The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for cohort studies.

Cohort studies are a robust analytical observational study design that explore the difference between two different cohorts on an outcome, differentiated by their exposure status. Despite being observational in nature, they are often included in systematic reviews of effectiveness, particularly when randomized controlled trials are limited or not feasible. Like all studies included in a systematic review, cohort studies must undergo a critical appraisal process to assess the extent to which a study has considered potential bias in its design, conduct, or analysis. Critical appraisal tools facilitate this evaluation. This paper introduces the revised critical appraisal tool for cohort studies, completed by the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group (EMG), who are currently revising the suite of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative study designs. The revised tool responds to updates in methodological guidance from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group and reporting guidance from PRISMA 2020, providing a robust framework for evaluating risk of bias in a cohort study. Transparent and rigorous assessment using this tool will assist reviewers in understanding the validity and relevance of the results and conclusions drawn from a systematic review that includes cohort studies. This may contribute to better evidence-based decision-making in health care. This paper discusses the key changes made to the tool, justifications for these changes, and provides practical guidance on how this tool should be interpreted and applied by systematic reviewers.

Contextual factors related to vector-control interventions for malaria: a scoping review and evidence and gap map protocol.

Objective: This scoping review will identify existing literature regarding contextual factors relevant to vector-control interventions to prevent malaria. We will use the findings of the scoping review to produce an interactive evidence and gap map. The map will assist in the priority setting, development, and conduct of targeted systematic reviews. These systematic reviews seek to assist the Vector Control and Insecticide Resistance Unit of the World Health Organization's Global Malaria Programme by informing recommendation development by their Guidelines Development Group. Introduction: Malaria contributes substantially to the global burden of disease, with an estimated 247 million cases and 619,000 deaths in 2021. Vector-control is key in reducing malaria transmission. Vector-control interventions directly target the mosquito, reducing the potential for parasite infections. These interventions commonly include insecticides used in indoor residual spraying or insecticide-treated nets and larval source management. Several new vector-control interventions are under evaluation to complement these. In addition to estimating the effects of interventions on health outcomes, it is critical to understand how populations at risk of malaria consider them in terms of their feasibility, acceptability, and values. Inclusion Criteria: Eligible studies will have assessed the contextual factors of feasibility or acceptability of the interventions of interest, or the valuation of the outcomes of interests. These assessments will be from the perspective of people who receive (residents) or deliver (workers or technicians) the vector-control intervention for the purpose of preventing malaria. Methods: We will conduct this scoping review in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and report in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will construct the evidence and gap map following guidance from the Campbell Collaboration.

First Nations Peoples' perceptions, knowledge and beliefs regarding stillbirth prevention and bereavement practices: A mixed methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: First Nations Peoples endure disproportionate rates of stillbirth compared with non-First Nations Peoples. Previous interventions have aimed at reducing stillbirth in First Nations Peoples and providing better bereavement care without necessarily understanding the perceptions, knowledge and beliefs that could influence the design of the intervention and implementation. AIM: The aim of this review was to understand the perceptions, knowledge and beliefs about stillbirth prevention and bereavement of First Nations Peoples from the US, Canada, Aotearoa/New Zealand, and Australia. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for a convergent integrated mixed method systematic review. This review was overseen by an advisory board of Aboriginal Elders, researchers, and clinicians. A search of eight databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, Dissertations and Theses and Indigenous Health InfoNet) and grey literature was conducted. All studies were screened, extracted, and appraised for quality by two reviewers and results were categorised, and narratively summarised. RESULTS: Ten studies were included within this review. Their findings were summarised into four categories: safeguarding baby, traditional practices of birthing and grieving, bereavement photography and post-mortem examination. The results indicate a diversity of perceptions, knowledge and beliefs primarily around smoking cessation and bereavement practices after stillbirth. However, there was a paucity of research available. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to understand the perceptions, knowledge and beliefs about stillbirth among First Nations Peoples. Without research within this area, interventions to prevent stillbirth and support bereaved parents and their communities after stillbirth may face barriers to implementation.

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for quasi-experimental studies.

Systematic reviews of effectiveness offer a rigorous synthesis of the best evidence available regarding the effects of interventions or treatments. Randomized controlled trials are considered the optimal study design for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions and are the ideal study design for inclusion in a systematic review of effectiveness. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies may be relied on to provide information on treatment or intervention effectiveness. However, such studies are subject to unique considerations regarding their internal validity and, consequently, the assessment of the risk of bias of these studies needs to consider these features of design and conduct. The JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group has recently commenced updating the suite of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative study designs to align with the latest advancements in risk of bias assessment. This paper presents the revised critical appraisal tool for risk of bias assessment of quasi-experimental studies; offers practical guidance for its use; provides examples for interpreting the results of risk of bias assessment; and discusses major changes from the previous version, along with the justifications for those changes.