Systematic scoping review protocol of methodologies of chronic respiratory disease surveys in low/middle-income countries

Aggarwal, Dhiraj; Hanafi, Nik Sherina; Chippagiri, Soumya; Brakema, Evelyn A; Pinnock, Hilary; Khoo, Ee Ming; Sheikh, Aziz; Liew, Su May; Ng, Chiu Wan; Isaac, Rita; Chinna, Karuthan; Wong, Li Ping; Hussein, Norita; Juvekar, Sanjay; Das, Deepa; Paul, Biswajit; Campbell, Harry; Grant, Eric J.; Fletcher, Monica; Saha, Sudipta; Habib, Mansur; Arifeen, Shams El; Huque, Rumana; Khatavkar, Parag; Salvi, Sundeep; Yusuf, Shahida O; Yusuf, Musa; Bashir, Nihal

doi:10.1038/s41533-019-0129-7

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We follow the methodological stages proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [ 23 ] for scoping studies; namely: (1) identifying research questions; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting the results. A scoping literature review maps adjacent concepts related to an area of interest and main sources of information available [ 23 , 24 ], being grounded on wide questions to investigate emerging evidence that could not be compiled through a systematic literature review [ 25 , 26 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to the rationalization of surgical instrument trays: scoping review and research agenda

Santos

Fogliatto

Zani

et al. 2021

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Surgical Tray Rationalization (STR) consists of a systematic reduction in the number of surgical instruments to perform specific procedures without compromising patient safety while reducing losses in the sterilization and assembly of trays. STR is one example of initiatives to improve process performance that have been widely reported in industrial settings but only recently have gained popularity in healthcare organizations. Methods We conduct a scoping review of the literature to identify and map available evidence on surgical tray management. Five methodological stages are implemented and reported; they are: identifying research questions, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting the data, and collating, summarizing and reporting the results. Results We reviewed forty-eight articles on STR, which were grouped according to their main proposed approaches: expert analysis, lean practices, and mathematical programming. We identify the most frequently used techniques within each approach and point to their potential contributions to operational and economic dimensions of STR. We also consolidate our findings, proposing a roadmap to STR with four generic steps (prepare, rationalize, implement, and consolidate) and recommended associated techniques. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first study that reviews and systematizes the existing literature on the subject of STR. Our study closes with the proposition of future research directions, which are presented as nine research questions associated with the four generic steps proposed in the STR roadmap.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to the rationalization of surgical instrument trays: scoping review and research agenda

Santos

Fogliatto

Zani

et al. 2021

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 281 publications on CRD prevalence surveys in LMCs, published between 1995 and 2018, reported studies conducted in a total of 70 countries. Most publications were based on surveys conducted in Asia (n = 133 publications) with China, India and Turkey having 42, 35 and 30 publications, respectively [12].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We followed the six-step framework for undertaking scoping reviews described by Arksey and O'Malley [9] which has been widely employed [10,11]. The full protocol for this systematic scoping review has been published [12]. The research questions and methods are summarised below.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At all stages, articles were grouped according to their relevance (relevant, not relevant or unsure); researchers were instructed to use an 'unsure' category if there was any doubt about relevance and these articles were then discussed within the team and a decision made. The selection criteria and definitions applied are detailed in Table 1 [12].…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chronic respiratory disease surveys in adults in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic scoping review of methodological approaches and outcomes

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) contribute significantly towards the global burden of disease, but the true prevalence and burden of these conditions in adults is unknown in the majority of low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to identify strategies -in particular the definitions, study designs, sampling frames, instruments, and outcomes -used to conduct prevalence surveys for CRDs in LMICs. The findings will inform a future RESPIRE Four Country ChrOnic Respiratory Disease (4CCORD) study, which will estimate CRD prevalence, including disease burden, in adults in LMICs. MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to map prevalence surveys conducted in LMICs published between 1995 and 2018. We followed Arksey and O'Malley's six-step framework. The search was conducted in OVID Medline, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, Global Health, WHO Global Index Medicus and included three domains: CRDs, prevalence and LMICs. After an initial title sift, eight trained reviewers undertook duplicate study selection and data extraction. We charted: country and populations, random sampling strategies, CRD definitions/phenotypes, survey procedure (questionnaires, spirometry, tests), outcomes and assessment of individual, societal and health service burden of disease. ResultsOf 36 872 citations, 281 articles were included: 132 from Asia (41 from China). Study designs were cross-sectional surveys (n = 260), cohort studies (n = 11) and secondary data analysis (n = 10). The number of respondents in these studies ranged from 50 to 512 891. Asthma was studied in 144 studies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 112. Most studies (100/144) based identification of asthma on symptom-based questionnaires. In contrast, COPD diagnosis was typically based on spirometry findings (94/112); 65 used fixed-ratio thresholds, 29 reported fixed-ratio and lower-limit-of-normal values. Only five articles used the term 'phenotype'. Most studies used questionnaires derived from validated surveys, most commonly the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (n = 47). The burden/impact of CRD was reported in 33 articles (most commonly activity limitation). ConclusionSurveys remain the most practical approach for estimating prevalence of CRD but there is a need to identify the most predictive questions for diagnosing asthma and to standardise diagnostic criteria.

show abstract

“…We follow the methodological stages proposed by Arksey and O'Malley [23] for scoping studies; namely: (1) identifying research questions; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting the results. A scoping literature review maps adjacent concepts related to an area of interest and main sources of information available [23,24], being grounded on wide questions to investigate emerging evidences that could not be compiled through a systematic literature review [25,26].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to the rationalization of surgical instrument trays: Scoping review and research agenda

Santos

Fogliatto

Zani

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Surgical Tray Rationalization (STR) consists of a systematic reduction in the quantity of surgical instruments to perform specific procedures without compromising patient safety, while reducing losses in the sterilization and assembly of trays. STR is one example of initiatives to improve process performance that have been widely reported in industrial settings, but only recently have gained popularity in healthcare organizations. Methods We conduct a scoping review of the literature aiming at identifying and mapping available evidence on the topic of surgical tray management. Five methodological stages are implemented and reported; they are: identifying research questions, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting the data, and collating, summarizing and reporting the results. Results We reviewed forty-eight articles on STR, which were grouped according to their main proposed approaches: expert analysis, lean practices, and mathematical programming. We identify the most frequently used techniques within each approach and point to their potential contributions to operational and economic dimensions of STR. We also consolidate our findings proposing a roadmap to STR, with four generic steps (prepare, rationalize, implement, and consolidate) and recommended associated techniques. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first study that reviews and systematizes the existing literature on the subject of STR. Our study closes with the proposition of directions for future research, which are presented as nine research questions associated with the four generic steps proposed in the STR roadmap.

show abstract

Systematic scoping review protocol of methodologies of chronic respiratory disease surveys in low/middle-income countries

Cited by 11 publications

References 40 publications

Approaches to the rationalization of surgical instrument trays: scoping review and research agenda

Approaches to the rationalization of surgical instrument trays: scoping review and research agenda

Chronic respiratory disease surveys in adults in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic scoping review of methodological approaches and outcomes

Approaches to the rationalization of surgical instrument trays: Scoping review and research agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About