Suicide prevention for international students: a scoping review protocol

Suicide Prevention in an International Context.

IntroductionYouth suicide is a significant public health priority, and is the second leading cause of death among young people between 15 and 29 years of age. An emerging intervention in...

The “Talk-to-Me” MOOC intervention for suicide prevention and mental health education among tertiary students: Protocol of a multi-site cross-over randomised controlled trial

IntroductionImproving oral health and reducing oral health inequalities is an important global health priority. ‘Upstream interventions’ are a vital part of the collective effort to reduce oral disease burdens, however...

IntroductionInternational students make significant contributions to their host institutions and countries. Yet research shows that not all international students have the financial means to fend for themselves and meet their...

This scoping review aims to map and characterize existing programs present in mainstream schools internationally that are targeted at improving children's awareness about neurodiversity. Neurodiversity is a term used to describe human neurocognitive heterogeneity. Increased understanding and awareness about neurodiversity among school students has the potential to improve general student health and well-being. However, there is currently no standardized approach to raising children's awareness about neurodiversity in schools, and the associated literature is diffuse. Literature will be included if it describes or evaluates programs designed to be delivered in mainstream schools aimed at increasing awareness of neurodiversity among students aged 5 to 18years, regardless of geographical location. Published, unpublished, and gray literature from 2013 to the present will be considered. An academic literature search will be conducted across 5 databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and ERIC (ProQuest). A gray literature search will also be performed across sources including ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global and Google Scholar, as well as targeted websites, expert opinion, and reference lists of relevant peer-reviewed literature. Articles will be selected based on eligibility criteria. Data extraction will be conducted independently by 2 extractors using a predetermined form documenting study methods, population, interventions, and outcomes. Analysis and presentation of results will be reported according to the review objectives. OSF https://osf.io/6b378.

To explore the perceptions of, and barriers to, grey literature searching among medical researchers and journal editors. A cross-sectional survey of authors of systematic reviews and the editors of the journals in which the reviews were published. Systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE, spanning a 4-week period in 2019. We excluded protocols. We asked whether the reviewers were performing a grey literature search. If they were, we asked about their approach to the grey literature search and relevant guidance. If they were not, we asked about their rationale for this. We elucidated understandings of grey literature from all reviewers. The survey to journal editors asked about their perceptions towards grey literature. A consecutive sample of 1,229 systematic reviews was included. A total of 155 authors responded, and a total of 46 journal editors responded. The majority (57%) of reviewers reported performing a grey literature search. However, there was no consensus on types of grey literature items or sources among the reviewers. The most frequent barrier to grey literature searches was concern about the quality/detail of the grey literature items. Editors expressed negative perceptions towards grey literature, rooted in suspicion of its quality. While many reviewers reported performing a grey literature search, there was a diverse understanding of the term grey literature. Concerns about the quality of grey literature exist among reviewers and editors alike. There is a marked discrepancy between the best-practice guidelines and the gatekeepers of journals.

This paper provides a summary of selected reports and papers (‘grey literature’) published by key HE sector organisations in England (and the UK), and ‘think tanks’ between September 2018 and January 2019. These include: Advance HE; the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Assistive Technology (APPGAT); Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (AGCAS); Department for Education (DfE); GuildHE; High Fliers; Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI); Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA); House of Commons Library; Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS); Jisc; Migration Advisory Committee (MAC); Office for Fair Access (OFFA); Office for Students (OfS); Papyrus UK (Prevention of Young Suicide); Policy Connect; The Sutton Trust; The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS); UK Advising and Tutoring (UKAT); Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA); UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA); UK Standing Committee for Quality Assessment (UKSCQA); Universities and Colleges Union (UCU); Universities UK (UUK); Universities UK International (UUKi); Warwick Economics and Development (WECD); The 1752 Group. The themes covered in the paper include: grade inflation; post-qualification applications; unconditional offers; access and participation plans; the multiple equality measure; outreach; targeted tuition fees; degree apprenticeships; the English Baccalaureate; the student voice; analysing qualitative data; student engagement; students’ unions; student engagement and experience surveys; part-time learners; commuter students; flexible learning; student wellbeing (suicide prevention, personal tutoring); equality and diversity; religion and belief; sexual misconduct; technology enhanced-learning (TEL); TEL accessibility; the intelligent campus; managing change; the graduate labour market; employability; first destinations of disabled students; enterprise education; graduate earnings; internships; practice-informed learning; graduate wellbeing; institutional accountability; internationalisation; student outward mobility; transnational education; and the HE workforce (academic staff).

Objective: This scoping review will identify what literature exists on HealthPathways and make suggestions for the direction of future HealthPathways research. Background: HealthPathways is a free to access, password protected online tool containing practical, easy to use, localised clinical and referral information that is primarily aimed at GPs. HealthPathways originated in Canterbury, New Zealand in 2008. Since this time the program has spread and is being used in 50 health systems across New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Streamliners, 2022a). Despite such large spread of the program there has been relatively little literature published on the utility, usefulness and cost-effectiveness of HealthPathways. This scoping review aims to identify and describe all current HealthPathways literature and make recommendations for the direction of future HealthPathways research. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology will be used to develop the scoping review. Databases included in the search include MEDLINE (PubMEd), Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Emerald and Cochrane. The inclusion criteria are studies and grey literature on HealthPathways that are published in English, with no time limit. Grey literature will be identified through searching relevant credible organisations and websites. All results will be entered into Covidence to be assessed by two reviewers against a set tool. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews will be used for reporting. Ethics approval is not required as only published information will be used. The research will be disseminated through publication in an open access peer reviewed journal. Conclusions: This protocol is published to make the process for the review transparent and replicable. The scoping review will highlight the extent of evidence that exists on HealthPathways and may provide direction for decision making and future research.

Distribution of foreign and international students in tertiary education, by country of destination (2013)

Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by field of education (2006)

Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by level and type of tertiary education (2008)

Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by country of origin (2011)

International student mobility and foreign students in tertiary education (2013)

IntroductionHealth advocacy (HA) is acknowledged as a core competence in medical education. However, varying and sometimes conflicting conceptualisations of HA exist, making it challenging to integrate the competence consistently. While this diversity highlights the need for a deeper understanding of HA conceptualisations, a comprehensive analysis across the continuum of medical education is absent in the literature. This protocol has been developed to clarify the conceptual dimensions of the HA competence in literature as applied to medical education.Methods and analysisThe review will be conducted in line with the JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology for scoping reviews. A comprehensive literature search was developed and already carried out in eight academic databases and Google Scholar, without restrictions on publication date, geography or language. Articles that describe the HA role among students and physicians who receive or provide medical education will be eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers will independently complete title and abstract screening prior to full-text review of selected articles and data extraction on the final set. A descriptive-analytical approach will be applied for summarising the data.Ethics and disseminationThis scoping review does not involve human participants, as all evidence is sourced from publicly available databases. Therefore, ethical approval is not required for this study. The findings from this scoping review will be disseminated through submission to a high-quality peer-reviewed journal and presented at academic conferences. By clarifying the conceptualisations of HA, this review aims to contribute to a shared narrative that will strengthen the foundation for integrating the HA role into medical education.Trial registration numberA preliminary version of this protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework on 9 December 2024, and can be accessed at the following link: https://osf.io/ed2br. We have also registered our scoping review protocol as a preprint at medRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.09.24318699.