4.6 Review

Identifying forms of interventions towards cross border malaria in the Asia-Pacific region: a scoping review protocol

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056265

关键词

public health; tropical medicine; health policy

资金

  1. Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset dan Teknologi (Dirjen Dikti) Republik Indonesia [2716/UN1/DITLIT/DIT-LIT/PT/2021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This scoping review aims to identify successful interventions to control malaria transmission across national borders in the Asia-Pacific region. The review will focus on publications from the past 10 years and follow guidelines for data extraction and evaluation. The results will be disseminated through various channels.
Introduction An ambitious epidemiology strategy has been set by the WHO, targeting malaria elimination for at least 35 countries in 2030. Challenges in preventing malaria cross borders require greater attention to achieve the elimination target. This scoping review aims to identify successful forms of interventions to control malaria transmission across national borders in the Asia-Pacific region. Methods and analysis This scoping review will search four electronic databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost and ProQuest) limiting the time of publication to the last 10 years. Two independent reviewers will screen all titles and abstracts during the second stage. Study characteristics will be recorded; qualitative data will be extracted and evaluated, while quantitative data will be extracted and summarised. Overall, we will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Ethics and dissemination This scoping review has received ethical approval from the Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and policy briefs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据