OBJECTIVE: To appraise and synthesize the best available evidence that examines the effectiveness of OBE approaches towards the competencies of nursing students.

DESIGN: A systematic review of interventional experimental studies.

DATA SOURCES: Eight online databases namely CINAHL, EBSCO, Science Direct, ProQuest, Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS were searched.

REVIEW METHODS: Relevant studies were identified using combined approaches of electronic database search without geographical or language filters but were limited to articles published from 2006 to 2016, handsearching journals and visually scanning references from retrieved studies. Two reviewers independently conducted the quality appraisal of selected studies and data were extracted.

RESULTS: Six interventional studies met the inclusion criteria. Two of the studies were rated as high methodological quality and four were rated as moderate. Studies were published between 2009 and 2016 and were mostly from Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Results showed that OBE approaches improves competency in knowledge acquisition in terms of higher final course grades and cognitive skills, improve clinical skills and nursing core competencies and higher behavioural skills score while performing clinical skills. Learners' satisfaction was also encouraging as reported in one of the studies. Only one study reported on the negative effect.

METHODS: The authors will perform comprehensive searches of published studies in electronic databases such as PMC, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science by using the following search terms: 'self-efficacy' AND 'adversity quotient' AND 'stress' AND 'academic performance' AND 'student' AND 'COVID-19 pandemic'. Only full-text articles in English language are included. Two reviewers will independently conduct the article selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. Any possible disagreement will be resolved by discussion, and one arbitrator (NA) will adjudicate unresolved disagreements.

RESULTS: This review will provide an updated overview of investigating the relationship between self-efficacy, adversity quotient, COVID-19-related stress and academic performance on a range of undergraduate student during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, based on this systematic review, we will recommend the direction for future research.

CONCLUSION: The result of the study may help the researchers to find an updated overview of various studies in related topic.

Methods: A total of 152 participants (dementia = 53, MCI = 38, controls = 61) were recruited from two teaching hospitals. The Malay version of ACE-III was translated following the standard guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of measure. All the participants were assessed with the Malay version of ACE-III and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).

Results: The reliability of the Malay version of ACE-III was good with Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.829 and intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.959. There was a strong positive correlation between the Malay version of ACE-III and MMSE (r = 0.806). Age (r = -0.335) and years of education (r = 0.536) exerted a significant correlation with total score performance. The cutoff score to discriminate dementia from healthy controls was 74/75 (sensitivity = 90.6%, specificity = 82.0%) whereas to discriminate MCI, the cutoff score was 77/78 (sensitivity = 63.2%, specificity = 63.9%). The diagnostic accuracy of ACE-III was higher than that of MMSE in the detection of dementia (area under the curve: ACE-III = 0.929 vs. MMSE = 0.915).

METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included 75 older adults who were at least 3 months poststroke and 50 age-matched healthy controls. Depressive symptoms were quantified using the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief version (WHOQoL-BREF). Physical function was examined using Functional Ambulation Category, grip strength, 5 times Sit-to-Stand test, and Box and Block tests. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment and visual-manual reaction time were used to index cognitive function. Depressive symptom was quantified using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. The Barthel Index and Fatigue Severity Scale were used to quantify activity limitation. Social participation and environmental participation were assessed using the Assessment of Life Habit and Craig Hospital Inventory of Environment Factors, respectively. Linear stepwise regression models were used to determine explanators for WHOQoL-BREF domain scores.

RESULTS: Individuals with stroke demonstrated significantly worse QoL on all WHOQoL-BREF domains compared with healthy controls. Stroke was a strong determinant for QoL and explained 16% to 43% of variances. Adding other outcome measures significantly improved the robustness of the models (R change = 12%-32%). The physical, psychological, social, and environmental domains of WHOQoL-BREF were all explained by the LIFE-H scores (β = -10.58, -3.37, 4.24, -5.35, respectively), while psychological, social, and environmental domains were explained by Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores (β = .47, 0.78, 0.54, respectively).

OBJECTIVES: The current systematic review aims to synthesize existing feasibility studies on LRI among persons with cancer.

METHODS: A literature search was conducted from the databases PubMed, ScienceDirect, PsychArticles, Scopus, Psychology and Behavioral Science Collection, Cochrane, EBSCO, and other methods. Eligible articles were selected based on the predetermined inclusion criteria and data extraction revolved around the study design, intervention procedure, and feasibility and psychological outcome measures.

RESULTS: The search yielded 8,627 articles, to which respondents simultaneously receiving other forms of psychological interventions were excluded. Eight were selected for evaluation. Four were integrated interventions while the remaining were conducted with the standard intervention. The sample size range from 5 to 90 persons with cancer. All reviewed articles reported optimum feasibility, as presented by recruitment capability, participant retention rate, acceptability and satisfaction, intervention implementation, and evaluation of intervention outcome measures. However, a majority of psychological outcome measures indicated no statistical significance.

METHODS: A single-arm interventional pre-and post-pilot study was conducted on a sample of healthcare lecturers and workers who are involved in supervising healthcare students. A purposive sampling technique was used to recruit 50 healthcare educators in Malaysia. The program was conducted by trained facilitators and 31 participants completed a locally validated self-rated questionnaire to measure their self-efficacy and declarative knowledge in preventing suicide; immediately before and after the intervention.

RESULTS: Significant improvement was seen in the overall outcome following the intervention, mostly in the self-efficacy domain. No significant improvement was seen in the domain of declarative knowledge possibly due to ceiling effects; an already high baseline knowledge about suicide among healthcare workers. This is an exception in a single item that assesses a common misperception in assessing suicide risk where significant improvement was seen following the program.

OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the effects of CPAP on AoP in preterm infants (this may be compared to supportive care or mechanical ventilation). 2. To assess the effects of different CPAP delivery systems on AoP in preterm infants.

SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted in September 2022 in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries and the reference lists of studies selected for inclusion.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which researchers determined that CPAP was necessary for AoP in preterm infants (born before 37 weeks). Cross-over studies were also included, provided sufficient data were available for analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by at least two review authors. Discrepancies were resolved by involvement of a third author. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: 1) failed CPAP; 2) apnoea; 3) adverse effects of CPAP.

MAIN RESULTS: We included four single-centre trials conducted in Malaysia, Spain, Germany, and North America, involving 138 infants with a mean/median gestation of 26 to 28 weeks. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs and two were cross-over trials. None of the studies compared CPAP with supportive care. All trials compared one form of CPAP with another. Two compared a variable flow device with ventilator CPAP, one compared two different variable flow devices, and one compared a variable flow device with bubble CPAP. Interventions were administered for periods ranging between six and 48 hours, with pressures between 4 and 6 cm H2O. We assessed all trials as having a high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, and two studies for blinding of outcome assessors. We found a high risk of a carry-over effect in two studies where the washout period was not adequately described, and a high risk of bias in a study that appeared to use an analysis method not generally accepted for cross-over studies. Comparison 1. CPAP and supportive care compared to supportive care alone We did not identify any study for inclusion in this comparison. Comparison 2. CPAP delivered by different types of devices 2a. Variable flow compared to ventilator CPAP Two studies were included in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP, defined as the need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.90; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the frequency of apnoea events (mean difference (MD) per four-hour interval -0.10, 95% CI -1.30 to 1.10; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are uncertain whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported. 2b. Variable flow compared to bubble CPAP We included one study in this comparison, but it did not report our pre-specified outcomes. 2c. Infant Flow variable flow CPAP compared to Medijet variable flow CPAP We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.53; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty). The frequency of apnoea was not reported, and we do not know whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported. Comparison 3. CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this comparison.