A scoping review of qualitative studies on sexual and reproductive health and rights in Uganda: Exploring factors at multiple levels.

Buser JM ，Kumakech E ，August E ，Rana GK ，Gray R ，Auma AG ，Jacobson-Davies FE ，Endale T ，Pebolo PF ，Smith YR ... -  《-》

Erratum: Eyestalk Ablation to Increase Ovarian Maturation in Mud Crabs.

《Jove-Journal of Visualized Experiments》

Interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness in community health and hospital settings.

There is now a rising commitment to acknowledge the role patients and families play in contributing to their safety. This review focuses on one type of involvement in safety - patient and family involvement in escalation of care for serious life-threatening conditions i.e. helping secure a step-up to urgent or emergency care - which has been receiving increasing policy and practice attention. This review was concerned with the negotiation work that patient and family members undertake across the emergency care escalation pathway, once contact has been made with healthcare staff. It includes interventions aiming to improve detection of symptoms, communication of concerns and staff response to these concerns. To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness on patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP) ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from 1 Jan 2000 to 24 August 2018. The search was updated on 21 October 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials where the intervention focused on patients and families working with healthcare professionals to ensure care received for acute deterioration was timely and appropriate. A key criterion was to include an interactive element of rehearsal, role play, modelling, shared language, group work etc. to the intervention to help patients and families have agency in the process of escalation of care. The interventions included components such as enabling patients and families to detect changes in patients' conditions and to speak up about these changes to staff. We also included studies where the intervention included a component targeted at enabling staff response. Seven of the eight authors were involved in screening; two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, with any disagreements resolved by discussion to reach consensus. Primary outcomes included patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events. Our advisory group (four users and four providers) ensured that the review was of relevance and could inform policy and practice. We included nine studies involving 436,684 patients and family members and one ongoing study. The published studies focused on patients with specific conditions such as coronary artery disease, ischaemic stroke, and asthma, as well as pregnant women, inpatients on medical surgical wards, older adults and high-risk patients with a history of poor self-management. While all studies tested interventions versus usual care, for four studies the usual care group also received educational or information strategies. Seven of the interventions involved face-to-face, interactional education/coaching sessions aimed at patients/families while two provided multi-component education programmes which included components targeted at staff as well as patients/families. All of the interventions included: (1) an educational component about the acute condition and preparedness for future events such as stroke or change in fetal movements: (2) an engagement element (self-monitoring, action plans); while two additionally focused on shared language or communication skills. We had concerns about risk of bias for all but one of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, particularly regarding blinding of participants and personnel. Our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was moderate to low. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be moderate improvement in patients' knowledge of acute life-threatening conditions, danger signs, appropriate care-seeking responses, and preparedness capacity between interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes and usual care at 12 months (MD 4.20, 95% CI 2.44 to 5.97, 2 studies, 687 participants). Four studies in total assessed knowledge (3,086 participants) but we were unable to include two other studies in the pooled analysis due to differences in the way outcome measures were reported. One found no improvement in knowledge but higher symptom preparedness at 12 months. The other study found an improvement in patients' knowledge about symptoms and appropriate care-seeking responses in the intervention group at 18 months compared with usual care. Low-certainty evidence from two studies, each using a different measure, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of patient-based interventions on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was higher in the intervention group in one study but there was no difference in the other compared with usual care. We are uncertain whether interactional patient-facing and multi-component programmes improve time from the start of patient symptoms to treatment due to low-certainty evidence for this outcome. We were unable to combine the data due to differences in outcome measures. Three studies found that arrival times or prehospital delay time was no different between groups. One found that delay time was shorter in the intervention group. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that multi-component interventions probably have little or no impact on mortality rates. Only one study on a pregnant population was eligible for inclusion in the review, which found no difference between groups in rates of stillbirth. In terms of unintended events, we found that interactional patient-facing interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels (moderate-certainty evidence). None of the studies measured or reported patient and family perceptions of involvement in escalation of care or patient and family experience of patient care. Reported outcomes related to healthcare professionals were also not reported in any studies. Our review identified that interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes (including staff) to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness may improve patient and family knowledge about danger signs and care-seeking responses, and probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels when compared to usual care. Multi-component interventions probably have little impact on mortality rates. Further high-quality trials are required using multi-component interventions and a focus on relational elements of care. Cognitive and behavioural outcomes should be included at patient and staff level.

Mackintosh NJ ，Davis RE ，Easter A ，Rayment-Jones H ，Sevdalis N ，Wilson S ，Adams M ，Sandall J ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Gender differences in the context of interventions for improving health literacy in migrants: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Health literacy can be defined as a person's knowledge, motivation and competence in four steps of health-related information processing - accessing, understanding, appraising and applying health-related information. Individuals with experience of migration may encounter difficulties with or barriers to these steps that may, in turn, lead to poorer health outcomes than those of the general population. Moreover, women and men have different health challenges and needs and may respond differently to interventions aimed at improving health literacy. In this review, we use 'gender' rather than 'sex' to discuss differences between men and women because gender is a broad term referring to roles, identities, behaviours and relationships associated with being male or female. The overall objective of this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) was to explore and explain probable gender differences in the health literacy of migrants. The findings of this QES can provide a comprehensive understanding of the role that any gender differences can play in the development, delivery and effectiveness of interventions for improving the health literacy of female and male migrants. This qualitative evidence synthesis had the following specific objectives: - to explore whether there are any gender differences in the health literacy of migrants; - to identify factors that may underlie any gender differences in the four steps of health information processing (access, understand, appraise, and apply); - to explore and explain gender differences found - or not found - in the effectiveness of health literacy interventions assessed in the effectiveness review that is linked to this QES (Baumeister 2023); - to explain - through synthesising findings from Baumeister 2023 and this QES - to what extent gender- and migration-specific factors may play a role in the development and delivery of health literacy interventions. We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase until May 2021. We searched trial registries and conference proceedings. We conducted extensive handsearching and contacted study authors to identify all relevant studies. There were no restrictions in our search in terms of gender, ethnicity or geography. We included qualitative trial-sibling studies directly associated with the interventions identified in the effectiveness review that we undertook in parallel with this QES. The studies involved adults who were first-generation migrants (i.e. had a direct migration experience) and used qualitative methods for both data collection and analysis. We extracted data into a form that we developed specifically for this review. We assessed methodological limitations in the studies using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) Qualitative Studies) checklist. The data synthesis approach that we adopted was based on "best fit" framework synthesis. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our level of confidence in each finding. We followed PRISMA-E guidelines to report our findings regarding equity. We included 27 qualitative trial-sibling studies directly associated with 24 interventions assessed in a linked effectiveness review (Baumeister 2023), which we undertook in parallel with this QES. Eleven studies included only women, one included only men and 15 included both. Most studies were conducted in the USA or Canada and primarily included people of Latino/Latina and Hispanic origin. The second most common origin was Asian (e.g. Chinese, Korean, Punjabi). Some studies lacked information about participant recruitment and consideration of ethical aspects. Reflexivity was lacking: only one study contained a reflection on the relationship between the researcher and participants and its impact on the research. None of the studies addressed our primary objective. Only three studies provided findings on gender aspects; these studies were conducted with women only. Below, we present findings from these studies, with our level of confidence in the evidence added in brackets. Accessing health information We found that 'migrant women of Korean and Afghan origin preferred access to a female doctor' (moderate confidence) for personal reasons or due to cultural norms. Our second finding was that 'Afghan migrant women considered their husbands to be gatekeepers', as women of an Afghan background stressed that, in their culture, the men were the heads of the household and the decision-makers, including in personal health matters that affected their wives (low confidence). Our third finding was 'Afghan migrant women reported limited English proficiency' (moderate confidence), which impeded their access to health information and services. Understanding health information Female migrants of Afghan background reported limited writing and reading abilities, which we termed 'Afghan migrant women reported low literacy levels' (moderate confidence). Applying health information Women of Afghan and Mexican backgrounds stated that the 'women's role in the community' (moderate confidence) prevented them from maintaining their own health and making themselves a priority; this impeded applying health information. Appraising health information We did not find any evidence related to this step in health information processing. Other findings In the full text of this QES, we report on migration-specific factors in health literacy and additional aspects related to health literacy in general, as well as how participants assessed the effectiveness of health literacy interventions in our linked effectiveness review. Moreover, we synthesised qualitative data with findings of the linked effectiveness review to report on gender- and migration-specific aspects that need to be taken into account in the development, design and delivery of health literacy interventions. The question of whether gender differences exist in the health literacy of migrants cannot be fully answered in this qualitative evidence synthesis. Gender-specific findings were presented in only three of the 27 included studies. These findings represented only Afghan, Mexican and Korean women's views and were probably culturally-specific. We were unable to explore male migrants' perceived health literacy due to the notable lack of research involving migrant men. Research on male migrants' perceived health literacy and their health-related challenges is needed, as well as more research on potential gender roles and differences in the context of migration. Moreover, there is a need for more research in different countries and healthcare systems to create a more comprehensive picture of health literacy in the context of migration.

Aldin A ，Baumeister PhD A ，Chakraverty D ，Monsef I ，Noyes J ，Kalbe E ，Woopen C ，Skoetz N ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Qualitative evidence synthesis informing our understanding of people's perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication.

Health communication is an area where changing technologies, particularly digital technologies, have a growing role to play in delivering and exchanging health information between individuals, communities, health systems, and governments.[1] Such innovation has the potential to strengthen health systems and services, with substantial investments in digital health already taking place, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Communication using mobile phones is an important way of contacting individual people and the public more generally to deliver and exchange health information. Such technologies are used increasingly in this capacity, but poor planning and short‐term projects may be limiting their potential for health improvement. The assumption that mobile devices will solve problems that other forms of communication have not is also prevalent. In this context, understanding people's views and experiences may lead to firmer knowledge on which to build better programs. A qualitative evidence synthesis by Heather Ames and colleagues on clients' perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication focuses on a particular type of messaging – targeted messages from health services delivered to particular group(s) via mobile devices, in this case looking at communicating with pregnant women and parents of young children, and with adults and teenagers about sexual health and family planning.[2] These areas of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH) are where important gains have been made worldwide, but there remains room for improvement. Ames and colleagues sought to examine and understand people's perceptions and experiences of using digital targeted client communication. This might include communication in different formats and with a range of purposes related to RMNCAH – for example, receiving text message reminders to take medicines (e.g. HIV medicines) or go to appointments (such as childhood vaccination appointments), or phone calls offering information or education (such as about breastfeeding or childhood illnesses), support (e.g. providing encouragement to change behaviours) or advice (such as advising about local healthcare services). These communication strategies have the potential to improve health outcomes by communicating with people or by supporting behaviour change. However, changing people's health behaviours to a significant and meaningful degree is notoriously challenging and seldom very effective across the board. There are a multitude of systematic reviews of interventions aiming to change behaviours of both patients and providers, with the overall objective of improving health outcomes – many of which show little or no average effects across groups of people.[3] This evidence synthesis is therefore important as it may help to understand why communicating with people around their health might (or might not) change behaviours and improve consequent health outcomes. By examining the experiences and perspectives of those receiving the interventions, this qualitative evidence synthesis allows us to better understand the interventions' acceptability and usefulness, barriers to their uptake, and factors to be considered when planning implementation. The synthesis looked at 35 studies from countries around the world, focussing on communication related to RMNCAH. Of the 35 studies, 16 were from high‐income countries, mainly the United States, and 19 were from low‐ or middle‐income countries, mainly African countries. Many of the studies presented hypothetical scenarios. The findings from the synthesis are mixed and give us a more nuanced picture of the role of targeted digital communication. People receiving targeted digital communications from health services often liked and valued these contacts, feeling supported and connected by them. However, some also reported problems with the use of these technologies, which may represent barriers to their use. These included practical or technical barriers like poor network or Internet access, as well as cost, language, technical literacy, reading or issues around confidentiality, especially where personal health conditions were involved. Access to mobile phones may also be a barrier, particularly for women and adolescents who may have to share or borrow a phone or who have access controlled by others. In such situations it may be difficult to receive communications or to maintain privacy of content. The synthesis also shows that people's experiences of these interventions are influenced by factors such as the timing of messages, their frequency and content, and their trust in the sender. Identifying key features of such communications by the people who use them might therefore help to inform future choices about how and when such messaging is used. The authors used their knowledge from 25 separate findings to list ten implications for practice. This section of the review is hugely valuable, making a practical contribution to assist governments and public health agencies wishing to develop or improve their delivery of digital health. The implications serve as a list of points to consider, including issues of access (seven different aspects are considered), privacy and confidentiality, reliability, credibility and trust, and responsiveness to the needs and preferences of users. In this way, qualitative evidence is building a picture of how to better communicate with people about health. For example, an earlier 2017 Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis by Ames, Glenton and Lewin on parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination provides ample evidence that may help program managers to deliver or plan communication interventions in ways that are responsive to and acceptable to parents.[4] The qualitative synthesis method, therefore, puts a spotlight on how people's experiences of health and health care in the context of their lives may lead to the design of better interventions, as well as to experimental studies which take more account of the diversity that exists in people's attitudes and decision‐making experiences.[5] In the case of this qualitative evidence synthesis by Ames and colleagues, the method pulled together a substantial body of research (35 data‐rich studies were sampled from 48 studies identified, with the high‐to‐moderate confidence in the evidence for 13 of the synthesized findings). The evidence from this review can inform the development of interventions, and the design of trials and their implementation. While waiting for such new trials or trial evidence on effects to emerge, decision‐makers can build their programs on the highly informative base developed by this review. This qualitative evidence synthesis, alongside other reviews, has informed development by the World Health Organization of its first guideline for using digital technologies for health systems strengthening,[1, 6] part of a comprehensive program of work to better understand and support implementation of such new technologies.

Ryan R ，Hill S 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》