In the field of sport and exercise psychology, the systematic review is still considered by many, to be the gold standard literature review. However, reviews like these, which judge whether an intervention works or not, can leave many unanswered questions. When it comes to complex social interventions, failing to suggest reasons for an intervention’s efficacy, often means practitioners struggle to successfully implement research findings in the real world. This lack of detail has led many to question the utility of systematic reviews when examining behaviour change interventions in complex social environments. Realist reviews are increasing in popularity because they go beyond asking if an intervention works, to look for theories as to why a programme worked, who it worked for and in what context it worked. However, despite the growing popularity of realist reviews, there is still limited application of this approach across the sport and exercise sciences. This paper aims to increase awareness regarding the utility of realist research by offering an introduction to realist review and an explanation of the steps involved.

Aim: The aim of the study was to explore the stress and coping experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) in care home settings in Scotland during the COVID‐19 pandemic.Design: A cross‐sectional mixed methods study was conducted using an online survey and interviews.Methods: Mean scores were calculated for both stress and coping and t‐tests used to explore possible links to demographics. Qualitative data were analysed thematically using Braun and Clarke's method.Results: For 52 survey participants, the mean score for the PSS was M = 39.75 and CSE‐M = 150.6 indicating high stress and medium coping skills. From the t‐test, only absence of health issues was associated with higher levels of coping. Thirteen HCWs participated in one‐to‐one interviews. Qualitative data analysis generated four themes contributing to stress: 1. personal factors, 2. changed care environment, 3. amplified scrutiny and 4. psychological responses. Coping was represented as three main themes: 1. personal factors, 2. organizational culture and 3. safety and security. There is a critical need for a strategic approach to provide psychological support to care home staff both during and beyond the context of the pandemic.

Recognition of the measurement of women's experiences of their maternity care as a critical component of care quality evaluation has led to a proliferation of instruments to measure this concept. However, the suboptimal methodological and psychometric quality of these instruments, or the lack of reporting of same, hinders the credibility and efficient use of the arising results, which often serve as an indicator for the direction of limited resources within maternity services. To review systematically and critically appraise self-report survey instruments measuring women's experiences of their maternity care. A systematic review was conducted using comprehensive searches of the CINAHL, OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE citation databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and a stepped approach employed to facilitate evaluation of the methodological and psychometric quality of included instruments. 4905 records were obtained from database searches. Additional records were obtained via reference checking and by expert suggestion. Following stepped screening, 40 papers related to 20 instruments are included in this review. Findings indicate that evidence of the methodological and psychometric quality have not been reported for many included instruments. Published evidence of the methodological and psychometric quality of self-report survey instruments to evaluate women's experiences of their maternity care is lacking. The conduct and reporting of future development processes of such instruments can be improved. Systematic review PROSPERO registration: CRD42018105325.

RRH: Rural and Remote Health. Published article number: 6335 - What influences nurses’ decisions to work in rural and remote settings? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic has produced unprecedented challenges across all aspects of health and social care sectors globally. Nurses and healthcare workers in care homes have been particularly impacted due to rapid and dramatic changes to their job roles, workloads, and working environments, and residents’ multimorbidity. Developed by the World Health Organisation, Psychological First Aid (PFA) is a brief training course delivering social, emotional, supportive, and pragmatic support that can reduce the initial distress after disaster and foster future adaptive functioning. Objectives: This review aimed to synthesise findings from studies exploring the usefulness of PFA for the well-being of nursing and residential care home staff. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across 15 databases (Social Care Online, Kings Fund Library, Prospero, Dynamed, BMJ Best Practice, SIGN, NICE, Ovid, Proquest, Campbell Library, Clinical Trials, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Ebsco CINAHL, and Cochrane Library), identifying peer-reviewed articles published in English language from database inception to 20th June 2021. Results: Of the 1,159 articles screened, 1,146 were excluded at title and abstract; the remaining 13 articles were screened at full text, all of which were then excluded. Conclusion: This review highlights that empirical evidence of the impact of PFA on the well-being of nursing and residential care home staff is absent. PFA has likely been recommended to healthcare staff during the Covid-19 pandemic. The lack of evidence found here reinforces the urgent need to conduct studies which evaluates the outcomes of PFA particularly in the care home staff population.

Background: The use of survey instruments to measure women’s experiences of their maternity care is regarded internationally as an indicator of the quality of care received. To ensure the credibility of the data arising from these instruments, the methodological quality of development must be high. This paper reports the protocol for a systematic review of self-report instruments used to measure women’s experiences of their maternity care. Methods: Citation databases CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE will be searched from 2002 to 2018 using keywords including women, experience, maternity care, questionnaires, surveys, and self-report. Citations will be screened by two reviewers, in two rounds, for inclusion as per predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction forms will be populated with data, extracted from each study, to evaluate the methodological quality of each survey instrument and the criteria for good measurement properties using quality criteria. Data will also be extracted to categorise the items included in each survey instrument. A combination of a structured narrative synthesis and quantitate summaries in tabular format will allow for recommendations to be made on the use, adaptation and development of future survey instruments. Discussion: The value of survey instruments that evaluate women’s experiences of their maternity care, as a marker of quality care, has been recognised internationally with many countries employing the use of such instruments to inform policy and practice. The development of these instruments must be methodologically sound and the instrument itself fit for the purpose and context in which it is used. This protocol describes the methods that will be used to complete a systematic review that will serve as a guide for choosing the most appropriate existing instruments to use or adapt so that they are fit for purpose, in addition to informing the development of new instruments. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018105325