A systematic review protocol of educational programs for nursing staff on management of resident-to-resident elder mistreatment in residential aged care homes.

AIM: To review evidence concerning educational programs for nursing staff on management of resident-to-resident elder mistreatment with the aim of preventing and reducing this abuse in residential aged care homes. BACKGROUND: Although elder abuse has received considerable attention, very little is known regarding resident-to-resident elder mistreatment in residential aged care homes and about interventions/programs to prevent and reduce this harm. Nurses play an essential role in identifying and managing aggressive interactions. However, many nurses may not recognize these behaviours as forms of abuse. Thus, it is important to ascertain if educational programs for nursing staff have been developed and implemented. DESIGN: Quantitative systematic review registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017080925). METHODS: A systematic search of English published studies between 1980 - 2017 will be conducted in CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PsychInfo and Scopus. Risk of bias and quality of the studies will be evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized studies. A meta-analysis will be performed, if sufficient homogeneity exists; otherwise, data will be summarized by using a narrative description. This study was funded in January 2017. DISCUSSION: Nursing staff should play a pivotal role in preventing and/or reducing resident-to-resident elder mistreatment. Therefore, it is important to identify available educational programs for nursing staff dealing with this abuse. Consequently, this review may provide evidence-based care for nursing staff to assist them in protecting older residents from experiencing abuse or being abused and in improving their well-being.

Voices from low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol of primary healthcare interventions within public health systems addressing intimate partner violence against women.

INTRODUCTION: Intimate partner violence (IPV) considerably harms the health, safety and well-being of women. In response, public health systems around the globe have been gradually implementing strategies. In particular, low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) have been developing innovative interventions in primary healthcare (PHC) addressing the problem. This paper describes a protocol for a systematic review of studies addressing the impacts and outcomes of PHC centre interventions addressing IPV against women from LMIC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search for studies will be conducted in African Index Medicus, Africa Portal Digital Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Index Medicus for the Southeast Asia Region, IndMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (LILACS), Medecins Sans Frontieres, MEDLINE, Minority Health and Health Equity Archive, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Scientific Electronic Library Online, (SciELO) and Social Policy and Practice. Studies will be in English, Spanish and Portuguese, published between 2007 and 2017, addressing IPV against women from LMIC, whose data quantitatively report on the impacts and outcomes for survivors and/or workers and/or public health systems preintervention and postintervention. Two trilingual reviewers will independently screen for study eligibility and data extraction, and a librarian will cross-check for compliance. Risk of bias and quality assessment of studies will be measured according to: (1) the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias for randomised controlled trials and (2) the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS). Data will be analysed and summarised using meta-analysis and narrative description of the evidence across studies. This systematic review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols(PRISMA P) guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will be based on published studies, thus not requiring ethical approval. Findings will be presented in conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017069261.

Retraction of publications in nursing and midwifery research: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Rates of manuscript retraction in academic journals are increasing. Papers are retracted because of scientific misconduct or serious error. To date there have been no studies that have examined rates of retraction in nursing and midwifery journals. DESIGN: A systematic review of Journal Citation Report listed nursing science journals. DATA SOURCES: The Medline database was searched systematically from January 1980 through July 2017, and www.retractionwatch.com was manually searched for relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria. REVIEW METHODS: Two researchers undertook title and abstract and full text screening. Data were extracted on the country of the corresponding author, journal title, impact factor, study design, year of retraction, number of citations after retraction, and reason for retraction. Journals retraction index was also calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-nine retracted papers published in nursing science journals were identified, the first in 2007. This represents 0.029% of all papers published in these journals since 2007. We observed a significant increase in the retraction rate of 0.44 per 10,000 publications per year (95% CI; 0.03-0.84, p = .037). There was a negative association between a journal's retraction index and impact factor with a significant reduction in retraction index of -0.57 for a one-point increase in impact factor (95% CI; -1.05 to -0.09, p = .022). Duplicate publication was the most common reason for retraction (n = 18, 58%). The mean number of citations manuscripts received after retraction was seven, the highest was 52. Most (n = 27, 93.1%) of the retracted papers are still available online (with a watermark indicating they are retracted). CONCLUSION: Compared to more established academic disciplines, rates of retraction in nursing and midwifery are low. Findings suggest that unsound research is not being identified and that the checks and balances incumbent in the scientific method are not working. In a clinical discipline, this is concerning and may indicate that research that should have been removed from the evidence base continues to influence nursing and midwifery care.

Safety and Efficacy of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) in Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) has been reported to be effective in the treatment of some psychiatric disorders. It remains uncertain, however, whether ACT is safe and effective in treating schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders (e.g., psychosis). This protocol describes the methodology for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of ACT in the treatment of psychosis. The review will be guided by the standards set by the Cochrane Collaboration. We will search the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), EMCARE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases for randomized controlled trials, whose arms are ACT and any comparator, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), and Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN), for unpublished and ongoing trials. The primary outcome will be any standard (or surrogate) measure of psychotic pathology. The meta-analysis will summarize short-term and long-term effects and different control conditions with or without treatment as usual or comparative to other interventions. In cases where heterogeneity is detected (via χ2 and I2), we will adopt the random effects model for computation.