ORCID Profile
0000-0003-2023-5627
Current Organisation
Fatima College of Health Sciences - Al Ain Campus
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 23-06-2023
DOI: 10.1111/JPM.12946
Abstract: Risk assessment and risk management are considered to be important practices carried out by mental health nurses. Risk assessment can help keep mental health service users' safe, but some nurses see it as a ‘tick the box’ exercise. Some studies have looked at nurses' attitudes to risk assessment but no one has systematically described all the studies. Mental health nurses' attitudes towards risk assessment are erse with regard to its legitimacy, conduct and value. This study provides an organised framework to help understand the areas in which these different attitudes occur. Since attitudes can influence clinical practice, nurses need to reflect on how they view risk assessment. Further research is required to investigate whether particular attitudes are positive or negative and whether attitudes can be changed. Understanding nurses' attitudes towards risk assessment could inform education and practice improvements. To explore mental health nurses' attitudes towards risk assessment. An integrative systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42023398287). Multiple databases (PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO) were searched for primary studies of mental health nurses' attitudes towards risk assessment. Qualitative studies were subject to inductive coding and thematic analysis quantitative data were integrated with emerging themes. Eighteen articles were included. Qualitative studies commonly lacked rigorous analyses. Four themes emerged: underlying purpose and legitimacy of risk assessment (philosophical orientation) use of structured approaches (technical orientation) value of intuition (intuitive orientation) and service user involvement (relationships orientation). There were contradictory study findings in each thematic category indicating different attitudes among mental health nurses. Mental health nurses' attitudes towards risk assessment vary in four key domains. Survey studies suggest they are more approving of structured approaches to risk assessment than many qualitative studies suggest. There is a need to develop a valid measure of attitudes to risk assessment. This review could help health organisations to develop strategies to improve their risk assessment policies and practice. There is a need to develop structured training and education programmes.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 04-12-2021
DOI: 10.1177/10998004211055866
Abstract: The new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) carries a high risk of infection and has spread rapidly around the world. However, there are limited data about the clinical symptoms globally. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify the prevalence of the clinical symptoms of patient with COVID-19. A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. The following databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, medRxiv, and Google Scholar, from December 1st, 2019 to January 1st, 2021. Prevalence rates were pooled with meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was tested using I-squared (I 2 ) statistics. A total of 215 studies, involving 132,647 COVID-19 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of the four most common symptoms were fever 76.2% ( n = 214 95% CI 73.9–78.5) coughing 60.4% ( n = 215 95% CI 58.6–62.1) fatigue 33.6% ( n = 175 95% CI 31.2–36.1) and dyspnea 26.2% ( n = 195 95% CI 24.1–28.5). Other symptoms from highest to lowest in terms of prevalence include expectorant (22.2%), anorexia (21.6%), myalgias (17.5%), chills (15%), sore throat (14.1%), headache (11.7%), nausea or vomiting (8.7%), rhinorrhea (8.2%), and hemoptysis (3.3%). In subgroup analyses by continent, it was found that four symptoms have a slight prevalence variation—fever, coughing, fatigue, and diarrhea. This meta-analysis found the most prevalent symptoms of COVID-19 patients were fever, coughing, fatigue, and dyspnea. This knowledge might be beneficial for the effective treatment and control of the COVID-19 outbreak. Additional studies are required to distinguish between symptoms during and after, in patients with COVID-19.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 05-10-2023
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 2022
DOI: 10.1177/23779608221107278
Abstract: The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) is a self-administrated questionnaire most frequently used to assess insomnia in clinical and non-clinical populations. To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Arabic ISI among patients diagnosed with chronic diseases. A cross-sectional and descriptive correlational design was used. A total of 1,005 patients with chronic diseases completed the seven items of the Arabic ISI version. The scale was assessed in terms of acceptability, internal consistency, and validity. Construct validity was explored with the use of principal factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, to examine the dimensional structure of the ISI. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the Arabic ISI was 0.82, which shows good reliability. The total ISI score did not have floor or ceiling effects. There was evidence of discriminate validity. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) indicated two factors (four items loading on Factor I and three items loading on Factor II). The construct validity of PCA in terms of two factors was explored by confirmatory factor analysis to examine the dimensional structure of the ISI. The confirmatory factor analysis showed an absolute fit for the two-factor model. The results support the two-factor structure of ISI. The Arabic version of the ISI demonstrated good reliability and validity for assessing insomnia in patients diagnosed with chronic diseases.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 05-11-2023
DOI: 10.1111/JPM.12881
Abstract: Well conducted randomized controlled trials provide the highest level of evidence of effectiveness of healthcare interventions, including those delivered by mental health nurses. Trials have been conducted over the years but there has not been a comprehensive review since 2005, and never one including studies conducted outside the UK. The paper provides a comprehensive overview of results from randomized controlled trials of mental health nurse‐delivered interventions conducted in the UK, Ireland, US, Australia, New Zealand, or Canada and reported 2005 to 2020. It highlights that the trial evidence is limited and offers only partial evidence for interventions that are central to mental health nursing practice. Much mental health nursing practice is not supported by the highest level trial evidence. Mental health nurses need to carefully select evidence on which to base their practice both from the mental health nursing literature and beyond. Mental health nurses and other stakeholders should demand greater investment in trials to strengthen the evidence base. Nurses are the largest professional disciplinary group working in mental health services and have been involved in numerous trials of nursing‐specific and multidisciplinary interventions. Systematic appraisal of relevant research findings is rare. To review trials from the core Anglosphere (UK, US, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand) published from 2005 to 2020. A systematic review reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses. Comprehensive electronic database searches were conducted. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of mental health nurse‐delivered interventions conducted in relevant countries. The risk of bias was independently assessed. Synthesis involved integration of descriptive statistics of standardized metrics and study bias. Outcomes from 348 between‐group comparisons were extracted from K = 51 studies ( N = 11,266 participants), Standardized effect sizes for 68 (39 very small/small, 29 moderate/large) statistically significant outcomes from 30 studies were calculable. All moderate/large effect sizes were at risk of bias. Trial evidence of effective mental health nurse‐delivered interventions is limited. Many studies produced few or no measurable benefits none demonstrated improvements related to personal recovery. Mental health nurses should look beyond gold standard RCT evidence, and to evidence‐based interventions that have not been trialled with mental health nurse delivery.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Arab Emirates
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Mohammed Al Maqbali.