MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4200168755 · doi:10.11124/jbies-21-00149

Interventions to change clinicians’ behavior related to suicide prevention care in the emergency department: a scoping review

2021· review· en· W4200168755 sur OpenAlexafffund
Hwayeon Danielle Shin, Christine Cassidy, Lori E. Weeks, Leslie Anne Campbell, Emily K. Drake, Helen Wong, Lauren Donnelly, Rachel Dorey, Hyelee Kang, Janet Curran

Notice bibliographique

RevueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2021
Typereview
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Établissements canadiensCapital District Health AuthorityNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésPsychological interventionEmergency departmentPsycINFOCINAHLScopusMedicineBehavior changeMEDLINEIntervention (counseling)Suicide preventionPoison controlPsychologyNursingMedical emergency

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to explore, characterize, and map the literature on interventions and intervention components implemented to change emergency department clinicians' behavior related to suicide prevention using the Behaviour Change Wheel as a guiding theoretical framework. INTRODUCTION: An emergency department is a critical place for suicide prevention, yet patients are often discharged without proper suicide risk assessments or referrals. In response, we must support emergency department clinicians' behavior change to follow evidence-based suicide prevention strategies. However, reviews to date have yet to systematically and theoretically examine the functional mechanisms of interventions and how these characteristics can influence emergency department clinicians' behaviors related to suicide prevention care. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review considered interventions that targeted emergency department clinicians' behavior change related to suicide prevention. Behavior change referred to observable practice changes as well as proxy measures of behavior change, including changes in knowledge and attitude. METHODS: This review followed JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Searches included PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, and gray literature, including targeted Google searches for relevant organizations/websites, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Scopus conference papers (using a specific filter). This review did not apply any date limits, but our search was limited to the English language. Data extraction was undertaken using a charting table developed specifically for the review objective. Narrative descriptions of interventions were coded using the Behaviour Change Wheel's intervention functions. Reported outcome measures were categorized. Findings were tabulated and synthesized narratively. RESULTS: This review included a total of 70 sources, describing 66 different interventions. Forty-one studies were included from the database searches, representing a mixture of experimental (n = 2), quasi-experimental (n = 24), non-experimental (n = 12), qualitative (n = 1), and mixed methods (n = 2) approaches. An additional 29 citations were included from gray literature searches. One was a pilot mixed methods study, and the rest were interventions. Identified interventions comprised a wide range of Behaviour Change Wheel intervention functions to change clinicians' behavior: education (n = 48), training (n = 40), enablement (n = 36), persuasion (n = 21), environmental restructuring (n = 18), modeling (n = 7), and incentivization (n = 2). Based on the Behaviour Change Wheel analysis, many interventions targeted more than one determinant of behavior change, often employing education and training to improve clinicians' knowledge and skills simultaneously. Among the 42 studies that reported outcome measures, effectiveness was measured at clinician (n = 38), patient (n = 4), or organization levels (n = 6). Few studies reported implementation outcomes, such as measures of reach (n = 4), adoption (n = 5), or fidelity (n = 1). There were no evaluation data reported on the interventions identified through Google searches. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions included in this review were diverse and leveraged a range of mechanisms to change emergency department clinicians' behavior. However, most interventions relied solely on education and/or training to improve clinicians' knowledge and/or skills. Future research should consider diverse intervention functions to target both individual- and organization-level barriers for a given context. The ultimate goal for changing emergency department clinicians' behavior is to improve patient health outcomes related to suicide-related thoughts and behaviors; however, current research has most commonly evaluated clinicians' behavior in isolation of patient outcomes. Future studies should consider reporting patient-level outcomes alongside clinician-level outcomes.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,898
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,220
Tête enseignante GPT0,515
Écart entre enseignants0,295 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJBI Evidence SynthesisMême sujetSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesTravaux en français237 207