Conectar
To evaluate the quality of action research studies using the Quality Assessment Action Research Checklist (QuARC) and to assess its utility as a tool for quality appraisal.
A hybrid systematic narrative review following Turnbull et al.'s six-stage methodology and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidance.
Scopus was searched for author self-identified action research studies published between January 2020 and March 2024.
Two reviewers independently selected studies meeting inclusion criteria: health science action research papers addressing any or all of QuARC's four quality factors. A scoring system was used to capture each of QuARC's 17 quality items, which was scored as 0 (absent), 0.5 (partial) or 1 (comprehensive). Narrative synthesis was undertaken across the four QuARC domains.
Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Reporting frequencies across QuARC were: Context (92.5%, mean = 3.7/4), Quality of Relationships (55% mean = 2.2/4), Quality of Action Research Process (62.5% mean = 2.5/4), and Quality of Outcomes (62.5% mean = 3.1/5). Reporting gaps were most evident in reflexive co-analysis, relational evaluation and explicit theoretical contribution.
Global reporting of rigour and quality in action research remains inconsistent. QuARC functioned both as an appraisal instrument and as an analytic lens, revealing systematic patterns in how action research privileges practical change over theoretical articulation and reflexive relational work. Further refinement and validation are recommended to strengthen its reliability as an appraisal tool.
Findings highlighted a critical need to establish a standardised, validated approach to assess quality in action research. Adoption of QuARC can enhance consistency, clarity and comparability across studies, strengthening the evidence base for action research methodologies.
This first systematic synthesis of QuARC's application provides an evidence base for its further development. This lays foundations for international standards in quality appraisal, strengthening the credibility, reproducibility and influence of action research.
by Toby M Plasto, Geoffrey H Tofler, Tom Buckley
BackgroundPhysical and psychological stress can precipitate Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) events. Football (soccer) is a popular sport globally, with referees covering significant distances, often at high-intensity during a match, and facing potentially intense psychological stress from high-stakes decision-making and potential verbal abuse from players and spectators. The aim of this scoping review was to identify what is known about the cardiovascular health and risk of acute cardiac events in referees during football matches.
MethodsA librarian-assisted search of six databases was completed, with publications written in English or with English translation available included. The PRISMA checklist was utilised and data were extracted from publications to form both descriptive and thematic analyses.
ResultsAnalysis of the publications identified five key themes: 1) the cardiovascular risk factors profile of football referees (prevalence of hypertension, dyslipidaemia and diabetes), 2) psychological stress and abuse experienced by referees (both verbal and physical abuse are reported at all levels of football, contributing to stress, anxiety, and anger), 3) physical intensity and activity levels of football referees (distance covered per match), 4) physiological aspects of football refereeing and 5) cardiac events on the football field (referees are rarely involved in providing CPR).
ConclusionsEvidence indicates that football referees face significant cardiovascular demands and psychological stress, along with a vulnerability to physical abuse, yet there is a lack of research on educational interventions to promote their cardiovascular health. Additionally, referees may act as first responders during ACS events, highlighting the necessity for them to be knowledgeable about relevant symptoms and trained for effective response.
FreshRSS 