Jo Moriarty

Bio: Jo Moriarty is an academic researcher from King's College London. The author has contributed to research in topics: Social work & Workforce. The author has an hindex of 21, co-authored 111 publications receiving 5589 citations. Previous affiliations of Jo Moriarty include National Institute for Social Work.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Abstract: Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Helping others or a rewarding career? Investigating student motivations to train as social workers in England

Abstract: • Summary: Understanding why people want to be social workers is important both for developing social work education and for the profession as a whole. This article presents evidence about the moti...

A roadmap to advance dementia research in prevention, diagnosis, intervention, and care by 2025

Abstract: Objective National and global dementia plans have focused on the research ambition to develop a cure or disease-modifying therapy by 2025, with the initial focus on investment in drug discovery approaches. We set out to develop complementary research ambitions in the areas of prevention, diagnosis, intervention, and care and strategies for achieving them. Methods Alzheimer's Society facilitated a taskforce of leading UK clinicians and researchers in dementia, UK funders of dementia research, people with dementia, and carer representatives to develop, using iterative consensus methodology, goals and recommendations to advance dementia research. Results The taskforce developed 5 goals and 30 recommendations. The goals focused on preventing future cases of dementia through risk reduction, maximising the benefit of a dementia diagnosis, improving quality of life, enabling the dementia workforce to improve practice, and optimising the quality and inclusivity of health and social care systems. Recommendations addressed gaps in knowledge and limitations in research methodology or infrastructure that would facilitate research in prioritised areas. A 10-point action plan provides strategies for delivering the proposed research agenda. Conclusions By creating complementary goals for research that mirror the need to find effective treatments, we provide a framework that enables a focus for new investment and initiatives. This will support a broader and more holistic approach to research on dementia, addressing prevention, surveillance of population changes in risk and expression of dementia, the diagnostic process, diagnosis itself, interventions, social support, and care for people with dementia and their families.

Inequalities in quality of life among older people from different ethnic groups

Abstract: British research on the quality of life in old age has neglected the increasing ethnic diversity of the older population, and although studies of health and income inequalities have highlighted the contribution played by racism, analyses of the factors influencing the quality of life have rarely considered its effects. This paper discusses inequalities in quality of life among older people from different ethnic groups using data from a cross-sectional survey of 203 White British, Asian, Black Caribbean, Black African and Chinese people aged 55 and more years living in England and Scotland. They were interviewed face-to-face in the language of their choice using a semi-structured schedule. Consistent with the existing literature, the study found differences in health, income and social support among the ethnic groups. The paper suggests, however, that future work should examine disparities in health and income within as well as between minority ethnic groups, and that a greater appreciation is required of the way in which such disparities may be accentuated by variations in health expectations, in the distribution of income within households, and in the willingness to discuss financial difficulties. The cumulative effects of health and material disadvantage and the experience of racism have implications both for future quality of life research and for government policies that aim to raise social inclusion and reduce inequalities.

What (a) Difference a Degree Makes: The Evaluation of the New Social Work Degree in England

Abstract: After many years of debate in the UK about the need for a degree-level qualification in social work, the arguments for a minimum degree-level qualification were accepted. The requirements for the degree in England were developed drawing on work from a number of sources, including a benchmark statement for undergraduate degrees in social work and focus groups with stakeholders. The new degree in England, launched in 2003, involves one extra year’s study; improvements in the qualifying standard for social work; and specific curriculum and entrance requirements. At the time of launching the degree, the government department responsible for funding (Department of Health) commissioned a three-year evaluation of the implementation of the new degree to establish whether the new qualifying level leads to improvements in the qualified workforce. The aim of the evaluation is to describe the experiences of those undertaking the degree, collect the views of the various stakeholders about the effectiveness of the degree and measure the impact of a degree-level qualification on those entering the workforce. This article, written by the team undertaking the evaluation of the England degree, explores the reasons for the methodological approach adopted and the issues that have arisen in setting up the research.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Abstract: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Abstract: Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.

Abstract: The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.