Background: Information exchange regarding the scope and content of health studies is becoming increasingly important. Digital methods, including study websites, can facilitate such an exchange. Objective: This scoping review aimed to describe how digital information exchange occurs between the public and researchers in health studies. Methods: This scoping review was prospectively registered and adheres to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Eligibility was defined using the population (public and researchers), concept (digital information exchange), and context (health studies) framework. Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science), bibliographies of the included studies, and Google Scholar were searched up to February 2024. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals were screened for inclusion based on the title, abstract, and full text. Data items charted from studies included bibliographic and PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) characteristics. Data were processed into categories that inductively emerged from the data and were synthesized into main themes using descriptive statistics. Results: Overall, 4072 records were screened, and 18 studies published between 2010 and 2021 were included. All studies evaluated or assessed the preferences for digital information exchange. The target populations included the public (mainly adults with any or specific diseases), researchers, or both. The digital information exchange methods included websites, emails, forums, platforms, social media, and portals. Interactivity (ie, if digital information exchange is or should be active or passive) was addressed in half of the studies. Exchange content included health information or data with the aim to inform, recruit, link, or gather innovative research ideas from participants in health studies. We identified 7 facilitators and 9 barriers to digital information exchange. The main facilitators were the consideration of any stakeholder perspectives and needs to clarify expectations and responsibilities, the use of modern or low-cost communication technologies and public-oriented language, and continuous communication of the health study process. The main barriers were that information exchange was not planned or not feasible due to inadequate resources, highly complex technical language was used, and ethical concerns (eg, breach of anonymity if study participants are brought together) were raised. Evidence gaps indicate that new studies should assess the methods and the receiver (ie, public) preferences and needs that are required to deliver and facilitate interactive digital information exchange. Conclusions: Few studies addressing digital information exchange in health studies could be identified in this review. There was little focus on interactivity in such an exchange. Digital information exchange was associated with more barriers than facilitators, suggesting that more effort is required to improve such an exchange between the public and researchers. Future studies should investigate interactive digital methods and the receiver preferences and needs required for such an exchange.

Background: There is a large number of research studies about the prevention of non-communicable diseases (NCD), with findings taking several years to be translated into practice. One reason for this lack of translation is a limited understanding of how to best disseminate NCD research findings to user-groups in a way that is salient and useful. An understanding of barriers and facilitators to dissemination is key to informing the development of strategies to increase dissemination. Therefore, this review aims to identify and synthesise the barriers and facilitators to dissemination of NCD research findings. Methods: A mixed studies systematic review was performed following JBI (formerly known as Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology. The search included articles from January 2000 until May 2021. We conducted a comprehensive search of bibliographic and grey literature of five databases to identify eligible studies. Studies were included if they involved end-users of public health research that were decision-makers in their setting and examined barriers/facilitators to disseminating research findings. Two pairs of reviewers mapped data from included studies against the Framework of Knowledge Translation (FKT) and used a convergent approach to synthesise the data. Results: The database search yielded 27,192 reports. Following screening and full text review, 15 studies (ten qualitative, one quantitative and four mixed methods) were included. Studies were conducted in 12 mostly high-income countries, with a total of 871 participants. We identified 12 barriers and 14 facilitators mapped to five elements of the FKT. Barriers related to: (i) the user-group (n = 3) such as not perceiving health as important and (ii) the dissemination strategies (n = 3) such as lack of understanding of content of guidelines. Several facilitators related to dissemination strategies (n = 5) such as using different channels of communication. Facilitators also related to the user-group (n = 4) such as the user-groups' interest in health and research. Conclusion: Researchers and government organisations should consider these factors when identifying ways to disseminate research findings to decision-maker audiences. Future research should aim to build the evidence base on different strategies to overcome these barriers. Systematic review registration: The protocol of this review was deposited in Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5QSGD).

Background: Evidence networks facilitate the exchange of information and foster international relationships among researchers and stakeholders. These networks are instrumental in enabling the integration of scientific evidence into decision-making processes. While there is a global emphasis on evidence-based decision-making at policy and organisational levels, there exists a significant gap in our understanding of the most effective activities to exchange scientific knowledge and use it in practice. The objective of this rapid review was to explore the strategies employed by evidence networks to facilitate the translation of evidence into decision-making processes. This review makes a contribution to global health policymaking by mapping the landscape of knowledge translation in this context and identifying the evidence translation activities that evidence networks have found effective. Methods: The review was guided by standardised techniques for conducting rapid evidence reviews. Document searching was based on a phased approach, commencing with a comprehensive initial search strategy and progressively refining it with each subsequent search iterations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed. Results: The review identified 143 articles, after screening 1135 articles. Out of these, 35 articles were included in the review. The studies encompassed a diverse range of countries, with the majority originating from the United States (n = 14), followed by Canada (n = 5), Sweden (n = 2), and various other single locations (n = 14). These studies presented a varied set of implementation strategies such as research-related activities, the creation of teams/task forces/partnerships, meetings/consultations, mobilising/working with communities, influencing policy, activity evaluation, training, trust-building, and regular meetings, as well as community-academic-policymaker engagement. Conclusions: Evidence networks play a crucial role in developing, sharing, and implementing high-quality research for policy. These networks face challenges like coordinating diverse stakeholders, international collaboration, language barriers, research consistency, knowledge dissemination, capacity building, evaluation, and funding. To enhance their impact, sharing network efforts with wider audiences, including local, national, and international agencies, is essential for evidence-based decision-making to shape evidence-informed policies and programmes effectively.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to identify available reporting guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), delineate their fundamental characteristics, assess the scientific rigor of their development process, and evaluate their dissemination. Study Design and Setting: A search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, WANFANG DATA, and the EQUATOR Network to identify TCM reporting guidelines. A preprepared Excel database was used to extract information on the basic characteristics, development process, and dissemination information. The development process quality of TCM reporting guidelines was assessed by evaluating their compliance with the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (GDHRRG). The extent of dissemination of these guidelines was analyzed by examining the number of citations received. Results: A total of 26 reporting guidelines for TCM were obtained from 20 academic journals, with 61.5% of them published in English journals. Among the guidelines, 14 (53.8%) were registered in the EQUATOR Network. On average, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines was reported to be 63.3% ranging from 22.2% to 94.4%. Three steps showed poor compliance, namely guideline endorsement (23.1%), translated guidelines (19.2%), and developing a publication strategy (19.2%). Furthermore, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines published in English journals was higher than that in Chinese journals. In terms of the dissemination, 15.4% of the guidelines had been cited over 100 times, while 73.1% had been cited less than 50 times. Conclusion: The development of TCM reporting guidelines still has limitations in terms of regarding scientific rigor and follow-up dissemination. Therefore, it is important to ensure adherence to the scientific process in the development of TCM reporting guidelines and to strengthen their promotion, dissemination, and implementation.

Background: The uptake, adoption and integration of new medicines and treatment regimens within healthcare delivery can take a decade or more. Increasingly, implementation science (IS) research is being used to bridge this gap between the availability of new therapeutic evidence and its actual application in clinical practice. Little is known, however, about the quality of IS research in this area, including the degree to which theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) are being used. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the use of TMFs in implementation research involving medicinal products. Methods: A search was conducted for English language abstracts and manuscripts describing the application of TMFs in IS studies for medicinal products. Eligible publications were those published between 1 January 1974 and 12 December 2022. All records were screened at the title and abstract stage; included full-text papers were abstracted using data extraction tables designed for the study. Study quality was appraised using the Implementation Research Development Tool. Results: The initial scoping search identified 2697 publications, of which 9 were ultimately eligible for inclusion in the review. Most studies were published after 2020 and varied in their objectives, design and therapeutic area. Most studies had sample sizes of fewer than 50 participants, and all focused on the post-marketing phase of drug development. The TMF most frequently used was the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Although most studies applied all TMF domains, TMF use was limited to instrument development and/or qualitative analysis. Quality appraisals indicated the need for engaging patients and other stakeholders in the implementation research, reporting on the cost of implementation strategies, and evaluating the unintended consequences of implementation efforts. Conclusions: We found that few IS studies involving medicinal products reported using TMFs. Those that did encompassed a wide variety of therapeutic indications and medicinal products; all were in the post-marketing phase and involved limited application of the TMFs. Researchers should consider conducting IS in earlier phases of drug development and integrating the TMFs throughout the research process. More consistent and in-depth use of TMFs may help advance research in this area.

Background: Dissemination is a critical element of the knowledge translation pathway, and a necessary step to ensure research evidence is adopted and implemented by key end users in order to improve health outcomes. However, evidence-based guidance to inform dissemination activities in research is limited. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe the scientific literature examining strategies to disseminate public health evidence related to the prevention of non-communicable diseases. Methods: Medline, PsycInfo and EBSCO Search Ultimate were searched in May 2021 for studies published between January 2000 and the search date that reported on the dissemination of evidence to end users of public health evidence, within the context of the prevention of non-communicable diseases. Studies were synthesised according to the four components of Brownson and colleagues' Model for Dissemination of Research (source, message, channel and audience), as well as by study design. Results: Of the 107 included studies, only 14% (n = 15) directly tested dissemination strategies using experimental designs. The remainder primarily reported on dissemination preferences of different populations, or outcomes such as awareness, knowledge and intentions to adopt following evidence dissemination. Evidence related to diet, physical activity and/or obesity prevention was the most disseminated topic. Researchers were the source of disseminated evidence in over half the studies, and study findings/knowledge summaries were more frequently disseminated as the message compared to guidelines or an evidence-based program/intervention. A broad range of dissemination channels were utilised, although peer-reviewed publications/conferences and presentations/workshops predominated. Practitioners were the most commonly reported target audience. Conclusions: There is a significant gap in the peer reviewed literature, with few experimental studies published that analyse and evaluate the effect of different sources, messages and target audiences on the determinants of uptake of public health evidence for prevention. Such studies are important as they can help inform and improve the effectiveness of current and future dissemination practices in public health contexts.

Background: Research centers and programs focused on dissemination and implementation science (DIS) training, mentorship, and capacity building have proliferated in recent years. There has yet to be a comprehensive inventory of DIS capacity building program (CBP) cataloging information about activities, infrastructure, and priorities as well as opportunities for shared resources, collaboration, and growth. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide the first inventory of DIS CBPs and describe their key features and offerings. Methods: We defined DIS CBPs as organizations or groups with an explicit focus on building practical knowledge and skills to conduct DIS for health promotion. CBPs were included if they had at least one capacity building activity other than educational coursework or training alone. A multi-method strategy was used to identify DIS CBPs. Data about the characteristics of DIS CBPs were abstracted from each program's website. In addition, a survey instrument was developed and fielded to gather in-depth information about the structure, activities, and resources of each CBP. Results: In total, 165 DIS CBPs met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final CBP inventory. Of these, 68% are affiliated with a United States (US) institution and 32% are internationally based. There was one CBP identified in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC). Of the US-affiliated CBPs, 55% are embedded within a Clinical and Translational Science Award program. Eighty-seven CBPs (53%) responded to a follow-up survey. Of those who completed a survey, the majority used multiple DIS capacity building activities with the most popular being Training and Education (n=69, 79%) followed by Mentorship (n=58, 67%), provision of DIS Resources and Tools (n=57, 66%), Consultation (n=58, 67%), Professional Networking (n=54, 62%), Technical Assistance (n=46, 52%), and Grant Development Support (n=45, 52%). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to catalog DIS programs and synthesize learnings into a set of priorities and sustainment strategies to support DIS capacity building efforts. There is a need for formal certification, accessible options for learners in LMICs, opportunities for practitioners, and opportunities for mid/later stage researchers. Similarly, harmonized measures of reporting and evaluation would facilitate targeted cross-program comparison and collaboration.

OBJECTIVE: Informal caregivers provide substantial support for people living with cancer. Previous systematic reviews report on the efficacy of cancer caregiver interventions, but not their potential to be implemented. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the potential for cancer caregiver interventions to be implemented into practice. METHODS: We searched three electronic databases to identify cancer caregiver interventions on 5 January 2018. We operationalised six implementation outcomes from Proctor et al.'s taxonomy (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, costs) into a tool to guide data extraction. RESULTS: The search yielded 33 papers (27 papers from electronic databases and 6 papers from other sources) reporting on 26 studies that met review criteria. Fewer than half the studies (46%) contained evidence about the acceptability of interventions from caregivers' perspectives; only two studies (8%) included interventions developed with input from caregivers. Two studies (8%) addressed potential adoption of interventions and no studies discussed intentions, agreement, or action to implement interventions into practice. All studies reported on intervention appropriateness by providing a rationale for the interventions. For feasibility, on average less than one third of caregivers who were eligible to be involved consented to participate. On fidelity, whether interventions were conducted as intended was reported in 62% of studies. Cost data were reported in terms of intervention delivery, requiring a median time commitment of staff of 180 minutes to be delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Caregiver intervention studies lack components of study design and reporting that could bridge the gap between research and practice. There is enormous potential for improvements in cancer caregiver intervention study design to plan for future implementation.

Background: The shift from inpatient to outpatient cancer care means that patients are now required to manage their condition at home, away from regular supervision by clinicians. Subsequently, research has consistently reported that many patients with cancer have unmet information needs during their illness. Mobile devices, such as mobile phones and tablet computers, provide an opportunity to deliver information to patients remotely. To date, no systematic reviews have evaluated how mobile devices have been used specifically to help patients meet to their information needs. Objective: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that describe the use of mobile interventions to enable patients with cancer meet their cancer-related information needs in non-inpatient settings, and to describe the effects and feasibility of these interventions. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched up until January 2017. Search terms related to "mobile devices," "information needs," and "cancer" were used. There were no restrictions on study type in order to be as inclusive as possible. Study participants were patients with cancer undergoing treatment. Interventions had to be delivered by a mobile or handheld device, attempt to meet patients' cancer-related information needs, and be for use in non-inpatient settings. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists were used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. A narrative synthesis was performed and findings were organized by common themes found across studies. Results: The initial search yielded 1020 results. We included 23 articles describing 20 studies. Interventions aimed to improve the monitoring and management of treatment-related symptoms (17/20, 85%), directly increase patients' knowledge related to their condition (2/20, 10%), and improve communication of symptoms to clinicians in consultations (1/20, 5%). Studies focused on adult (17/20; age range 24-87 years) and adolescent (3/20; age range 8-18 years) patients. Sample sizes ranged from 4-125, with 13 studies having 25 participants or fewer. Most studies were conducted in the United Kingdom (12/20, 52%) or United States (7/20, 30%). Of the 23 articles included, 12 were of medium quality, 9 of poor quality, and 2 of good quality. Overall, interventions were reported to be acceptable and perceived as useful and easy to use. Few technical problems were encountered. Adherence was generally consistent and high (periods ranged from 5 days to 6 months). However, there was considerable variation in use of intervention components within and between studies. Reported benefits of the interventions included improved symptom management, patient empowerment, and improved clinician-patient communication, although mixed findings were reported for patients' health-related quality of life and anxiety. Conclusions: The current review highlighted that mobile interventions for patients with cancer are only meeting treatment or symptom-related information needs. There were no interventions designed to meet patients' full range of cancer-related information needs, from information on psychological support to how to manage finances during cancer, and the long-term effects of treatment. More comprehensive interventions are required for patients to meet their information needs when managing their condition in non-inpatient settings. Controlled evaluations are needed to further determine the effectiveness of these types of intervention.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence pertaining to the use of social media by health professionals to facilitate chronic disease self-management with their patients. METHODS: A systematic approach was used to retrieve and extract relevant data. A total of 5163 citations were identified, of which seven unique studies met criteria for inclusion; one was a randomized controlled trial, two were prospective cohort studies, and four were qualitative studies. The following social media platforms were evaluated: discussion forums (6 studies) and collaborative project (1 study). RESULTS: The available evidence suggests that health professionals perceived discussion forums and collaborative projects to be useful social media platforms to facilitate chronic disease self-management with patients. No relevant evidence was found regarding the use of other social media platforms. Most studies indicated positive findings regarding health professionals' intention to use discussion forums, while the one study that used a collaborative project also indicated positive findings with its perceived ease of use as health professionals felt that it was useful to facilitate chronic disease self-management with patients. Mixed findings were seen in regards to health professionals' perceived ease of use of discussion forums. The most common barrier to using social media platforms was the lack of time in health professionals' schedules. CONCLUSIONS: Discussion forums and collaborative projects appear to be promising resources for health professionals to assist their patients in self-managing their chronic conditions; however, further research comparing various social media platforms is needed.

Background: Some outcomes for children with mental health problems remain suboptimal because of poor access to care and the failure of systems and providers to adopt established quality improvement strategies and interventions with proven effectiveness. This review had three goals: (1) assess the effectiveness of quality improvement, implementation, and dissemination strategies intended to improve the mental health care of children and adolescents; (2) examine harms associated with these strategies; and (3) determine whether effectiveness or harms differ for subgroups based on system, organizational, practitioner, or patient characteristics. Methods: Sources included MEDLINE (R), the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, from database inception through February 17, 2017. Additional sources included gray literature, additional studies from reference lists, and technical experts. Two reviewers selected relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Dual analysis, synthesis, and grading of the strength of evidence for each outcome followed for studies meeting inclusion criteria. We also used qualitative comparative analysis to examine relationships between combinations of strategy components and improvements in outcomes. Results: We identified 18 strategies described in 19 studies. Eleven strategies significantly improved at least one measure of intermediate outcomes, final health outcomes, or resource use. Moderate strength of evidence ( from one RCT) supported using provider financial incentives such as pay for performance to improve the competence with which practitioners can implement evidence-based practices (EBPs). We found inconsistent evidence involving strategies with educational meetings, materials, and outreach; programs appeared to be successful in combination with reminders or providing practitioners with newly collected clinical information. We also found low strength of evidence for no benefit for initiatives that included only educational materials or meetings (or both), or only educational materials and outreach components. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions on harms and moderators of interventions. Conclusions: Several strategies can improve both intermediate and final health outcomes and resource use. This complex and heterogeneous body of evidence does not permit us to have a high degree of confidence about the efficacy of any one strategy because we generally found only a single study testing each strategy.

BACKGROUND: Some outcomes for children with mental health problems remain suboptimal because of poor access to care and the failure of systems and providers to adopt established quality improvement strategies and interventions with proven effectiveness. This review had three goals: (1) assess the effectiveness of quality improvement, implementation, and dissemination strategies intended to improve the mental health care of children and adolescents; (2) examine harms associated with these strategies; and (3) determine whether effectiveness or harms differ for subgroups based on system, organizational, practitioner, or patient characteristics. METHODS: Sources included MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, from database inception through February 17, 2017. Additional sources included gray literature, additional studies from reference lists, and technical experts. Two reviewers selected relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Dual analysis, synthesis, and grading of the strength of evidence for each outcome followed for studies meeting inclusion criteria. We also used qualitative comparative analysis to examine relationships between combinations of strategy components and improvements in outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 18 strategies described in 19 studies. Eleven strategies significantly improved at least one measure of intermediate outcomes, final health outcomes, or resource use. Moderate strength of evidence (from one RCT) supported using provider financial incentives such as pay for performance to improve the competence with which practitioners can implement evidence-based practices (EBPs). We found inconsistent evidence involving strategies with educational meetings, materials, and outreach; programs appeared to be successful in combination with reminders or providing practitioners with newly collected clinical information. We also found low strength of evidence for no benefit for initiatives that included only educational materials or meetings (or both), or only educational materials and outreach components. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions on harms and moderators of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Several strategies can improve both intermediate and final health outcomes and resource use. This complex and heterogeneous body of evidence does not permit us to have a high degree of confidence about the efficacy of any one strategy because we generally found only a single study testing each strategy.

Knowledge is an intangible asset in Organizations, and provides a comparative advantage to those who possess it. Hospitals are complex organizations with unique characteristics because of the heterogeneity of health professionals' orientation, the composite networking and the decision-making processes. A deeper understanding of knowledge management (KM) could streamline productivity and coordinate the use of resources more efficient. We conducted a systematic literature search of peer-reviewed papers that described key elements of KM using three databases (Medline, Cinahl and Health Source: nursing/academic edition) for a 10-year period (1/1/2004-25/11/2014). The included articles were subjected to qualitative content analysis. We retrieved 604 articles of which 20 articles were eligible for analysis. Most of the studies (n=13) used a qualitative methodology. The total sample size was 2155 participants. The key elements that arose were as follows: perceptions of KM, synthesis, dissemination, collaboration, means of KM and leadership. Moreover, this study identified barriers for KM implementation, like time restrictions and limited skills. Healthcare managers ought to cultivate a knowledge environment, operate as role models, provide the tools for KM and reward people who act as knowledge brokers. Opportunities for collaboration and knowledge sharing should be encouraged. Successful KM should be patient-centered to gain its maximum value. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background: The transfer of research knowledge into clinical practice can be a continuous challenge for researchers. Information and communication technologies, such as websites and email, have emerged as popular tools for the dissemination of evidence to health professionals. Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to identify research on health professionals' perceived usability and practice behavior change of information and communication technologies for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. Methods: We used a systematic approach to retrieve and extract data about relevant studies. We identified 2248 citations, of which 21 studies met criteria for inclusion; 20 studies were randomized controlled trials, and 1 was a controlled clinical trial. The following information and communication technologies were evaluated: websites (5 studies), computer software (3 studies), Web-based workshops (2 studies), computerized decision support systems (2 studies), electronic educational game (1 study), email (2 studies), and multifaceted interventions that consisted of at least one information and communication technology component (6 studies). Results: Website studies demonstrated significant improvements in perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, but not for knowledge, reducing barriers, and intention to use clinical practice guidelines. Computer software studies demonstrated significant improvements in perceived usefulness, but not for knowledge and skills. Web-based workshop and email studies demonstrated significant improvements in knowledge, perceived usefulness, and skills. An electronic educational game intervention demonstrated a significant improvement from baseline in knowledge after 12 and 24 weeks. Computerized decision support system studies demonstrated variable findings for improvement in skills. Multifaceted interventions demonstrated significant improvements in beliefs about capabilities, perceived usefulness, and intention to use clinical practice guidelines, but variable findings for improvements in skills. Most multifaceted studies demonstrated significant improvements in knowledge. Conclusions: The findings suggest that health professionals' perceived usability and practice behavior change vary by type of information and communication technology. Heterogeneity and the paucity of properly conducted studies did not allow for a clear comparison between studies and a conclusion on the effectiveness of information and communication technologies as a knowledge translation strategy for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The clinical role of community pharmacists is expanding, as is the use of clinical guidelines in this setting. However, it is unclear which strategies are successful in implementing clinical guidelines and what outcomes can be achieved. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the literature on the implementation of clinical guidelines to community pharmacy. The objectives are to describe the implementation strategies used, describe the resulting outcomes and to assess the effectiveness of the strategies. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in six electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Informit, Cochrane Library) for relevant articles. Studies were included if they reported on clinical guidelines implementation strategies in the community pharmacy setting. Two researchers completed the full-search strategy, data abstraction and quality assessments, independently. A third researcher acted as a moderator. Quality assessments were completed with three validated tools. A narrative synthesis was performed to analyse results. RESULTS: A total of 1937 articles were retrieved and the titles and abstracts were screened. Full-text screening was completed for 36 articles resulting in 19 articles (reporting on 22 studies) included for review. Implementation strategies were categorised according to a modified version of the EPOC taxonomy. Educational interventions were the most commonly utilised strategy (n = 20), and computerised decision support systems demonstrated the greatest effect (n = 4). Most studies were multifaceted and used more than one implementation strategy (n = 18). Overall outcomes were moderately positive (n = 17) but focused on process (n = 22) rather than patient (n = 3) or economic outcomes (n = 3). Most studies (n = 20) were rated as being of low methodological quality and having low or very low quality of evidence for outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Studies in this review did not generally have a well thought-out rationale for the choice of implementation strategy. Most utilised educational strategies, but the greatest effect on outcomes was demonstrated using computerised clinical decision support systems. Poor methodology, in the majority of the research, provided insufficient evidence to be conclusive about the best implementation strategies or the benefit of clinical guidelines in this setting. However, the generally positive outcomes across studies and strategies indicate that implementing clinical guidelines to community pharmacy might be beneficial. Improved methodological rigour in future research is required to strengthen the evidence for this hypothesis. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2012: CRD42012003019

Aims. This paper summarizes the results of a systematic literature review to examine the quality and content of the evidence relating to nursing approaches to improving the mobility and movement of older people. Background. Older people experiencing health breakdown often develop problems with movement and mobility and nurses play a role in helping patients to either adapt to or overcome these difficulties. Methods. Electronic searches were undertaken of Medline, CINAHL, Amed and Cochrane Database of systematic reviews. Papers about nursing approaches to promoting mobility and movement were critically appraised using quality assessment checklists. Papers addressing safe moving and handling, falls prevention, health promotion, rehabilitation or teamworking in general were excluded. Results. Sixteen research and 33 informational papers were included and comprise the review. Many research papers used weak designs and small sample sizes, limiting their ability to control for important confounding variables. Although numerous studies examined effectiveness, only one used a randomised controlled trial design. Papers were grouped into four interlinked sets. These were promoting mobility and preventing immobility; walking and exercise; neuro-developmental principles; and rehabilitation patient handling. Conclusions. Specific foci for nursing assessment and interventions to promote patients' mobility have been identified. However, the fragmented nature of the evidence makes it difficult to make recommendations for nursing practice. Future research should be conducted by multi-professional research teams to identify the most effective approaches to promoting patients' mobility and to explore overlaps between different members of the rehabilitation team. Relevance to clinical practice. Regaining the ability to move and walk is often a key concern for patients who have suffered health breakdown. Although nurses provide patients with assistance the evidence available does little to direct nurses as to the best approach towards mobility rehabilitation. It is important that nurses play a role in measuring the efficacy of different interventions to promote rehabilitation.

Knowledge is an intangible asset in Organizations, and provides a comparative advantage to those who possess it. Hospitals are complex organizations with unique characteristics because of the heterogeneity of health professionals' orientation, the composite networking and the decision-making processes. A deeper understanding of knowledge management (KM) could streamline productivity and coordinate the use of resources more efficient. We conducted a systematic literature search of peer-reviewed papers that described key elements of KM using three databases (Medline, Cinahl and Health Source: nursing/academic edition) for a 10-year period (1/1/2004-25/11/2014). The included articles were subjected to qualitative content analysis. We retrieved 604 articles of which 20 articles were eligible for analysis. Most of the studies (n=13) used a qualitative methodology. The total sample size was 2155 participants. The key elements that arose were as follows: perceptions of KM, synthesis, dissemination, collaboration, means of KM and leadership. Moreover, this study identified barriers for KM implementation, like time restrictions and limited skills. Healthcare managers ought to cultivate a knowledge environment, operate as role models, provide the tools for KM and reward people who act as knowledge brokers. Opportunities for collaboration and knowledge sharing should be encouraged. Successful KM should be patient-centered to gain its maximum value. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd