To test the agreement and usability of a novel quality appraisal tool: A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews of Prognostic Factor studies (AMSTAR-PF).

Observational study.

14 appraisers of varied experience levels and backgrounds, including undergraduate, master’s and PhD students, postgraduate researchers, research fellows and clinicians.

Eight systematic reviews were rated by all reviewers using AMSTAR-PF.

Planned measures included intrapair and inter-pair agreement using Cohen’s and Fleiss’ kappa, time of use and time to reach consensus. Interrater agreement was an added measure, and Gwet’s agreement coefficient was calculated and presented due to its greater stability across agreement levels. The percentage of intrapair agreements identical or one category apart was also presented.

Interrater agreement averaged 0.59 (range 0.21–0.90), inter-pair agreement 0.61 (range 0.24–0.91) and intrapair agreement 0.75 (range 0.45–0.95) across the domains, with agreement for the overall rating 0.46 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) for interrater agreement, 0.46 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.74) for inter-pair agreement and 0.68 (range of averages 0.22–1.00) for intrapair agreement. The majority (60.7%) of intrapair ratings were identical, with 94.6% of final ratings either identical or only one category different for the overall appraisal. The time taken to appraise a study with AMSTAR-PF improved with use and averaged around 34 min after the first two appraisals.

Despite some variance in agreement for different domains and between different appraisers, the testing results suggest that AMSTAR-PF has clear utility for appraising the quality of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies.

Individuals are diagnosed with terminal/chronic conditions on a daily basis globally. Unfortunately, a substantial proportion of the global disease burden of chronic illnesses is recorded within sub-Saharan Africa. Providing or receiving such news can be devastating and may be influenced by cultural preferences and contextual differences. Identifying existing trends and how such news is broken in sub-Saharan Africa will be relevant to identify and inform practice and future research.

This systematic review protocol was developed by following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P), and findings will be reported by following the guidelines and recommendations of PRISMA-2020. CINAHL, Global Health, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, AJOL and APA PsycINFO will be searched for articles. Additional records will be gathered through reference harvesting in Google Scholar search. QualSyst will be used to assess the methodological quality of studies included. Thematic synthesis will be used to analyse and synthesise the findings from the eligible studies.

Due to the fact that systematic reviews focus on accessible and available literature without the direct involvement of human participants, ethical approval will not be sought. The completed review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and may be presented at health conferences. The important findings would be shared with stakeholders and those involved in developing and conducting training for health practitioners, all of whom are involved in breaking bad news.

CRD42025642707.

To assess the prevalence of occupational exposure to hepatitis B and C, examine exposure reporting patterns and identify associated factors among healthcare workers (HCWs) in a military hospital in Ghana.

Analytical cross-sectional study.

A 500-bed tertiary military healthcare facility in Accra, Ghana.

A total of 369 HCWs were selected using stratified random sampling and completed a structured questionnaire. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire administered to 369 respondents. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted using STATA V.17. Proportions, ORs and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated, with a significance level set at 0.05.

Primary outcomes were the prevalence of occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens (hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV)) and the rate of reporting these exposures.

In the 12 months prior to the study, 20.1% of HCWs reported exposure to HBV or HCV. Exposures were more common during weekdays (60.8%) and afternoon shifts (47.3%). Only 37.8% of exposure incidents were reported. Male HCWs were more likely to report exposures than females (OR 82.5, 95% CI 2.5 to 273). Diploma holders were less likely to report compared with degree holders (OR 0, 95% CI 0 to 0.3).

The study demonstrates that HCWs in the military health facility face a significant risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens, yet under-reporting remains high. Strengthened training, clear reporting systems and supportive workplace policies are urgently needed to address these gaps and safeguard both staff and patient safety.