Introduction: Deliberative dialogue (DD) is a participatory research methodology wherein stakeholders with diverse backgrounds, experiences and interests come together to engage in discussions to build consensus for collaborative decision-making. The methodology is increasingly used in health promotion research to develop equitable solutions to complex problems. A review of PubMed-indexed papers alone showed a 9% increase in published DD studies in 2024 from prior years (2020-2023), with most focusing on health promotion and service co-design. Given the increasing emphasis on multistakeholder engagement in research, there is a need to understand how DD has been used as a methodological tool for the co-design, modifications, implementation, evaluation, and knowledge dissemination of health promotion interventions. This scoping study aims to comprehensively understand the application of DD in intervention design to provide a framework to ensure DD is employed with methodological rigour. It will offer valuable insights into how its systematic use can improve the credibility, validity, and trustworthiness of study findings while respecting the principles of participation and knowledge co-production. Methods: This scoping review follows the Arksey & O'Malley framework. The Arksey & O'Malley framework is designed to map the key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research, consisting of five stages: identifying research questions, selecting relevant studies, screening, data charting, and summarizing results. The research team includes decision-makers, researchers, healthcare providers involved in the co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation of health-promoting interventions, and two patient partners with previous experience in collaborative decision-making. Searches will be performed across multiple databases such as OVID Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. Studies will undergo abstract and full-text screening using Covidence. Covidence is an online platform designed to simplify the process of creating systematic and other in-depth literature reviews (including scoping reviews, rapid reviews, and meta-syntheses), abstract, full-text screening, and extraction of study details, results, and references. A data extraction template has been co-developed building on Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patient and Public (GRIPP2), which ensures comprehensive reporting of patient and public involvement in research, and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist facilitates the consistent reporting of methodologies. This data will allow us to understand how DD is used to co-design health interventions. Data extraction will be performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer for consistency. It will then be synthesized to map how DD has been used across various stages of health promotion interventions. Ethics and dissemination: This scoping review does not require ethics approval as it analyzes data from existing research articles. The results will inform the development of guidelines to support methodologically rigorous DD regarding the co-design, co-implementation, and co-evaluation of health-promoting interventions.

Background: Women with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Although clinical practice guidelines for management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy recommend involvement of a general practitioner for ongoing cardiovascular disease preventative care, there are no intervention strategies embedded within primary care aimed at improving risk assessment or management for women after hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The study aim was to co-design an intervention to improve implementation of cardiovascular disease risk assessment and management following hypertensive disorders of pregnancy for primary care settings in a local health district in New South Wales, Australia. Method: Using the Integrated Knowledge Translation framework, a series of five co-design meetings with the investigative team and end users were conducted online. Meetings were informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel framework for intervention development and incorporated research findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis, surveys and an online discussion. Data from activities and audio recordings following each meeting were analysed thematically using inductive-deductive thematic analysis. Results were summarized after each meeting, and findings used to inform ongoing intervention development. Results: The 18 end users included women with lived experience of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (n = 8), obstetricians (n = 2), midwives (n = 5) and general practitioners (n = 3). Target priorities were to improve communication between hospital staff and general practitioners following the occurrence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and increase the knowledge of general practitioners and women regarding cardiovascular disease prevention after cardiometabolic pregnancy complications. Part 1 of the intervention is set within the hospital setting and delivered via physical resources to address the communication gap between hospital and primary care providers about the occurrence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Part 2 is delivered via an update to an existing general practice education platform and through resources for use within consultations to provide education for women and general practitioners about cardiovascular disease prevention after hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Conclusion: The Integrated Knowledge Translation and Behaviour Change Wheel frameworks aided in the development of a targeted intervention to improve implementation of cardiovascular risk assessment and management for women after hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, based on gaps identified in current primary care practice.

Background: Surgical procedures present intricate challenges within healthcare delivery, often associated with higher risks of adverse events compared with non-surgical contexts. Patient and family engagement (PFE) throughout the perioperative journey is a possibility to enhance care quality, safety and patient-centredness. However, literature addressing PFE across the entirety of the perioperative journey remains sparse. Objective: The current scoping review aims to comprehensively map the existing interventions with PFE approach focused on improving patient safety across various types of surgical procedures throughout the perioperative journey. In addition, the review aims to understand the level and type of PFE approach adopted in this context. Eligibility criteria: Articles published in indexed peer-reviewed journals from 2003 to 2023, written in English, Portuguese or Spanish, that report on interventions with PFE approach targeting adult surgical patients, their families, caregivers, patient advocates and patient champions. The review includes articles reporting on both inpatient and ambulatory surgical patients. Methods: Following Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews framework, this review systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for relevant articles. Eligible interventions were categorised using PFE framework regarding the level of engagement and mapped according to the WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021-2030. Results: Out of 765 records initially identified, 32 met the eligibility criteria for data extraction and analysis, of which 40% originated from the USA, followed by the UK (18%) and Canada (12%). 47% of the interventions targeted 'multiple/all types' of procedures, 19% focused on cardiothoracic surgeries and 9% on gynaecological procedures or organ transplant. The majority of the interventions (88%) focused on PFE at the direct care level, predominantly adopting a consultation-based approach. Furthermore, 81% of eligible interventions emphasised patient information and education, 16% addressed codevelopment of policy and 3% of interventions focused on patient advocacy. Conclusion: The findings show a predominant focus on PFE interventions targeting patient safety at the direct care level, particularly in the provision of patient information and education. However, interventions at organisational and policy-making levels are notably scarce. Further investment is required to promote interventions engaging patients and families at broader organisational and policy-making levels.

Objectives: Primary care attachment represents an inclusive, equitable and cost-effective way of enhancing health outcomes globally. However, the growing shortage of family physicians threatens to disrupt patient-provider relationships. Understanding the consequences of these disruptions is essential for guiding future research and policy. The objectives of this study were to map the existing evidence on the impacts of changes in primary care attachment, identify research gaps and recommend areas for further investigation. Design: Scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Two researchers conducted all stages of screening, and study quality was assessed using JBI critical appraisal tools. Key themes included causes of attachment change, direction of change and outcomes aligned with the quintuple aim framework. Both qualitative and quantitative findings were synthesised narratively. Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed, English-language articles published between 1999 and 2024 on primary care attachment changes. Information sources: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Results: Of 2045 studies screened, 31 met inclusion criteria, with 60% published after 2020. Most studies originated from high-income countries, particularly the USA (35%) and Canada (29%). Attachment losses and transfers were the most frequently studied, while attachment and unattachment durations were less explored. These changes in attachment were consistently shown to impact patients, providers, clinics and the healthcare system, influencing all aims of the quintuple aim framework, including clinical outcomes, healthcare utilisation, costs, equity and patient experience. Commonly assessed outcomes included clinical impact (68%), health equity (48%), patient experience (32%) and costs (23%), with no study assessing provider experience. Conclusions: This scoping review maps the published literature on changes in primary care attachment and introduces clarifying terminology. Key research gaps include geographical diversity (lack of studies from low- and middle-income countries), attachment gain (limited research on strategies to reconnect unattached patients), attachment duration (insufficient evidence on long-term health outcomes), economic implications (underexplored costs of physician turnover and disruption), provider experiences (lack of studies on how changes in primary care attachment impact provider burnout, job satisfaction and workload) and patient health outcomes (focus on healthcare utilisation rather than direct health outcomes). These findings underscore the need for further research and offer valuable insights for future studies and policy development.

Rationale: Despite growing emphasis among healthcare decision-makers on patient perspectives and real-world outcomes to inform care and access decisions, understanding of patient journey experiences in rare diseases remains limited due to data collection and evaluation challenges. Aims and objectives: This systematic literature review (SLR) assessed study designs, methodologies, and outcomes reported in real-world investigations of rare disease patient journeys. Methods: Searches in PubMed and Google Scholar targeted English-language publications and congress proceedings from 1 January 2014, to 30 April 2024, including rare disease patients, caregivers, or healthcare providers. Keywords included 'Journey', 'Path', or 'Odyssey'. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and abstracted data. Descriptive analyses and quality assessments were conducted. Results: Thirty-one studies met inclusion criteria, with 296,548 participants spanning over 600 rare diseases. Most studies used prospective observational (61%) and cross-sectional (26%) designs and were conducted in Europe (45%). Interviews (39%) and surveys (29%) were common methodologies. Patients (87%) were the primary research focus, compared to caregivers (32%) or providers (10%). The most studied journey stages were 'Pre-diagnosis/Screening' (97%) and 'Diagnosis' (84%), while 'Disease Awareness' (16%) and 'Treatment Adherence' (6%) were less common. Across 164 outcomes reported, frequent outcomes included 'Healthcare Resource Utilization' (94%), 'Symptoms' (74%), and 'Time-to-Diagnosis' (71%). Fewer studies reported 'Costs' (19%), 'Caregiver/Family Burden' (16%), and 'Productivity' (13%). Time-to-diagnosis averaged 11.8 years and a median of 6.1 years. All but one study (97%) was rated low or very low quality due to observational designs. Conclusion: Most rare disease patient journey evidence focuses on 'Pre-diagnosis/Screening' and 'Diagnosis' stages using qualitative methods and surveys. While symptoms, time-to-diagnosis, and resource utilization were commonly reported, evidence gaps included treatment adherence, caregiver burden and productivity. Longitudinal assessments to collect real-world care and treatment burden outcomes, including caregiver perspectives, can enhance both clinician and policy decision-making for individuals living with rare diseases.

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

The NHS is increasingly turning to the independent sector, primarily to alleviate elective care backlogs. However, implications for the healthcare system, patients and staff are not well understood. This paper provides a rapid narrative review of research evidence on NHS-funded elective care in the independent sector (IS) and the impact on patients, professionals, and the health care system. The aim was to identify the volume and evaluate the quality of the literature whilst providing a narrative synthesis. Studies were identified through Medline, CINAHL, Econlit, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. The quality of the included studies was assessed in relation to study design, sample size, relevance, methodology and methodological strength, outcomes and outcome reporting, and risk of bias. Our review included 40 studies of mixed quality. Many studies used quantitative data to analyse outcome trends across and between sectors. Independent sector providers (ISPs) can provide high-volume and low-complexity elective care of equivalent quality to the NHS, whilst reducing waiting times in certain contexts. However it is clear that the provision of NHS-funded elective care in the IS has a range of implications for public provision. These surround access and outcome inequalities, financial sustainability and NHS workforce impacts. It will subsequently be important for future empirical work to incorporate these caveats, providing a more nuanced interpretation of quantitative improvements.

Background: Implementation strategies targeting individual healthcare professionals and teams, such as audit and feedback, educational meetings, opinion leaders, and reminders, have demonstrated potential in promoting evidence-based nursing practice. This systematic review examined the effects of the 19 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization Care (EPOC) healthcare professional-level implementation strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook, with six databases searched up to February 2023 for randomized studies and non-randomized controlled studies evaluating the effects of EPOC implementation strategies on nursing practice. Study selection and data extraction were performed in Covidence. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted in RevMan, while studies not eligible for meta-analysis were synthesized narratively based on the direction of effects. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: Out of 21,571 unique records, 204 studies (152 randomized, 52 controlled, non-randomized) enrolling 36,544 nurses and 340,320 patients were included. Common strategies (> 10% of studies) were educational meetings, educational materials, guidelines, reminders, audit and feedback, tailored interventions, educational outreach, and opinion leaders. Implementation strategies as a whole improved clinical practice outcomes compared to no active intervention, despite high heterogeneity. Group and individual education, patient-mediated interventions, reminders, tailored interventions and opinion leaders had statistically significant effects on clinical practice outcomes. Individual education improved nurses' attitude, knowledge, perceived control, and skills, while group education also influenced perceived social norms. Although meta-analyses indicate a small, non-statistically significant effect of multifaceted versus single strategies on clinical practice, the narrative synthesis of non-meta-analyzed studies shows favorable outcomes in all studies comparing multifaceted versus single strategies. Group and individual education, as well as tailored interventions, had statistically significant effects on patient outcomes. Conclusions: Multiple types of implementation strategies may enhance evidence-based nursing practice, though effects vary due to strategy complexity, contextual factors, and variability in outcome measurement. Some evidence suggests that multifaceted strategies are more effective than single component strategies. Effects on patient outcomes are modest. Healthcare organizations and implementation practitioners may consider employing multifaceted, tailored strategies to address local barriers, expand the use of underutilized strategies, and assess the long-term impact of strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42019130446.

Background Implementation strategies targeting individual healthcare professionals and teams, such as audit and feedback, educational meetings, opinion leaders, and reminders, have demonstrated potential in promoting evidence-based nursing practice. This systematic review examined the effects of the 19 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization Care (EPOC) healthcare professional-level implementation strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes. Methods A systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook, with six databases searched up to February 2023 for randomized studies and non-randomized controlled studies evaluating the effects of EPOC implementation strategies on nursing practice. Study selection and data extraction were performed in Covidence. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted in RevMan, while studies not eligible for meta-analysis were synthesized narratively based on the direction of effects. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results Out of 21,571 unique records, 204 studies (152 randomized, 52 controlled, non-randomized) enrolling 36,544 nurses and 340,320 patients were included. Common strategies (> 10% of studies) were educational meetings, educational materials, guidelines, reminders, audit and feedback, tailored interventions, educational outreach, and opinion leaders. Implementation strategies as a whole improved clinical practice outcomes compared to no active intervention, despite high heterogeneity. Group and individual education, patient-mediated interventions, reminders, tailored interventions and opinion leaders had statistically significant effects on clinical practice outcomes. Individual education improved nurses' attitude, knowledge, perceived control, and skills, while group education also influenced perceived social norms. Although meta-analyses indicate a small, non-statistically significant effect of multifaceted versus single strategies on clinical practice, the narrative synthesis of non-meta-analyzed studies shows favorable outcomes in all studies comparing multifaceted versus single strategies. Group and individual education, as well as tailored interventions, had statistically significant effects on patient outcomes. Conclusions Multiple types of implementation strategies may enhance evidence-based nursing practice, though effects vary due to strategy complexity, contextual factors, and variability in outcome measurement. Some evidence suggests that multifaceted strategies are more effective than single component strategies. Effects on patient outcomes are modest. Healthcare organizations and implementation practitioners may consider employing multifaceted, tailored strategies to address local barriers, expand the use of underutilized strategies, and assess the long-term impact of strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42019130446.

Objective The aims of this systematic review were to (1) synthesize the available qualitative evidence on the barriers and facilitators influencing implementation of the electronic collection and use of patient-reported measures (PRMs) in older adults' care from various stakeholder perspectives and (2) map these factors to the digital technology implementation framework Non-adoption, Abandonment, challenges to the Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) and behavior change framework Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B).Materials and Methods A search of MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2001 to 27 October 2021 was conducted and included English language qualitative studies exploring stakeholder perspectives on the electronic collection and use of PRMs in older adults' care. Two authors independently screened studies, conducted data extraction, quality appraisal using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), data coding, assessed confidence in review findings using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE CERQual), and mapped the findings to NASSS and COM-B. An inductive approach was used to synthesize findings describing the stakeholder perspectives of barriers and facilitators.Results Twenty-two studies were included from the 3368 records identified. Studies explored older adult, caregiver, healthcare professional, and administrative staff perspectives. Twenty nine of 34 review findings (85%) were graded as having high or moderate confidence. Key factors salient to older adults related to clinical conditions and socio-cultural factors, digital literacy, access to digital technology, and user interface. Factors salient to healthcare professionals related to resource availability to collect and use PRMs, and value of PRMs collection and use.Conclusion Future efforts to implement electronic collection and use of PRMs in older adults' care should consider addressing the barriers, facilitators, and key theoretical domains identified in this review. Older adults are more likely to adopt electronic completion of PRMs when barriers associated with digital technology access, digital literacy, and user interface are addressed. Future research should explore the perspectives of other stakeholders, including those of organizational leaders, digital technology developers and implementation specialists, in various healthcare settings and explore factors influencing implementation of PREMs.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022295894 Older adults are likely to have high care needs. Health outcomes and experiences can inform these care needs. Surveys can be used to collect health outcomes and experiences. Health care services have used paper surveys. It might be better to use electronic surveys. It saves time and cost for health care services. This study reviewed factors affecting use of electronic surveys. We included research findings from qualitative studies. These studies gathered views of older adults, carers, and health care staff. Many factors affect older adults' use of electronic surveys. Older adults need access to technology. Knowledge on how to use technology was important. Technology should be easy to use. Future work should research use of electronic surveys in different health care settings.

AimsTo explore the effectiveness of interventions to enhance patient participation in shared decision-making in wound care and tissue viability.BackgroundCaring for people living with a wound is complex due to interaction between wound healing, symptoms, psychological wellbeing and treatment effectiveness. To respond to this complexity, there has been recent emphasis on the importance of delivering patient centred wound care and shared decision-making to personalise health care. However, little is known about the effectiveness of existing interventions to support shared decision-making in wound care.DesignSystematic review of interventional studies to enhance shared decision-making in wound care or tissue viability. This was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines 2020.MethodsInterventional primary research studies published in English up to January 2023 were included. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were undertaken independently by two authors.Data SourcesMedline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (trials database), CINAHL, British Nursing Index (BNI), WorldCat (thesis database), Scopus and registries of ongoing studies (ISRCTN registry and ).Results1063 abstracts were screened, and eight full-text studies included. Findings indicate, interventions to support shared decision-making are positively received. Goal or need setting components may assist knowledge transfer between patient and clinician, and could lower short term decisional conflict. However, generally findings within this study had very low certainty due to the inconsistencies in outcomes reported, and the variation and complexity of single and multiple interventions used.ConclusionsFuture research on shared decision-making interventions in wound care should include the involvement of stakeholders and programme theory to underpin the interventions developed to consider the complexity of interventions.Implications for the profession and patient carePatients setting out their needs or goals and exploring patient questions are important and should be considered in clinical care.RegistrationThe review protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO database: CRD42023389820).No Patient or Public ContributionNot applicable as this is a systematic review.

Objectives: Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have been commonly used to measure important patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials and practices. This study aimed at systematically identifying and assessing the content validity of CVD-specific HRQoL instruments in clinical studies. Methods: The research team searched Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and PubMed from inception to January 20, 2022. The research team included studies that reported the development and content validity for CVD-specific instruments. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments methods on evaluating content validity of PROs. Content analysis was used to categorize the items included in the instruments. Results: The research team found 69 studies reporting the content validity of 40 instruments specifically developed for CVD. Fourteen (35.0%) were rated "sufficient" with very low to moderate quality of evidence. For PRO development, all instruments were rated "doubtful" or "inadequate." Twenty-eight (70.0%) instruments cover the core concepts of HRQoL. Conclusions: The quality of development and content validity vary among existing CVD-specific instruments. The evidence on the content validity should be considered when choosing HRQoL instrument in CVD clinical studies and health economic evaluations.

Background:Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects. Objective:We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments. Methods:For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s). Results:The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus. Conclusions:For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Background: A variety of nonpharmacological interventions that improve the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer have been difficult for medical staff to select through randomized controlled trials or traditional meta-analyses. Thus, a network meta-analysis is necessary. Objective: This study used network meta-analysis to analyze the effect of 13 different nonpharmacological interventions on improving the living quality of patients with advanced cancer. Methods: Five English databases were searched up to January 2019. The search strategy only included terms relating to or describing the intervention. Results: The study included 13 different nonpharmacological interventions. The overall efficacy was summarized through a holistic study of quality of life. The study found that the combined effect sizes of 13 nonpharmacological interventions crossed the invalid line (weighted mean difference, -13 [95% confidence interval, -33 to 8.5] to 1.7 [95% confidence interval, -18 to 22]), indicating that none of the intervention was significantly different from each other. By evaluating the heterogeneity of this outcome, no significant evidence of heterogeneity ( P > .05) was observed. Probability ranking according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve showed that there was a great possibility for the CanWalk intervention and structured multidisciplinary intervention to improve outcomes for cancer patients. Conclusions: Thirteen nonpharmacological interventions did not significantly impact quality of life. Regarding the probability rank, CanWalk intervention may be the most promising way that advanced cancer patients can help themselves to a better life. Because of the limitations of the current studies, the conclusion needs further evidence. Implications for practice: Nurses should consider recommending moderate physical activity for patients with advanced cancer.

Purpose: This paper's purpose is to provide a resource for clinicians and researchers of select voice-related patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the English language. Method: A systematic search for voice-related PROMs was conducted between September 2020 and July 17, 2021. Databases included APA PsychInfo, Nursing and Allied Health Source, MEDLINE via the EBSCO interface, and Science Direct. Reference lists for PROMs-related articles were mined for reference to PROMs protocols. Results: Thirty voice-related PROMs were identified and categorized as either developed primarily for use in the clinic (n = 12), developed primarily for use in a specific research study (n = 6), or translated into English for publication (n = 12). Twelve PROMs were summarized: Aging Voice Index, Disease Specific Self-Efficacy in Spasmodic Dysphonia, Evaluation of the Ability to Sing Easily, Evaluating Voice Disability - Quality of Life Questionnaire, Glottal Function Index, Linear Analog Scale of Assessment of Voice Quality, Quality of Life in Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis, Speech Disability Questionnaire, Trans Woman Voice Questionnaire, Vocal Cord Dysfunction Questionnaire, Vocal Fatigue Index, and the Vocal Tract Discomfort Scale. Conclusion: The PROMs can be categorized into English-language voice-related PROMs developed primarily for clinical use, English-language PROMs developed primarily for research use, and English-language PROMs translated into English. The extent of reliability and validity testing completed varies in the PROMs developed primarily for clinical use. A PROM's psychometric properties as well as the language in which the PROM was tested, should guide clinicians and researchers as they consider which instrument(s) to use.

Introduction: Collective patient participation, such as patient participation in policy making, has become increasingly important to achieve high-quality care. However, there is little knowledge on how to let patients participate in a meaningful manner at this level. The aim of this systematic literature review was to provide an overview of barriers, facilitators, and associated impact of collective patient participation. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched until May 2023 for studies that evaluated collective patient participation. Study characteristics, methods for patient participation, barriers and facilitators, and impact (if measured) of patient participation were extracted from the articles. Results: We included 59 articles. Identified barriers and facilitators of collective patient participation were grouped into five categories: (1) preconditions for patient participation, (2) strategy for patient participation, (3) preparation of patients and staff for patient participation, (4) support for patients and staff during patient participation, and (5) evaluation of patient participation. Impact of patient participation was reported in 34 included studies at three levels: quality of care and research, the team and organization, and the participants themselves. Only three studies reported quantitative outcomes. Conclusion: Interestingly, similar challenges were experienced during a period of twenty years, indicating that little progress has been made in structuring patient participation. Our overview of barriers and facilitators will therefore help to improve and structure collective patient participation.

Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of single-patient (N-of-1) trials and protocols based on the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT) statement and the standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials (SPIRIT) extension and elaboration for N-of-1 trials (SPENT) checklist to examine the factors that influenced reporting quality. Methods Four electronic databases were searched to identify N-of-1 trials and protocols from 2015 to 2020. Quality was assessed by two reviewers. We calculated the overall scores based on binary responses in which "Yes" was scored as 1 (if the item was fully reported), and "No" was scored as 0 (if the item was not clearly reported or not definitely stated). Results A total of 78 publications (55 N-of-1 trials and 23 protocols) were identified. The mean reporting score (SD) of the N-of-1 trials and protocols were 29.24 (0.89) and 29.61 (1.83), respectively. For the items related to outcomes, sample size, allocation concealment protocol, and informed consent materials, the reporting quality was low. Our results showed that the year of publication (t = -0.793, p = 0.872 for the trials and t = 1.352, p = 0.623 for the protocols) and the impact factor of the journal (t = 1.416, p = 0.619 for the trials and t = 0.359, p = 0.667 for the protocols) were not factors associated with better reporting quality. Conclusion With the publication of the CENT 2015 statement and the SPENT 2019 checklist, authors should adhere to the relevant reporting guidelines and improve the reporting quality of N-of-1 trials and protocols.

Aims and Objectives The aim of this study was to assess methodological quality of all currently available guidelines and consensus statements for IAD using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the AGREE Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX) instruments. Background Globally, incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is a significant health challenge. IAD is a complex healthcare problem that reduces quality of life of patients, increases healthcare costs and prolongs hospital stays. Several guidelines and consensus statements are available for IAD. However, the quality of these guidelines and consensus statements remains unclear. Design A systematic review of guidelines and consensus statements. Methods Our study was undertaken using PRISMA guidelines. We searched seven electronic databases. Guidelines and consensus statements had to be published in English, Chinese or German languages. Five independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of guidelines and consensus statements using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments. Mean with standard deviation (SD) and median with interquartile range (IQR) were calculated for descriptive analyses. We generated bubble plots to describe the assessment results of each domain of each guideline and consensus statement. Results We included ten guidelines and consensus statements. The NICE guidelines, obtained the highest scores, fulfilled 86.11%-98.61% of criteria in AGREE II and 76.67%-91.11% for AGREE-REX. In the domains 'Stakeholder Involvement' (4.39 +/- 1.64), 'Rigor of Development' (3.38 +/- 1.86), 'Applicability' (3.62 +/- 1.64), 'Editorial Independence' (3.91 +/- 2.56) and 'Values and Preferences' (2.98 +/- 1.41), the remaining guidelines and consensus statements showed deficiencies. Conclusions Altogether, this study demonstrated that the currently available guidelines and consensus statements for IAD have room for methodological improvement. NICE guidelines on faecal incontinence and urinary incontinence have better quality. Remaining guidelines and consensus statements showed substantial methodological weaknesses, especially the domains of 'Stakeholder Involvement', 'Rigor of Development', 'Applicability', 'Editorial independence' and 'Values and Preferences'. This study was registered on INPLASY. (Registration number: INPLASY202190078). Relevance to Clinical Practice The currently available guidelines and consensus statements on IAD have room for methodological improvement.

Numerous factors contribute to the low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) programs. A theory-informed approach to identifying the obstacles and facilitators to LCS uptake is required. This study aimed to identify, assess, and synthesize the available literature at the individual and healthcare provider (HCP) levels based on a social-ecological model and identify gaps to improve practice and policy decision-making. Systematic searches were conducted in nine electronic databases from inception to December 31, 2020. We also searched Google Scholar and manually examined the reference lists of systematic reviews to include relevant articles. Primary studies were scored for quality assessment. Among 3938 potentially relevant articles, 36 studies, including 25 quantitative and 11 qualitative studies, were identified for inclusion in the review. Fifteen common factors were extracted from 34 studies, including nine barriers and six facilitators. The barriers included individual factors (n = 5), health system factors (n = 3), and social/environmental factors (n = 1). The facilitators included only individual factors (n = 6). However, two factors, age and screening harm, remain mixed. This systematic review identified and combined barriers and facilitators to LCS uptake at the individual and HCP levels. The interaction mechanisms among these factors should be further explored, which will allow the construction of tailored LCS recommendations or interventions for the Chinese context.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been extensively used in a range of medical fields to promote therapeutic development. The development of diverse AI techniques has also contributed to early detections, disease diagnoses, and referral management. However, concerns about the value of advanced AI in disease diagnosis have been raised by health care professionals, medical service providers, and health policy decision makers. Objective: This review aimed to systematically examine the literature, in particular, focusing on the performance comparison between advanced AI and human clinicians to provide an up-to-date summary regarding the extent of the application of AI to disease diagnoses. By doing so, this review discussed the relationship between the current advanced AI development and clinicians with respect to disease diagnosis and thus therapeutic development in the long run. Methods: We systematically searched articles published between January 2000 and March 2019 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis in the following databases: Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. According to the preset inclusion and exclusion criteria, only articles comparing the medical performance between advanced AI and human experts were considered. Results: A total of 9 articles were identified. A convolutional neural network was the commonly applied advanced AI technology. Owing to the variation in medical fields, there is a distinction between individual studies in terms of classification, labeling, training process, dataset size, and algorithm validation of AI. Performance indices reported in articles included diagnostic accuracy, weighted errors, false-positive rate, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The results showed that the performance of AI was at par with that of clinicians and exceeded that of clinicians with less experience. Conclusions: Current AI development has a diagnostic performance that is comparable with medical experts, especially in image recognition-related fields. Further studies can be extended to other types of medical imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging and other medical practices unrelated to images. With the continued development of AI-assisted technologies, the clinical implications underpinned by clinicians' experience and guided by patient-centered health care principle should be constantly considered in future AI-related and other technology-based medical research.