Dataset Information

Current definitions of advanced multimorbidity: a protocol for a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

People living with and dying from multimorbidity are increasing in number, and ensuring quality care for this population is one of the major challenges facing healthcare providers. People with multimorbidity often have a high burden of palliative and end-of-life care needs, though they do not always access specialist palliative care services. A key reason for this is that they are often not identified as being in the last stages of their life by current healthcare providers and systems.This scoping review aims to identify and present the available evidence on how people with multimorbidity are currently included in research, policy and clinical practice.

Methods and analysis

Scoping review methodology, based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework, will be undertaken and presented using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Search terms have been generated using the key themes of 'multimorbidity', 'end of life' and 'palliative care'. Peer-reviewed research will be obtained through systematic searching of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO. Grey literature will be searched in a systematic manner. Literature containing a definition for adults with multimorbidity in a terminal phase of their illness experience will be included. After screening studies for eligibility, included studies will be described in terms of setting and characteristics as well as using inductive content analysis to highlight the commonalities in definitions.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. The findings of the scoping review will be used internally as part of SPB's PhD thesis at the University of St Andrews through the Multimorbidity Doctoral Training Programme for Health Professionals, which is supported by the Wellcome Trust (223499/Z/21/Z) and published in an open access, peer-reviewed journal for wider dissemination.

SUBMITTER: Bowers SP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10689385 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Current definitions of advanced multimorbidity: a protocol for a scoping review.

Bowers Sarah P SP Black Polly P McCheyne Lewis L Wilson Darcy D Mills Sarah E E SEE Agrawal Utkarsh U Williams Linda L Quirk Frances F Bowden Jo J

BMJ open 20231130 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>People living with and dying from multimorbidity are increasing in number, and ensuring quality care for this population is one of the major challenges facing healthcare providers. People with multimorbidity often have a high burden of palliative and end-of-life care needs, though they do not always access specialist palliative care services. A key reason for this is that they are often not identified as being in the last stages of their life by current healthcare providers ...[more]

PMID: 38035744

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPrecision public health is an emerging and evolving field. Academic communities are divided regarding terminology and definitions, and what the scope, parameters and goals of precision public health should include. This protocol summarises the procedure for a scoping review which aims to identify and describe definitions, terminology, uses of the term and concepts in current literature.Methods and analysisA scoping review will be undertaken to gather existing literature on precision public health. We will search CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, and include all documents published in English that mention precision public health. A critical discourse analysis of the resulting papers will generate an account of precision public health terminology, definitions and uses of the term and the use and meaning of language. The analysis will occur in stages: first, descriptive information will be extracted and descriptive statistics will be calculated in order to characterise the literature. Second, occurrences of the phrase 'precision public health' and alternative terms in documents will be enumerated and mapped, and definitions collected. The third stage of discourse analysis will involve analysis and interpretation of the meaning of precision public health, including the composition, organisation and function of discourses. Finally, discourse analysis of alternative phrases to precision public health will be undertaken. This will include analysis and interpretation of what alternative phrases to precision public health are used to mean, how the phrases relate to each other and how they are compared or contrasted to precision public health. Results will be grouped under headings according to how they answer the research questions.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval will be required for the scoping review. Results of the scoping review will be used as part of a doctoral thesis, and may be published in journals, conference proceedings or elsewhere.

Project description:IntroductionSarcopenia is the loss of skeletal muscle volume or quality, a concept previously established in age-related frailty. Sarcopenia is part of the cancer cachexia syndrome and has therefore been explored as biomarker through the opportunistic measurement of skeletal muscle from routine cancer imaging. However, there is inconsistency in diagnostic landmarks and cut-offs. The most common assessment method is skeletal muscle area at the slice level of the third lumbar vertebrae divided by height squared. Alternative sarcopenia measures have been derived from morphological descriptions of the psoas, thoracic and cervical muscles, driven by tumour-specific anatomical imaging.Current tumour-site specific reviews suggest a link between heterogeneously defined sarcopenia on tumour site-specific outcomes. Because lack of uniformity, a scoping review is best suited to streamline anatomically based definitions and map the evidence to outcomes. The aim of this article is to describe a protocol for a scoping review that will homogenise the evidence of radiological sarcopenia in cancer. The extent, range and nature of reports will be examined, after which possible titles for potential systematic reviews identified.Methods and analysisWe will apply methods based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review manual. Predefined search terms compiled with a librarian experienced in systematic reviews will be used to search PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases studies correlating cross-sectional cancer sarcopenia biomarkers with clinical outcomes. Studies will be mapped according to whether they have defined new sarcopenia measures or applied previous definitions to new populations, both with reported outcomes. This review will generate a numerical analysis on the extent of cancer sarcopenia measures as well as a narrative synthesis to describe the applications of radiologically derived sarcopenia in cancer.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval was not required to undertake this scoping review. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

Project description:Over the last 3 years new definitions of sarcopenia by the Sarcopenia Definition and Outcome Consortium (2020, SDOC), European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (2019, EWGSOP2) and Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia (2019, AWGS2) have been proposed. The objective of this scoping review was to explore predictive validity of these current sarcopenia definitions for clinical outcomes. We followed the PRISMA checklist for scoping reviews. Based on a systematic search performed by two independent reviewers of databases (Pubmed and Embase) articles comparing predictive validity of two or more sarcopenia definitions on prospective clinical outcomes published since January 2019 (the year these definitions were introduced) were included. Data were extracted and results collated by clinical outcomes and by sarcopenia definitions, respectively. Of 4493 articles screened, 11 studies (mean age of participants 77.6 (SD 5.7) years and 50.0% female) comprising 82 validity tests were included. Overall, validity tests on the following categories of clinical outcomes were performed: fracture (n = 40, assessed in one study), mortality (n = 18), function (n = 11), institutionalization (n = 7), falls (n = 4), and hospitalization (n = 2). Thereby, EWGSOP2 was investigated in 15 validity tests (18.3%) on all categories of clinical outcomes, whereas SDOC was investigated in four validity tests (4.9%) in one study on fractures in men only, and none of the validity tests investigated predictive validity by the AWGS2. However, we were not able to pool the data using a meta-analytic approach due to important methodological heterogeneity between the studies. We identified various definitions of clinical outcomes that were used to test predictive validity of sarcopenia definitions suggesting that an agreement on an operational definition of a clinical outcome is key to advance in the field of sarcopenia. Moreover, data on predictive validity using the sarcopenia definitions by the SDOC and AWGS2 are still scarce and lacking, respectively. In a next step, prospective studies including both women and men are needed to compare predictive validity of current sarcopenia definitions on defined key clinical outcomes.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Vaccine hesitancy, defined as the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services is responsible in part for suboptimal levels of vaccination coverage worldwide. The WHO recommends that countries incorporate plans to measure and address vaccine hesitancy into their immunisation programmes. This requires that governments and health institutions be able to detect concerns about vaccination in the population and monitor changes in vaccination behaviours. To do this effectively, tools to detect and measure vaccine hesitancy are required. The purpose of this scoping review is to give a broad overview of currently available vaccine hesitancy measuring tools and present a summary of their nature, similarities and differences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The review will be conducted using the framework for scoping review proffered by Arksey and O'Malley. It will comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews' guidelines. The broader research question of this review is: what vaccine hesitancy measuring tools are currently available?Search strategies will be developed using controlled vocabulary and selected keywords. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of relevant publications will be searched. Titles and abstracts will be independently screened by two authors and data from full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be extracted independently by two authors using a pretested data charting form. Discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus. Results will be presented using descriptive statistics such as percentages, tables, charts and flow diagrams as appropriate. Narrative analysis will be used to summarise the findings of the review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval is not required for the review. It will be submitted as part of a doctoral thesis, presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:https://osf.io/x8fjk/.

Dataset Information

Current definitions of advanced multimorbidity: a protocol for a scoping review.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Current definitions of advanced multimorbidity: a protocol for a scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets