syntheses of this nature to include as data, therefore, extracts from authors’ interpretative analyses because this is a secondary analysis of included studies [ 17 ].…”

Global Experiences of Community Responses to COVID-19: A Systematic Literature Review

“…QZ and YW independently appraised the quality of the included studies, and appraisal disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached (Supplementary Material 2). Given the good quality score of each study, no studies were excluded (41). findings (Table 1).…”