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.