The Awareness of Women on Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review Protocol

The Awareness of Women on Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review Protocol | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Protocol The Awareness of Women on Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review Protocol Ebenezer Wiafe, Kofi Boamah Mensah, Adwoa Bemah Boamah Mensah, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-40585/v3 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 03 Nov, 2020 Read the published version in Systematic Reviews → Version 3 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Show more versions Abstract Background: Prostate cancer accounts for about 10% of cancers affecting and claiming the lives of men. Studies have reported that women are better than men in recognition of the early manifestations of various cancers. Besides, women have been recognized to show a profound interest in their partners' health and hence, make observations that men don't know. Several studies have reported on the knowledge gaps of prostate cancer among patients and the general population. It is vital to comprehensively review the available evidence and identify research gaps in our current understanding of knowledge of women on prostate cancer. Methods: A search of bibliographic databases, MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, and EMBASE (Ovid) will be undertaken from January 1999 to December 2019. The search will be limited to studies published in the English language. Duplication of studies will be removed using the EndNote citation manager. After deduplication, citations will be screened independently by two authors according to prespecified criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment of the selected studies will be done independently by two authors. Meta-analytic methods will be used where appropriate. The convergent segregated method of synthesis will be adopted in this review. Ethics and dissemination: Primary data collection will not be involved in this study, hence formal ethical clearance will not be needed. The results of the study will be presented through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentation. Patient and public involvement: Patients or the public will not be engaged in the conduct of this study. Trial registration number: Open Science Framework (OSF) registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EYHF2 Food Science & Technology EBSCOhost PsycINFO EMBASE Background Prostate cancer is a common neoplasm in men, and its occurrence keeps rising in many countries [1]. It is number three on the global list of the most common cancers that claim the lives of men [2,3]. The incidence rate, mortality rate, and the rate of diagnosis of prostate cancer have been documented to be 0.5 million per year, a man per 2 minutes, and almost 2000 men per day, respectively [2,4]. In addition to the global burden of the disease, prostate cancer accounts for about 10% of cancers affecting men [2]. Thus, prostate cancer is of significant public health interest. A study conducted by Quinn and Babb indicated a reduction in prostate cancer mortality from early detection [2]. Other studies have also indicated the importance of the early detection of the disease to reduce mortality [5,6]. In North America, the establishment of Rapid Access Prostate Clinic (RAPC) and more extensive advocacy of prostate cancer to the general population, with global campaigns such as Movember (ie.movember.com), has decreased the mortality of the disease [7]. Hence, measures to improve the early detection of the disease among the general population can have a significant impact on the disease. There are scientific shreds of evidence to support the claim that women can be trusted with family health [5,8]. Blanchard et al. reported that women are better than men in the following aspects of cancers; the recognition of the early manifestations of various cancers, the timely perception of the barriers to seeking help, and the timely report of the identified barriers [5]. Women have reported on breast cancer and cervical cancer, where education has equipped them to be in control of their health [9]. Besides, women have also been recognized as individuals who show a profound interest in their partners’ health. Hence, they can make observations that men themselves do not observe about their health [9]. Much evidence exists on the critical role of women in decision-making in the treatment of their spouse or partner diagnosed with prostate cancer [10,11]. Similar studies have also explored their potential role in screening the disease. Scant data exist on the knowledge of women on prostate cancer. Therefore, it is essential to map up evidence to determine women’s knowledge of prostate cancer as a public health means of reducing the disease. A survey conducted by Fitzpatrick et al. concluded that the public and patients are aware of prostate cancer but with certain knowledge gaps. It concluded that measures have to be taken to address the identified knowledge gaps [4]. It is essential to gather information on the current knowledge of prostate cancer in the general population. However, this review focuses on women, as public health care largely depends on women’s contributions, particularly in health education [12]. The study aims to map up existing evidence about the awareness of women on prostate cancer. Review question Do women have adequate knowledge about prostate cancer? Objectives of the study To assess the knowledge-base of women on the signs and symptoms of prostate cancer. To determine the awareness of women on the risk factors and causes of prostate cancer. To ascertain the knowledge of women on the availability of screening guides for the early detection of prostate cancer. Methods and Analysis The mixed-methods approach will be employed in this systematic review. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) reviewer’s manual, with a focus on mixed methods systematic reviews, will be utilized [13]. The mixed-methods approach to research, which is among the first three widely used research approaches, has gained popularity due to its ability to analyze data obtained from quantitative, qualitative, and primary mixed-methods research papers [14,15]. The mixed-methods approach is also appropriate to permit data triangulation to enhance the study validity [16]. In addition to this benefit, the use of mixed-methods has proven to be useful in comparing and contrasting quantitative and qualitative research findings. This results in either the quantitative findings supporting the qualitative findings or vice versa [16]. To ensure that findings that have the highest recognizable strength are obtained at the end of the systematic review, the role of the mixed-methods approach in this review is important [13]. This critical appraisal and synthesis is registered with Open Science Framework and can be accessed through https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EYHF2 and will commence in July 2020. Eligibility criteria Population of interest The population of interest is women who are 18 years of age or above. The review will include research papers that involve women who are 18 years of age or above as part of the study population. In addition to the description of the interest population (women who are 18 years and above), the features of women in included studies will not be restricted to cultural/sub-cultural backgrounds and geographical locations. Interest phenomena The phenomena of interest for this review is the awareness of women on prostate cancer. Therefore, this review will involve studies that evaluated the knowledge of women aged 18 years and above on prostate cancer. Context of interest The context of interest will include but not limited to all studies conducted in women of all cultural/sub-cultural backgrounds and geographical locations. Outcome The review will consider research papers that have the knowledge of women on the signs and symptoms, causes and risk factors, and screening recommendations of prostate cancer as the outcome measures. The signs and symptoms of prostate cancer that would be of interest in included studies would not be limited to difficulty in passing urine, dysuria, and the need to frequently pass urine. Also, women’s ability to determine the asymptomatic nature of the disease would be taken into account. Recruited studies would be expected to report on increased age, family history of the disease, African decency, male gender, exposure to radiation, and cigarette smoking as part of the non-exhaustive list of risk factors and causes of prostate cancer. Types of studies to be included This critical appraisal and synthesis would involve primary research papers that are qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods in nature. Focused group discussions (FGD), observation of study subjects (follow-up studies), in-depth interviews, and other forms of interviews will constitute the qualitative studies to be included in this systematic review without ignoring other studies that meet the criteria of qualitative studies. Quantitative studies will constitute descriptive studies, descriptive cross-sectional studies, and other studies that meet the requirements of quantitative studies. Studies that combined qualitative and quantitative designs will constitute the mixed-methods arm of this study on a condition that the qualitative and quantitative data can be explicitly extracted. This review will also include studies that have been published in the English language. To be able to map up current evidence, studies dating January 1999 - December 2019 will be included in this review. Exclusion criteria The following will be grounds for excluding papers for this review: Studies that were published before January 1999 or after December 2019. Studies that were not published in the English language. Studies that include women below the age of 18 years. Studies in which the age of included women cannot be established. Studies that did not indicate the number/percentage of included women. Studies that exclusively included male without any female gender (18 years and above). Studies conducted amongst women who were previously given education on prostate cancer. Studies that exclusively involved lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual/transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) participants. Studies that exclusively included healthcare professionals. Studies that exclusively involved healthcare and college/university students. Studies that do not include the outcome of interest. Book chapters. Reviews and overviews. Abstracts and conference papers. Dissertations and thesis. Commentaries and letters to editors. Studies published without abstracts. Information sources and search strategy A comprehensive search strategy will be developed by the primary author (EW) to identify various publications related to the study. The following databases will be searched; MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, and EMBASE (Ovid). The searched period will be from January 1999 to December 2019. A triple stage approach to searching published literature will be adopted in developing the preliminary search strategy [13]. Firstly, MEDLINE (EBSCOhost) will be searched for articles relevant to this review. Subject terms (identified from the title and abstract of the relevant papers) and free text terms (identified from the description of the relevant papers) will be employed in the development of the preliminary search strategy. The details of the search terms can be found as a supplementary document at; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EYHF2. The preliminary search strategy, using MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), has been affixed (Appendix 1). Secondly, the preliminary search strategy will be adopted in the search for relevant studies from CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, and EMBASE (Ovid), respectively. The citation list of the selected studies for the review will be scanned for additional studies. Search findings, which will be in the English language, will be compiled independently by two authors (EW and KBM). The total search findings of EW and KBM will be compiled and duplicate papers, removed with the help of the EndNote X8 software, to generate a final list of search findings for the review. Screening and selection of studies The final list of search findings will be independently screened by two reviewers (EW and KBM). The titles and abstracts of the selected studies will initially be screened for inclusion and exclusion in the review. Studies that are selected after the screening of the titles and abstract will undergo full-text reading by the same independent reviewers. The selection for data extraction will be done by a careful comparison of papers that successfully passed the screening stage to the established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Search findings that present disagreements between the independent reviewers (EW and KBM), during the screening and selection stages, will be resolved through discussions with the third reviewer (ABBM). Kappa co-efficient of 0.6 or more would be used to establish an agreement between the two independent reviewers (EW and KBM) during the screening and selection phase [17]. Reference management will be done by EW. Data extraction The JBI quantitative and qualitative data extraction tools, appendix 2 [18-20] will be adopted to extract data from search findings. The convergent segregated approach to data synthesis and data integration recommends using separate data extraction tools for this review [13]. Data that will be extracted from the included studies will not be restricted to the study title, principal investigator (lead author), year of publication, the country in which the study was conducted, the study sample size, the study design, ethnic background of study participants, key discoveries of the study, the limitations of the study and conclusions made by authors. Two reviewers (EW and KBM) will independently extract both quantitative and qualitative data. The outcome of the individual data extracted by these two authors will be merged to generate a final pool of data for the review. To account for missing data, EW will contact the authors of the primary studies through electronic mail. In an instance where authors of primary studies do not respond to electronic mails sent, the reviewers would consider it as ‘‘missing data’’ without making any assumptions. Disagreements that may arise when building the final pool of data will be resolved through discussions with ABBM. Assessment of methodological quality The quality assessment of the review will adopt and adapt a quality appraisal tool employed in a review conducted by Mensah et al, appendix 3 [21]. The tool has 5 general quality assessment criteria and 3 specific quality assessment criteria to be scored over 100%. The design of the tool will permit the comparison of scores obtained by individual literature to the scoring benchmark of weak (0 – 33.9%), moderate (34% – 66.9%), and strong (67% – 100%) [21]. This quality appraisal stage will be done independently by two authors (EW and KBM). It is recommended that a minimum of two reviewers be involved in the appraisal of the quality of studies to be considered for data extraction and subsequent synthesis [20,22]. Hence, the need for EW and KBM to independently conduct a quality assessment of search findings that passed the screening and selection stage of the review. The results obtained from the quality assessment stage will be employed in determining the final inclusion or exclusion of a research paper in the review. Studies with weak methodological quality scores will be excluded. Disagreements arising from the results of EW and KBM will be addressed through discussions with ABBM. Data synthesis and integration The convergent segregated approach will be employed in data synthesis and integration [13]. Quantitative data and qualitative data will be synthesized separately. The evidence that will be generated from the separate synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated [13]. Quantitative and Qualitative data synthesis The synthesis of quantitative data will be done through a narrative synthesis [13]. This is because the review has no interventional arm and is aimed at investigating the awareness of women about prostate cancer. Hence, a narrative synthesis would be performed on findings that would be extracted from included studies. It is imperative to note that random or fixed effects would not be employed in data synthesis. Also, subgroup or meta-regression analysis would not be performed. The findings from the pool of qualitative data will undergo meta-synthesis through findings assembly and categorization based on shared meanings [23]. These categorized findings will undergo further analysis in an attempt to generate a wealth of evidence that will be easy to comprehend and will also be a true reflection of the awareness of women on prostate cancer concerning the underpinned review objectives [13]. In the event of the inability to perform a textual pooling, a narrative will be generated [23]. The synthesis by narrative will be performed according to the following approach; the findings obtained from the selected studies will undergo preliminary synthesis, the compiled data will be explored for linkages and the synthesizing process will be assessed for robustness [24]. Integration of quantitative evidence and qualitative evidence The evidence from the individual analysis of quantitative and qualitative data will undergo configuration [13]. The inability of evidence configuration will result in the narrative presentation of evidence [13]. Discussion This protocol is a blueprint to be followed for conducting a mixed-methods systematic review to map up evidence on the awareness of women on prostate cancer. To cover a wide range of primary literature, the protocol will employ the mixed-methods approach according to the JBI guidelines. By publishing the study protocol, we strengthen the clarity of the search strategy and reduce the risk of bias, particularly selective outcome reporting. The wealth of evidence obtained from this systematic review will inform and support the involvement of women as health promoters and educators in the early detection and prevention of prostate cancer. The evidence will also be useful in improving the quality of life and survival rate of men living with prostate cancer. The potential limitations of this research The study is confronted with selection bias resulting from the following; The restriction of the literature search to the range of January 1999 to December 2019. The consideration of studies published only in the English language for inclusion. Limiting the literature search to 5 databases. The exclusion of studies conducted in women who have received prior education on prostate cancer, exclusion of healthcare professionals, healthcare students, and college/university students. The exclusion of studies that involved lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual/transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) participants. Declarations Competing interests The authors affirm that they have no competitive benefits. Authors’ contributions EW is credited with the conception of the review, the coordination of the systematic review, the development of the search strategy, the search and selection of studies to be included in the review, the extraction and management of quantitative and qualitative data, the assessment of methodological quality, the filtering of all reference materials, the integration and interpretation of the data, the drafting of the manuscript and is the principal reviewer. KBM is credited with the conception of the review, the review of the search strategy, the search and selection of studies to be included in the review, the extraction and management of quantitative and qualitative data, the assessment of methodological quality, the integration and interpretation of the data and the review of the manuscript. ABM is credited with the review of the search strategy, review of the manuscript, and the settling of disagreements between EW and KBM. VB is credited with the review of the manuscript and as the co-supervisor of the review. FO is credited with the overall supervision of the review. Reviewers will preview and accept the final manuscript of the review for publication in a peer-review journal. Acknowledgment The review team gives recognition to Dr. Richard Ofori-Asenso. Funding The authors did not receive any funding for the development of this review protocol. Ethical consideration and dissemination of findings Ethical permission will not be required since this is a systematic review that would be publicized in a peer-review journal. Also, this critical appraisal and synthesis do not involve the enrollment of humans or animals as study subjects. Patient and public involvement Patients or the public will not be engaged in the conduct of this study. Extra data Supplementary documents are available at; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EYHF2 Team members Reviewer 1: Ebenezer Wiafe (EW) Reviewer 2: Kofi Boamah Mensah (KBM) Reviewer 3: Adwoa Bemah Boamah Mensah (ABBM) Reviewer 4: Varsha Bangalee (VB) Reviewer 5: Frasia Oosthuizen (FO) Abbreviations FDG: Focused group discussions; JBI: Joanna Briggs Institute; LGBTQ: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual/transgender, and Queer/questioning; RAPC: Rapid Access Prostate Clinic. References Cuzick J, Thorat MA, Andriole G et al. Prevention and early detection of prostate cancer. The lancet oncology . 2014;15(11):e484-e92. Quinn M, Babb P. Patterns and trends in prostate cancer incidence, survival, prevalence and mortality. Part I: international comparisons. BJU international . 2002;90(2):162-73. Saleh AM, Fooladi MM, Petro-Nustas W et al. Enhancing knowledge, beliefs, and intention to screen for prostate cancer via different health educational interventions: a literature review. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2015;16(16):7011-23. Fitzpatrick J, Kirby R, Brough C et al. Awareness of prostate cancer among patients and the general public: results of an international survey. Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases . 2009;12(4):347. Blanchard K, Proverbs-Singh T, Katner A et al. Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of women about the importance of prostate cancer screening. Journal of the National Medical association . 2005;97(10):1378. Niksic M, Rachet B, Warburton F et al. Cancer symptom awareness and barriers to symptomatic presentation in England—are we clear on cancer? British journal of cancer . 2015;113(3):533. Walsh AL, Considine SW, Thomas AZ et al. Digital rectal examination in primary care is important for early detection of prostate cancer: a retrospective cohort analysis study. Br J Gen Pract . 2014;64(629):e783-e7. Karim R, Lindberg L, Wamala S et al. Men’s Perceptions of Women’s Participation in Development Initiatives in Rural Bangladesh. American journal of men's health . 2018;12(2):398-410. Rashid P, Denham J, Madjar I. Do women have a role in early detection of prostate cancer? Lessons from a qualitative study. Australian family physician . 2007;36(5):375. Owens OL, Friedman DB, Hebert J. Commentary: Building an Evidence Base for Promoting Informed Prostate Cancer Screening Decisions: An Overview of a Cancer Prevention and Control Program. Ethnicity & disease . 2017;27(1):55. Van Bogaert D, Hawkins R, Pingree S et al. The development of an eHealth tool suite for prostate cancer patients and their partners. The journal of supportive oncology . 2012;10(5):202. Panchani M. Role of primary health care in the empowerment of women and concern about health issues. International Journal of research studies in Bioscience . 2014;2(11):27-34. Lizarondo L, Stern C, Carrier J et al. Chapter 8: Mixed methods systematic reviews. 2017 [Available from: https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+8%3A+Mixed+methods+systematic+reviews . Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F et al. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. International journal of nursing studies. 2009;46(4):529-46. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2016;1(2):112-33. Caruth GD. Demystifying Mixed Methods Research Design: A Review of the Literature. Mevlana International Journal of Education. 2013;3(2):112-22. Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74. Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E et al. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. 2017 [Available from: https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+3%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+effectiveness . Lockwood C, Porritt K, Munn Z et al. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence: The Joanna Briggs Institute. 2017. [Available from: https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+2%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+qualitative+evidence . Yiwen K, Hegney D, Drury V. A comprehensive systematic review of the nurses' perceptions of risk from exposure to emerging acute respiratory infectious diseases and the effectiveness of strategies used to facilitate healthy coping in acute hospital and community healthcare settings. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2009;7(24):1-27. Mensah KB, Oosthuizen F, Bonsu AB. Cancer awareness among community pharmacist: a systematic review. BMC cancer. 2018;18(1):299. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018. Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada . 2018. Lockwood C, Porritt K, Munn Z et al. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. 2017. [Available from: https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+2%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+qualitative+evidence . Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme . 2006;Version, 1, b92. Supplementary Files PRISMAchecklist.pdf APPENDIX3.docx APPENDIX2.docx APPENDIX1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 03 Nov, 2020 Read the published version in Systematic Reviews → Version 3 posted Editorial decision: Accept 27 Oct, 2020 Editor assigned by journal 21 Oct, 2020 Submission checks completed at journal 20 Oct, 2020 Editor invited by journal 20 Oct, 2020 You are reading this latest preprint version Show more versions Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-40585","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Protocol","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":3811515,"identity":"91ed0dbc-4e55-4c81-93f8-a7493d913ea6","order_by":0,"name":"Ebenezer Wiafe","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0496-5737","institution":"University of KwaZulu-Natal College of Health Sciences","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ebenezer","middleName":"","lastName":"Wiafe","suffix":""},{"id":3811516,"identity":"06d67070-8b28-472c-a360-733dcd874b59","order_by":1,"name":"Kofi Boamah Mensah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kofi","middleName":"Boamah","lastName":"Mensah","suffix":""},{"id":3811517,"identity":"fa747679-af82-4d41-9c4e-0b737c321a4a","order_by":2,"name":"Adwoa Bemah Boamah Mensah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology College of Health Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adwoa","middleName":"Bemah Boamah","lastName":"Mensah","suffix":""},{"id":3811518,"identity":"46991fe7-ccec-4509-b67a-a072a67072ee","order_by":3,"name":"Varsha Bangalee","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of KwaZulu-Natal College of Health Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Varsha","middleName":"","lastName":"Bangalee","suffix":""},{"id":3811519,"identity":"ea1b8284-0983-4482-88de-be901dfd0c0b","order_by":4,"name":"Frasia Oosthuizen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of KwaZulu-Natal College of Health Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Frasia","middleName":"","lastName":"Oosthuizen","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2020-07-07 17:11:39","currentVersionCode":3,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-40585/v3","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-40585/v3","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01513-4","type":"published","date":"2020-11-03T15:02:20+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":13644937,"identity":"aa938b43-fb0f-41f3-81c1-5cdbb0200b8d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-09-17 09:17:27","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":366721,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-40585/v3/6a8b0af3-b035-412e-bdb1-02a6dbcf5ec3.pdf"},{"id":4895391,"identity":"0367d957-1707-46ed-98c4-4d5a3f21cd25","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-01-12 16:25:35","extension":"pdf","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":37067,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"PRISMAchecklist.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-40585/v3/45bfa3a4f3cdd5532aadde97.pdf"},{"id":4895495,"identity":"ba8eaf6e-ca60-4953-8da7-f5307ec061be","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-01-12 16:28:35","extension":"docx","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":17332,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"APPENDIX3.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-40585/v3/22204558d25b792ba6b3d8ba.docx"},{"id":4895496,"identity":"de46ff92-62b3-4bf3-a3c2-ff6cf479573b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-01-12 16:28:35","extension":"docx","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":38561,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"APPENDIX2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-40585/v3/0f6ccdde26cf74b3dae946cd.docx"},{"id":4895497,"identity":"fcd8a447-3aff-4399-beea-7bc1a1fbb3be","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-01-12 16:28:35","extension":"docx","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":17808,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"APPENDIX1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-40585/v3/6ab0cd8abc9b3dd47a19db70.docx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eThe Awareness of Women on Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review Protocol\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eProstate cancer is a common neoplasm in men, and its occurrence keeps rising in many countries [1]. It is number three on the global list of the most common cancers that claim the lives of men [2,3]. The incidence rate, mortality rate, and the rate of diagnosis of prostate cancer have been documented to be 0.5 million per year, a man per 2 minutes, and almost 2000 men per day, respectively [2,4]. In addition to the global burden of the disease, prostate cancer accounts for about 10% of cancers affecting men [2]. Thus, prostate cancer is of significant public health interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA study conducted by Quinn and Babb indicated a reduction in prostate cancer mortality from early detection [2]. Other studies have also indicated the importance of the early detection of the disease to reduce mortality [5,6]. In North America, the establishment of Rapid Access Prostate Clinic (RAPC) and more extensive advocacy of prostate cancer to the general population, with global campaigns such as Movember (ie.movember.com), has decreased the mortality of the disease [7]. Hence, measures to improve the early detection of the disease among the general population can have a significant impact on the disease.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are scientific shreds of evidence to support the claim that women can be trusted with family health [5,8]. Blanchard et al. reported that women are better than men in the following aspects of cancers; the recognition of the early manifestations of various cancers, the timely perception of the barriers to seeking help, and the timely report of the identified barriers [5]. Women have reported on breast cancer and cervical cancer, where education has equipped them to be in control of their health [9]. Besides, women have also been recognized as individuals who show a profound interest in their partners\u0026rsquo; health. Hence, they can make observations that men themselves do not observe about their health [9]. Much evidence exists on the critical role of women in decision-making in the treatment of their spouse or partner diagnosed with prostate cancer [10,11]. Similar studies have also explored their potential role in screening the disease. Scant data exist on the knowledge of women on prostate cancer. Therefore, it is essential to map up evidence to determine women\u0026rsquo;s knowledge of prostate cancer as a public health means of reducing the disease.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA survey conducted by Fitzpatrick et al. concluded that the public and patients are aware of prostate cancer but with certain knowledge gaps. It concluded that measures have to be taken to address the identified knowledge gaps [4]. It is essential to gather information on the current knowledge of prostate cancer in the general population. However, this review focuses on women, as public health care largely depends on women\u0026rsquo;s contributions, particularly in health education [12]. The study aims to map up existing evidence about the awareness of women on prostate cancer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReview question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDo women have adequate knowledge about prostate cancer?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObjectives of the study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTo assess the knowledge-base of women on the signs and symptoms of prostate cancer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTo determine the awareness of women on the risk factors and causes of prostate cancer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTo ascertain the knowledge of women on the availability of screening guides for the early detection of prostate cancer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Methods and Analysis","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe mixed-methods approach will be employed in this systematic review. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) reviewer\u0026rsquo;s manual, with a focus on mixed methods systematic reviews, will be utilized [13]. The mixed-methods approach to research, which is among the first three widely used research approaches, has gained popularity due to its ability to analyze data obtained from quantitative, qualitative, and primary mixed-methods research papers [14,15]. The mixed-methods approach is also appropriate to permit data triangulation to enhance the study validity [16]. In addition to this benefit, the use of mixed-methods has proven to be useful in comparing and contrasting quantitative and qualitative research findings. This results in either the quantitative findings supporting the qualitative findings or vice versa [16]. To ensure that findings that have the highest recognizable strength are obtained at the end of the systematic review, the role of the mixed-methods approach in this review is important [13]. This critical appraisal and synthesis is registered with Open Science Framework and can be accessed through https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EYHF2 and will commence in July 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEligibility criteria\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePopulation of interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe population of interest is women who are 18 years of age or above. The review will include research papers that involve women who are 18 years of age or above as part of the study population. In addition to the description of the interest population (women who are 18 years and above), the features of women in included studies will not be restricted to cultural/sub-cultural backgrounds and geographical locations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterest phenomena\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe phenomena of interest for this review is the awareness of women on prostate cancer. Therefore, this review will involve studies that evaluated the knowledge of women aged 18 years and above on prostate cancer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContext of interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe context of interest will include but not limited to all studies conducted in women of all cultural/sub-cultural backgrounds and geographical locations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOutcome\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe review will consider research papers that have the knowledge of women on the signs and symptoms, causes and risk factors, and screening recommendations of prostate cancer as the outcome measures. The signs and symptoms of prostate cancer that would be of interest in included studies would not be limited to difficulty in passing urine, dysuria, and the need to frequently pass urine. Also, women\u0026rsquo;s ability to determine the asymptomatic nature of the disease would be taken into account. Recruited studies would be expected to report on increased age, family history of the disease, African decency, male gender, exposure to radiation, and cigarette smoking as part of the non-exhaustive list of risk factors and causes of prostate cancer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTypes of studies to be included\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis critical appraisal and synthesis would involve primary research papers that are qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods in nature. Focused group discussions (FGD), observation of study subjects (follow-up studies), in-depth interviews, and other forms of interviews will constitute the qualitative studies to be included in this systematic review without ignoring other studies that meet the criteria of qualitative studies. Quantitative studies will constitute descriptive studies, descriptive cross-sectional studies, and other studies that meet the requirements of quantitative studies. Studies that combined qualitative and quantitative designs will constitute the mixed-methods arm of this study on a condition that the qualitative and quantitative data can be explicitly extracted. This review will also include studies that have been published in the English language. To be able to map up current evidence, studies dating January 1999 - December 2019 will be included in this review.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExclusion criteria\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following will be grounds for excluding papers for this review:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStudies that were published before January 1999 or after December 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStudies that were not published in the English language.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStudies that include women below the age of 18 years.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStudies in which the age of included women cannot be established.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStudies that did not indicate the number/percentage of included women.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStudies that exclusively included male without any female gender (18 years and above).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStudies conducted amongst women who were previously given education on prostate cancer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStudies that exclusively involved lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual/transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) participants.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStudies that exclusively included healthcare professionals.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStudies that exclusively involved healthcare and college/university students.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStudies that do not include the outcome of interest.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBook chapters.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReviews and overviews.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbstracts and conference papers.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDissertations and thesis.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCommentaries and letters to editors.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStudies published without abstracts.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformation sources and search strategy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA comprehensive search strategy will be developed by the primary author (EW) to identify various publications related to the study. The following databases will be searched; MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, and EMBASE (Ovid). The searched period will be from January 1999 to December 2019.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA triple stage approach to searching published literature will be adopted in developing the preliminary search strategy [13]. Firstly, MEDLINE (EBSCOhost) will be searched for articles relevant to this review. Subject terms (identified from the title and abstract of the relevant papers) and free text terms (identified from the description of the relevant papers) will be employed in the development of the preliminary search strategy. The details of the search terms can be found as a supplementary document at; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EYHF2. The preliminary search strategy, using MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), has been affixed (Appendix 1). Secondly, the preliminary search strategy will be adopted in the search for relevant studies from CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, and EMBASE (Ovid), respectively. The citation list of the selected studies for the review will be scanned for additional studies. Search findings, which will be in the English language, will be compiled independently by two authors (EW and KBM).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe total search findings of EW and KBM will be compiled and duplicate papers, removed with the help of the EndNote X8 software, to generate a final list of search findings for the review.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScreening and selection of studies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe final list of search findings will be independently screened by two reviewers (EW and KBM). The titles and abstracts of the selected studies will initially be screened for inclusion and exclusion in the review. Studies that are selected after the screening of the titles and abstract will undergo full-text reading by the same independent reviewers. The selection for data extraction will be done by a careful comparison of papers that successfully passed the screening stage to the established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Search findings that present disagreements between the independent reviewers (EW and KBM), during the screening and selection stages, will be resolved through discussions with the third reviewer (ABBM). Kappa co-efficient of 0.6 or more would be used to establish an agreement between the two independent reviewers (EW and KBM) during the screening and selection phase [17]. Reference management will be done by EW.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData extraction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe JBI quantitative and qualitative data extraction tools, appendix 2 [18-20] will be adopted to extract data from search findings. The convergent segregated approach to data synthesis and data integration recommends using separate data extraction tools for this review [13]. Data that will be extracted from the included studies will not be restricted to the study title, principal investigator (lead author), year of publication, the country in which the study was conducted, the study sample size, the study design, ethnic background of study participants, key discoveries of the study, the limitations of the study and conclusions made by authors. Two reviewers (EW and KBM) will independently extract both quantitative and qualitative data. The outcome of the individual data extracted by these two authors will be merged to generate a final pool of data for the review. To account for missing data, EW will contact the authors of the primary studies through electronic mail. In an instance where authors of primary studies do not respond to electronic mails sent, the reviewers would consider it as \u0026lsquo;\u0026lsquo;missing data\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; without making any assumptions. Disagreements that may arise when building the final pool of data will be resolved through discussions with ABBM.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAssessment of methodological quality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe quality assessment of the review will adopt and adapt a quality appraisal tool employed in a review conducted by Mensah et al, appendix 3 [21]. The tool has 5 general quality assessment criteria and 3 specific quality assessment criteria to be scored over 100%. The design of the tool will permit the comparison of scores obtained by individual literature to the scoring benchmark of weak (0 \u0026ndash; 33.9%), moderate (34% \u0026ndash; 66.9%), and strong (67% \u0026ndash; 100%) [21]. This quality appraisal stage will be done independently by two authors (EW and KBM). It is recommended that a minimum of two reviewers be involved in the appraisal of the quality of studies to be considered for data extraction and subsequent synthesis [20,22]. Hence, the need for EW and KBM to independently conduct a quality assessment of search findings that passed the screening and selection stage of the review. The results obtained from the quality assessment stage will be employed in determining the final inclusion or exclusion of a research paper in the review. Studies with weak methodological quality scores will be excluded. Disagreements arising from the results of EW and KBM will be addressed through discussions with ABBM.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData synthesis and integration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe convergent segregated approach will be employed in data synthesis and integration [13]. Quantitative data and qualitative data will be synthesized separately. The evidence that will be generated from the separate synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated [13].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuantitative and Qualitative data synthesis \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe synthesis of quantitative data will be done through a narrative synthesis [13]. This is because the review has no interventional arm and is aimed at investigating the awareness of women about prostate cancer. Hence, a narrative synthesis would be performed on findings that would be extracted from included studies. It is imperative to note that random or fixed effects would not be employed in data synthesis. Also, subgroup or meta-regression analysis would not be performed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings from the pool of qualitative data will undergo meta-synthesis through findings assembly and categorization based on shared meanings [23]. These categorized findings will undergo further analysis in an attempt to generate a wealth of evidence that will be easy to comprehend and will also be a true reflection of the awareness of women on prostate cancer concerning the underpinned review objectives [13].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the event of the inability to perform a textual pooling, a narrative will be generated [23]. The synthesis by narrative will be performed according to the following approach; the findings obtained from the selected studies will undergo preliminary synthesis, the compiled data will be explored for linkages and the synthesizing process will be assessed for robustness [24].\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntegration of quantitative evidence and qualitative evidence\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe evidence from the individual analysis of quantitative and qualitative data will undergo configuration [13]. The inability of evidence configuration will result in the narrative presentation of evidence [13].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis protocol is a blueprint to be followed for conducting a mixed-methods systematic review to map up evidence on the awareness of women on prostate cancer. To cover a wide range of primary literature, the protocol will employ the mixed-methods approach according to the JBI guidelines. By publishing the study protocol, we strengthen the clarity of the search strategy and reduce the risk of bias, particularly selective outcome reporting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe wealth of evidence obtained from this systematic review will inform and support the involvement of women as health promoters and educators in the early detection and prevention of prostate cancer. The evidence will also be useful in improving the quality of life and survival rate of men living with prostate cancer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe potential limitations of this research \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study is confronted with selection bias resulting from the following;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe restriction of the literature search to the range of January 1999 to December 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe consideration of studies published only in the English language for inclusion.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLimiting the literature search to 5 databases.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe exclusion of studies conducted in women who have received prior education on prostate cancer, exclusion of healthcare professionals, healthcare students, and college/university students.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe exclusion of studies that involved lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual/transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) participants.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors affirm that they have no competitive benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEW is credited with the conception of the review, the coordination of the systematic review, the development of the search strategy, the search and selection of studies to be included in the review, the extraction and management of quantitative and qualitative data, the assessment of methodological quality, the filtering of all reference materials, the integration and interpretation of the data, the drafting of the manuscript and is the principal reviewer. KBM is credited with the conception of the review, the review of the search strategy, the search and selection of studies to be included in the review, the extraction and management of quantitative and qualitative data, the assessment of methodological quality, the integration and interpretation of the data and the review of the manuscript. ABM is credited with the review of the search strategy, review of the manuscript, and the settling of disagreements between EW and KBM. VB is credited with the review of the manuscript and as the co-supervisor of the review. FO is credited with the overall supervision of the review. Reviewers will preview and accept the final manuscript of the review for publication in a peer-review journal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgment\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe review team gives recognition to Dr. Richard Ofori-Asenso.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors did not receive any funding for the development of this review protocol.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical consideration and dissemination of findings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical permission will not be required since this is a systematic review that would be publicized in a peer-review journal. Also, this critical appraisal and synthesis do not involve the enrollment of humans or animals as study subjects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatient and public involvement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePatients or the public will not be engaged in the conduct of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExtra data\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary documents are available at; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EYHF2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeam members\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReviewer 1: Ebenezer Wiafe (EW)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReviewer 2: Kofi Boamah Mensah (KBM)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReviewer 3: Adwoa Bemah Boamah Mensah (ABBM)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReviewer 4: Varsha Bangalee (VB)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReviewer 5: Frasia Oosthuizen (FO)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eFDG: Focused group discussions; JBI: Joanna Briggs Institute; LGBTQ: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual/transgender, and Queer/questioning; RAPC: Rapid Access Prostate Clinic.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCuzick J, Thorat MA, Andriole G et al. Prevention and early detection of prostate cancer. \u003cem\u003eThe lancet oncology\u003c/em\u003e. 2014;15(11):e484-e92.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuinn M, Babb P. Patterns and trends in prostate cancer incidence, survival, prevalence and mortality. Part I: international comparisons. \u003cem\u003eBJU international\u003c/em\u003e. 2002;90(2):162-73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaleh AM, Fooladi MM, Petro-Nustas W et al. Enhancing knowledge, beliefs, and intention to screen for prostate cancer via different health educational interventions: a literature review. \u003cem\u003eAsian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention.\u003c/em\u003e 2015;16(16):7011-23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFitzpatrick J, Kirby R, Brough C et al. Awareness of prostate cancer among patients and the general public: results of an international survey. \u003cem\u003eProstate cancer and prostatic diseases\u003c/em\u003e. 2009;12(4):347.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlanchard K, Proverbs-Singh T, Katner A et al. Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of women about the importance of prostate cancer screening. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the National Medical association\u003c/em\u003e. 2005;97(10):1378.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNiksic M, Rachet B, Warburton F et al. Cancer symptom awareness and barriers to symptomatic presentation in England\u0026mdash;are we clear on cancer? \u003cem\u003eBritish journal of cancer\u003c/em\u003e. 2015;113(3):533.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalsh AL, Considine SW, Thomas AZ et al. Digital rectal examination in primary care is important for early detection of prostate cancer: a retrospective cohort analysis study. \u003cem\u003eBr J Gen Pract\u003c/em\u003e. 2014;64(629):e783-e7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarim R, Lindberg L, Wamala S et al. Men\u0026rsquo;s Perceptions of Women\u0026rsquo;s Participation in Development Initiatives in Rural Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eAmerican journal of men's health\u003c/em\u003e. 2018;12(2):398-410.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRashid P, Denham J, Madjar I. Do women have a role in early detection of prostate cancer? Lessons from a qualitative study. \u003cem\u003eAustralian family physician\u003c/em\u003e. 2007;36(5):375.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOwens OL, Friedman DB, Hebert J. Commentary: Building an Evidence Base for Promoting Informed Prostate Cancer Screening Decisions: An Overview of a Cancer Prevention and Control Program. \u003cem\u003eEthnicity \u0026amp; disease\u003c/em\u003e. 2017;27(1):55.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Bogaert D, Hawkins R, Pingree S et al. The development of an eHealth tool suite for prostate cancer patients and their partners. \u003cem\u003eThe journal of supportive oncology\u003c/em\u003e. 2012;10(5):202.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePanchani M. Role of primary health care in the empowerment of women and concern about health issues. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of research studies in Bioscience\u003c/em\u003e. 2014;2(11):27-34.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLizarondo L, Stern C, Carrier J et al. Chapter 8: Mixed methods systematic reviews. 2017 [Available from: \u003ca href=\"https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+8%3A+Mixed+methods+systematic+reviews\"\u003ehttps://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+8%3A+Mixed+methods+systematic+reviews\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F et al. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of nursing studies.\u003c/em\u003e 2009;46(4):529-46.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Mixed Methods Research.\u003c/em\u003e 2016;1(2):112-33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaruth GD. Demystifying Mixed Methods Research Design: A Review of the Literature. \u003cem\u003eMevlana International Journal of Education.\u003c/em\u003e 2013;3(2):112-22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLandis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. \u003cem\u003eBiometrics.\u003c/em\u003e 1977;33:159\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E et al. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. 2017 [Available from: \u003ca href=\"https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+3%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+effectiveness\"\u003ehttps://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+3%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+effectiveness\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLockwood C, Porritt K, Munn Z et al. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence: The Joanna Briggs Institute. 2017. [Available from: \u003ca href=\"https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+2%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+qualitative+evidence\"\u003ehttps://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+2%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+qualitative+evidence\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYiwen K, Hegney D, Drury V. A comprehensive systematic review of the nurses' perceptions of risk from exposure to emerging acute respiratory infectious diseases and the effectiveness of strategies used to facilitate healthy coping in acute hospital and community healthcare settings. \u003cem\u003eJBI Evidence Synthesis.\u003c/em\u003e 2009;7(24):1-27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMensah KB, Oosthuizen F, Bonsu AB. Cancer awareness among community pharmacist: a systematic review. \u003cem\u003eBMC cancer.\u003c/em\u003e 2018;18(1):299.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHong QN, Pluye P, F\u0026agrave;bregues S et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada\u003c/em\u003e. 2018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLockwood C, Porritt K, Munn Z et al. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. 2017. [Available from: \u003ca href=\"https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+2%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+qualitative+evidence\"\u003ehttps://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Chapter+2%3A+Systematic+reviews+of+qualitative+evidence\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePopay J, Roberts H, Sowden A et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. \u003cem\u003eA product from the ESRC methods programme\u003c/em\u003e. 2006;Version, 1, b92.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"systematic-reviews","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"sysr","sideBox":"Learn more about [Systematic Reviews](http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/sysr/default.aspx","title":"Systematic Reviews","twitterHandle":"@MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"EBSCOhost, PsycINFO, EMBASE","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-40585/v3","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-40585/v3","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground:\u003c/strong\u003e Prostate cancer accounts for about 10% of cancers affecting and claiming the lives of men. Studies have reported that women are better than men in recognition of the early manifestations of various cancers. Besides, women have been recognized to show a profound interest in their partners' health and hence, make observations that men don't know. Several studies have reported on the knowledge gaps of prostate cancer among patients and the general population. It is vital to comprehensively review the available evidence and identify research gaps in our current understanding of knowledge of women on prostate cancer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods:\u003c/strong\u003e A search of bibliographic databases, MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, and EMBASE (Ovid) will be undertaken from January 1999 to December 2019. The search will be limited to studies published in the English language. Duplication of studies will be removed using the EndNote citation manager. After deduplication, citations will be screened independently by two authors according to prespecified criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment of the selected studies will be done independently by two authors. Meta-analytic methods will be used where appropriate. The convergent segregated method of synthesis will be adopted in this review. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics and dissemination: \u003c/strong\u003ePrimary data collection will not be involved in this study, hence formal ethical clearance will not be needed. The results of the study will be presented through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatient and public involvement: \u003c/strong\u003ePatients or the public will not be engaged in the conduct of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrial registration number:\u003c/strong\u003e Open Science Framework (OSF)\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eregistration DOI:\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EYHF2\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Awareness of Women on Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review Protocol","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":3,"date":"2021-01-12 16:25:33","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-40585/v3","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Accept","date":"2020-10-27T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2020-10-21T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2020-10-20T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2020-10-20T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"systematic-reviews","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"sysr","sideBox":"Learn more about [Systematic Reviews](http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/sysr/default.aspx","title":"Systematic Reviews","twitterHandle":"@MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}},{"code":"","date":"2020-10-16 18:52:46","doi":"","editorialEvents":[{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2020-10-19T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2020-10-18T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2020-10-18T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"notPreprinted","content":""}],"status":"timeline","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"systematic-reviews","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"sysr","sideBox":"Learn more about [Systematic Reviews](http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/sysr/default.aspx","title":"Systematic Reviews","twitterHandle":"@MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}},{"code":2,"date":"2020-10-15 18:52:46","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-40585/v2","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Minor revision","date":"2020-10-18T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2020-10-11T12:00:00+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"Recommendation: Accept\nForm responses:\n---\n\nComments to Author:\n---\nThe authors have responded appropriately. The quality of the manuscript has improved.* Publons Reviewer Recognition. Springer Nature can send verification of this review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms: **Yes**\n* Level of interest: **An article of limited interest**\n* Quality of written English: **Acceptable**\n* Declaration of competing interests: **I declare that I have no competing interests**\n* I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.: **\nI agree to the open peer review policy of the journal**\n* Were you mentored through this peer review?: **No**\n"},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2020-10-11T12:00:00+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"Recommendation: Minor Revision\nForm responses:\n---\n\nComments to Author:\n---\nThe authors replied adequately to some previous queries; however, response is still inadequate to [The authors should define what should be considered as an adequate knowledge about prostate cancer.:\nThe authors replied by: [On a scale of 10, studies that report women's average knowledge score of 6 or more would be rated as adequate.].\nHowever, what is the structure of that scale? It should be fully described\n\n* Publons Reviewer Recognition. Springer Nature can send verification of this review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms: **Yes**\n* Level of interest: **An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests**\n* Quality of written English: **Acceptable**\n* Declaration of competing interests: **I declare that I have no competing interests**\n* I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.: **\nI agree to the open peer review policy of the journal**\n* Were you mentored through this peer review?: **No**\n"},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2020-10-07T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2020-10-07T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2020-10-07T12:00:00+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2020-10-07T12:00:00+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2020-10-06T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2020-10-06T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"systematic-reviews","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"sysr","sideBox":"Learn more about [Systematic Reviews](http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/sysr/default.aspx","title":"Systematic Reviews","twitterHandle":"@MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}},{"code":1,"date":"2020-07-08 09:53:02","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-40585/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2020-09-22T12:00:00+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"Recommendation: Major Revision\nForm responses:\n---\n\nComments to Author:\n---\n*Will and how authors of the primary studies be contacted?\n*Random or Fixed effect will be used?\n*Any planned subgroup analysis or meta-regression analysis? need to be better\ndescribed.\n*It will be better to show kappa for the selection and data extraction. Please show the\ndata of kappa of agreement during the systematic searches. How disagreements will be\nsolved during the systematic search among two independent reviewers?\n*Protocol should be more specific. Search terms in each database are different. Please attach search terms\nthat were used in each database as supplement for Data source and search strategies\nin the manuscript. Please provide details search terms in supplementary documents.\n*Please clarify who will be \"two independent investigators\"?\n*How will authors deal with missing data? Will you plan to only include available data\nfrom articles of the studies or make some imputation approaches?\n*it is unclear what study designs will be included. Any plan to separate analysis based on type of study? E.g. RCT, and observational\nstudies should not be combined together.\n*You also include database \"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\". Please\nbetter clarify what you are proposing to do with the systematic reviews that are including?\n* analysis plan should be pre-specified and provide more detail.* Publons Reviewer Recognition. Springer Nature can send verification of this review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms: **Yes**\n* Level of interest: **An article of limited interest**\n* Quality of written English: **Needs some language corrections before being published**\n* Declaration of competing interests: **I declare that I have no competing interests**\n* I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.: **\nI agree to the open peer review policy of the journal**\n* Were you mentored through this peer review?: **No**\n"},{"type":"decision","content":"Major revision","date":"2020-09-22T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2020-09-21T12:00:00+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2020-09-12T12:00:00+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"Recommendation: Minor Revision\nForm responses:\n---\n\nComments to Author:\n---\nThe authors presented an protocol for an interesting subject. The method was well designed.\nI have a minor comment:\nThe authors should define what should be considered as an adequate knowledge about prostate cancer.\nThe authors should define the signs and symptoms of prostate cancer that should be reported in the recruited studies \nThe authors should define the risk factors and causes of prostate\ncancer that should be reported in the recruited studies \n* Publons Reviewer Recognition. Springer Nature can send verification of this review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms: **Yes**\n* Level of interest: **An article of importance in its field that should be highlighted to relevant networks**\n* Quality of written English: **Acceptable**\n* Declaration of competing interests: **I declare that I have no competing interests**\n* I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.: **\nI agree to the open peer review policy of the journal**\n* Were you mentored through this peer review?: **No**\n"},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2020-09-03T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2020-09-03T12:00:00+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2020-09-02T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2020-09-01T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"","date":"2020-07-07T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2020-07-07T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"systematic-reviews","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"sysr","sideBox":"Learn more about [Systematic Reviews](http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/sysr/default.aspx","title":"Systematic Reviews","twitterHandle":"@MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"69a52ec8-db76-4d69-ab47-bbf502d31b6f","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 12th, 2021","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":1852720,"name":"Food Science \u0026 Technology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2020-11-08T15:03:26+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-40585","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01513-4","journal":{"identity":"systematic-reviews","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Systematic Reviews"},"publishedOn":"2020-11-03 15:02:20","publishedOnDateReadable":"November 3rd, 2020"},"versionCreatedAt":"2021-01-12 16:25:33","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s13643-020-01513-4","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01513-4","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v3","identity":"rs-40585","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-40585","identity":"rs-40585","version":["v3"]},"buildId":"7rjqhiLT3MXkJMwkYKINL","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}