By Anastasia A. Mallidou; Lynne Young, RN, PhD; Debra Sheets, PhD, MSN, RN-BC, CNE; Katherine Paul
Joanna Briggs was the first appointed matron (1845-1866) of the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH) in Adelaide, Australia. In 1996, an RAH committee established the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) (http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au) to honour her contributions. Since then, the JBI has expanded all over the world involving nursing, medical and allied health researchers, clinicians, academics and policy/decision-makers across 47 countries and more than 60 entities in every continent. It is an international, not-for-profit, research and development, and knowledge-synthesis organization that undertakes systematic reviews addressing a broad range of questions to facilitate evidence-based healthcare practices and assist the improvement of healthcare outcomes globally. The first North American JBI Centre is located in Canada at Queen’s University: the Queen’s Joanna Briggs Collaboration (http://meds.queensu.ca/qjbc).
A systematic review (SR) is an explicit, transparent and rigorous research method to identify, critically appraise, analyze, and synthesize the findings of independent primary/original studies on a specific topic. Researchers/reviewers translate and transfer existing evidence for utilization to target audiences (e.g., clinicians, managers, policy-/decision-makers, consumers) by providing narrative summary or pooled statistical analysis of contradictory findings and identify the gaps in the literature for future studies. Quantitative (i.e., meta-analysis), qualitative (i.e., metasynthesis) or both types of research evidence (i.e., comprehensive/mixed-method) are synthesized in a SR examining research questions on Feasibility, Appropriateness, Meaningfulness or Effectiveness (FAME) in the health sector.
In July 2012 three UVic nursing faculty (i.e. Lynne Young, Debra Sheets, and Anastasia Mallidou) and a research librarian (Kathryn Paul) attended a 5-day workshop at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. This core team was trained in the JBI method for conducting a comprehensive systematic review. Since our return from the workshop, we have developed a protocol for a systematic review to examine the effectiveness of community-based physical activity programs on the health outcomes of older women. Our process for doing this review has involved:
1. Identifying the gap between what we know and what we need to know on the physical activity in older women;
2. Developing a research question that includes the core elements (PICO): Population, Intervention or phenomenon of Interest (qualitative evidence), Comparator or Context (qualitative), and Outcomes;
3. Determining the inclusion and exclusion criteria;
4. Writing a concise and detailed research/review proposal;
5. Submitting the proposal for JBI Peer Review;
6. Using the JBI software (i.e., Comprehensive Review Management Software – CReMS) that with several other assessment and review instruments (i.e., QARI, MAStARI, NOTARI, and ACTUARI) constitutes the System for the Unified Management of the Assessment and Review of Information (SUMARI);
7. Reviewing the revealed publications using the inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Our next steps in this knowledge synthesis include:
•Development of a data extraction tool and extract the relevant to our research question data from each individual publication;
•Use of the Grant & Booth’s (2009) analytic method (SAlSA): Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis
•Critical appraisal of each publication;
•Synthesis of the findings;
•Writing a report including recommendations for policy and decision makers.
In support of this work, the SON is establishing a JBI Affiliated Centre at UVic and plans to send two more faculty members and one doctoral student to the JBI workshop this summer. We are grateful for the support provided by Dr. Noreen Frisch, Director and Professor, School of Nursing, University of Victoria for her support in attending the 5-day workshop organized by the Queen’s Joanna Briggs Collaboration at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. We also acknowledge the support of Drs. Margaret Harrison and Christina Godfrey, Queen’s University School of Nursing faculty members.
References
•Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2008). Knowledge translation. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Available from: URL: http://www.cihr.ca/e/29418.html.
•Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009). Systematic Reviews. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York.
•Dixon-Woods, M., Shaw, R. L., Agarwal, S., & Smith, J. A. (2004). The problem of appraising qualitative research. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(3), 223-225. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2003.008714.
•Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10(1), 45-53.
•Dixon-Woods, M., Sutton, A., Shaw, R., Miller, T., Smith, J., Young, B., Jones, D. (2007). Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A quantitative and June 2013 qualitative comparison of three methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 12(1), 42-47. doi: 10.1258/135581907779497486.
•Evans, D. (2003). Hierarchy of evidence: A framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12: 77–84.
•Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.
•Grimshaw, J., McAuley, L. M., Bero, L. A., Grilli, R., Oxman, A. D., Ramsay, C., & Vale, L. (2003). Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 12, 298-303.
•Harden, A. & Thomas, J. (2005). Methodological Issues in Combining Diverse Study Types in Systematic Reviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8: 257–271.
•Higgins, J.P.T. & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: WileyBlackwell.
•Khan, K.S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J. (eds) (2003). Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine: how to review and apply findings of healthcare research. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press.
•Moher, D., Jadad, A. R., & Klassen, T. P. (1998). Guides for Reading and Interpreting Systematic Reviews: III. How Did the Authors Synthesize the Data and Make Their Conclusions? Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 152(9), 915-920. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.152.9.915.
•NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2001). Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD Report 4. York: University of York.
•Pearson, A., Wiechula, R., Court, A., & Lockwood, C. (2005). The JBI model of evidence–based healthcare. International Journal of Evidence Based Healthcare, 3(8): 207–215.
•Petticrew, M. & Roberts, H. (2005). Systematic reviews in social sciences: A practical guide. Wiley Blackwell.
•Pope, C., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007). Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Research. Open University Press. The Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Collaboration Methods Groups Newsletter. Retrieved from: http://www.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Newsletters/MGNews_2003.pdf (accessed 16 July 2012).
•Torgerson C. Systematic Reviews (2003). London: Continuum.
From the 2013 Fall Communiqué — History of Nursing
Recent Comments