Research priorities for nursing care of infants, children and adolescents: a West Australian Delphi study.

This paper describes a study that aimed to identify research priorities for the care of infants, children and adolescents at the sole tertiary referral hospital for children in Western Australia. The secondary aim was to stimulate nurses to explore clinical problems that would require further inquiry. Background. Planning for research is an essential stage of research development; involving clinicians in this exercise is likely to foster research partnerships that are pertinent to clinical practice. Nursing research priorities for the paediatric population have not previously been reported in Australia. Design. Delphi study. Method. Over 12 months in 2005-2006, a three-round questionnaire, using the Delphi technique, was sent to a randomly selected sample of registered nurses. This method was used to identify and prioritise nursing research topics relevant to the patient and the family. Content analysis was used to analyse Round I data and descriptive statistics for Round II and III data. Results. In Round I, 280 statements were identified and reduced to 37 research priorities. Analysis of data in subsequent rounds identified the top two priority research areas as (1) identification of strategies to reduce medication incidents (Mean = 6 center dot 47; SD 0 center dot 88) and (2) improvement in pain assessment and management (Mean = 6; SD 1 center dot 38). Additional comments indicated few nurses access the scientific literature or use research findings because of a lack of time or electronic access. Conclusions. Thirty-seven research priorities were identified. The identification of research priorities by nurses provided research direction for the health service and potentially other similar health institutions for children and adolescents in Australia and internationally. Relevance to clinical practice. The nurse participants showed concern about the safety of care and the well-being of children and their families. This study also enabled the identification of potential collaborative research and development of pain management improvement initiatives.

A Delphi study on National PICU nursing research priorities in Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence to direct and support nursing practice in the specialty of paediatric intensive care (PIC). The development of national PIC nursing research priorities may facilitate the process of undertaking clinical research and translating evidence into practice. PURPOSE: To (a) identify research priorities for the care of patients and their family as well as for the professional needs of PIC nurses, (b) foster nursing research collaboration, (c) develop a research agenda for PIC nurses. METHODS: Over 13 months in 2007-2008, a three-round questionnaire, using the Delphi technique, was sent to all specialist level registered nurses working in Australian and New Zealand PICUs. This method was used to identify and prioritise nursing research topics. Content analysis was used to analyse Round I data and descriptive statistics for Round II and III data. RESULTS: In Round I, 132 research topics were identified, with 77 research priorities (mdn>6, mean MAD(median) 0.68±0.01) identified in subsequent rounds. The top nine priorities (mean>6 and median>6) included patient issues related to neurological care (n=2), pain/sedation/comfort (n=3), best practice at the end of life (n=1), and ventilation strategies (n=1), as well as two priorities related to professional issues about nurses' stress/burnout and professional development needs. CONCLUSION: The research priorities identified reflect important issues related to critically ill patients and their family as well as to the nurses caring for them. These priorities can be used for the development of a research agenda for PIC nursing in Australia and New Zealand.

Epidemiology of cleft palate in Europe: implications for genetic research.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of cleft palate (CP) in Europe. DESIGN AND SETTING: A descriptive epidemiological study on 3852 cases of CP, identified (1980 through 1996) from more than 6 million births from the EUROCAT network of 30 registers in 16 European countries. RESULTS: Significant differences in prevalence in Europe between registries and within countries were observed. A total of 2112 (54.8%) CP cases occurred as isolated, 694 (18.0%) were associated with other defects such as multiple congenital anomalies, and 1046 (27.2%) were in recognized conditions. The study confirmed the tendency toward female prevalence (sex ratio [SR] = 0.83), particularly among isolated cases (SR = 0.78) even if SR inversion is reported in some registries. A specific association with neural tube defects (NTDs) in some registers is reported. CONCLUSION: The differences identified in Europe (prevalence, sex, associated anomalies) can be only partially explained by methodological reasons because a common methodology was shared among all registries for case ascertainment and collection, and CP is an easy detectable condition with few induced abortions. The complex model of inheritance and the frequently conflicting results in different populations on the role of genes that constitute risk factors suggest the presence of real biological differences. The association of CP/NTD in an area with a high prevalence of NTDs can identify a group of conditions that can be considered etiologically homogeneous. The epidemiological evaluation can guide genetic research to specify the role of etiological factors in each different population

Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Methodological research has found that non-published studies often have different results than those that are published, a phenomenon known as publication bias. When results are not published, or are published selectively based on the direction or the strength of the findings, healthcare professionals and consumers of healthcare cannot base their decision-making on the full body of current evidence. METHODS: As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:1. To determine the proportion and/or rate of non-publication of studies by systematically reviewing methodological research projects that followed up a cohort of studies that a. received research ethics committee (REC) approval,b. were registered in trial registries, orc. were presented as abstracts at conferences.2. To assess the association of study characteristics (for example, direction and/or strength of findings) with likelihood of full publication.To identify reports of relevant methodological research projects we will conduct electronic database searches, check reference lists, and contact experts. Published and unpublished projects will be included. The inclusion criteria are as follows:a. RECs: methodological research projects that examined the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies that received approval from RECs;b. Trial registries: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies registered in trial registries;c. Conference abstracts: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of full publication of studies which were initially presented at conferences as abstracts.Primary outcomes: Proportion/rate of published studies; time to full publication (mean/median; cumulative publication rate by time).Secondary outcomes: Association of study characteristics with full publication.The different questions (a, b, and c) will be investigated separately. Data synthesis will involve a combination of descriptive and statistical summaries of the included methodological research projects. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013.

Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows: âeuro¢To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. âeuro¢To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. âeuro¢To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

Expert clinical reasoning and pain assessment in mechanically ventilated patients: A descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Pain assessment in mechanically ventilated patients is challenging, because nurses need to decode pain behaviour, interpret pain scores, and make appropriate decisions. This clinical reasoning process is inherent to advanced nursing practice, but is poorly understood. A better understanding of this process could contribute to improved pain assessment and management. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the indicators that influence expert nurses' clinical reasoning when assessing pain in critically ill nonverbal patients. METHODS: This descriptive observational study was conducted in the adult intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary referral hospital in Western Switzerland. A purposive sample of expert nurses, caring for nonverbal ventilated patients who received sedation and analgesia, were invited to participate in the study. Data were collected in "real life" using recorded think-aloud combined with direct non-participant observation and brief interviews. Data were analysed using deductive and inductive content analyses using a theoretical framework related to clinical reasoning and pain. RESULTS: Seven expert nurses with an average of 7.85 (±3.1) years of critical care experience participated in the study. The patients had respiratory distress (n=2), cardiac arrest (n=2), sub-arachnoid bleeding (n=1), and multi-trauma (n=2). A total of 1344 quotes in five categories were identified. Patients' physiological stability was the principal indicator for making decision in relation to pain management. Results also showed that it is a permanent challenge for nurses to discriminate situations requiring sedation from situations requiring analgesia. Expert nurses mainly used working knowledge and patterns to anticipate and prevent pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patient's clinical condition is important for making decision about pain in critically ill nonverbal patients. The concept of pain cannot be assessed in isolation and its assessment should take the patient's clinical stability and sedation into account. Further research is warranted to confirm these results.

Continuum of care for persons with common mental health disorders in Nunavik: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Changing Directions, Changing Lives, the Mental Health Strategy for Canada, prioritizes the development of coordinated continuums of care in mental health that will bridge the gap in services for Inuit populations. OBJECTIVE: In order to target ways of improving the services provided in these contexts to individuals in Nunavik with depression or anxiety disorders, this research examines delays and disruptions in the continuum of care and clinical, individual and organizational characteristics possibly associated with their occurrences. DESIGN: A total of 155 episodes of care involving a common mental disorder (CMD), incident or recurring, were documented using the clinical records of 79 frontline health and social services (FHSSs) users, aged 14 years and older, living in a community in Nunavik. Each episode of care was divided into 7 stages: (a) detection; (b) assessment; (c) intervention; (d) planning the first follow-up visit; (e) implementation of the first follow-up visit; (f) planning a second follow-up visit; (g) implementation of the second follow-up visit. Sequential analysis of these stages established delays for each one and helped identify when breaks occurred in the continuum of care. Logistic and linear regression analysis determined whether clinical, individual or organizational characteristics influenced the breaks and delays. RESULTS: More than half (62%) the episodes of care were interrupted before the second follow-up. These breaks mostly occurred when planning and completing the first follow-up visit. Episodes of care were more likely to end early when they involved anxiety disorders or symptoms, limited FHSS teams and individuals over 21 years of age. The median delay for the first follow-up visit (30 days) exceeded guideline recommendations significantly (1-2 weeks). CONCLUSION: Clinical primary care approaches for CMDs in Nunavik are currently more reactive than preventive. This suggests that recovery services for those affected are suboptimal.