ABSTRACT
Photovoice is a participatory action research method in which participants take and narrate photographs to share their experiences and perspectives. This method is gaining in popularity among health researchers. Few studies, however, have described virtual photovoice data collection despite the growing interest among qualitative health researchers for online data collection. As such, the aim of this article is to discuss the implementation of a virtual photovoice study and presents some of the challenges of this design and potential solutions. The study examined issues of social isolation and mental health among older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Canadian province of Québec. Twenty-six older adults took photographs depicting their experience of the pandemic that were then shared in virtual discussion groups. In this article, we discuss three key challenges arising from our study and how we navigated them. First, we offer insights into managing some of the technical difficulties related to using online meeting technologies. Second, we describe the adjustments we made during our study to foster and maintain positive group dynamics. Third, we share our insights into the process of building and maintaining trust between both researchers and participants, and amongst participants. Through a discussion of these challenges, we offer suggestions to guide the work of health promotion researchers wishing to conduct virtual photovoice studies, including with older adults.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To identify and appraise articles describing criteria used to prioritize or withhold a critical care admission. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Medline, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL Complete databases. Gray literature searches and a manual review of references were also performed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. STUDY SELECTION: We sought all articles and abstracts of original research as well as local, provincial, or national policies on the topic of ICU resource allocation. We excluded studies whose population of interest was neonatal, pediatric, trauma, or noncritically ill. Screening of 6,633 citations was conducted. DATA EXTRACTION: Triage and/or transport criteria were extracted, based on type of article, methodology, publication year, and country. An appraisal scale was developed to assess the quality of identified articles. We also developed a robustness score to further appraise the robustness of the evidence supporting each criterion. Finally, all criteria were extracted, evaluated, and grouped by theme. DATA SYNTHESIS: One-hundred twenty-nine articles were included. These were mainly original research (34%), guidelines (26%), and reviews (21%). Among them, we identified 200 unique triage and transport criteria. Most articles highlighted an exclusion (71%) rather than a prioritization mechanism (17%). Very few articles pertained to transport of critically ill patients (4%). Criteria were classified in one of four emerging themes: patient, condition, physician, and context. The majority of criteria used were nonspecific. No study prospectively evaluated the implementation of its cited criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified 200 criteria classified within four themes that may be included when devising triage programs including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We identified significant knowledge gaps where research would assist in improving existing triage criteria and guidelines, aiming to decrease arbitrary decisions and variability.