| Literature DB >> 33226993 |
Jieying Liao1, Tianfang Wang1, Zhan Li2, Haotian Xie1, Shanshan Wang3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review and appraise the existing qualitative studies on Ramadan fasting in participants with diabetes and to integrate valuable qualitative evidence for optimizing diabetes management.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33226993 PMCID: PMC7682869 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242111
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Inclusion and exclusion criteria of literature.
| Inclusion criteria (SPIDER) [ | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
S = Sample, PI = Phenomenon of Interest, D = Design, E = Evaluation, R = Research type
Fig 1Flow chart of the literature search and screening.
Study quality appraisal details by the CASP tool.
| 1st author (year) | ① | ② | ③ | ④ | ⑤ | ⑥ | ⑦ | ⑧ | ⑨ | ⑩ | Overall appraisal | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| El-Rahman 2019 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | high quality | included |
| Alsaeed 2019 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | high quality | included |
| Alluqmani 2019 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | X | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | high quality | included |
| Alsaeed 2019 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | high quality | included |
| Patel 2015 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | high quality | included |
| Al Slail 2018 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | moderate quality | included |
| Peterson 2012 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | moderate quality | included |
| Mygind 2013 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | X | 1 | 1 | 1 | moderate quality | included |
| Myers 2019 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | high quality | included |
| Almansour 2018 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | high quality | included |
| Darko 2019 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | X | X | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | low quality | excluded |
| Lee 2017 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | high quality | included |
① Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? ② Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? ③ Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? ④ Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? ⑤ Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? ⑥ Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? ⑦ Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? ⑧ Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? ⑨ Is there a clear statement of findings? ⑩ How valuable is the research?
*This study shares the same authors with the second study but different in content.
1 indicates “Yes”; 0 indicates “No”; X indicates “Can’t tell”.
Data extraction of the 11 included articles.
| Author, publication year | Country, author discipline (number), study design | Study aim(s)/issue(s) | Study setting, recruitment strategy | Sample characteristics (diabetic type (disease duration), sample size (male, female), age, medication, fasting days) | Data collection method, data analysis strategy, ethical issues | Method of trustworthiness, data saturation, relationship between researcher and participants, statement of findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| El-Rahman et al., 2019 [ | • T2DM (at least 6 months) | • Semi-structured interviews (individual in-depth interviews) | • Credibility & dependability & confirmability | |||
| Alsaeed et al., 2019 [ | • T1DM (average duration = 17.8yrs) | • Semi-structured interviews | • No reported | |||
| Alluqmani et al., 2019 [ | • T2DM (inferred from medication) | • Face-to-face semi-structured interviews | • No reported | |||
| Alsaeed et al., 2019* [ | • T1DM (No reported) | • Group discussion | • No reported | |||
| Patel et al., 2015 [ | • T1DM (2) and T2DM (11) (No reported) | • Semi-structured interviews | • No reported | |||
| Al Slail et al., 2018 [ | • T1DM and T2DM (18yrs +; Insulin-dependent >5yrs) | • Focus group discussions | • No reported | |||
| Peterson et al., 2012 [ | • T2DM | • Unstructured interview | • No reported | |||
| Mygind et al., 2013 [ | • T2DM (3~20yrs) | • Semi-structured interviews and medication reviews, and field notes | • Validity | |||
| Myers et al., 2019 [ | • T2DM (No reported) | • Semi-structured interview | • Credibility & dependability | |||
| Almansour et al., 2018 [ | • No mentioned | • T2DM (No reported) | • Semi-structured interviews | • No reported | ||
| Lee et al., 2017 [ | • T2DM (at least 6 months, HbA1c between 7.5% and 11%) | • Semi-structured focus group interview | • No reported |
Extraction of original findings and integrated new themes and categories.
| Author (year) | Findings (themes/categories) |
|---|---|
| El-Rahman et al., 2019 [ | (1) Theme 1: Participants’ experience during fasting months |
| Alsaeed et al., 2019 [ | (1) Reduction in fluctuations and complications, |
| Alluqmani et al., 2019 [ | (1) Patient-Related Factors |
| Alsaeed et al., 2019* [ | (1) Motivations for attending the workshop, |
| Patel et al., 2015 [ | (1) normalizing diabetes, |
| Al Slail et al., 2018 [ | (1) Knowledge, attitudes, and practices |
| Peterson et al., 2012 [ | (1) Knowing and understanding: being in harmony with the body, |
| Mygind et al., 2013 [ | Five themes emerged from the analysis: |
| Myers et al., 2019 [ | Two main themes: |
| Almansour et al., 2018 [ | (1) Religion versus health–a dichotomy of values and practices, |
| Lee et al., 2017 [ | (1) perception of Ramadan, |
| Total | 43 |
Fig 2New themes and categories from 11 included articles.
Evidence grading of the integrated 10 themes with CERQual.
| Themes | Study number [study source] | Methodological limitations | Relevance | Coherence | Adequacy of data | Overall evidence grading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theme 1 | Seven [ | moderate | high | high | high | high |
| Theme 2 | Two [ | moderate | high | moderate | low | moderate |
| Theme 3 | Three [ | high | high | high | high | high |
| Theme 4 | Four [ | high | high | high | high | high |
| Theme 5 | Seven [ | high | high | moderate | low | moderate |
| Theme 6 | Four [ | high | high | high | high | high |
| Theme 7 | Five [ | high | high | moderate | moderate | moderate |
| Theme 8 | Four [ | high | high | unclear | low | moderate |
| Theme 9 | Seven [ | high | high | moderate | high | high |
| Theme 10 | Three [ | high | high | high | moderate | high |