Barriers and facilitators for recruiting and retaining male participants into longitudinal health research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Successfully recruiting male participants to complete a healthcare related study is important for healthcare study completion and to advance our clinical knowledgebase. To date, most research studies have examined the barriers and facilitators of female participants in longitudinal healthcare-related studies with limited information available about the needs of males in longitudinal research. This systematic review examines the unique barriers and facilitators to male recruitment across longitudinal healthcare-related research studies. METHODS: Following PRIMSA guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science databases were systematically searched using the terms recruitment and/or retention, facilitators and/or barriers and longitudinal studies from 1900 to 2023 which contained separate data on males aged 17-59 years. Health studies or interventions were defined longitudinal if they were greater than or equal to 12 weeks in duration with 3 separate data collection visits. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles published from 1976-2023 met the criteria. One-third of the studies had a predominantly male sample and four studies recruited only male participants. Males appear disinterested towards participation in health research, however this lack of enthusiasm can be overcome by clear, non-directive communication, and studies that support the participants interests. Facilitating factors are diverse and may require substantial time from research teams. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should focus on the specific impact of these factors across the spectrum of longitudinal health-related studies. Based on the findings of this systematic review, researchers from longitudinal health-related clinical trials are encouraged to consider male-specific recruitment strategies to ensure successful recruitment and retention in their studies. REGISTRATION: This systemic review is registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42021254696).

Workplace programmes for supporting breast-feeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To critically review the literature regarding workplace breast-feeding interventions and to assess their impact on breast-feeding indicators. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Electronic searches for workplace intervention studies to support breast-feeding, without restriction on language or study design, were performed in PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Business Source Complete, ProQuest-Sociology and ProQuest-Social Science to 13 April 2020. A meta-analysis of the pooled effect of the programmes on breast-feeding indicators was conducted. RESULTS: The search identified 10 215 articles; fourteen studies across eighteen publications met eligibility criteria. Programmes were delivered in the USA (n 10), Turkey (n 2), Thailand (n 1) or Taiwan (n 1). There were no randomised controlled trials. The pooled OR for exclusive breast-feeding at 3 or 6 months for participants v. non-participants of three non-randomised controlled studies was 3·21 (95 % CI 1·70, 6·06, I2 = 22 %). Despite high heterogeneity, other pooled outcomes were consistently in a positive direction with acceptable CI. Pooled mean duration of breast-feeding for five single-arm studies was 9·16 months (95 % CI 8·25, 10·07). Pooled proportion of breast-feeding at 6 months for six single-arm studies was 0·76 (95 % CI 0·66, 0·84) and breast-feeding at 12 months for three single-arm studies was 0·41 (95 % CI 0·22, 0·62). Most programmes were targeted at mothers; two were targeted at expectant fathers. CONCLUSIONS: Workplace programmes may be effective in promoting breast-feeding among employed mothers and partners of employed fathers. However, no randomised controlled trials were identified, and better-quality research on workplace interventions to improve breast-feeding is needed.

Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Searching for studies to include in a systematic review (SR) is a time- and labor-intensive process with searches of multiple databases recommended. To reduce the time spent translating search strings across databases, a tool called the Polyglot Search Translator (PST) was developed. The authors evaluated whether using the PST as a search translation aid reduces the time required to translate search strings without increasing errors. METHODS: In a randomized trial, twenty participants were randomly allocated ten database search strings and then randomly assigned to translate five with the assistance of the PST (PST-A method) and five without the assistance of the PST (manual method). We compared the time taken to translate search strings, the number of errors made, and how close the number of references retrieved by a translated search was to the number retrieved by a reference standard translation. RESULTS: Sixteen participants performed 174 translations using the PST-A method and 192 translations using the manual method. The mean time taken to translate a search string with the PST-A method was 31 minutes versus 45 minutes by the manual method (mean difference: 14 minutes). The mean number of errors made per translation by the PST-A method was 8.6 versus 14.6 by the manual method. Large variation in the number of references retrieved makes results for this outcome inconclusive, although the number of references retrieved by the PST-A method was closer to the reference standard translation than the manual method. CONCLUSION: When used to assist with translating search strings across databases, the PST can increase the speed of translation without increasing errors. Errors in search translations can still be a problem, and search specialists should be aware of this.