A systematic review protocol of advocacy in nursing, midwifery and the allied health professions
Forsyth, F.; Tavares, S.; Kuhn, I.; Harrison, M.; Caughers, G.; Quijano-Campos, J. C.; Oliveira, J.; Gibson, I.; Fitzsimons, D.; Ghanchi, A.; Hartley, P.; Friedel, M.
Show abstract
AimTo explore how advocacy has been defined, conceptualised and implemented within nursing, midwifery and the allied health professions. A secondary aim is to characterize barriers and facilitators to advocacy in clinical practice. MethodsA systematic search of five bibliographic databases has been undertaken to identify primary qualitative and quantitative research relating to advocacy in nursing, midwifery and the allied health professions. Results from searches are being screened blinded and in duplicate. Given that we anticipate retrieving heterogenous studies, eligible studies will be synthesised according to best practice set out in a range of guidelines. Data SourcesCINAHL (via EBSCOHost), EMBASE (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via Ovid), PsycINFO (via EBSCOHost), Global Health (via EBSCOHost) have been searched. ResultsSearches have been completed, n=45,617 studies were retrieved which was reduced to n=25,900 studies following deduplication. Screening, which is being performed blinded and in duplicate within the web platform Rayyan, is ongoing. ConclusionsAs a result of this robust review, we anticipate generating a comprehensive report of advocacy that we have hitherto identified as being lacking. Best practice principles are being employed ensuring the eventual output is robust, transparent and useful to the clinicians likely to be accessing this information. No Patient or Public ContributionO_ST_ABSImplications for the profession and/or patient careC_ST_ABSIn order to gain a comprehensive understanding of advocacy; nurses, midwives and allied health professionals would have to obtain and consult a number of systematic reviews. This all-encompassing review will ensure that a comprehensive report that synthesizes modern data and covers the full-spectrum of advocacy domains and its implications is available. ImpactThe broad reach and ambitious nature of this review will ensure it has a significant impact. Advocacy is practiced by most healthcare staff on daily basis, however many are not aware of this and those with aspirations to engage more fully as an advocate within their role do not have a reliable and comprehensive report which would equip them with relevant knowledge relating to advocacy. Protocol RegistrationThis review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420250640543) Key pointsO_LIAdvocacy is an important component of nursing, midwifery and allied health professional practice, however the evidence has not recently been synthesised. C_LIO_LIThis review will update and expand the scope of previous reviews, to generate a comprehensive update of advocacy. C_LIO_LIClinicians with an interest in advocacy will be able to obtain a robust and up to date overview of advocacy, which is likely to have changed recently in view of the spread of misinformation and artificial intelligence. C_LI RegistrationThis review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420250640543)
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Mapping factors that may influence attrition and retention of midwives: a scoping review protocol 96%
- Participatory research in health intervention studies involving migrants: a systematic review 96%
- The use of the positive deviance approach for healthcare system service improvement: A scoping review protocol 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for a scoping review investigating success in research capacity building for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals 97%
- Maternity care professionals’ preparedness for and experiences of screening and responding to disclosures of domestic violence in the peripartum period: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis 95%
- Interventions for burnout and well-being in homelessness staff: a systematic scoping review 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Designathons in Health Research: A Global Systematic Review 95%
- Public engagement and crowdfunding for health research: A global qualitative evidence synthesis and TDR pilot 94%
- Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of ‘Learning from Deaths’ reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020 94%
- Interventions To Improve Patient Safety During The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 93%
- Improving local authority financial support services for users with complex health needs: a mixed-method economic evaluation of Social Navigators in South Tyneside, UK 92%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.