Dataset Information

Tools for Assessing Knowledge of Back Health in Adolescents: A Systematic Review Protocol.

ABSTRACT: Back pain is common in adolescents as a result of their typical daily activities. There is a critical need for developing instruments that can assess the adolescents' knowledge of proper posture, because adequate postural habits are essential for preventing back pain and facilitating physical well-being. Unfortunately, there is insufficient understanding about appropriate back health in the general public, even though this knowledge is decisive in the development of physical skills and attainment of health literacy. Furthermore, relevant substantive literature is scarce. Therefore, the proposed systematic review aims to identify instruments that are used for assessing knowledge of back health in adolescents. Relevant search terms and descriptors will be combined, and searches will be carried out in a uniform sequence within the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases. Eligible articles must present data on the assessment of the adolescents' knowledge of back health and describe the applied instrumentation. Articles will be selected by two reviewers independently; all disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Mendeley and the Rayyan software will be used for the systematic review, and the checklist proposed by Brink and Louw will be used to verify the methodological quality of the included studies. Our findings may confirm the relevance of constructing and validating back health instruments for use in Brazil and other countries.

SUBMITTER: Fiaschi Ramos AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9408774 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tools for Assessing Knowledge of Back Health in Adolescents: A Systematic Review Protocol.

Fiaschi Ramos Adriana Cristina AC Ferreira Silva Regina Márcia RM Bizinotto Thailyne T Teixeira de Rezende Leonardo Mateus LM Miñana-Signes Vicente V Monfort-Pañego Manuel M Noll Priscilla Rayanne E Silva PRES Noll Matias M

Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) 20220822 8

Back pain is common in adolescents as a result of their typical daily activities. There is a critical need for developing instruments that can assess the adolescents' knowledge of proper posture, because adequate postural habits are essential for preventing back pain and facilitating physical well-being. Unfortunately, there is insufficient understanding about appropriate back health in the general public, even though this knowledge is decisive in the development of physical skills and attainmen ...[more]

PMID: 36011248

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.MethodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist.ResultsFrom 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist.ConclusionThis systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932.

Project description:BackgroundThe last decade has seen growing interest in scaling up of innovations to strengthen healthcare systems. However, the lack of appropriate methods for determining their potential for scale-up is an unfortunate global handicap. Thus, we aimed to review tools proposed for assessing the scalability of innovations in health.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review following the COSMIN methodology. We included any empirical research which aimed to investigate the creation, validation or interpretability of a scalability assessment tool in health. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and ERIC from their inception to 20 March 2019. We also searched relevant websites, screened the reference lists of relevant reports and consulted experts in the field. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports and assessed the methodological quality of tools. We summarized data using a narrative approach involving thematic syntheses and descriptive statistics.ResultsWe identified 31 reports describing 21 tools. Types of tools included criteria (47.6%), scales (33.3%) and checklists (19.0%). Most tools were published from 2010 onwards (90.5%), in open-access sources (85.7%) and funded by governmental or nongovernmental organizations (76.2%). All tools were in English; four were translated into French or Spanish (19.0%). Tool creation involved single (23.8%) or multiple (19.0%) types of stakeholders, or stakeholder involvement was not reported (57.1%). No studies reported involving patients or the public, or reported the sex of tool creators. Tools were created for use in high-income countries (28.6%), low- or middle-income countries (19.0%), or both (9.5%), or for transferring innovations from low- or middle-income countries to high-income countries (4.8%). Healthcare levels included public or population health (47.6%), primary healthcare (33.3%) and home care (4.8%). Most tools provided limited information on content validity (85.7%), and none reported on other measurement properties. The methodological quality of tools was deemed inadequate (61.9%) or doubtful (38.1%).ConclusionsWe inventoried tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. Existing tools are as yet of limited utility for assessing scalability in health. More work needs to be done to establish key psychometric properties of these tools. Trial registration We registered this review with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019107095).

Project description:BackgroundThe relationship between motor performance and back pain in children and adolescents remains unclear. This article describes the protocol for a systematic review to summarize the knowledge about the association between motor performance, such as agility, flexibility, balance, strength, muscle endurance, and cardiorespiratory fitness, and back pain. Thus, our aim is to identify the influence of motor performance on back pain among children and adolescents.MethodsTwo independent researchers will search MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases, with no period or language restrictions. We will include cross-sectional, cohort, case-control, and controlled clinical trial studies based on the following criteria: (a) participants from 6 to 19 years of age, (b) assessment of motor performance, (c) assessment of back pain, and (d) report measures of associations between motor performance and back pain. Study quality and risk of bias will be assessed using an adapted version of the Downs and Black instrument. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations will be used to assess the strength of the body of evidence. Meta-analyses of association measures will be performed for each type of motor performance, separately for different study types. The results will be reported using forest to show the pooled effect of findings and funnel plots to assess precision of the data. If studies are not homogeneous, results from the meta-analyses will not be reported. Associations will then be synthesized descriptively using a pragmatic approach.DiscussionThis systematic review will provide critical insights into the association between motor performance and back pain among children and adolescents; this information may help support clinical practice guidelines as well as public health programs.Ethics and disseminationProtocol was written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020178496.

Project description:IntroductionMost global health indices or assessment tools focus on health outcomes rather than governance, and they have been developed primarily from the perspective of high-income countries. To benchmark global health governance for equity and solidarity, it becomes necessary to reflect on the current state of indices or assessment tools evaluating health governance across countries. This scoping review aims to review the existing multicountry indices and assessment tools applied globally with measurable indicators assessing health governance; summarise their differences and commonalities; identify the lessons learnt through analysis of their advantages and gaps; and evaluate the feasibility and necessity to establish a new index or consensus framework for assessing global health governance.Methods and analysisThis scoping review protocol follows Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses methodology for scoping reviews. Key information sources will be bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase and Web of Science Core Collection), grey literature and citation tracking. The time frame will be from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2021. Only indices or assessment tools that are globally applicable and provide measurable indicators of health governance will be eligible. A qualitative content analysis will follow the proposed data extraction form to explicate and compare each eligible index or assessment tool. An analysis based on a proposed preliminary evaluation framework will identify the advantages and gaps and summarise the lessons learnt. This scoping review will also discuss the feasibility and necessity of developing a new global health governance index or consensus framework to inform future research and practices.Ethics and disseminationThis scoping review does not require ethics approval. Dissemination will include a peer-review article, policy briefs and conference presentations. This protocol has been registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/y93mj).

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has also emerged as an infodemic, thereby worsening the harm of the pandemic. This situation has highlighted the need for a deeply rooted understanding of the health information-seeking behaviors (HISBs) of people.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper was to review and provide insight regarding methodologies and the construct of content in HISB surveys by answering the following research question: what are the characteristics of the measurement tools for assessing HISBs in nationally representative surveys around the world?MethodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was used as the framework for this study. A data search was performed through 5 international and 2 Korean databases covering the years between 2008 and 2020. Initially, studies performed among nationally representative samples were included to discover HISB survey instruments. The methodologies of the studies using HISB surveys were analyzed. For content analysis, 2 researchers reached a consensus through discussion by scrutinizing the contents of each survey questionnaire.ResultsA total of 13 survey tools from 8 countries were identified after a review of 2333 records from the search results. Five survey tools (Health Information National Trends Survey, Health Tracking Survey, Annenberg National Health Communication Survey, National Health Interview Survey, and Health Tracking Household Survey) from the United States, 2 instruments from Germany, and 1 tool from each of the countries of the European Union, France, Israel, Poland, South Korea, and Taiwan were identified. Telephone or web-based surveys were commonly used targeting the adult population (≥15 years of age). From the content analysis, the domains of the survey items were categorized as follows: information (information about health and patient medical records), channel (offline and online), and health (overall health, lifestyle, and cancer). All categories encompassed behavioral and attitude dimensions. A theoretical framework, that is, an information-channel-health structure for HISBs was proposed.ConclusionsThe results of our study can contribute to the development and implementation of the survey tools for HISB with integrated questionnaire items. This will help in understanding HISB trends in national health care.

Dataset Information

Tools for Assessing Knowledge of Back Health in Adolescents: A Systematic Review Protocol.

Publications

Tools for Assessing Knowledge of Back Health in Adolescents: A Systematic Review Protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets