OBJECTIVE: This study provides a comprehensive overview of the knowledge structure and research hotspots regarding barriers and strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: Publications on barriers and strategies for guideline implementation were searched for on Web of Science Core Collection from database inception to October 24, 2022. R package bibliometrix, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace were used to conduct the analysis. RESULTS: The search yielded 21,768 records from 3,975 journals by 99,998 authors from 3,964 institutions in 186 countries between 1983 and 2022. The number of published papers had a roughly increasing trend annually. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada contributed the majority of records. The University of Toronto, the University of Washington, and the University of Sydney were the biggest node in their cluster on the collaboration network map. The three journals that published the greatest number of relevant studies were Implementation Science, BMJ Open, and BMC Health Services Research. Grimshaw JM was the author with the most published articles, and was the second most co-cited author. Research hotspots in this field focused on public health and education, evidence-based medicine and quality promotion, diagnosis and treatment, and knowledge translation and barriers. Challenges and barriers, as well as societal impacts and inequalities, are likely to be key directions for future research. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first bibliometric study to comprehensively summarize the research trends of research on barriers and strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation. A better understanding of collaboration patterns and research hotspots may be useful for researchers. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A247.

Background Migrants and refugees may not access mental health services due to linguistic and cultural discordance between them and health and social care professionals (HSCPs). The aim of this review is to identify the communication needs and barriers experienced by third-country nationals (TCNs), their carers, and HSCPs, as well as the strategies they use and their preferences when accessing/providing mental health services and language barriers are present. Methods We undertook a rapid systematic review of the literature (01/01/2011 – 09/03/2022) on seeking and/or providing mental health services in linguistically discordant settings. Quality appraisal was performed, data was extracted, and evidence was reviewed and synthesised qualitatively. Results 58/5,650 papers met the inclusion criteria. Both TCNs (and their carers) and HSCPs experience difficulties when seeking or providing mental health services and language barriers are present. TCNs and HSCPs prefer linguistically and culturally concordant provision of mental health services but professional interpreters are often required. However, their use is not always preferred, nor is it without problems. Conclusions Language barriers impede TCNs’ access to mental health services. Improving language support options and cultural competency in mental health services is crucial to ensure that individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds can access and/or provide high-quality mental health services.

Objectives: To identify barriers and facilitators of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) implementation, and map those factors to the theoretical domains framework (TDF) and behavior change wheel (BCW).Methods: We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Two investigators independently screened the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the methodological quality. The identified barriers and facilitators of CPG implementation were categorized and mapped to the TDF domains and BCW components.Results: Thirty-seven studies were included, and 193 barriers and 140 facilitators were identified. Intrinsic aspects (35 barriers and 28 facilitators) mainly included the CPGs' impracticality, complexity, and inaccessibility. Extrinsic aspects (158 barriers and 113 facilitators) mainly included lack of resources, training, funding, or awareness of CPG content in barriers; audits and feedback; strong leadership and management support; and educating and training about CPGs in facilitators. Environmental context and resources (n 5 97, 19.48%) were the most reported barriers in TDF domains. Physical opportunity and social opportunity were the most frequently mentioned models inConclusion: Multiple barriers and facilitators for healthcare CPG implementation are identified, with further links to TDF and BCW. Future knowledge translation strategies should be developed accordingly in specified health care settings. (c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Background Previous studies showed that cervical cancer screening uptake among people with physical disabilities is low. A better understanding of the factors affecting their screening uptake is needed to devise strategies to address this issue. Objective This review explores the factors that impede or enhance cervical cancer screening utilisation by people with physical disabilities, such as mobility, visual and hearing impairments. Methods Five electronic databases were searched, resulting in the inclusion of nine studies focusing on people with physical disabilities and their utilisation of cervical cancer screening services. Extracted data from these studies were summarised narratively. Their methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, Version 2018. Results Three major impeding factors were reported: 1) lack of knowledge of cervical cancer screening and how it can be accessed; 2) difficulties and inconveniences in accessing cancer screening providers and undergoing the screening procedures; and 3) uncomfortable experiences during the screening procedures. The availability of attendant services and wheelchair-accessible facilities and a longer duration of screening procedures enhanced screening utilisation by the subjects. Conclusions This review highlights the need to provide training for healthcare professionals on working with people with physical disabilities, enhance supportive services to allow them to access cervical cancer screening and educate them on the importance of screening.

A large number of medical devices (MDs) is available in Europe. Procedures for market approval and reimbursement have been adopted over recent years to promote accelerating patient access to innovative MDs. However, there remains uncertainty and non-transparency regarding these procedures. We provide a structured overview of market approval and reimbursement procedures and practices regarding access to MDs in the EU. Market approval procedures were found to be uniformly described. Data on reimbursement procedures and practices was both heterogeneous and incomplete. Time to MD access was mainly determined by reimbursement procedures. The influence of the patient on time to access was not reported. Prescription practices varied among device types. Barriers to and facilitators of early patient access that set the agenda for policy implications were also analyzed. Barriers were caused by unclear European legislation, complex market approval procedures, lack of data collection, inconsistency in evidence requirements between countries, regional reimbursement and provision, and factors influencing physicians’ prescription including the device costs, waiting times and hospital-physician relationships. Facilitators were: available evidence that meets country-specific requirements for reimbursement, diagnosis-related groups, additional payments and research programs. Further research needs to focus on creating a complete overview of reimbursement procedures and practices by extracting further information from sources such as grey literature and interviews with professionals, and defining clear criteria to objectify time to access.