This is a protocol for a systematic review that aims to identify interventions used to improve recruitment and retention of mental healthcare professionals, and to examine the effectiveness of these interventions. Previous systematic reviews have examined interventions targeting either a specific systemic or occupational factor associated with recruitment and retention of mental health professionals or involved only a specific group of mental health professionals. To our knowledge, this will be the first review that comprehensively synthesises evidence regarding interventions for a broad range of possible systemic and/or occupational factors associated with recruitment and retention across all professional groups working in the field of mental health. The findings of this review will help inform evidence-based interventions to address challenges related to recruitment and retention of mental health workforce.
This protocol is for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to determine the effects of rehabilitation and behavioural interventions for post-stroke cognitive impairment on quality of life.
This is the protocol for a Campbell evidence and gap map (EGM). The objectives are as follows: (1) to develop a systematic taxonomy of intervention types and well-being outcomes to organise the evidence on climate-related interventions for populations vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); (2) to map existing systematic reviews to show what we know (evidence) and do not know (gaps) about the effectiveness of interventions to reduce or prevent the effects of climate change on these populations, with systematic reviews of process evaluations mapped alongside effectiveness reviews to illuminate the mechanisms, barriers and facilitators that shape intervention outcomes; (3) to provide structured database entries for included reviews, summarising the intervention, context, study design, sources of evidence and main findings, and appraising each review’s methods using a standardised checklist; and (4) to provide a searchable database that maps relevant systematic reviews by intervention type and outcome category to support policy decision-making.
It is predicted that by 2050, 22% of the world’s population will be over 60 years old. Informal caregivers of dependent older adults face a significant physical, psychological and social burden. However, interventions designed to support these caregivers have predominantly been evaluated through quantitative outcomes. Qualitative evidence on the experiences and perceptions of these interventions reported by caregivers themselves remains largely unsynthesised. This review aims to identify and synthesise qualitative evidence on how informal caregivers of dependent older people experience and perceive interventions designed to alleviate the burden of caregiving and enhance their biopsychosocial well-being. For this purpose, a systematic search will be conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Publications in English and Spanish from 2014 onwards will be included. Grey literature will also be included. Search strategies will be developed with a research librarian and peer-reviewed using the PRESS checklist. Regarding selection criteria, primary qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with accessible qualitative data exploring the experiences of informal caregivers of dependent older adults (60+) who have received interventions targeting burden reduction and biopsychosocial well-being will be included. Studies focused exclusively on palliative cancer care or on caregivers of people with cognitive impairment will be excluded. Data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Thematic synthesis will be conducted using Thomas and Harden’s method. The methodological quality will be assessed using the CASP Qualitative Checklist and the confidence in the findings will be evaluated using GRADE-CERQual.
Background Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is associated with poor health outcomes. While group-based therapies offer accessible treatment options, their effectiveness remains unclear. Social identity factors, such as shared group membership and stigma, may influence treatment success. Objectives This review examined: (1) the effectiveness of group-based treatments for PTSD symptoms, (2) differences between group and individual therapies, (3) whether trauma type (e.g., interpersonal, stigmatized) and group fit (e.g., gender, shared trauma) moderate outcomes, and (4) the role of group and social identity factors in existing research. Search Methods A systematic search (April 2023, re-run May 2025) identified quantitative studies of group therapies (≥3 participants, ≥5 sessions) addressing PTSD symptoms, compared to individual or control conditions. Forty studies met criteria (23 RCTs, 17 non-RCTs) from an initial pool of 8,256 records. Interventions included group CBT, counselling, psychodynamic, and other approaches. Selection Criteria A variety of group-based treatments were eligible for inclusion, such as group-based CBT, CPT, and alternative group treatments. In line with previous research, protocols had to include a minimum of three individuals per group and meet for at least five sessions. Interventions assessed PTSD symptoms pre-intervention and post-intervention using a valid and reliable measure. Data Collection and Analysis Primary outcome data was collected using valid measures of PTSD (e.g. CAPS, PCL). Effect sizes were computed for outcomes within each study. Where a study provided more than one effect size for each outcome, we accounted for this in statistical analyses. Main Results Across 40 studies in 11 countries, most involving women or mixed-gender groups, trauma types varied, with combat-related PTSD most common ( n = 15). Overall, group-based interventions were significantly more effective than comparator conditions, producing moderate symptom reductions ( k = 32; g = 0.63; 95% CI [0.36, 0.90]; p < .001). Effects were large and clinically meaningful compared to controls (minimal attention and waitlist controls). However, effects were weaker and non-significant compared to treatment-as-usual and active controls (same treatment in individual format). Group CBT, group psychotherapy, and alternative approaches (e.g., mindfulness-based therapy, music therapy) showed stronger effects. Older participants, larger groups (>8 participants), women-only groups, and groups with shared or distinct trauma types demonstrated the largest effect sizes. We planned to examine how group-based processes (e.g., belonging, cohesion, trust) influenced PTSD symptoms, but could not do so because only two studies explicitly measured these group-based factors. Authors’ Conclusions Group-based interventions reduce PTSD symptoms. Larger effects were observed for certain group characteristics, such as participant age, group size, gender, and shared experiences; however, findings are exploratory and should be interpreted with caution. Some limitations should also be considered. The majority of included studies had some concerns or were at moderate risk of bias, there was unexplained heterogeneity between studies, as well as evidence of possible publication bias. However, sensitivity analyses excluding studies at high or serious risk of bias yielded similar findings. Future research should build on existing evidence to examine how social identity processes influence the effectiveness of group-based interventions for PTSD across diverse populations and formats.
Background:Natural language processing (NLP) techniques offer promising solutions for semi-automating the time-consuming process of abstract screening in systematic reviews. The exponential growth of published literature has created significant bottlenecks, with review teams manually assessing thousands of abstracts over weeks to months. Single reviewers can miss 5-13% of relevant studies, necessitating dual screening that further increases workload. Advances in artificial intelligence, including deep learning models such as BERT and its successors, show potential for automating this critical step, but comprehensive evidence on optimal approaches, performance, and practical feasibility remains limited. Objectives:This systematic review aimed to assess techniques, performance, and feasibility of NLP approaches for title and abstract screening by characterizing the range of NLP methods used, summarizing performance on key metrics like workload reduction and recall, evaluating real-world implementation feasibility, and identifying research gaps and future directions. Search Methods:We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and gray literature sources from inception to December 2024. The search strategy, developed with an information specialist and peer-reviewed using PRESS guidelines, targeted keywords related to natural language processing, machine learning, abstract screening, and systematic reviews. Additional sources included conference proceedings, preprint servers, reference lists, forward citation tracking, and expert consultation. Selection Criteria:We included primary studies of any design describing development or evaluation of NLP techniques for automating title and abstract screening in evidence syntheses. Eligible studies reported on NLP methods, screening performance (workload reduction, recall, precision), or implementation feasibility. Studies using only rule-based approaches without machine learning, systematic reviews of NLP methods, commentaries, and conference abstracts were excluded. No language or date restrictions were applied. Data Collection and Analysis:Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts using Covidence software, with disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extraction covered study characteristics, NLP techniques, training approaches, performance metrics, and feasibility considerations. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified ROBIS tool. Given diverse techniques and outcomes, we conducted narrative synthesis following SWiM guidelines, grouping studies by NLP approach. Main Results:From 4,105 records, 19 studies met inclusion criteria, with 68.4% published since 2023, reflecting rapid field advancement. Studies employed diverse approaches from traditional machine learning (Support Vector Machines, Random Forests) to advanced deep learning models, particularly BERT variants. Most achieved >90% recall with workload reductions of 13-96%, representing substantial time savings. Deep learning models with transfer learning consistently outperformed traditional approaches. However, implementation faced significant barriers including requirements for high-quality training data, specialized computational resources, technical expertise, and user-friendly interfaces. Performance was generally better for targeted reviews with lower inclusion prevalence. Authors’ Conclusions:NLP techniques, especially deep learning with transfer learning, show substantial promise for semi-automating abstract screening with potential for large workload savings while maintaining high recall. However, challenges remain regarding training data quality, computational requirements, technical expertise needs, and user-centered design. Realizing full potential requires interdisciplinary collaboration to develop reliable, generalizable tools integrating seamlessly with human expertise and existing workflows. Future priorities include creating standardized datasets, conducting prospective evaluations, developing user-friendly interfaces, and establishing implementation best practices to revolutionize evidence synthesis efficiency.
This is the protocol for a Campbell evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: to systematically retrieve, categorize, and map evidence on community-based health interventions for PEH in high-income countries, and identify gaps in the available evidence to inform a prioritized research agenda for health and homelessness.
Background:Experiencing the death of a loved one can be very distressing for children and adolescents. If the bereavement is not managed, it can lead to lifelong consequences such as poor mental health outcomes. Despite this being a universal experience, there is a lack of agreement in the theoretical definitions of fundamental concepts of grief, loss and bereavement. Research has suggested child grief has specific characteristics determined by their age and developmental stage and needs, as well as the circumstances surrounding the death. A significant challenge in the field is identifying age appropriate and validated interventions that are specific for children and adolescents. Evidence and Gap Maps (EGMs) can contribute to addressing this gap by providing a comprehensive and visual synthesis of the existing evidence. Objectives:This EGM aimed to identify, synthesise and map existing published and unpublished (grey literature) evidence of primary studies and systematic reviews of bereavement interventions for children and adolescents, targeted at improving psychosocial outcomes. Search Methods:The searches for this EGM were carried out using electronic databases (n = 6), web search engines, repositories and grey literature. The search terms were developed based on the participants, bereavement terminology and types of interventions. Searches were conducted over May and June 2024. Selection Criteria:All primary studies and systematic reviews of bereavement interventions for children and adolescents between 0 and 24 years of age, in English or Spanish were included in this EGM. Data Collection and Analysis:Search results were imported into EndNote, where results were collated and duplicates deleted. Results were then imported into EPPI-reviewer where additional duplicates were removed. Titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. Potential studies were then divided and full text was screened in duplicate, a third reviewer resolved any conflicts. Data was extracted from sources that fit the inclusion criteria in duplicate. The information extracted was participant age, country, study design, intervention type, intervention name, duration, form of delivery, provider, target death and type of death, evaluation and outcomes. Results:A total of 99 sources are included in this EGM. Interventions were carried out in different parts of the world but most evidence was identified in the USA, Australia, Canada and The Netherlands. The age that most evidence concentrated on is the age group between 10 to 14 years with underpinning theories, cognitive behavioural therapy and expressive therapies the most reported. The majority of interventions were delivered face to face and included different types (interventions, programmes, support groups and camps). Most reported a duration of 6-10 sessions and targeted parental death. Outcomes reported were various (n = 49), mostly focused on grief, coping, emotional expression, adjustment to death and emotional wellbeing. The majority of systematic reviews were rated as low quality and the majority of domains classified for randomised control trials were unclear. Conclusions:This EGM provides a systematic, searchable and visual tool for policy makers, practitioners, researchers and members of the public to identify the existing evidence on bereavement interventions for children and adolescents. The EGM identified the areas where most evidence is currently concentrated, as well as areas where further research is warranted for specific age groups and types of death experienced. The EGM also identified the need for higher quality evidence as well as longitudinal evaluations.
This is a protocol for a Campbell Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) of the studies of the effect of health interventions to reduce out-of-pocket expenses (OOPE). The objective is to identify existing gaps in the available evidence where further primary studies and systematic reviews are needed.
This is the protocol for a Campbell mega-map. This mega-map has two main objectives: 1. Identify, map, and describe existing evidence from systematic reviews and evidence and gap maps on interventions and programs aimed at creating and sustaining age-friendly environments. 2. Identify existing gaps in methods, interventions, outcomes, and geographies to assist researchers and policymakers in making evidence-informed research and funding decisions.
Measures of parenting constructs that are suited to sample and context are necessary in the development of evidence for models of family support. As parenting practices and values vary across history and cultures, it is important to consider the validity of measures of parenting for Indigenous families. This protocol outlines a scoping review that will seek to describe the scope of measures of parenting constructs that have been utilised with Indigenous families in comparative contexts of Canada, Australia, Aotearoa, and the United States, and describe the characteristics of new and adapted measures. Data extracted from articles will describe the parenting construct being measured, the sample involved in the study, the process for development or adaptation, how Indigenous leadership and perspectives have been included in measure design, and the psychometric qualities of measures. The scoping review will employ the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, with data extraction drawing on aspects of the COSMIN and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool. Findings will be aligned with the cultural continuum of measure adaptation and development and presented in table and narrative formats. Findings will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed academic output. Conducted by a team of Indigenous and allied scholars, the scoping review aims to capture a snapshot of existing measures, identifying for practitioners and researchers measurement approaches that embed strengths-based perspectives and Indigenous knowledges of parenting.
Background:Evaluation reports contain critical, practice-based evidence relevant to policy and strategic decision-making, particularly for monitoring progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, limited discoverability, richness of information content, and structure can act as barriers to their use in literature analyses, especially compared to peer-reviewed literature. This paper addresses the challenge of discovering evaluation reports for synthesis through a scalable, semi-automated methodology. Methodology:We present a pipeline to process and map information from 631 publicly available UNICEF evaluation reports. It includes PDF-to-text conversion, document parsing, neural network-based sentence mining and outcome-specific filtering using adjacency-query search in SWIFT-Review. The target framework was UNICEF's 2022-2025 Strategic Plan, encompassing 64 defined outcomes. Tools we used were free and methods we developed are open-source. Results:The approach achieved a 92% reduction in overall text volume and good recall (0.93) in identifying relevant sentences. A median search precision of 0.6 was achieved across outcomes, requiring an average review of only 21 evaluation reports per outcome to extract insights. These results indicate a potential to increase feasibility of discovering high-quality information from evaluation reports, although efficiency might vary when applied to other datasets. Conclusion:Our findings demonstrate that evaluation reports - despite their structural heterogeneity - can be systematically searched, extracted, and mapped. This work highlights the untapped value of evaluation reports for evidence-based planning and offers a replicable approach for researchers working at the intersection of development research, policy, and artificial intelligence.
This protocol describes a systematic review that will examine the effects of organizational transparency interventions on trust in AI-assisted decision-making and in human decision-makers. The review addresses a dual-trust dynamic — cognition-based trust in AI-assisted decisions and affect-based trust in human decision-makers — that existing reviews have not synthesised together. Eligible studies will involve organizational decision-makers interacting with AI-assisted systems and will measure trust-related outcomes in response to transparency interventions such as disclosure protocols, process transparency, or leader communication strategies. Database searches will span psychology, management, information systems, and AI literatures from 2015 to present across PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and grey literature sources. A convergent segregated mixed-methods synthesis will be used: random-effects meta-analysis for quantitative evidence and thematic synthesis following Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) for qualitative evidence. Findings will be integrated in a cross-interpretation stage to produce theory-informed conclusions on mechanisms and moderators of trust asymmetry. The review is registered with the Campbell Collaboration Business and Management Coordinating Group.
Background Human milk is a complex, dynamic, living biological fluid uniquely tailored to meet the nutritional needs of the human species. In addition to this it also has a protective role in health by providing beneficial microbes and prebiotic oligosaccharides that aid in developing the neonatal gut microbiome, and by containing immune molecules that help regulate long-term inflammatory responses. Despite growing evidence of human milk’s composition and benefits, breastfeeding rates remain low in many countries. Some studies suggest that understanding the health benefits and composition of human milk may increase a mother’s motivation to breastfeed or provide human milk. However, first it is necessary to summarize and synthesize the available data on maternal reasons for providing human milk in any form to their infants, to examine the evidence in this area. Methods A mixed method systematic review will be conducted including qualitative, quantitative, and primary mixed-methods studies that explore the reasons why mothers choose breastmilk as their method of infant nutrition. The PICo framework will inform the search strategy including five databases CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), Medline (PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus (Elsevier) from inception to date of searching. Following screening the quality of the studies will be assessed using the standardized JBI critical appraisal tools, selected based on each study’s methodology. Data extraction will follow the JBI mixed methods data extraction form, and will involve data transformation, synthesis, and integration. This systematic review will adopt a convergent integrated approach in line with JBI guidelines. Protocol Registration Registered with Prospero (CRD42024586984).
The dissemination of false or inaccurate information, and its subsequent effect on behaviour, is not a new phenomenon. However, in recent years, alongside the emergence of multiple methods of information transmission, the speed, scale and volume of mis-, dis-, and malinformation (MDM) has reached a new threshold, contributing to societal polarisation and mistrust towards authorities. It has been postulated that the phenomenon may also play a role in the psychosocial process of radicalisation . By re-framing grievances or events and creating shared identities or networks amongst ‘believers’, exposure to MDM may interact with other audience vulnerabilities to facilitate radicalisation towards violent extremist narratives and networks. This systematic review will examine interventions designed to counter or reduce the effects of exposure to false information and their impact on violent extremism. The review will synthesise evidence across diverse methodologies and settings, identify gaps in the literature, and highlight best practices for reducing or countering the effects of false narratives and their subsequent influence on violent extremist behaviour and attitudes. The findings will inform policymakers, educators, and practitioners about actionable measures to combat the harmful consequences of false information in the context of violent extremism.
Despite their central role, Primary Care Practitioners (PCPs) encounter numerous challenges in providing primary care for children. Complex factors spanning all levels of the health system contribute to variability in the quality of paediatric primary care. Contextually informed strategies addressing these factors can deliver positive change. These strategies recognise healthcare as a complex adaptive system and leverage the interconnectedness of the health system and communication networks of healthcare providers. Evidence describing advice-seeking practices of PCPs related to paediatric care is limited. This protocol outlines a mixed methods systematic review that aims to examine how primary care practitioners seek advice regarding paediatric care. The resulting review will synthesise the structures and characteristics of the social networks through which PCPs seek advice regarding paediatric care, how networks are measured, the benefits of these networks, and factors PCPs encounter when seeking advice. The review will be guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Mixed Methods Systematic Review manual and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. We will search English language publications in EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science. Relevant peer-reviewed articles published since 2013 will be included, encompassing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, pre- and post-intervention studies, cross-sectional studies, qualitative studies, social network analysis, and mixed-methods studies. Data will be synthesised using a convergent integrated approach, transforming quantitative data into textual descriptions and aggregating where possible to produce integrated findings. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD420251025798.
Timely and contextually relevant evidence is essential for decision-making in policy domains, especially during crisis or outbreaks like the COVID-19 pandemic. While systematic reviews provide methodological rigor, their cost and duration limit their policy utility. Rapid reviews offer a pragmatic alternative but are typically static and quickly become outdated as new studies, grey literature, and local knowledge emerge, leading to duplication of effort and losing track of policy decisions and use of evidence. This paper presents a pragmatic framework for converting rapid reviews into living evidence synthesis (LES) systems within policy contexts, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Drawing on the experience of eBASE Africa, the framework demonstrates how LES functions can be incrementally embedded within conventional rapid-review workflows. It integrates PRISMA-aligned methods with continuous evidence surveillance across academic literature, grey literature, and non-traditional evidence sources such as social media and Indigenous Ways of Knowing, treating these as structured and systematically incorporated evidence streams, supported by responsible use of artificial intelligence and digital tools with human oversight. The framework reconceptualizes rapid reviews as entry points to living evidence systems, offering a scalable pathway to improve efficiency, continuity, and policy relevance, particularly in LMIC settings.
Background:Worldwide, the population is ageing. As the population ages, so does the prevalence of age-related diseases such as arthritis, osteoporosis, diabetes, hypertension, cancer and dementia, increasing the demand on health and social care services. The evidence underpinning treatments and interventions for most health and social care issues is derived from populations younger than 80 years of age because this age group is often excluded from taking part in clinical trials. This raises concerns that many established treatments may not be the most suitable or effective approach for those aged 80 years or more. Objectives:Our aim was to produce an interactive evidence and gap map to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of the evidence on health and social care interventions that target adults over 80 years of age. Search Methods:We searched 18 databases: Medline, PsycINFO, HMIC, Social Policy and Practice, Ageline, CINAHL Complete, ASSIA, PQDT; Epistemonikos; Cochrane, CENTRAL, Campbell systematic reviews, Web of Science, SCI, SSCI, AHCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, and ESCI (in October 2022). Searches were updated in July 2024. Forward and backward citation searching was also undertaken in 2024 using CiteSearch, Scopus and Google Scholar. Selection Criteria:We included systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and primary qualitative studies in the map that focused on the effectiveness and/or experience of any health or social care interventions for adults aged 80 years or more. All studies were independently screened for eligibility by two people at both title/abstract and full text stages. Data Collection and Analysis:Interventions were categorised in line with the WHO definition of five domains that facilitate healthy ageing: building and maintaining intrinsic capacity, health services models and approaches, enabling environments and technologies, building and maintaining relationships and learning, growing and making decisions. Interventions could cut across multiple domains. The data extraction tool was developed on EPPI reviewer and was modified and tested through piloting and revising by the core team. The tool was informed by the research question and the structure of the map. As well as extracting data on population characteristics, intervention domain and sub-categories, we extracted additional data to enable filters, such as specific health conditions, and equity characteristics. Standardised tools were used to assess study quality for all studies: AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews; Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (version 1) for RCTs; and the Wallace criteria for primary qualitative studies. Data extraction and quality appraisal were extracted by one person and checked by a second. Main Results:We included 172 studies: 36 systematic reviews, 120 RCTs and 16 primary qualitative studies. Most of the systematic reviews were assessed as low or very low quality with only five assessed as moderate to high quality. Similarly, most of the RCTs were assessed to be at medium to high risk of bias, with only 27 RCTs assessed with an overall low risk of bias. Ten of the qualitative studies were assessed as high quality. Over a third of the studies (n = 67) in the map have been published since 2020. The majority of the evidence, over 90% (n = 157/172), was focused within the domain of building and maintaining intrinsic capacity, and within this domain, on either surgical and medical procedures (n = 75) or medicines and medical technologies (n = 54) in predominantly the cardiovascular, neuromuscular and digestive areas. Rehabilitation and behavioral interventions were also represented. Only a small number of studies focused on health conditions linked to ageing: frailty a focus of research in 14 studies, and falls in six studies. Only two studies addressed mental health therapies, and there were no studies focused on skin conditions, genitourinary health and or voice/speech conditions. The second most frequently represented domain was health service models and/or approaches (n = 38), predominantly relating to home visits (n = 15, all RCTs) and comprehensive geriatric assessment and integrated care (n = 5, all RCTs). The three intervention domains of enabling environments and technologies, building and maintaining relationships and learning, growing and making decisions were poorly represented in the evidence. The majority of studies measured physiological outcomes of health, such as measures of functional health, chronic health markers or symptoms, and adverse events; few studies assessed measures of well-being or psychosocial health. Sixteen studies reported on experiences of interventions, mostly from the experience of the older adult (n = 9) and were in relation to heart surgery and procedures, colon surgery, resuscitation, medicines review and preventative screening. Only 7% of outcomes in the map were in the psychological health and wellbeing category. Social health (including connectedness and participation) was not featured as an outcome in any studies. Studies were primarily conducted in Europe and Asia: these two regions representing over 75% of the evidence. There were several gaps evident in the map, including but not limited to, end-of-life care (including advance care planning) and healthcare delivery such as hospital-at-home and telehealth. Several potential research areas where synthesis might be valuable were also identified such as medicines optimisation, home visits, and specific health conditions such as osteoporosis treatments. Authors’ Conclusions:As the worldwide population continues to age, it is increasingly important that we have evidence of appropriate effective interventions for those who have reached their 80s, 90s and beyond, a group often left out of trials. This evidence and gap map shows that currently there is a clear bias towards interventions orientated around a biomedical view of health focused on intrinsic capacity, and relatively little on the wider functional and psychosocial aspect of health, or on enabling environments, such as adaptations to health and care services, or models of care. There is also a clear need for more research to understand the experiences and preferences of interventions from adults aged 80 years or more.
This protocol describes a Campbell evidence and gap map designed to visually map existing evidence on the application of genetic and genomic testing in primary care. Beyond outlining the rationale and motivation, this protocol details the methodological steps and rigorous criteria that will guide its development. These include: 1) conducting a systematic search to identify published literature on the use of genetic and genomic testing in primary care; 2) summarising and visually mapping the available evidence; and 3) identifying gaps in the current evidence base to inform future research priorities and policy directions. The resulting map is expected to provide a rigorous yet accessible tool for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers seeking to assess the current evidence landscape and identify opportunities to integrate genetics and genomics into routine healthcare delivery.
