Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34389051›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2021

The distribution of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among nurses in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol.

Kagiso Kgakge, Mbuzeleni Hlongwa, Themba Ginindza

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kagiso KgakgeDiscipline, of Public Health, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 4001, South Africa. kagisoh@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8858-3906
Mbuzeleni HlongwaDiscipline, of Public Health, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 4001, South Africa.
Themba GinindzaDiscipline, of Public Health, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 4001, South Africa.
University of KwaZulu-Natal · ZASouth African Medical Research Council · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough measures have been put in place, musculoskeletal injuries are noticeable high among the nursing fraternity with low back pain (LBP) being the most prevalent. It is evident that healthcare professionals are in constant exposure to occupational hazards such as musculoskeletal injuries as they discharge their professional duties. Not only does LBP affect the health of the nurses, it also creates a huge burden on the health systems with consequent poor performance at the workplace as well as economic burden. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to map evidence on the prevalence, incidence, mortality, risk factors, and economic costs of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This is a scoping review because we want to map the evidence of MSD among nurses in SSA and to identify the scope of body literature in which the findings will be used for planning the intervention study thereafter. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Scoping review will be done to explore, describe, and map literature on the prevalence, incidence, mortality, risk factors, and economic costs related to MSD among nurses in SSA. The search will be done using databases such as PubMed, EBSCOHOST, Scopus, Web of Science, Science direct, Sabinet, WorldCat Local (iCatalogue), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, nursing academic editions, and World Health Organization (WHO) library databases. The search will look for primary studies within peer-reviewed articles as well as gray literature. In addition, the researcher will search for articles using keywords from the included studies as well as the list of references for related studies. The screening will be guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework which has five steps to be followed: (I) identifying the research question, (II) identifying relevant studies, (III) study selection, (IV) charting the data, and (V) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results, and the scoping review will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. A thematic content analysis will be used to give the narrative account of the review; using NVivo version 11 software, two independent reviewers will follow the three stages outlined by the thematic synthesis theory: (a) coding the findings of the included studies line-by-line, (b) organizing these free codes into related areas to construct descriptive themes, and (c) developing analytical themes. The outcome of coding will be verified and discussed with a third reviewer. The process of cross-checking the outcomes of coding of each included article will be discussed thoroughly. DISCUSSION: At the end, this study anticipates to uncover the relevant literature in SSA in regard to the prevalence, incidence, mortality, risk factors, and economic costs related to MSD among nurses; furthermore, findings from this study will help in identifying research gaps; informing policy, priority in funding, and planning; and guiding future research.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal DiseasesNursesAfrica South of the SaharaHumansIncidenceMass ScreeningScoping Reviews as TopicEconomic costsHospitalsIncidenceLow back acheMortalityMusculoskeletal disordersNursesPrevalenceRisk factorsSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID34389051
PMCPMC8364119
OpenAlexW3128968376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.