Search

Background While much research has addressed mental health concerns related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there remains a scarcity of studies specifically exploring the changes in anxiety and depression among university students before and after the implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched databases including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), the WHO COVID-19 database, Scopus, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science) as of 15 February 2023. We included studies that used a validated tool to measure changes in anxiety or depression at two distinct time points - before (T1) and during (T2); during (T2) and after (T3); or before (T1) and after (T3) COVID-19 mitigation. The quality of studies was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for longitudinal studies. Utilising random-effects models, we synthesised changes in continuous outcomes as standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and binary outcomes as risk difference (RD) with 95% CI. Results In total, 15 studies were included in this review, with eight of moderate and seven of high quality. In most of the included studies (n=13), the majority of participants were women. Eleven studies analysed mental health outcomes between T1 and T2 of COVID-19 mitigations. Continuous symptom changes were a minimal or small improvement for anxiety (SMD=-0.03, 95% CI=-0.24 to 0.19, I2=90%); but worsened for depression (SMD= 0.26, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.62). However, the proportions of students reporting moderate-to-severe symptoms, defined by specific cut-offs, increased during COVID-19 mitigation measures for both anxiety (RD=0.17, 95% CI=-0.04 to 0.38, I2=95%) and depression (RD=0.12, 95% CI=0.03 to 0.22, I2=72%). Sensitivity analyses, which distinguished between baseline periods based on awareness of COVID-19, demonstrated an exacerbation of both symptoms when comparing the period before the global awareness of the COVID-19 outbreak (before December 2019) with the period during the implementation of mitigation measures. Conclusions Mental health outcomes, especially depressive symptoms, were observed to worsen in university students during COVID-19 mitigations. Despite considerable heterogeneity requiring careful interpretation of results, the impact of COVID-19 mitigations on mental health in university students is evident. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this review was to chart and report on existing literature that discusses how the interRAI assessment tool drives care-planning processes for residents in long-term-care settings. This scoping review was informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guideline. Relevant studies were obtained from databases search of CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Database (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), and Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest). Of the 17 included studies, five (29.4%) addressed interRAI's minimum dataset component as a clinical data-collection tool; five (29.4%) addressed interRAI's assessment scales and its clinical-assessment protocols as viable health-assessment tools; four (23.5%) considered interRAI's assessment scales in terms of whether this tool is capable of predicting residents' health risks; one (5.9%) addressed the effects of interRAI's care plans on residents' health outcomes; and the remaining two studies (11.8%) used interRAI's quality-indicator function for both the performance of and improvements in the quality of care. The scoping review finds that there is no substantial evidence that supports the implementation of interRAI care plans for consistent health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objectives of this review were to determine the effectiveness of socially assistive technologies for improving depression, loneliness, and social interaction among residents of long-term care (LTC) homes, and to explore the experiences of residents of LTC homes with socially assistive technologies., Introduction: Globally, the number of older adults (≥ 65 years) and the demand for LTC services are expected to increase over the next 30 years. Individuals within this population are at increased risk of experiencing depression, loneliness, and social isolation. The exploration of the extent to which socially assistive technologies may aid in improving loneliness and depression while supporting social interactions is essential to supporting a sustainable LTC sector., Inclusion Criteria: This mixed methods systematic review included studies on the experiences of older adults in LTC homes using socially assistive technologies, as well as studies on the effectiveness of these technologies for improving depression, loneliness, and social interaction. Older adults were defined as people 65 years of age and older. We considered studies examining socially assistive technologies, such as computers, smart phones, tablets, and associated applications., Methods: A JBI mixed methods convergent, segregated approach was used. CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and Scopus databases were searched on January 18, 2022, to identify published studies. The search for unpublished studies and gray literature included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, Google, and the websites of professional organizations associated with LTC. No language or geographical restrictions were placed on the search. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of included studies were screened by 2 reviewers independently. Included studies underwent quality appraisal and data extraction. Quantitative and qualitative data findings were analyzed separately and then integrated. Where possible, quantitative data were synthesized using comparative meta-analyses with a fixed-effects model., Results: From 12,536 records identified through the search, 14 studies were included. Quantitative (n = 8), mixed methods (n = 3), and qualitative (n = 3) approaches were used in the included studies, with half (n = 7) using quasi-experimental designs. All studies received moderate to high-quality appraisal scores. Comparative meta-analyses for depression and loneliness scores did not find any significant differences, and narrative findings were mixed. Qualitative meta-aggregation identified 1 synthesized finding (Matching technology functionality to user for enhanced well-being) derived from 2 categories (Enhanced sense of well-being, and Mismatch between technology and resident ability)., Conclusions: Residents' experiences with socially assistive technologies, such as videoconferencing, encourage a sense of well-being, although quantitative findings related to depression and loneliness reported mixed impact. Residents experienced physical and cognitive challenges in learning to use the technology and required assistance. Future work should consider the unique needs of older adults and LTC home residents in the design and use of socially assistive technologies., Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021279015., Competing Interests: RMM is an associate editor of JBI Evidence Synthesis, but was not involved in the editorial processing of this manuscript. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 JBI.)

Background: While much research has addressed mental health concerns related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there remains a scarcity of studies specifically exploring the changes in anxiety and depression among university students before and after the implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched databases including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), the WHO COVID-19 database, Scopus, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science) as of 15 February 2023. We included studies that used a validated tool to measure changes in anxiety or depression at two distinct time points - before (T1) and during (T2); during (T2) and after (T3); or before (T1) and after (T3) COVID-19 mitigation. The quality of studies was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for longitudinal studies. Utilising random-effects models, we synthesised changes in continuous outcomes as standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and binary outcomes as risk difference (RD) with 95% CI., Results: In total, 15 studies were included in this review, with eight of moderate and seven of high quality. In most of the included studies (n = 13), the majority of participants were women. Eleven studies analysed mental health outcomes between T1 and T2 of COVID-19 mitigations. Continuous symptom changes were a minimal or small improvement for anxiety (SMD = -0.03, 95% CI = -0.24 to 0.19, I 2  = 90%); but worsened for depression (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.62). However, the proportions of students reporting moderate-to-severe symptoms, defined by specific cut-offs, increased during COVID-19 mitigation measures for both anxiety (RD = 0.17, 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.38, I 2  = 95%) and depression (RD = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.22, I 2  = 72%). Sensitivity analyses, which distinguished between baseline periods based on awareness of COVID-19, demonstrated an exacerbation of both symptoms when comparing the period before the global awareness of the COVID-19 outbreak (before December 2019) with the period during the implementation of mitigation measures., Conclusions: Mental health outcomes, especially depressive symptoms, were observed to worsen in university students during COVID-19 mitigations. Despite considerable heterogeneity requiring careful interpretation of results, the impact of COVID-19 mitigations on mental health in university students is evident., Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021266889)., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interest: The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and disclose no relevant interests., (Copyright © 2023 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nurses provide 90% of health care worldwide, yet little is known of the experiences of nurses and midwives in policy development in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)., Objective: To identify, appraise and synthesize the qualitative evidence on the experiences of nurses' and midwives' involvement in policy development LMICs., Design: A qualitative systematic review using modified Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology., Setting: Low and middle-income countries ., Participants: Nurses' and midwives' involved in policy development, implementation, and/or evaluation., Methods: A systematic search was undertaken across nine databases to retrieve published studies in English between inception and April of 2021. Screening, critical appraisal, and data extraction was undertaken by two independent reviewers., Results: Ten articles met inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 2000 to 2021 from a variety of LMICs. The studies were medium to high quality (70-100% critical appraisal scores). Four major themes were identified related to policy development: 1) Marginal representation of nurses; 2) Determinants of nurses' involvement (including at the individual, organization, and systematic level); 3) Leadership as a pathway to involvement; 4) Promoting nurses' involvement., Conclusion: All studies demonstrated that nurses and nurse midwives continue to be minimally involved in policy development. Findings reveal reasons for nurses' limited involvement and strategies to foster sustained engagement of nurses in policy development in LMICs. To enhance their involvement in policy development in LMICs, change is needed at multiple levels. Systemic power relations need to be reconstructed to facilitate more collaborative interdisciplinary practices with nurses co-leading and co-developing health care policies., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. No conflict of interest has been declared by the author(s)., (Crown Copyright © 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)