Midwife led randomised controlled trials in Australia and New Zealand: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Midwives are the largest workforce involved in caring for pregnant women and their babies, and are well placed to translate research into practice and ensure midwifery priorities are appropriately targeted in researched. Currently, the number and focus of randomised controlled trials led by midwives in Australia and New Zealand is unknown. The Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network was established in 2020 to build nursing and midwifery research capacity. To aid this, scoping reviews of the quality and quantity of nurse and midwife led trials were undertaken. AIM: To identify midwife led trials conducted between 2000 and 2021 in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: This review was informed by the JBI scoping review framework. Medline, Emcare, and Scopus were searched from 2000-August 2021. ANZCTR, NHMRC, MRFF, and HRC (NZ) registries were searched from inception to July 2021. FINDINGS: Of 26,467 randomised controlled trials registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, 50 midwife led trials, and 35 peer-reviewed publications were identified. Publications were of moderate to high quality with scores limited due to an inability to blind participants or clinicians. Blinding of assessors was included in 19 published trials. DISCUSSION: Additional support for midwives to design and conduct trials and publish findings is required. Further support is needed to translate registration of trial protocols into peer reviewed publications. CONCLUSION: These findings will inform the Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network plans to promote quality midwife led trials.

A scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Nurses comprise the largest portion of the healthcare workforce worldwide. However, nurse representation in the leadership of clinical research and research funding is largely unknown. The Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network was established to provide a coordinated network, focussed on building research capacity in nursing and midwifery. To support this work, this scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials was conducted to summarise research activity, as well as highlight future research directions, gaps and resources. Midwife-led trials will be reported elsewhere. AIM: To quantify number, type and quality of nurse-led randomised controlled trials registered between 2000-2021. DESIGN: A scoping review of RCTs. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Emcare and Scopus were searched from 2000 to August 2021. ANZCTR, NHMRC, MRFF and HRC (NZ) registries were searched from inception to July 2021. REVIEW METHODS: This review was informed by the JBI scoping review framework using the PRISMA-ScR. RESULTS: Our search yielded 188 nurse-led publications and 279 registered randomised controlled trials. Multiple trials had the same nurse leaders. There were more registrations than publications. Publications were predominantly of high methodological quality; however, there was a reliance on active controls and blinding was low. Trial registrations indicate that universities and hospital/healthcare organisations were the major sources of funding, while publications indicate that Governments and the National Health and Medical Research Council were the main funding bodies. CONCLUSION: A small number of high-quality, large-scale, nationally funded randomised controlled trials were identified, with a larger number of locally funded small trials. There was a disparity between the number of registered trials and those published. Additional infrastructure, funding and career frameworks are needed to enable nurses to design, conduct and publish clinical trials that inform the health system and improve health outcomes. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Research initiated and led by nurses has the potential to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities, and current nurse-led research is of high methodological quality; however, there were very few nurse-led RCTs, conducted by a small pool of nurse researchers. This gap highlights the need for support in the design, conduct and publishing of nurse-led RCTs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This is a scoping review; therefore, patient or public contribution is not applicable.

The Australian and New Zealand nephrology nursing workforce: clinical pressure and organisational culture.

There has been increasing prevalence in the community of chronic kidney disease and an increased demand for nephrology trained nursing staff.We explored how nephrology trained nurses are impacted by daily caseload pressure, organisational support and workplace education.A co-designed 57-item questionnaire developed by the research team and clinical nephrology nurses hosted on Qualtrics™ was distributed to nephrology nurses in Australia and New Zealand.The 370 respondents described a strong professional identity as a nephrology nurse. 70% described pressure to work overtime and only 2% were adequately staffed. 40% felt at times that their patients clinical care was 'unsafe' and one-third described the erosion of work-based educational opportunities. However, team collegiality was high, a strength of the nursing profession.The nephrology nursing workforce will face important challenges over the next decade and there must be an organisational response to prevent continued staff shortages.

Impact of treatment summaries for cancer survivors: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: As a treatment summary (TS) documents information for follow-up care, it is believed to be an important communication tool for the patient, their GP, and other health professionals. The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the impact of receiving a TS for cancer survivors when compared to receiving standard care and to identify knowledge gaps to inform future research. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken from August 2018 to October 2018. Studies were included if participants (cancer survivors) were over 18 years of age and had received a TS, and if outcomes for TS could be separated from other survivorship interventions. The McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. A narrative synthesis of the study outcomes was then conducted. RESULTS: Seven studies (one prospective cohort and six cross-sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria. The impact of TS was assessed using widely varied outcomes in these studies. Overall, receipt of a TS was related to greater patient understanding and perception of the quality of care provided. However, caution is required when interpreting these results due to methodological limitations. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that TS may have a positive impact on patient understandings about and perceptions of cancer care. However, more robust research including perspectives of cancer survivors is required. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: TS could play an important role for cancer survivors especially in terms of knowledge of cancer care.