"Dentre os artigos selecionados, considerando os instrumentos privilegiados, 30% (n = 6) adotaram questionários para coleta dos dados; 25% (n = 5) optaram por relato de experiência das intervenções ou estudo de caso; 25% (n = 5) discorreram sobre elaborações teóricas sobre a temática, dos quais apenas um (5%) referia-se a um estudo de revisão; 15% (n = 3) fizeram uso de entrevistas; e somente um (5%) utilizou técnicas gráficas projetivas como ferramenta de acesso às vivências infantis. Em relação aos níveis de evidência dos estudos (Stetler et al., 1998), predominou o nível 4 (65%, n = 13), que corresponde a pesquisas não experimentais, com caráter descritivo correlacional, qualitativo ou estudos de caso. O baixo nível de evidência da maior parte dos estudos recuperados nesta revisão sugere carência de ensaios clínicos controlados e randomizados, bem como estudos de metanálise, preconizados na prática baseada em evidências. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Abstract: Grief is defined as the mourning experience after some loss, which requires
the reorganization of family roles and of life projects. The assistance to bereaved families
is essential for closure when it comes to the loss of beloved ones as well as for the prevention
of impairments concerning emotional health. This integrative review aimed to analyze
the scientific literature on specialized psychosocial care provided to grieving families
in the area of Pediatric Oncology. Twenty papers published from 2002 to 2013, retrieved
from three different databases (BVS, PsycINFO and SciELO) and using the keywords:
neoplasms, family, grief and bereavement, have been analysed. The results allowed us
to characterize the scenario for care delivery to bereaved families in different contexts.
Preventive actions, transition services and post-loss support measures were highlighted.
Possibilities to expand psychosocial care models are discussed considering the potential
developmental risks for bereaved siblings and for marital relationship jeopardy.
Keywords: grief; family; cancer in children; pediatric oncology; death
Psicologia Teoria e Pesquisa 09/2015; 17(2):20-35. DOI:10.15348/1980-6906/psicologia.v17n2p20-35.
"The papers' evidence level was also analyzed. This analysis was based on the proposal by Stetler et al. (1998), which classifies six levels of evidence: level I, studies related to the meta-analysis of multiple controlled studies; level II, individual experimental studies; level III, quasi-experimental studies, including non-randomized clinical trials, single pre and post-test group, besides time or casecontrol series; level IV, non-experimental studies, such as descriptive, correlational and comparative qualitative studies and case studies; level V, program evaluation data and systematically collected data and level VI, expert opinions, experience reports, consensuses, regulations and legislations (Stetler et al., 1998). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Providing caregivers with health education through educational technologies enhances safe care; and stimulates the decision process and communication among professionals, caregivers and patients. This article is an integrative review to identify what educational technologies have been used for health education to caregivers. The databases Web of Science, Bireme and Scopus were consulted. The inclusion criteria are as follows: full papers, published between 2001 and 2011, in English, Portuguese or Spanish. The descriptors used are the following: educational technology, health education and caregivers. Thirty-four papers were found, 27 of which were excluded because they did not comply with the inclusion criteria, resulting in a final sample of 7 papers. The results evidenced the use of light and hard technologies in health education for caregivers, aimed at the therapeutic discussion of care as well as telehealth service delivery. Research is needed which uses and assesses the use of hard educational technologies in health education for caregivers.
"Then, each article was subject to detailed reading and cataloged, considering the following information: data about the publication (identification of researchers, journal, impact factor), place of study, objectives, type of instrument and main characteristics , study method, results and conclusions. The analysis of evidence levels was based on the proposal by Stetler et al. (1998), with six evidence levels: Level I, meta-analysis of multiple controlled trials; Level II, individual experimental studies; Level III, quasi-experimental studies, including non-randomized clinical trials, single pre and post-test group, besides time or case-control series; Level IV, non-experimental studies, including descriptive, correlational and comparative studies, qualitative and case studies; Level V, program assessment and systematically obtained data; and Level VI, expert opinions, experience reports, consensuses , regulations and laws (Stetler et al., 1998). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Standard precautions (SP) play an important role in hospital infection control, as well as in issues related to biosafety and security of patients, professionals and students active in direct or indirect health care delivery. OBJECTIVE: This research aimed to identify in the literature which instruments nurse researchers have used to evaluate knowledge, attitudes and compliance with SP for infection control. METHODS: A literature review was undertaken in the databases Web of Science, Bireme (Medline and Lilacs) and Scopus. RESULTS: 91.66% of the studies were ranked as evidence level IV; 66.66% of the instruments were structured questionnaires, 58.33% of which had been validated and half of these instruments presented reliability and validity scores for the instrument used. Publications were concentrated in 2009 (41.66%), mostly in English (75%), in nursing journals with impact factor above 1.60 (83.33%). CONCLUSIONS: The instruments nurse researchers most employed were structured questionnaires associated with Likert-type rating scales.
Nurse education in practice 03/2013; 13(4). DOI:10.1016/j.nepr.2013.02.011
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.