[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1002/cl2.70008.].

ABSTRACTThis is a protocol for a Campbell Systematic Review. The review aims to synthesise the current empirical evidence on the places factors associated with hate crime victimisation. The review will also consider whether the risk and protective factors for hate crime vary according to moderating factors, such as the features of the crime, the victim, the place and cultural contextual factors.

ABSTRACTThis is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The proposed overview of reviews aims to: (1) aggregate and systematize findings from multiple overviews of reviews, and offer a broader understanding of the factors, both facilitators and barriers related to PrEP awareness, uptake, and adherence among MSM; and (2) understand if there are gaps in the literature on potential facilitators and barriers that need greater analysis. Hence, the purpose of this overview of reviews aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 3 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly with SDG 3.3, that is, end the epidemics of AIDS and other communicable diseases.

ABSTRACTBackgroundAdults experiencing homelessness in high‐income countries are more likely to have mental ill‐health and engage in problematic substance use. They are also more likely to experience challenges when accessing services. Psychosocial interventions are increasingly used with this group. Most of the evidence around these interventions is not specific to their use with adults experiencing homelessness.ObjectivesTo summarise the best available evidence of the views and experiences of adults experiencing homelessness in high‐income countries about psychosocial interventions.Search MethodsThis review is based on evidence identified in an Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) on interventions for people experiencing homelessness. The EGM searches were conducted in September 2021. Additionally, we undertook a call for evidence and hand searches of key journals.Selection CriteriaWe included qualitative data from studies of psychosocial interventions. Participants were adults aged 18+ experiencing homelessness in high‐income countries. Only studies that reported the views, opinions, perceptions, and experiences of participants were included.Data Collection and AnalysisOf the 468 studies originally screened, 17 were eligible for full‐text review, which was undertaken independently by two reviewers. Ten were excluded at this stage, and seven were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. Analysis was undertaken using thematic synthesis in three stages: (1) findings data were extracted from studies. Two reviewers independently extracted findings from included studies. These were compared and agreed on which findings to include for analysis; (2) two reviewers gave each line of extracted data a descriptive code (a short descriptive summary). These were compared and a set of codes for inclusion in the next stage of analysis was agreed; (3) the reviewers iteratively examined the descriptive themes, inferring from these themes the experiences of participants and their perceptions of how the intervention worked for them. These analytical themes were discussed with a panel of people with experience of homelessness.Main ResultsSeven studies were included in this review, covering several intervention types. A total of 84 adults experiencing homelessness were included in these studies. Three studies were conducted in Canada, three in the United States, and one in Scotland. All were published after 2009. The studies used various qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. None of the included studies were assessed as high quality. The most significant area of concern across the included studies concerned relationships between researchers and research participants, where five included studies were assessed as low quality. Areas of higher quality were clarity of research questions and methods. Overall, 368 lines of findings were extracted and coded under 118 descriptive codes. Of these, 55 related to direct quotes of participants' views and experiences. The remainder were the study authors' interpretations of the research participants' experiences. The 118 descriptive codes were grouped into 14 descriptive themes. The themes are descriptions of patterns in the data (the findings extracted from the included studies). These 14 descriptive themes (and the 118 descriptive codes underpinning them) summarise data from the primary studies. The final analysis stage was interpretation of the descriptive themes and development of analytical themes to answer the review questions. The reviewers were able to answer two of the four review questions: the experiences of participants when using psychosocial interventions, and whether they felt the interventions worked for them. The question concerning underlying theories of how the interventions are intended to work was addressed through a separate analysis. The question of differences between interventions could not be answered because of the small number of included studies. The final analysis stage identified three analytical themes. These are: (1) the individual plays a pivotal role in their recovery and change journey; (2) accessibility is a key component of intervention success; and (3) relationships are an important intervention ingredient.Author's ConclusionsThe reviewers draw two broad conclusions from this analysis: (1) it is important to place adults experiencing homelessness at the centre of the design of psychosocial interventions; and (2) it is important to treat adults experiencing homelessness as individuals.

ABSTRACTThis is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The primary objective of this systematic review is to evaluate and synthesise both published and unpublished literature on the effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health blended learning approaches for capacity strengthening of healthcare practitioners in LMICs. Within this context, sexual and reproductive health interventions refer to any of the following four key interventions or services aimed at improving maternal and newborn health (Starrs et al. 2018): (a) antenatal, childbirth and postnatal care, including emergency obstetric and newborn care, (b) safe abortion services and treatment of the complications of unsafe abortion, (c) prevention and treatment of malaria, tuberculosis, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections in pregnant women and d) family planning. In this systematic review, blended learning is defined as any teaching and learning method that combines face‐to‐face learning with e‐learning or online learning. The component of face‐to‐face and online learning may include any of the components identified by Alammary (2019): (1) face‐to‐face instructor‐led, where students attend a class and an instructor presents teaching and learning materials, with little engagement from students; (2) face‐to‐face collaboration, where students work together in class, for example, in discussion groups; (3) online instructor‐led, where instruction is delivered online and facilitated by an instructor who sets the pace (e.g., virtual classrooms); (4) online collaboration, where students work together online with their peers, for example, online learning communities; and (5) online self‐paced, where students study at their own pace and time, and from their chosen location, for example, watching videos, online reading. Specifically, this systematic review will answer the following research questions: (1) What sexual and reproductive health blended learning approaches have been used in LMICs? (2) Does participating in sexual and reproductive health blended learning interventions alone (i.e., compared with no intervention) improve the effective provision of care among healthcare workers in LMICs? (3) Does participating in sexual and reproductive health blended learning interventions compared with non‐blended learning approaches (such as conventional face‐to‐face learning or pure e‐learning) facilitate the effective provision of care among healthcare workers in LMICs (measured by, e.g., self‐reports of effective maternal and neonatal care)? (4) What is the cost‐effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health blended learning compared with non‐blended learning approaches (i.e., face‐to‐face learning or e‐learning)? (5) What factors affect the effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health blended learning interventions (e.g., characteristics of participants, type of intervention, course content, setting and mode of delivery)? (6) Do sexual and reproductive health blended learning interventions targeted at healthcare practitioners working in LMICs lead to improvement in patient outcomes (e.g., reduced maternal and neonatal mortality, patient satisfaction reports)?

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. (1) Examine whether secondary and tertiary interventions delivered outside of the criminal justice system are effective at countering the cognitive and behavioural radicalisation of children and adolescents by synthesising evidence relating to relevant primary and secondary outcomes of effectiveness. (2) Examine whether secondary and tertiary interventions delivered outside of the criminal justice system are being implemented as intended by synthesising evidence that captures how interventions are implemented, considering whether they are implemented as expected or in ways that align with their underlying logic. (3) Identify those implementation factors (facilitators and barriers) and moderators that impact how interventions working with children and adolescents are delivered.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: Our aim is to collect, assess, and synthesise all the available empirical evidence on what works to support evidence‐informed decision‐making by policymakers. In doing so, we will aim to answer the following research questions: What are the impacts of interventions to support evidence‐informed decision‐making by policymakers? What are the factors which have influenced the impact of these interventions, and their design and implementation in low‐ and middle‐income countries? In answering these questions, our goal is to estimate the overall impact and relative effectiveness of different interventions, identify factors or configurations of factors that support or hinder their effectiveness in low‐ and middle‐income countries and to identify gaps and areas for future primary research.

This is the protocol for a Campbell Collaboration systematic review. Our objective is to conduct an umbrella review to synthesize published and unpublished systematic reviews focused on risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse and effectiveness of interventions against child sexual abuse perpetration and victimization. Specific research questions are: (i) what are the risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse victimization, and what are their relative strength and/or magnitude for predicting child sexual abuse victimization? (ii) what are the risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse perpetration, and what are their relative strength and/or magnitude for predicting child sexual abuse perpetration? (iii) are interventions aimed at reducing and/or preventing child sexual abuse effective? (iv) what are the moderators that increase or decrease effectiveness of the interventions? Efforts to decrease child sexual abuse need to be based on research, but more accessible evidence regarding the breadth of risk and protective factors and effectiveness of interventions to reduce child sexual abuse needs to be provided to policymakers. This will be the first umbrella review that comprehensively synthesizes findings of the previous systematic reviews that focus on risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse and interventions to prevent or reduce child sexual abuse. The results will be able to inform enhanced prevention policy and programs, and regulatory measures for specific contexts of child sexual abuse.

IntroductionThe authors formed a small working group to modernize the Methodological Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). We reviewed comments and feedback from editors, peer reviewers of Campbell submissions, and authors; for example, that the Campbell MECCIR was long and some of the items in the reporting and conduct checklists were difficult to cross‐reference. We also wanted to make the checklist more relevant for reviews of associations or risk factors and other quantitative non‐intervention review types, which we welcome in Campbell. Thus, our aim was to develop a shorter, more holistic guidance and checklist of Campbell Standards, encompassing both conduct and reporting of these standards within the same checklist.MethodsOur updated Campbell Standards will be a living document. To develop this first iteration, we invited Campbell members to join a virtual working group; we sought experience in conducting Campbell systematic reviews and in conducting methods editor reviews for Campbell. We aligned the items from the MECCIR for conduct and reporting, then compared the principles of conduct that apply across review types to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA)‐literature search extension (S) and PRISMA‐2020 reporting standards. We discussed each section with the aim of developing a parsimonious checklist with explanatory guidance while avoiding losing important concepts that are relevant to all types of reviews. We held nine meetings to discuss each section in detail between September 2022 and March 2023. We circulated this initial checklist and guidance to all Campbell editors, methods editors, information specialists and co‐chairs to seek their feedback. All feedback was discussed by the working group and incorporated to the Standards or, if not incorporated, a formal response was returned about the rationale for why the feedback was not incorporated.Campbell PolicyThe guidance includes seven main sections with 35 items multifaceted but distinct concepts that authors must adhere to when conducting Campbell reviews. Authors and reviewers must be mindful that multiple factors need to be assessed for each item. According to the Campbell Standards, the reporting of Campbell reviews must adhere to appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines(s) such as PRISMA‐2020.How to UseThe editorial board recommends authors use the checklist during their work in formulating their protocol, carrying out their review, and reporting it. Authors will be asked to submit a completed checklist with their submission. We plan to develop an online tool to facilitate use of the form by author teams and those reviewing submissions.Providing FeedbackWe invite the scientific community to provide their comments using this anonymous google form.Plan for UpdatingWe will update the Campbell Standards periodically in light of new evidence.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. In order to understand the variables affecting breastfeeding in working women, this systematic review will aim to determine the factors associated with early breastfeeding cessation upon women's return to work within a Social‐Ecological framework. This will be achieved by answering the following questions: Which individual factors are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?; Which interpersonal factors are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?; Which community factors are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?; Which institutional factors are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?; Which public policies are associated with early discontinuation of breastfeeding upon returning to work?