4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Identifying occupational health hazards among healthcare providers and ancillary staff in Ghana: a scoping review protocol

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The formation, modification and implementation of occupational health and safety policy for the Ghana healthcare industry hinge on data and reviews on occupational exposures. However, there is no synthesised review to speak to the issues of these occupational exposures. A scoping review on occupational exposures among the health workforce in Ghana will provide a broad overview of exposures, and can guide and assist in making decisions on occupational health issues relating to healthcare workers.

          Methods and analysis

          Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology framework will guide the conduct of this scoping review. Primary research studies, government documents and other information on occupational exposures among healthcare workers published in the English language will be retrieved from databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO and Google scholar. A systematic search strategy will be employed to identify articles from 1 January 2010 until 30 November 2021. Also, grey literature sources in Ghana including government and tertiary institutions websites will be searched. A reference list of key studies and other available non-electronic materials will also be screened to identify relevant studies for inclusion. The review will consider studies that address prevalence, knowledge and predisposing factors of occupational exposures along with the use of occupational hazards control/preventive measures. After removal of duplicates, and title and abstract screening, relevant articles will be subjected to full-text analysis. The screening processes will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Data will then be extracted and presented in tabular form with a narrative to aid easy comprehension.

          Ethics and dissemination

          This scoping review does not require ethical approval. The findings will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations and stakeholder meetings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

            Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

              Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2022
                4 January 2022
                4 January 2022
                : 12
                : 1
                : e058048
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences , Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology , Kumasi, Ghana
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Pharmacognosy and Herbal Medicine, School of Pharmacy , University of Health and Allied Sciences , Ho, Ghana
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Philip Apraku Tawiah; ptawiah@ 123456uhas.edu.gh
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0212-195X
                Article
                bmjopen-2021-058048
                10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058048
                8727684
                34983774
                e16d231d-dc13-4935-b177-d70a13f9f42a
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 08 October 2021
                : 20 December 2021
                Categories
                Public Health
                1506
                2474
                1724
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                health & safety,protocols & guidelines,risk management,infectious disease/hiv,musculoskeletal disorders,health policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article