Patient-reported outcomes of psychiatric and/or mental health nursing in hospitals: a systematic review protocol
- PMID: 38851230
- PMCID: PMC11163823
- DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085808
Patient-reported outcomes of psychiatric and/or mental health nursing in hospitals: a systematic review protocol
Abstract
Introduction: There is a lack of distinct and measurable outcomes in psychiatric and/or mental health nursing which negatively impacts guiding clinical practice, assessing evidence-based nursing interventions, ensuring future-proof nursing education and establishing visibility as a profession and discipline. Psychiatric and/or mental health nursing struggle to demonstrate patient-reported outcomes to assess the effectiveness of their practice. A systematic review that summarising patient-reported outcomes, associated factors, measured nursing care/interventions and used measurement scales of psychiatric and/or mental health nursing in the adult population in acute, intensive and forensic psychiatric wards in hospitals will capture important information on how care can be improved by better understanding what matters and what is important to patients themselves. This review can contribute to the design, planning, delivery and assessment of the quality of current and future nursing care METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol follows the Cochrane methodological guidance on systematic reviews of interventions and The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol. The search strategy will be identified by consultations with clinical and methodological experts and by exploring the literature. The databases Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, APA PsychARTICLES, Web of Science and Scopus will be searched for all published studies. Studies will be screened and selected with criteria described in the population, intervention, control and outcomes format after a pilot test by two researchers. Studies will be screened in two stages: (1) title and abstract screening and (2) full-text screening. Data extraction and the quality assessment based on the Johanna Briggs Institute guidelines will be conducted by two researchers. Data will be presented in a narrative synthesis.
Ethics and dissemination: No ethical approval is needed since all data are already publicly accessible. The results of this work will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Prospero registration number: CRD42023363806.
Keywords: MENTAL HEALTH; Nursing Care; PSYCHIATRY; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Systematic Review.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Similar articles
-
Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881. Med J Aust. 2020. PMID: 33314144
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Social network interventions in mental healthcare: a protocol for an umbrella review.BMJ Open. 2021 Dec 17;11(12):e052831. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052831. BMJ Open. 2021. PMID: 34921079 Free PMC article.
-
Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of day care for people with severe mental disorders: (1) acute day hospital versus admission; (2) vocational rehabilitation; (3) day hospital versus outpatient care.Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(21):1-75. doi: 10.3310/hta5210. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 11532238 Review.
-
Development and evaluation of a de-escalation training intervention in adult acute and forensic units: the EDITION systematic review and feasibility trial.Health Technol Assess. 2024 Jan;28(3):1-120. doi: 10.3310/FGGW6874. Health Technol Assess. 2024. PMID: 38343036 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Barnett P, Bagshaw P. Neoliberalism: what it is, how it affects health and what to do about it. N Z Med J 2020;133:76–84. - PubMed
-
- Gallagher‐Ford L, Melnyk BM. Evaluating Outcomes of Evidence‐based Practice Initiatives versus Research: Clarifying the Confusion with a Call to Action. Wiley Online Library, 2022:258–9. - PubMed
-
- Porter TM. Trust in numbers. In: Trust in Numbers. Princeton University Press, 1996. Available: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780691210544/html
-
- Stänicke E, McLeod J. Paradoxical outcomes in psychotherapy: theoretical perspectives, research agenda and practice implications. Eur J Psychother Couns 2021;23:115–38. 10.1080/13642537.2021.1923050 - DOI
-
- Van Wilder A, Brouwers J, Cox B, et al. . A decade of commitment to hospital quality of care: overview of and perceptions on multicomponent quality improvement policies involving accreditation, public reporting, inspection and pay-for-performance. BMC Health Serv Res 2021;21:990. 10.1186/s12913-021-07007-w - DOI - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources