Patients' Experiences of Mechanical Ventilation in Intensive Care Units in Low- and Lower-middle-income Countries: Protocol of a Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Syst Rev

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2024 Aug 12

PMID 39135133

Authors

Mayank Gupta

Priyanka Gupta

Preeti Devi

Utkarsh

Damini Butola

Savita Butola

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) is a stressful experience for patients. However, these experiences have not been systematically explored in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). This systematic review (SR) aims to explore the patients' experiences of MV in ICUs in LLMICs and the factors influencing their experiences.

Methods: The PICO framework will be used to operationalize the review question into key concepts: population (mechanically ventilated adult patients in ICUs), phenomenon of interest (experiences) and context (LLMICs). PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science will be systematically searched since database inception. Citation, reference list and PubMed-related article searching of included studies will be done to ensure literature saturation. Empirical peer-reviewed literature exploring adult patients' (aged ≥ 18 years) experiences of MV in ICUs in LLMIC will be included. All study designs (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) will be included. Two independent reviewers will perform screening, data extraction and critical appraisal. The mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT) and Popay's narrative synthesis will be used for critical appraisal and data synthesis, respectively.

Discussion: This SR aims to bridge a gap in knowledge as previous evidence synthesis has described this phenomenon in developed countries. The review design, with the inclusion of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies, intends to provide a rich and in-depth exploration of the issue. The findings will be presented as themes, subthemes and their explanatory narratives. The gaps in available literature will be identified, and implications of SR findings on policy, practice and future research will be presented. The strength of this SR lies in its systematic, comprehensive, transparent, robust and explicit methodology of identifying, collating, assessing and synthesizing available evidence. By prior registration and reporting of this SR protocol, we aim to ensure transparency and accountability and minimize bias.

Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024507187.

References

McHugh M . Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012; 22(3):276-82. PMC: 3900052. View

Pronovost P, Angus D, Dorman T, Robinson K, Dremsizov T, Young T . Physician staffing patterns and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002; 288(17):2151-62. DOI: 10.1001/jama.288.17.2151. View

Marshall J, Bosco L, Adhikari N, Connolly B, Diaz J, Dorman T . What is an intensive care unit? A report of the task force of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine. J Crit Care. 2016; 37:270-276. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.07.015. View

Greenhalgh T . How to read a paper. The Medline database. BMJ. 1997; 315(7101):180-3. PMC: 2127107. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7101.180. View

Pieris L, Sigera P, De Silva A, Munasinghe S, Rashan A, Athapattu P . Experiences of ICU survivors in a low middle income country- a multicenter study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018; 18(1):30. PMC: 5863441. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-018-0494-8. View

Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D, Moulton K, Clark M, Fiander M . The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012; 28(2):138-44. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462312000086. View

Rethlefsen M, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala A, Moher D, Page M . PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021; 10(1):39. PMC: 7839230. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z. View

Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z . What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1):5. PMC: 5761190. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4. View

Danielis M, Povoli A, Mattiussi E, Palese A . Understanding patients' experiences of being mechanically ventilated in the Intensive Care Unit: Findings from a meta-synthesis and meta-summary. J Clin Nurs. 2020; 29(13-14):2107-2124. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15259. View

10.

Papaioannou D, Sutton A, Carroll C, Booth A, Wong R . Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Info Libr J. 2010; 27(2):114-22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00863.x. View

11.

Stempniak M . The patient experience. Taking it to the next level. Hosp Health Netw. 2013; 87(4):41-7. View

12.

Carroll C, Booth A, Lloyd-Jones M . Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An evaluation of sensitivity analyses in two case study reviews. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22(10):1425-34. DOI: 10.1177/1049732312452937. View

13.

Majid U, Vanstone M . Appraising Qualitative Research for Evidence Syntheses: A Compendium of Quality Appraisal Tools. Qual Health Res. 2018; 28(13):2115-2131. DOI: 10.1177/1049732318785358. View

14.

Stevinson C, Lawlor D . Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns?. Complement Ther Med. 2005; 12(4):228-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2004.09.003. View

15.

Buchter R, Weise A, Pieper D . Development, testing and use of data extraction forms in systematic reviews: a review of methodological guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020; 20(1):259. PMC: 7574308. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01143-3. View

16.

Li H, Qian D, Griffiths S, Chung R, Wei X . What are the similarities and differences in structure and function among the three main models of community health centers in China: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015; 15:504. PMC: 4640164. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-015-1162-z. View

17.

Small S . Reflections on critical appraisal of research for qualitative evidence synthesis. JBI Evid Synth. 2023; 21(6):1064-1065. DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00198. View

18.

Hong Q, Gonzalez-Reyes A, Pluye P . Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract. 2018; 24(3):459-467. DOI: 10.1111/jep.12884. View

19.

Adhikari N, Fowler R, Bhagwanjee S, Rubenfeld G . Critical care and the global burden of critical illness in adults. Lancet. 2010; 376(9749):1339-46. PMC: 7136988. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60446-1. View

20.

Sandelowski M, Voils C, Barroso J . Defining and Designing Mixed Research Synthesis Studies. Res Sch. 2010; 13(1):29. PMC: 2809982. View