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 Because of the limits in conceptualisation of care coordination linked to a large array of care coordination models and definitions available, a care coordination framework is needed with a particular focus on the micro level. Objective To develop an evidence-based reference framework for person-centred care coordination interventions based on international validated definitions. Methods This two-step mixed-methods study included first, a scoping review of reviews focus on the impact of care coordination interventions and then, a nominal group technique. The scoping review aimed at identifying the components of the four dimensions of the framework (contexts, activities, actors and tools, and effects). The nominal group technique was to select the relevant components of the dimension ‘activities’ of the reference framework. Results The scoping review selected 52 articles from the 1407 retrieved at first. The nominal group selected the 66 most relevant activities from the 159 retrieved in the literature (28 activities of care organisation, 24 activities of care, and 14 activities of facilitation). Conclusion This operational framework focused on care coordination at the micro level, is a useful and innovative tool, applicable in any clinical condition, and in any health care system for describing, implementing and evaluating care coordination programmes.

Background There is a growing body of literature that describes, applies, and evaluates applications of health-system priority-setting frameworks in different contexts. However, little explicit focus has been given to examining operationalization of the stakeholder participation component of these frameworks. The literature identifies the public as a stakeholder group and recommends their participation when applying the frameworks. Methods We conducted a scoping review to search the PubMed, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, Medline, and PsycINFO databases for cases where priority-setting frameworks were applied (2000–2017). We aimed to synthesize current literature to examine the degree to which the public and vulnerable populations have been engaged through applications of these frameworks Findings The following stakeholders commonly participated: managers, administrators/coordinators, clinicians/physicians, non-physician health care providers, health economists, academics/researchers, experts, decision-makers, and policy-makers. Few papers reported on public participation, and even fewer identified vulnerable groups that participate. Stakeholders were most commonly reported to participate in identifying areas for prioritization. Conclusions While the frameworks were developed with stakeholder participation in mind, in practice not all stakeholders are participating in priority-setting processes as envisioned by the frameworks. The public and vulnerable groups do not consistently participate, challenging the utility of the participation component of frameworks in guiding stakeholder participation in health-system priority setting. Frameworks can be more explicit about which stakeholders should participate and detailing how their participation should be operationalized.

Containing health care costs has been a challenge for most OECD member states. We classify 2250 cost containment policies in forty-one groups of policy options. This conceptual framework might act as a toolkit for policymakers that seek to develop strategies for cost control; and for researchers that seek to evaluate them. We found that certain important cost drivers such as wages and capital are being sparsely covered. We distinguish four primary targets to contain costs: volume controls, price controls, budgeting and market oriented policies. Price controls and budgeting, both seen as relatively effective, appear substantially less often in literature than volume controls and market oriented policies. The relative use of each option hardly changed over time, although the health system type did matter. Market oriented policies were more likely to be suggested for countries with public provision of health care, as well as for the US system. In contrast, budgeting policy proposals were more likely to be suggested for countries with market provision systems, such as Canada, Germany and France. Implementation of cost containment policies could lead to convergence of health care systems, except for the US system, if policies are implemented based on the literature.

Authors' objectives: This document proposes different uses for real-world data in the evaluation of health technologies carried out by the Spanish Network of Health Technology Assessment Agencies and National Health System Services (RedETS) and analyses the added value that these uses would represent for the performance of the evaluation activity of the agencies form it. The aim is to anticipate the creation of the National Health Data Space (ENDS). This document represents a starting point for the Programme for the Use of Real World Data (RWD) in Health Technology Assessment.