To examine if trans and gender non-conforming participants perceive greater healthcare inequities in their interactions with healthcare practitioners than cisgender sexual minority participants, and analyse free text responses from transgender and gender non-conforming participants to gain possible insight into causes of inequities.
A cross-sectional study.
An anonymous online survey of over 2800 self-selecting LGBTQI+ participants, 30% of whom identified as trans and gender non-conforming. The research team devised closed and open-ended questions about perceptions of healthcare provision and analysed quantitative responses using SPSS and open-ended data through thematic analysis.
Over half of trans and gender non-conforming participants reported having had occasion to educate healthcare professionals about LGBTQI+ identities and a majority reported that healthcare professionals made incorrect assumptions about their LGBTQI+ identity. Invalidation and pathologisation of participants' trans and gender non-conforming identity and unhelpful therapeutic approaches were some of the negative health experiences cited.
Trans and gender non-conforming populations experience significant barriers to healthcare relative to their cisgender sexual minority peers. Cisnormative thinking in healthcare practice together with a lack of knowledge of trans and gender non-conforming people's experiences leads to substandard care and acts as a barrier to disclosure and help seeking.
Culturally responsive healthcare is critical to ending health inequities experienced by trans and gender non-conforming people.
Problem addressed: Healthcare inequities among trans and gender non-conforming participants.
Main findings: Trans and gender non-conforming participants reported more negative perceptions of their healthcare experiences compared to cisgender sexual minority participants.
Where and on whom will the research have an impact? Healthcare educators/practitioners.
Strobe.
Members of the LGBTQI+ community were part of the research advisory group and inputted into paper authorship.
Highlights the need for training to increase cultural competency among healthcare providers.
To systematically map the landscape of central venous access device research from 2014 to 2024, identifying critical gaps in evidence that may impact nursing practice and patient outcomes across the full device lifecycle from selection through to removal.
This review was conducted in accordance with the Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map and reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.
PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Complete, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched with additional hand-searching of reference lists from included reviews.
We systematically reviewed literature published between 2014 and 2024, mapping 710 studies on central venous access device interventions and outcomes. Studies were categorised by design, population, setting, device characteristics, intervention types, and outcomes. Evidence was evaluated using the National Health and Medical Research Council levels of evidence framework.
Of 710 included studies, 89 were systematic reviews and 621 primary studies, of which 41.1% (n = 292) were randomised controlled trials. Research was primarily conducted in high-income countries (n = 405, 65.2%) and focused on adults (n = 370, 59.6%) in hospital inpatient settings (n = 588, 94.7%). Catheter insertion and infection prevention dominated the evidence base, while device selection and removal procedures were less studied. Infection outcomes were extensively reported (bloodstream infection: n = 455, 13.6% of 3349 outcomes), while patient-reported outcomes (n = 218, 6.5%) and cost (n = 60, 1.8%) were underrepresented.
This review reveals that central venous access device research is predominantly focused on insertion and infection prevention while other key parts of nursing practice are under-supported.
Future nursing research should address these gaps to improve evidence-based care across diverse populations and healthcare contexts, particularly focusing on understudied device types, settings, and vulnerable populations.
This review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map.
This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.
Breast cancer risk can be substantially reduced with risk-reducing medications (RRMeds). Despite their efficacy, and guidelines which support their use for women at substantially increased risk of breast cancer, they are underused. Barriers to their use in Australia include a lack of awareness of RRMeds by women and clinicians, and a primary care workforce that reports a lack of knowledge and confidence in discussing and/or prescribing these medications. In contrast, Australian clinicians have reported specialist support and guidance as a key facilitator. The Preventing Cancer with Medications (PCMed) Telehealth Service was therefore developed to provide this specialist support and to bridge the evidence–implementation gap. The PCMed Service endeavours to increase the appropriate use of RRMeds and support women and their doctors throughout treatment. The aim of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness, adoption, acceptability, feasibility, fidelity and cost of this new Service, and to determine any adaptations that might be required.
The research uses a mixed methods approach. Effectiveness of the PCMed Service will be evaluated by determining whether the PCMed Service is associated with increased uptake of RRMeds compared with historical data. Secondary outcomes include: adoption of the Service, specifically, the proportion of women who attend a PCMed Service consultation; acceptability of the Service for clients and referring clinicians (using a brief survey and semistructured interviews); feasibility and fidelity by evaluating the adherence to the planned Service processes; and the cost, by reporting the difference between funding received per woman and the cost for service delivery.
This study was approved by the institutional Human Research Ethics Committee (EC00235): HREC/101142/PMCC. The findings will inform future iterations of the Service prior to scaling up. Research findings will be disseminated at scientific meetings and in peer-reviewed journals.
To assess barriers and facilitators to the implementation of guidelines for the prevention of inadvertent perioperative hypothermia in orthopaedic patients.
Systematic review.
Nine databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Scopus, Web of Science and Trip Clinical Evidence Database.
Primary studies published in English between January 2008 to July 2022 were screened. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were completed independently by researchers. Data were extracted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies.
Eighty-seven studies were included in the review. The most frequently reported barriers and facilitators related to evidence strength, relative advantage, and cost of implementing perioperative hypothermia prevention guidelines. The top four ERIC strategies were: Identify and prepare champions; Conduct educational meetings; Assess for readiness and identify barriers and facilitators; and Inform local opinion leaders.
This review provides synthesized evidence regarding barriers and facilitators to perioperative hypothermia guidelines for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery.
Our work provides theory guided strategies to promote implementation of perioperative hypothermia prevention to assist nurses caring for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery.
Findings provide professionals caring for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery with theory-informed strategies to improve perioperative hypothermia prevention. Reducing perioperative hypothermia will improve outcomes for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery.
The review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020.
Due to the study design, no patient or public consultation took place.