RESUMO
The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review of parkrun literature for evidence of its reach, health impact and appeal whilst identifying gaps for future research. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Six databases were searched according to search terms set a priori. Empirical studies of any design were included if they provided data on participation in, or benefits of, parkrun and were in English. Two authors conducted the searches independently and screened results by title and abstract, followed by full text reviews. A total of 235 records were screened and 15 studies were eligible; 12 were conducted in the UK and three in Australia. Seven were qualitative interview studies, six were quantitative, and two used mixed methods. parkrun reaches groups traditionally underrepresented in other organised sports or physical activity such as women, the insufficiently active and those aged over 35 years. Participants showed sustained improvements in fitness, physical activity levels, and body mass index with a dose-response effect with participation frequency. Qualitative data shows parkrun's location in pleasant environments with opportunities for informal social interaction engages priority groups such as individuals with mental health issues, women and children. The small evidence base suggests parkrun has good reach, and can positively impact participants' health and wellbeing. The data, however, are currently UK-centric and gaps in research on non-participants, long term health impacts and operationally relevant factors should be addressed.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite studies reporting successful interventions to increase antibiotic prophylaxis compliance, surgical site infections remain a significant problem. The reasons for this lack of improvement are unknown. This review evaluates the internal and external validity of quality improvement studies of interventions to increase surgical antibiotic prophylaxis compliance. STUDY DESIGN: Three investigators independently performed systematic literature searches and selected eligible studies that evaluated interventions to improve perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis timing, type, and/or discontinuation. Studies published before the Surgical Infection Prevention project inception in 2002 were excluded. Each study was assessed based on modified criteria for evaluating quality improvement studies (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) and for facilitating implementation of evidence into practice (Reach-Efficacy-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance). RESULTS: Forty-six articles met inclusion criteria; 93% reported improvement in antibiotic prophylaxis compliance. Surgical site infections were evaluated in 50% of studies and 65% reported an improvement. Less than 5% of studies used randomization, allocation concealment, or blinding. Nine percent of studies described efforts to minimize bias in the design results and analysis and 13% described a sample size calculation. Approximately one-third of studies described participant adoption of the intervention (26%), factors affecting generalizability (33%), or implementation barriers (37%). Most studies (80%) used multiple interventions; no single intervention was associated with change in compliance. Studies with the lowest baseline compliance showed the greatest improvement, regardless of the intervention(s). CONCLUSIONS: The methodology and reporting of quality improvement studies on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is suboptimal, and factors that would improve generalizability of successful intervention implementation are infrequently reported. Clinicians should use caution in applying the results of these studies to their general practice.