Introduction: There is no recent consensus on the effectiveness of teledentistry versus in-person examination in the diagnosis of dental caries, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of teledentistry versus in-person examination for dental caries diagnosis (PROSPERO #CRD42023410962). Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of teledentistry versus in-person examination for dental caries diagnosis. The eligibility criteria were peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2013 and December 2021 that reported diagnostic parameters (specificity and sensitivity) for caries detection in primary and permanent dentition. Articles were extracted using search strategies from PubMed and CINAHL databases and screened using PRISMA-DTA guidelines, following a review for quality assessment and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists. Meta-analysis was conducted in R using the MADA package. A descriptive analysis of the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and confidence intervals was performed with respective forest plots. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane and Higgins's 2 tests. Univariate measures of diagnostic accuracy were performed based on the DerSimonian-Laird random effect and reported summary diagnostic odds ratios. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed and included in the meta-analysis. The diagnostic parameters ranged from 45.6% to 88.3% for sensitivity, 55.2% to 98.3% for specificity, 79% to 92% for positive predictive value, 48% to 97% for negative predictive value, and 70% to 96% for accuracy. The κ scores ranged from 0.46 to 0.89 for teledentistry modalities. Tests for equality of sensitivities and specificities were significant ( < 0.001). The studies were not heterogeneous with Cochran's : 14.502 ( = 0.206) and Higgins's 2 of 24%. The multivariable analysis showed a diagnostic odds ratio based on the DerSimonian-Laird random effect of 35.14, which indicates that the odds of caries detection via teledentistry is 35 times more true positive (i.e., correctly identifying a positive condition) than false positive. Conclusions: Diagnosis of caries via teledentistry is effective and comparable to in-person diagnosis. Remote assessments are consistent in diagnostic accuracy for caries.Knowledge Transfer Statement:This systematic review and meta-analysis added to the evidence about using teledentistry assessment as a diagnostically accurate tool to detect dental caries. Using teledentistry dental practices could promote greater access to dental and oral health care in the absence of in-person assessment.

Introduction: There is no recent consensus on the effectiveness of teledentistry versus in-person examination in the diagnosis of dental caries, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of teledentistry versus in-person examination for dental caries diagnosis (PROSPERO #CRD42023410962). Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of teledentistry versus in-person examination for dental caries diagnosis. The eligibility criteria were peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2013 and December 2021 that reported diagnostic parameters (specificity and sensitivity) for caries detection in primary and permanent dentition. Articles were extracted using search strategies from PubMed and CINAHL databases and screened using PRISMA-DTA guidelines, following a review for quality assessment and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists. Meta-analysis was conducted in R using the MADA package. A descriptive analysis of the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and confidence intervals was performed with respective forest plots. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane Q and Higgins's I(2 )tests. Univariate measures of diagnostic accuracy were performed based on the DerSimonian-Laird random effect and reported summary diagnostic odds ratios. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed and included in the meta-analysis. The diagnostic parameters ranged from 45.6% to 88.3% for sensitivity, 55.2% to 98.3% for specificity, 79% to 92% for positive predictive value, 48% to 97% for negative predictive value, and 70% to 96% for accuracy. The kappa scores ranged from 0.46 to 0.89 for teledentistry modalities. Tests for equality of sensitivities and specificities were significant (P < 0.001). The studies were not heterogeneous with Cochran's Q: 14.502 (P = 0.206) and Higgins's I-2 of 24%. The multivariable analysis showed a diagnostic odds ratio based on the DerSimonian-Laird random effect of 35.14, which indicates that the odds of caries detection via teledentistry is 35 times more true positive (i.e., correctly identifying a positive condition) than false positive. Conclusions: Diagnosis of caries via teledentistry is effective and comparable to in-person diagnosis. Remote assessments are consistent in diagnostic accuracy for caries. Knowledge Transfer Statement: This systematic review and meta-analysis added to the evidence about using teledentistry assessment as a diagnostically accurate tool to detect dental caries. Using teledentistry dental practices could promote greater access to dental and oral health care in the absence of in-person assessment.

BackgroundCerebral palsy (CP) is the most common childhood physical disability, imposing substantial costs on individuals and society. Early interventions that promote brain optimization and reorganization are vital for children with CP. Integrating early evidence-based practice (EBP) remains challenging but enhances functional outcomes.MethodsFollowing a scoping review methodology, databases were searched to identify studies examining the impact of knowledge translation (KT) strategies for pediatric CP interventions. Extraction included study characteristics, methodology, KT strategies, barriers, and facilitators. Numerical and inductive content analysis identified themes among KT strategies. A final stakeholder consultation to discuss the results was conducted.ResultsThis review included seventeen articles. Common outcomes included participant change in EBP knowledge and behaviour. Common barriers included a need for more resources, protected time, and funding. Most studies followed a multifaceted KT approach. Various KT strategies were used, primarily mentoring, workshops, case studies, and online tools.InterpretationResults underscored the need for tailored KT strategies for implementing EBP for children with CP. Additionally, user-friendly KT tools and involving mentors to facilitate the intervention can haste EBP uptake. Successful adoption depends on challenges in healthcare settings. This study provides insights into current KT strategies for advancing best practices for children with CP. Employing multifaceted knowledge translation strategies in a pediatric rehabilitation setting can support the adoption of evidence-based practices for children with cerebral palsy.It is important to identify and address common barriers hindering the use of evidence-based practices in cerebral palsy rehabilitation in a specific context to tailor a knowledge translation strategy.Having qualified rehabilitation professionals act as evidence-based practice leaders in a healthcare setting is crucial for promoting evidence-based practices among other professionals.

Background: Translating research into clinical practice is challenging. One implementation intervention that supports translation is employment of a change champion. It is important to understand how individuals are prepared for the change champion role. This rapid systematic review aimed to identify the education, training, and support provided to individuals in change champion roles within implementation trials. Method: Rapid review approach. We searched the Scopus database to identify systematic reviews on champions, knowledge brokers, facilitators, and implementation support practitioners. The most recent reviews on each topic were screened to find eligible studies. To identify studies published after these reviews, we searched Medline, PsycINFO, OVID, CINAHL, ProQuest, SCOPUS, and EBSCO. We included randomised and cluster randomised controlled trials that reported on implementation interventions in healthcare settings involving a local change champion. Results: Fifteen cluster randomised controlled trials were included. Specific champion training was provided in 12 studies (80%), but none reported incorporating adult learning principles into their education program. Some form of post-training support was reported in 11 studies (73%). Only two studies included content on behaviour or organizational change in the champion preparation program. Most programs were not individualized, and details of training and support were poorly reported. Conclusions: Training needs and educational outcomes of change champions are poorly reported in implementation trials. Training tends not to align with adult learning. More rigorous development and reporting of programs to prepare change champions to support implementation of evidence in healthcare is recommended. Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42022368276.

AimTo systematically search, evaluate and synthesise the most robust evidence regarding pressure injury prevention in orthopaedic patients admitted to general wards.DesignThe present study provides an evidence-based summary of the most robust findings, adhering to the evidence guidelines established by the Center for Evidence-Based Nursing of Fudan University.MethodAccording to the 6S model, a systematic search was conducted for literature on pressure injury prevention among orthopaedic patients in general wards. The types of literature included guidelines, clinical decisions, expert Consensus, evidence summaries, etc. The search period covered the time from the beginning of the database up to December 2023.Data SourcesThe following databases and resources were systematically searched: Up To Date, JBI, NICE, WOCN, NZWCS, etc.ResultsFifteen literature sources were included, comprising one clinical decision, eight guidelines, one systematic review, and one expert Consensus. In these sources, a comprehensive collection of 34 pieces of best evidence was formed across six key topics: risk assessment, position management, skin care, device used for device-related pressure injury, nutritional assessment, and support, as well as health education and training. Among the evidence gathered, a strong recommendation was made for 18 pieces, while the remaining 16 received a weak recommendation.ConclusionThis study provides a comprehensive synthesis of the most robust evidence on pressure injury prevention in orthopaedic patients, encompassing 34 pieces of evidence that can serve as valuable references for clinical practice. Before implementing this evidence, it is crucial to evaluate the specific contextual factors within different countries and medical institutions, as well as the facilitators and barriers influencing its application by healthcare professionals and patient's preferences. Furthermore, targeted evidence selection should be conducted through careful screening and subsequent adjustments in implementation, thereby offering a more scientifically grounded basis for clinical nursing practice. Future research endeavours should prioritise investigating strategies for effective evidence utilisation.Implications for the Profession and Patient CareThe prevention of pressure injuries poses a significant challenge for orthopaedic patients. This study presents a synthesis of 34 pieces of best evidence to provide guidance on preventive measures for pressure injuries in orthopaedic patients. Adhering to and implementing these 34 pieces of evidence can effectively aid in preventing pressure injuries in clinical practice. This evidence encompasses risk assessment, position management, skin care, device usage for device-related pressure injuries, nutritional support and evaluation, and health education and training, establishing a comprehensive and systematic implementation process. Assessing the risk of pressure injuries during interventions serves as an essential prerequisite for developing effective strategies to prevent such injuries among orthopaedic patients. Ultimately, this study will offer valuable guidance to healthcare professionals worldwide regarding preventing pressure injuries in orthopaedic patients.ImpactUpon admission to the hospital, it is essential to conduct a risk assessment and implement evidence-based, individualised prevention measures for pressure ulcers in patients to prevent their occurrence. This study will provide valuable insights into preventing pressure injuries in orthopaedic patients admitted to orthopaedic wards for healthcare workers worldwide.StateThe PRIMA manifest is utilised during the text preparation process. Trail Registration: ES20245365StateThe PRIMA manifest is utilised during the text preparation process. Trail Registration: ES20245365

Background: Evidence-based practice is defined as using the best available research and clinical evidence by incorporating patients' values and preferences for their health needs. The use of evidence-based intrapartum care practices is an essential tool to improve the quality of obstetrics care. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of evidence-based intrapartum care and associated factors among obstetrics care providers in Ethiopia. Method: Important articles were retrieved from universally accepted and used databases, including Cochran, PubMed, HINARI, Google Scholar, Web of Science, African OnLine, and repositories of Ethiopian Universities. We extracted articles by using a standard JOANNA Briggs Institute data extraction sheet. To determine the existence of heterogeneity in studies, I 2 statistics and Cochran Q tests were used. The publication bias of the included studies was checked using Egger's test and a Funnel plot. Result: A total of 2035 obstetrics care providers were involved in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The estimated overall rate of evidence-based intrapartum care practice in Ethiopia was 54.45% (95% CI: 43.06, 65.83); I 2 = 96.6%, p < 0.001). The studies with a sample size greater than 300 count for 47.25% (95% CI: 36.14, 65.83). Whereas obstetrics care providers have a decent knowledge of intrapartum care evidence 3.31 times, a positive attitude toward evidence 3.34 times, training 2.21 times, and work experience ⩾5 years 3.31 times associated with the practice of evidence-based intrapartum care. Conclusion: The overall practice of evidence-based intrapartum care among obstetrics workers in Ethiopia is estimated to be low. Therefore, there should be a focused effort on training and disseminating protocols and guidelines to enhance knowledge and foster a positive attitude among obstetrics care providers. Additionally, the Ethiopian government should prioritize the implementation of the 2021 to 2025 National Health Equity Strategic Plan to achieve its objective of improving the quality of health services.

Background Generally, public health policy-making is hardly a linear process and is characterized by interactions among politicians, institutions, researchers, technocrats and practitioners from diverse fields, as well as brokers, interest groups, financiers and a gamut of other actors. Meanwhile, most public health policies and systems in Africa appear to be built loosely on technical and scientific evidence, but with high political systems and ideologies. While studies on national health policies in Africa are growing, there seems to be inadequate evidence mapping on common themes and concepts across existing literature.Purpose The study seeks to explore the extent and type of evidence that exist on the conflict between politics and scientific evidence in the national health policy-making processes in Africa.Methods A thorough literature search was done in PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Dimensions, Taylor and Francis, Chicago Journals, Emerald Insight, JSTOR and Google Scholar. In total, 43 peer-reviewed articles were eligible and used for this review.Result We found that the conflicts to evidence usage in policy-making include competing interests and lack of commitment; global policy goals, interest/influence, power imbalance and funding, morals; and evidence-based approaches, self-sufficiency, collaboration among actors, policy priorities and existing structures. Barriers to the health policy process include fragmentation among actors, poor advocacy, lack of clarity on the agenda, inadequate evidence, inadequate consultation and corruption. The impact of the politics-evidence conflict includes policy agenda abrogation, suboptimal policy development success and policy implementation inadequacies.Conclusions We report that political interests in most cases influence policy-makers and other stakeholders to prioritize financial gains over the use of research evidence to policy goals and targets. This situation has the tendency for inadequate health policies with poor implementation gaps. Addressing these issues requires incorporating relevant evidence into health policies, making strong leadership, effective governance and a commitment to public health.

Background: Generally, public health policy-making is hardly a linear process and is characterized by interactions among politicians, institutions, researchers, technocrats and practitioners from diverse fields, as well as brokers, interest groups, financiers and a gamut of other actors. Meanwhile, most public health policies and systems in Africa appear to be built loosely on technical and scientific evidence, but with high political systems and ideologies. While studies on national health policies in Africa are growing, there seems to be inadequate evidence mapping on common themes and concepts across existing literature. Purpose: The study seeks to explore the extent and type of evidence that exist on the conflict between politics and scientific evidence in the national health policy-making processes in Africa. Methods: A thorough literature search was done in PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Dimensions, Taylor and Francis, Chicago Journals, Emerald Insight, JSTOR and Google Scholar. In total, 43 peer-reviewed articles were eligible and used for this review. Result: We found that the conflicts to evidence usage in policy-making include competing interests and lack of commitment; global policy goals, interest/influence, power imbalance and funding, morals; and evidence-based approaches, self-sufficiency, collaboration among actors, policy priorities and existing structures. Barriers to the health policy process include fragmentation among actors, poor advocacy, lack of clarity on the agenda, inadequate evidence, inadequate consultation and corruption. The impact of the politics-evidence conflict includes policy agenda abrogation, suboptimal policy development success and policy implementation inadequacies. Conclusions: We report that political interests in most cases influence policy-makers and other stakeholders to prioritize financial gains over the use of research evidence to policy goals and targets. This situation has the tendency for inadequate health policies with poor implementation gaps. Addressing these issues requires incorporating relevant evidence into health policies, making strong leadership, effective governance and a commitment to public health.

Background: Achievement of evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) requires the integration of evidence into all practice decisions by identifying and synthesizing evidence, then developing and executing plans to implement and evaluate changes to practice. This rapid systematic review synthesizes evidence for strategies for the implementation of EIDM across organizations, mapping facilitators and barriers to the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour) model for behaviour change. The review was conducted to support leadership at organizations delivering public health services (health promotion, communicable disease prevention) to drive change toward evidence-informed public health. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in multiple databases and by reviewing publications of key authors. Articles that describe interventions to drive EIDM within teams, departments, or organizations were eligible for inclusion. For each included article, quality was assessed, and details of the intervention, setting, outcomes, facilitators and barriers were extracted. A convergent integrated approach was undertaken to analyze both quantitative and qualitative findings. Results: Thirty-seven articles are included. Studies were conducted in primary care, public health, social services, and occupational health settings. Strategies to implement EIDM included the establishment of Knowledge Broker-type roles, building the EIDM capacity of staff, and research or academic partnerships. Facilitators and barriers align with the COM-B model for behaviour change. Facilitators for capability include the development of staff knowledge and skill, establishing specialized roles, and knowledge sharing across the organization, though staff turnover and subsequent knowledge loss was a barrier to capability. For opportunity, facilitators include the development of processes or mechanisms to support new practices, forums for learning and skill development, and protected time, and barriers include competing priorities. Facilitators identified for motivation include supportive organizational culture, expectations for new practices to occur, recognition and positive reinforcement, and strong leadership support. Barriers include negative attitudes toward new practices, and lack of understanding and support from management. Conclusion: This review provides a comprehensive analysis of facilitators and barriers for the implementation of EIDM in organizations for public health, mapped to the COM-B model for behaviour change. The existing literature for strategies to support EIDM in public health illustrates several facilitators and barriers linked to realizing EIDM. Knowledge of these factors will help senior leadership develop and implement EIDM strategies tailored to their organization, leading to increased likelihood of implementation success. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022318994.

Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods and are conducted in a condensed timeline to meet the decision-making needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) are those individuals, typically patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy-makers, who are likely to use evidence from research, including RRs, to make informed decisions about health policies, programmes or practices. However, research suggests that KU involvement in RRs is often limited or overlooked, and few RRs include patients as KUs. Existing RR methods guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how and when to do so. This paper discusses the importance of involving KUs in RRs, including patient and public involvement to ensure RRs are fit for purpose and relevant for decision-making. Opportunities to involve KUs in planning, conduct and knowledge translation of RRs are outlined. Further, this paper describes various modes of engaging KUs during the review lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful of when involving distinct KU groups; and an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive involvement of patient partners and the public in developing RRs. Although involving KUs requires time, resources and expertise, researchers should strive to balance 'rapid' with meaningful KU involvement in RRs. This paper is the first in a series led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to further guide general RR methods.

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a cornerstone for safe, high-quality care. Implementation science recognizes that many factors influence the successful use of EBP, from attitudes and beliefs, self-efficacy, and knowledge and skills to contextual factors related to unit and organizational culture. This integrative review aimed to identify valid and reliable instruments measuring critical EBP domains with nursing professionals. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted. CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Joanna Briggs were searched to identify original research publications testing the reliability and validity of EBP nursing instruments. Results: Of 347 records, 48 studies representing 50 instruments were identified as having undergone psychometric testing, thus meeting the inclusion criteria. Most instruments were validated in English-speaking countries. Content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency standards were met for 70%, 62%, and 94% of instruments, respectively. Limited testing was found for other types of validity, test-retest reliability, acceptability, feasibility, or responsivity and sensitivity, thus representing gaps in psychometric validation. Less than 20% of instruments have been translated to other languages limiting their use to advance EBP worldwide. Linking evidence to action: Eighty-two percent of instruments met minimal psychometric standards and are sound for education, practice, and research. Expanding psychometric testing and utilizing validated EBP instruments will further the EBP movement to improve global population health.

Objective: This study utilized the evidence-gap map method and critically examined the scope, methodologies, and focus of the studies that investigated the influence of the built environment on inpatient healthcare settings over a decade (2010-2021). Methods: We conducted a systematic review per the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines and surveyed 406 articles, primarily from North America and Europe. Results: Our findings revealed a dominant focus on architectural features (73%), such as room design and ward layout. Comparatively, there was less emphasis on interior-, ambient-, social-, and nature-related features. Most previous studies explored multiple environmental features, which indicated the intricacy of this field. Research outcomes were diverse, with person-centered care (PCC) being the most frequently investigated, followed by safe care, emotional well-being, activity, and behavior. Furthermore, research methods varied considerably based on the study's outcomes and features. Clinical outcomes and safe care favored quantitative methods, activity and behavior favored mixed methods, and PCC favored qualitative research. Conclusion: This review provides an in-depth overview of the existing studies on healthcare design research and sheds light on the current trends and methodological choices. The insights garnered can guide future research, policy-making, and the development of healthcare facilities.

Objective: This study aimed to determine whether targeting specific implementation determinants is associated with allied health clinicians' uptake of evidence when implemented within stroke rehabilitation settings. Data sources: 7 key databases were searched to identify articles published between 1990 and 2022 for inclusion. Reference lists of relevant articles were hand searched. Study selection: Studies were independently screened by 2 authors and included if the implementation intervention targeted allied health clinical practice in any stroke rehabilitation context and reported at least 1 quantitative measure of evidence uptake. Thirty studies met inclusion criteria. Data extraction: Data were independently extracted by the first and second author. Implementation outcomes for each study were categorized as either mostly successful, partially successful, or not successful based on the degree of evidence uptake achieved. Determinants targeted were categorized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data synthesis: Patterns between the degree of evidence uptake and determinants targeted across studies were analyzed by the first and second authors in 1 of 3 groups: A (pre-post statistical analysis), B (pre-post descriptive analysis), or C (post-only descriptive analysis). Patterns between evidence uptake and determinants targeted were first identified within groups A and B, with group C consulted to support findings. All studies categorized as "mostly successful" targeted facilitation in combination with establishing face-to-face networks and communication strategies. Conversely, no studies rated "not successful" targeted either of these determinants. Studies rated "partially successful" targeted either 1, but seldom both, of these determinants. Conclusions: This review has provided descriptive evidence of determinants which may be important to target for allied health clinicians' uptake of evidence within stroke rehabilitation settings.

Background: Evidence-based practice is defined as using the best available research and clinical evidence by incorporating patients' values and preferences for their health needs. The use of evidence-based intrapartum care practices is an essential tool to improve the quality of obstetrics care. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of evidence-based intrapartum care and associated factors among obstetrics care providers in Ethiopia. Method: Important articles were retrieved from universally accepted and used databases, including Cochran, PubMed, HINARI, Google Scholar, Web of Science, African OnLine, and repositories of Ethiopian Universities. We extracted articles by using a standard JOANNA Briggs Institute data extraction sheet. To determine the existence of heterogeneity in studies, I2 statistics and Cochran Q tests were used. The publication bias of the included studies was checked using Egger's test and a Funnel plot. Result: A total of 2035 obstetrics care providers were involved in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The estimated overall rate of evidence-based intrapartum care practice in Ethiopia was 54.45% (95% CI: 43.06, 65.83); I2 = 96.6%, p = 5 years 3.31 times associated with the practice of evidence-based intrapartum care. Conclusion: The overall practice of evidence-based intrapartum care among obstetrics workers in Ethiopia is estimated to be low. Therefore, there should be a focused effort on training and disseminating protocols and guidelines to enhance knowledge and foster a positive attitude among obstetrics care providers. Additionally, the Ethiopian government should prioritize the implementation of the 2021 to 2025 National Health Equity Strategic Plan to achieve its objective of improving the quality of health services.

Background: This collaborative study by The Australasian College of Paramedicine's Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) Working Group aimed to examine CPG development practices in Australian and New Zealand ambulance services. Methods: Employing a qualitative descriptive design, the research utilised thematic analysis to extract insights from interviews with eleven experts actively involved in CPG development. The study embraced a nominalist and constructivist approach, recognising the intricate connection between individual experiences and the realities of CPG development in the paramedic field. Results: Key findings revealed significant heterogeneity in CPG development practices, emphasising a lack of formal training and a substantial reliance on existing guidelines. The study highlighted challenges in project management flexibility, limited research capacity, and inconsistencies in external consultations and resource utilisation. Conclusion: The study recommends adopting project management frameworks, investing in training, and utilising evidence evaluation methodologies like GRADE. It emphasises the need for multidisciplinary teams and formal expertise in evidence synthesis, advocating for targeted training programs. Funding challenges highlight the importance of dedicated budgets and collaborative efforts for resource allocation. Knowledge translation and implementation issues underscore the significance of training programs for evidence evaluation and knowledge translation in overcoming these challenges.

Evidence-based information is essential for effective mental health care, yet the extent and accessibility of the scientific literature are critical barriers for professionals and policymakers. To map the necessities and make validated resources accessible, we undertook a systematic review of scientific evidence on child and adolescent mental health in Greece encompassing three research topics: prevalence estimates, assessment instruments, and interventions. We searched Pubmed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and IATPOTEK from inception to December 16th, 2021. We included studies assessing the prevalence of conditions, reporting data on assessment tools, and experimental interventions. For each area, manuals informed data extraction and the methodological quality were ascertained using validated tools. This review was registered in protocols.io [68583]. We included 104 studies reporting 533 prevalence estimates, 223 studies informing data on 261 assessment instruments, and 34 intervention studies. We report the prevalence of conditions according to regions within the country. A repository of locally validated instruments and their psychometrics was compiled. An overview of interventions provided data on their effectiveness. The outcomes are made available in an interactive resource online [ https://rpubs.com/camhi/sysrev_table ]. Scientific evidence on child and adolescent mental health in Greece has now been cataloged and appraised. This timely and accessible compendium of up-to-date evidence offers valuable resources for clinical practice and policymaking in Greece and may encourage similar assessments in other countries.

Background: Clinical practice guideline (CPGs) are highly valuable in enhancing healthcare efficiency as they lead to the selection of the best medical methods and reduction of their costs. Nevertheless, implementing CPGs in practice can be quite challenging, as they require alterations at individual, organizational, and health system levels. Therefore, we aimed to identify the outcomes, barriers, and facilitators associated with CPG implementation. Methods: We conducted an extensive search using Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and various non-English databases to gather quantitative, qualitative, and review studies on the implementation of CPGs from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 26, 2022. Our analysis focused on the outcomes, barriers, and facilitators of CPG implementation, which categorized into four groups: policy-making, health system and hospitals, professional experts, and clinical guidelines. Results: After conducting a thorough review of 37 studies, the most significant outcomes were found to be reduced costs and enhanced quality of care. However, certain challenges, such as inadequate support, insufficient education, high work pressure, tight schedules, and a lack of unified and clear guidelines, hindered these improvements. To overcome these barriers, it is essential to prioritize effective leadership, improve work conditions, allocate necessary resources, create a structured framework for the guidelines, and simplify their content to fit the clinical circumstances. Conclusion: It is crucial to identify the outcomes and barriers associated with implementing CPGs to enhance professional performance, elevate the quality of care, and foster patient satisfaction. Developing effective strategies hinges on this awareness.

Background: Knowledge translation (KT) strategies are widely used to facilitate the implementation of EBIs into healthcare practices. However, it is unknown what and how KT strategies are used to facilitate the sustainability of EBIs in institutional healthcare settings. Objectives: This scoping review aimed to consolidate the current evidence on (i) what and how KT strategies are being used for the sustainability of EBIs in institutional healthcare settings; (ii) the reported KT strategy outcomes (e.g., acceptability) for EBI sustainability, and (iii) the reported EBI sustainability outcomes (e.g., EBI activities or component of the intervention continue). Methods: We conducted a scoping review of five electronic databases. We included studies describing the use of specific KT strategies to facilitate the sustainability of EBIs (more than 1-year post-implementation). We coded KT strategies using the clustered ERIC taxonomy and AIMD framework, we coded KT strategy outcomes using Tierney et al.'s measures, and EBI sustainability outcomes using Scheirer and Dearing's and Lennox's taxonomy. We conducted descriptive numerical summaries and a narrative synthesis to analyze the results. Results: The search identified 3776 studies for review. Following the screening, 25 studies (reported in 27 papers due to two companion reports) met the final inclusion criteria. Most studies used multi-component KT strategies for EBI sustainability (n = 24). The most common ERIC KT strategy clusters were to train and educate stakeholders (n = 38) and develop stakeholder interrelationships (n = 34). Education was the most widely used KT strategy (n = 17). Many studies (n = 11) did not clearly report whether they used different or the same KT strategies between EBI implementation and sustainability. Seven studies adapted KT strategies from implementation to sustainability efforts. Only two studies reported using a new KT strategy for EBI sustainability. The most reported KT strategy outcomes were acceptability (n = 10), sustainability (n = 5); and adoption (n = 4). The most commonly measured EBI sustainability outcome was the continuation of EBI activities or components (n = 23), followed by continued benefits for patients, staff, and stakeholders (n = 22). Conclusions: Our review provides insight into a conceptual problem where initial EBI implementation and sustainability are considered as two discrete time periods. Our findings show we need to consider EBI implementation and sustainability as a continuum and design and select KT strategies with this in mind. Our review has emphasized areas that require further research (e.g., KT strategy adaptation for EBI sustainability). To advance understanding of how to employ KT strategies for EBI sustainability, we recommend clearly reporting the dose, frequency, adaptations, fidelity, and cost of KT strategies. Advancing our understanding in this area would facilitate better design, selection, tailored, and adapted use of KT strategies for EBI sustainability, thereby contributing to improved patient, provider, and health system outcomes.

ObjectivesTo systematically collect and analyse diverse definitions of 'evidence' in both health and social sciences, and help users to correctly use the term 'evidence' and rethink what is the definition of 'evidence' in scientific research.DesignScoping review.MethodsDefinitions of evidence in the health sciences and social sciences were included. We have excluded the definition of evidence applied in the legal field, abstracts without full text, documents not published in either Chinese or English and so on. We established a multidisciplinary working group and systematically searched five electronic databases including Medline, Web of Science, EBSCO, the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index and the Chinese Science Citation Database from their inception to 26 February 2022. We also searched websites and reviewed the reference lists of the identified studies. Six reviewers working in pairs, independently, selected studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and extracted information. Any differences were discussed in pairs, and if there was disagreement, it was resolved via discussion or with the help of a third reviewer. Reviewers extracted document characteristics, the original content for the definitions of 'evidence', assessed definitions as either intensional or extensional, and any citations for the given definition.ResultsForty-nine documents were finally included after screening, and 68 definitions were obtained. After excluding duplicates, a total of 54 different definitions of 'evidence' were identified. There were 42 intensional definitions and 12 extensional definitions. The top three definiens were 'information', 'fact' and 'research/study'. The definition of 'evidence' differed between health and social sciences. The term 'research' appeared most frequently in the definitions.ConclusionsThe definition of 'evidence' has gradually attracted the attention of many scholars and decision-makers in health and social sciences. Nevertheless, there is no widely recognised and accepted definition in scientific research. Given the wide use of the term, we need to think about whether, or under what circumstances, a standardised, clear, meaningful and widely applicable definition of 'evidence' might be helpful.

The purpose of this article is to close the gap in frameworks for the use of evidence in the mental health policy agenda-setting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Agenda-setting is important because mental health remains a culturally sensitive and neglected issue in LMICs. Moreover, effective evidence-informed agenda-setting can help achieve, and sustain, the status of mental health as a policy priority in these low-resource contexts. A scoping 'review of reviews' of evidence-to-policy frameworks was conducted, which followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Nineteen reviews met the inclusion criteria. A meta-framework was developed from analysis and narrative synthesis of these 19 reviews, which integrates the key elements identified across studies. It comprises the concepts of evidence, actors, process, context and approach, which are linked via the cross-cutting dimensions of beliefs, values and interests; capacity; power and politics; and trust and relationships. Five accompanying questions act as a guide for applying the meta-framework with relevance to mental health agenda-setting in LMICs. This is a novel and integrative meta-framework for mental health policy agenda-setting in LMICs and, as such, an important contribution to this under-researched area. Two major recommendations are identified from the development of the framework to enhance its implementation. First, given the paucity of formal evidence on mental health in LMICs, informal evidence based on stakeholder experience could be better utilized in these contexts. Second, the use of evidence in mental health agenda-setting in LMICs would be enhanced by involving a broader range of stakeholders in generating, communicating and promoting relevant information.