3 results
Paramedic Disaster Health Management Competencies: A Scoping Review
- Peter Horrocks, Lisa Hobbs, Vivienne Tippett, Peter Aitken
-
- Journal:
- Prehospital and Disaster Medicine / Volume 34 / Issue 3 / June 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 28 May 2019, pp. 322-329
- Print publication:
- June 2019
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
Paramedics are tasked with providing 24/7 prehospital emergency care to the community. As part of this role, they are also responsible for providing emergency care in the event of a major incident or disaster. They play a major role in the response stage of such events, both domestic and international. Despite this, specific standardized training in disaster management appears to be variable and inconsistent throughout the profession. A suggested method of building disaster response capacities is through competency-based education (CBE). Core competencies can provide the fundamental basis of collective learning and help ensure consistent application and translation of knowledge into practice. These competencies are often organized into domains, or categories of learning outcomes, as defined by Blooms taxonomy of learning domains. It is these domains of competency, as they relate to paramedic disaster response, that are the subject of this review.
Methods:The methodology for this paper to identify existing paramedic disaster response competency domains was adapted from the guidance for the development of systematic scoping reviews, using a methodology developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI; Adelaide, South Australia) and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
Results:The literature search identified six articles for review that reported on paramedic disaster response competency domains. The results were divided into two groups: (1) General Core Competency Domains, which are suitable for all paramedics (both Advanced Life Support [ALS] and Basic Life Support [BLS]) who respond to any disaster or major incident; and (2) Specialist Core Competencies, which are deemed necessary competencies to enable a response to certain types of disaster. Further review then showed that three separate and discrete types of competency domains exits in the literature: (1) Core Competencies, (2) Technical/Clinical Competencies, and (3) Specialist Technical/Clinical Competencies.
Conclusions:The most common domains of core competencies for paramedic first responders to manage major incidents and disasters described in the literature were identified. If it’s accepted that training paramedics in disaster response is an essential part of preparedness within the disaster management cycle, then by including these competency domains into the curriculum development of localized disaster training programs, it will better prepare the paramedic workforce’s competence and ability to effectively respond to disasters and major incidents.
Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study
- V. C. H. Chung, X. Y. Wu, Y. Feng, R. S. T. Ho, S. Y. S. Wong, D. Threapleton
-
- Journal:
- Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences / Volume 27 / Issue 6 / December 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 May 2017, pp. 619-627
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Aims.
Depression is one of the most common mental disorders and identifying effective treatment strategies is crucial for the control of depression. Well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses can provide the best evidence for supporting treatment decision-making. Nevertheless, the trustworthiness of conclusions can be limited by lack of methodological rigour. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on depression treatments.
Methods.A cross-sectional study on the bibliographical and methodological characteristics of SRs published on depression treatments trials was conducted. Two electronic databases (the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) were searched for potential SRs. SRs with at least one meta-analysis on the effects of depression treatments were considered eligible. The methodological quality of included SRs was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. The associations between bibliographical characteristics and scoring on AMSTAR items were analysed using logistic regression analysis.
Results.A total of 358 SRs were included and appraised. Over half of included SRs (n = 195) focused on non-pharmacological treatments and harms were reported in 45.5% (n = 163) of all studies. Studies varied in methods and reporting practices: only 112 (31.3%) took the risk of bias among primary studies into account when formulating conclusions; 245 (68.4%) did not fully declare conflict of interests; 93 (26.0%) reported an ‘a priori’ design and 104 (29.1%) provided lists of both included and excluded studies. Results from regression analyses showed: more recent publications were more likely to report ‘a priori’ designs [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.57], to describe study characteristics fully (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06–1.28), and to assess presence of publication bias (AOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.19), but were less likely to list both included and excluded studies (AOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81–0.92). SRs published in journals with higher impact factor (AOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04–1.25), completed by more review authors (AOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01–1.24) and SRs on non-pharmacological treatments (AOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.01–2.59) were associated with better performance in publication bias assessment.
Conclusion.The methodological quality of included SRs is disappointing. Future SRs should strive to improve rigour by considering of risk of bias when formulating conclusions, reporting conflict of interests and authors should explicitly describe harms. SR authors should also use appropriate methods to combine the results, prevent language and publication biases, and ensure timely updates.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases: Value, content, and developments
- Alison M. Booth, Kath E. Wright, Helen Outhwaite
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 26 / Issue 4 / October 2010
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 06 October 2010, pp. 470-472
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background: The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) funded through the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research undertakes systematic reviews evaluating the research evidence on health and public health questions of national and international importance. CRD is involved in methods research and produces internationally accepted guidelines for undertaking systematic reviews. A core product of the Centre are the CRD databases; a key resource for health professionals, policy makers, and researchers around the world. Research evidence evaluating the effects and cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions is growing year on year, and can be difficult and time consuming to identify and appraise. The databases assist decision makers by systematically identifying and critically describing systematic reviews and economic evaluations, appraising their quality and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses; and providing a comprehensive listing of ongoing and published health technology assessments.
Methods and Results: This article briefly outlines the processes behind each of the three databases, gives details of the records, the information they contain and the value added by CRD. An overview of the new public interface for the CRD databases to be launched later this year is given. Improvements and innovations to supplement existing functions are listed, including enhanced and new search options, the addition of quick links to relevant material from within individual records, an integrated PubMed search and the ability to select personal preferences.
Conclusions: CRD's databases provide free access to an important knowledge base and are used widely to underpin evidence informed healthcare decisions in the United Kingdom and internationally.