METHODS: A cross-sectional study using retrospective data from January 2000 to May 2002 was performed pertaining to elective colorectal surgery, cholecystectomy and inguinal hernia repairs. Appropriateness of antibiotic administration was determined based on compliance with national and internationally accepted guidelines on prophylactic antibiotic prescribing policy. A single dose or omission of antibiotic administration was judged appropriate for cholecystectomy and inguinal hernia repair, while up to 24 hours' dosing was considered appropriate practice for colorectal surgery.
RESULTS: Of 419 cases, there were 55 (13.1%) colorectal procedures, 97 (23.2%) cholecystectomies and 267 (63.7%) inguinal hernia repairs. Antibiotics were administered in a total of 306 (73%) cases, with single-dose prophylaxis in only 125 (41%) of these. Prophylaxis was inappropriately prolonged in 80%, 52% and 31% of colorectal, cholecystectomy and inguinal hernia cases, respectively. The corresponding mean duration of anti-biotic administration was 2.4+/-2.2, 1.6+/-1.8 and 1.1+/-1.3 days, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Antibiotic prophylaxis in elective surgery continues to be administered haphazardly. This study supports close surveillance of antibiotic utilization by a dedicated team, perhaps consisting of microbiologists or pharmacists, to minimize inappropriate administration.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review according to the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar using a combination of terms such as "colorectal cancer", "screening" and "low-middle-income countries". Studies of CRC screening interventions/programmes conducted in the general adult population in LMICs as well as policy reviews (of interventions in LMICs) and commentaries on challenges and opportunities of delivering CRC screening in LMICs, published in the English language before February 2020 will be included in this review. The title and abstract screen will be conducted by one reviewer and two reviewers will screen full-texts and extract data from included papers, independently, into a data charting template that will include criteria from an adapted template for intervention description and replication checklist and implementation considerations. The presentation of the scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidance.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical concerns. The results will be used to inform colorectal screening interventions in LMICs. We will publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present them at relevant conferences.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be guided by the smart technology adoption behaviours of elder consumers theoretical model (Elderadopt) by Golant and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. First, we will conduct an internet search for nursing homes and websites and databases related to the stakeholders to retrieve the definitions, concepts and criteria of a smart nursing home (phase 1). Second, we will conduct an additional systematic electronic database search for published articles on any measures of technological feasibility and integration of medical services in nursing home settings and their acceptability by nursing home residents and caregivers (phase 2). The electronic database search will be carried out from 1999 to 30 September 2020 and limited to works published in English and Chinese languages. For phase 2, the selection of literature is further limited to residents of nursing homes aged ≥60 years old with or without medical needs but are not terminally ill or bed-bound. Qualitative data analysis will follow the Framework Methods and thematic analysis using combined inductive and deductive approaches, conducted by at least two reviewers.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol is registered on osf.io (URL: https://osf.io/qtwz2/). Ethical approval is not necessary as the scoping review is not a primary study, and the information is collected from selected articles that are publicly available sources. All findings will be disseminated at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct the proposed scoping review following the method of Arksey and O'Malley. The literature search will include studies published from 2009 to 2019, and will be conducted on the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases; reference lists will be mined for literature not contained on these databases. A grey literature search will also be conducted. To be included in the review, studies should have been conducted on people with a history of infertility, with a focus on patient-centred fertility care. Studies that have not been published in full text and studies published in languages other than English will be excluded. After study selection, data will be charted in a prepared form. We will analyse the data using descriptive numerical and qualitative thematic analyses to answer the research questions. NVivo V.12 will be used for data extraction.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This work does not warrant any ethical or safety concerns. This scoping review will synthesise existing literature on PCIC, and the results will be published to be readily available for clinical audiences and policymakers. These findings may support clinicians and decision-makers in applying PCIC, thereby promoting high-quality healthcare in the concerned population.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The methodology draws on Arksey and O'Malley's seminal framework for the scoping review. The literature search will be conducted by using keywords to find suitable published literature. The existing literature will be searched using selected electronic databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest and Web of Science from the years 2011 and 2021. The selected publications will focus on 10 Southeast Asian countries: Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Philippines, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and Myanmar. Two reviewers will be performing title and abstract screening for the criteria of each publication, in which they will be working independently of each other. The included publication will undergo a full-text review and references cited will be examined for relevance using the same inclusion criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram will guide throughout the process. Data will be extracted, analysed and charted within each category from the selected publications for each Southeast Asian country.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of this scoping review will illustrate an overview of the 3D printing healthcare research in the Southeast Asian context, which can be a guide for the advancement of 3D printing that can be accentuated in future research. The results will undergo dissemination which will be submitted for publication in a scientific journal.
METHODS: The following databases will be searched: Embase, MEDLINE, Emcare, EPPI-Centre database of health promotion research (BiblioMap) EPPI-Centre Database for promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER), Global Health, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database, Maternity and Infant Care Database, Education Resource Information Center, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and Global Index Medicus, which indexes Latin America and the Caribbean, Index Medicus for the South-East Asia Region, African Index Medicus, Western Pacific Region Index Medicus. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, conference proceedings, thesis and dissertations, policy and guidelines and their reference lists will also be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and full text based on predefined eligibility criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews using the Population, Concept and Context framework and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist will be used to structure and report the findings.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics permission to conduct the scoping review is not required as the information collected is publicly available through databases. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature. Descriptive statistics will be used to report the characteristics of included studies. The facilitators and barriers to DHTs implementation, gathered from both quantitative and qualitative data, will be synthesised using a parallel-results convergent synthesis design. A thematic analysis, employing an inductive approach, will be conducted to categorise these facilitators and barriers into coherent themes. Additionally, we will identify and categorise all available DHTs based on their equipment types and methods of operation to develop an innovative classification framework.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required, as primary data collection is not involved in this study. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with key stakeholders and partners in the field of digital health.