Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics and quality assessment of the included studies

From: Evidence for recency of practice standards for regulated health practitioners in Australia: a systematic review

Study design

Author

Country

Participants

Study size

Relevant research questions

Quality

Systematic review

Campbell et al. 2018

Scotland

Occupational therapists, paramedics, physiotherapists, podiatrists, psychologists, medical radiation practitioners

39 studies

RQ 1 – skills fade

Moderate

Thim et al. 2022

Denmark

Nurses, medical practitioners, midwives

8 studies

RQ 1 – skills fade

Moderate

Narrative review

Atesok et al. 2016

United States

Orthopaedic residents

21 studies

RQ 1 – skills fade

Moderate

Gawad et al. 2019

Canada

Surgical residents

5 cohort studies

RQ 1 – skills fade

RQ 2 – competency assessment

Moderate

Maddocks et al. 2020

New Zealand

Military general practitioners, ICU/ emergency nurses, military and civilian nurses, resident medical officers

10 studies

RQ 1 – skills fade

RQ 2 – competency assessment

Moderate

Randomised Controlled Trial

Jani et al. 2019

United States

Paediatric residents

Intervention arm N = 12

Control N = 12

RQ 1 – skills fade

Low

Cohort study

Clark et al. 2022

United States

Academic anaesthesiologists

N = 61 participants

RQ 1 – skills fade

Moderate

Harkemanne et al. 2021

Belgium

General practitioners

N = 89 participants

RQ 1 – skills fade

Low

Nathwani et al. 2017

United States

Surgical residents

N = 27 participants

RQ 1 – skills fade

Moderate

Paliatsiou et al. 2021

Greece

Paediatricians, anaesthesiologists, paediatric residents, midwives, nurses and paramedics

N = 116 participants

RQ 1 – skills fade

Moderate

Schott et al. 2021

United States

Medical practitioners

N = 127 participants

RQ 1 – skills fade

Moderate

Cross-sectional study

Maubon et al. 2021

United Kingdom

Ophthalmic surgeons

N = 232 participants

RQ 1 – skills fade

Moderate