Background: The global push to scale up telemedicine services is challenged by complex, multilevel, multifaceted implementation and a lack of consensus on what the evidence-based essential building blocks of implementation are. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the evidence base supporting telemedicine implementation knowledge tools; identify shared conceptual constructs and outliers; and formulate recommendations to guide the design, development, and optimization of telemedicine services. Methods: We conducted implementation research using a rapid umbrella review, that is, an overview of systematic reviews, in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). In total, we searched 3 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) for studies focusing on telemedicine implementation frameworks, models, and tools, collectively referred to as "knowledge tools." Reviews meeting the operational definition of a systematically undertaken, secondary evidence synthesis, such as systematic and scoping reviews, and those published from January 2018 to May 2024 were considered. A meta-aggregative qualitative analysis was undertaken, comprising inductive thematic synthesis. Results: In total, 18 reviews were selected, encompassing 973 primary studies. Global perspectives were reflected in 61% (n=11) of the reviews, while 33% (n=6) focused on low- and middle-income country contexts. The primary research included in the reviews represented 63 countries, spanning the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia and the Pacific. Findings indicated substantial heterogeneity across the identified telemedicine implementation theories, models, and frameworks. However, following evidence synthesis, considerable convergence was observed, highlighting a state-of-the-art understanding of the essential requirements for a national telemedicine implementation ecosystem. These were categorized into "process" and "thematic" dimensions. Process dimensions included readiness and needs assessment, road map and planning, managing change, implementing telemedicine services, and continuous improvement and measuring performance. Thematic dimensions covered human and sociocultural aspects; organization, operations, management, and leadership; communication and coordination; policy, legal, and financial considerations; clinical health condition and quality of care; and the wider context. Conclusions: The findings of this study inform a pressing translational research knowledge gap in telemedicine implementation, hindering the implementation of high-quality, sustainable, and scalable telemedicine systems. The study contributes to building global consensus on the state of the art of key constructs in telemedicine implementation and recommends that future research focus on field-testing the evidence-based implementation tools to evaluate their usability and adaptability across diverse telemedicine contexts.

Background: There is an emerging need for evidence-based approaches harnessing large amounts of health care data and novel technologies (such as artificial intelligence) to optimize public health policy making. Objective: The aim of this review was to explore the data analytics tools designed specifically for policy making in noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and their implementation. Methods: A scoping review was conducted after searching the PubMed and IEEE databases for articles published in the last 10 years. Results: Nine articles that presented 7 data analytics tools designed to inform policy making for NCDs were reviewed. The tools incorporated descriptive and predictive analytics. Some tools were designed to include recommendations for decision support, but no pilot studies applying prescriptive analytics have been published. The tools were piloted with various conditions, with cancer being the least studied condition. Implementation of the tools included use cases, pilots, or evaluation workshops that involved policy makers. However, our findings demonstrate very limited real-world use of analytics by policy makers, which is in line with previous studies. Conclusions: Despite the availability of tools designed for different purposes and conditions, data analytics is not widely used to support policy making for NCDs. However, the review demonstrates the value and potential use of data analytics to support policy making. Based on the findings, we make suggestions for researchers developing digital tools to support public health policy making. The findings will also serve as input for the European Union-funded research project ONCODIR developing a policy analytics dashboard for the prevention of colorectal cancer as part of an integrated platform.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of Decision Aids (DAs) compared to usual care or alternative interventions for older patients facing treatment, screening, or care decisions. METHODS: A systematic search of several databases was conducted. Eligible studies included patients ≥ 65 years or reported a mean of ≥ 70 years. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice made and decision making process, user experience and ways in which DAs were tailored to older patients. Meta-analysis was conducted, if possible, or outcomes were synthesized descriptively. RESULTS: Overall, 15 studies were included. Using DAs were effective in increasing knowledge (SMD 0.90; 95% CI [0.48, 1.32]), decreasing decisional conflict (SMD -0.15; 95% CI [-0.29, -0.01]), improving patient-provider communication (RR 1.67; 95% CI [1.21, 2.29]), and preparing patients to make an individualized decision (MD 35.7%; 95% CI [26.8, 44.6]). Nine studies provided details on how the DA was tailored to older patients. CONCLUSION: This review shows a number of favourable results for the effectiveness of DAs in decision making with older patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Current DAs can be used to support shared decision making with older patients when faced with treatment, screening or care decisions.

Background: Health care providers have reported low knowledge, skill, and confidence for discussing movement behaviours (i.e., physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep), which may be improved with the use of tools to guide movement behaviour discussions in their practice. Past reviews have examined the psychometric properties, scoring, and behavioural outcomes of physical activity discussion tools. However, the features, perceptions, and effectiveness of discussion tools for physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and/or sleep have not yet been synthesized. The aim of this review was to report and appraise tools for movement behaviour discussions between health care providers and adults 18 + years in a primary care context within Canada or analogous countries. Methods: An integrated knowledge translation approach guided this review, whereby a working group of experts in medicine, knowledge translation, communications, kinesiology, and health promotion was engaged from research question formation to interpretation of findings. Three search approaches were used (i.e., peer-reviewed, grey literature, and forward searches) to identify studies reporting on perceptions and/or effectiveness of tools for physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and/or sleep. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results: In total, 135 studies reporting on 61 tools (i.e., 51 on physical activity, one on sleep, and nine combining two movement behaviours) met inclusion criteria. Included tools served the purposes of assessment (n = 57), counselling (n = 50), prescription (n = 18), and/or referral (n = 12) of one or more movement behaviour. Most tools were used or intended for use by physicians, followed by nurses/nurse practitioners (n = 11), and adults accessing care (n = 10). Most tools were also used or intended to be used with adults without chronic conditions aged 18-64 years (n = 34), followed by adults with chronic conditions (n = 18). The quality of the 116 studies that evaluated tool effectiveness varied. Conclusions: Many tools were positively perceived and were deemed effective at enhancing knowledge of, confidence for, ability in, and frequency of movement behaviour discussions. Future tools should guide discussions of all movement behaviours in an integrated manner in line with the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines. Practically, this review offers seven evidence-based recommendations that may guide future tool development and implementation.

Objectives: The aim of this scoping review was to understand the extent and type of evidence on augmentative and alternative communication tools used with mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. Review method used: This scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, followed by PAGER (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations) framework to provide a structured approach to analysis of reviews. Data sources: In December 2021, six electronic databases-CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, Medline (Ebscohost), PyscINFO, and Web of Science-were searched. Searches were supplemented with hand searching of reference lists of included studies. Review methods: Studies were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text review was completed by two independent authors, with any disagreement resolved by consensus or with consultation with a third reviewer. A table was developed to extract key information from the eligible studies. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and Supporting the Use of Research Evidence checklist were used to quality appraise the selected primary research and reviews, respectively. Results: Twenty-three studies (19 primary studies and four reviews) were included in the review. Findings highlighted five main patterns: (i) Co-designing of the augmentative and alternative communication tools; (ii) Patients' and healthcare professionals' training needs on augmentative and alternative communication tools; (iii) Implementation of validated communication assessment algorithms; (iv) Amalgamate several communication methods/approaches; (v) Technical competency required for high-technology augmentative and alternative communication tools. Conclusion: Both low- and high-technology augmentative and alternative communication tools are widely used for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units, but there is a need for systematically assessing the communication needs and implementing communication interventions to promote meaningful patient-centred clinical outcomes.

Several countries mandate informed or shared decision-making for low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening, but knowledge is limited about the type of information and presentation techniques used to support decision-making in practice. This review aimed to characterize the content, format, mode, and presentation methods of decision support tools (DSTs) for LDCT lung cancer screening. DSTs reported within peer-reviewed articles (January 2000-April 2021) were identified systematically from PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus. Inclusion criteria revolved around the development or evaluation of a resource or tool intended to support individual or shared decision-making for LDCT lung cancer screening. The data-charting and extraction framework was based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards instrument and Template for Intervention Description and Reporting. Extracted data were organized within two categories: (1) study characteristics and context, format, and mode of DST use and (2) DST content and presentation methods. This review identified 22 DSTs in paper, video, or electronic formats across 26 articles. Most DSTs (n = 13) focused on knowledge exchange, whereas seven used interactive techniques to support values clarification (eg, Likert scales) and nine DSTs guided deliberation (eg, suggested discussion topics). The DSTs addressed similar topics, but the detail, quantification of probability, and presentation methods varied considerably. None described all the potential screening harms and results. The heterogeneity in DST design may affect the quality of decision-making, particularly for participants with lower literacy and numeracy. Evidence-based consensus guidelines for DST content and presentation methods should be developed collaboratively with screening-eligible adults.

Background: The delivery of palliative care interventions is not widely integrated in chronic heart failure care as the recognition of palliative care needs is perceived as difficult. Tools may facilitate healthcare professionals to identify patients with palliative care needs in advanced chronic heart failure. Aim: To identify tools to help healthcare professionals recognize palliative care needs in patients with advanced chronic heart failure. Design: This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019131896). Evidence of tools' development, evaluation, feasibility, and implementation was sought and described. Data sources: Electronic searches to identify references of tools published until June 2019 were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE. Hand-searching of references and citations was undertaken. Based on the identified tools, a second electronic search until September 2019 was performed to check whether all evidence about these tools in the context of chronic heart failure was included. Results: Nineteen studies described a total of seven tools. The tools varied in purpose, intended user and properties. The tools have been validated to a limited extent in the context of chronic heart failure and palliative care. Different health care professionals applied the tools in various settings at different moments of the care process. Guidance and instruction about how to apply the tool revealed to be relevant but may be not enough for uptake. Spiritual care needs were perceived as difficult to assess. Conclusion: Seven tools were identified which showed different and limited levels of validity in the context of palliative care and chronic heart failure.

Nowadays, the number of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) guidelines is constantly increasing, but its reporting quality remains unsatisfactory. One of the main reasons is that there is a lack of suitable reporting standard to guide it. In response to this long-standing problem, the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) Working Group has invited a group of TCM clinical experts, methodologists and epidemiology, and developed the RIGHT Extension Statement for TCM (RIGHT-TCM) through a multi-staged development process, including systematic review, reporting quality evaluation and online Delphi expert consensus. The RIGHT-TCM extends two sections of the RIGHT Statement, includes basic information and recommendations section. Seven strong recommendation sub-items were added to RIGHT Statement and formed the final RIGHTTCM. The group hopes that the RIGHT-TCM may assist TCM guideline developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering TCM guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a TCM guideline. This article will introduce its background, development, recommendations and explanation.

The worldwide spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus has become a profound threat to human health. As the use of medication without established effectiveness may result in adverse health consequences, the development of evidence-based guidelines is of critical importance for the clinical management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This research presents methods used to develop rapid advice guidelines on treating COVID-19 with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). We have followed the basic approach for developing WHO rapid guidelines, including preparing, developing, disseminating and updating each process. Compared with general guidelines, this rapid advice guideline is unique in formulating the body of evidence, as the available evidence for the treatment of COVID-19 with TCM is from either indirect or observational studies, clinical first-hand data together with expert experience in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, our search of evidence not only focuses on clinical studies of treating COVID-19 with TCM but also of similar diseases, such as pneumonia and influenza. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology was adopted to rate the quality of evidence and distinguish the strength of recommendations. The overall certainty of the evidence is graded as either high, moderate, low or very low, and to give either "strong" or "weak" recommendations of each TCM therapy. The output of this paper will produce the guideline on TCM for COVID-19 and will also provide some ideas for evidence collection and synthesis in the future development of rapid guidelines for COVID-19 in TCM as well as other areas.

BACKGROUND: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) results in substantial mortality but remains underdiagnosed in clinical practice. Automated ARDS "sniffer" systems, tools that can automatically analyze electronic medical record data, have been developed to improve recognition of ARDS in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review examining the evidence underlying automated sniffer systems for ARDS detection. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Scopus databases through October 2018 to identify studies of tools using routinely available clinical data to detect patients with ARDS. DATA EXTRACTION: Study design, tool description, and diagnostic performance were extracted by two reviewers. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was used to evaluate each study for risk of bias in 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and study flow and timing. SYNTHESIS: Among 480 studies identified, nine met inclusion criteria, evaluating six unique ARDS sniffer tools. Eight studies were derivation and/or temporal validation designs, with one also evaluating the effect of implementing a tool in clinical practice. A single study performed an external validation of previously published ARDS sniffer tools. Studies reported a wide range of sensitivities (43% to 98%) and positive predictive values (26% to 90%) for detection of ARDS. Most studies had potential for high risks of bias identified in their study design, including patient selection (5 of 9), reference standard (4 of 9), and flow and timing (3 of 9). In the single external validation without any perceived risks of biases, performance of ARDS sniffer tools were worse. CONCLUSIONS: Sniffer systems developed to detect ARDS had moderate to high predictive value in their derivation cohorts, although most studies had potential for high risks of bias in study design. Methodological issues may explain some of the variability in tool performance. There remains an ongoing need for robust evaluations of ARDS sniffer systems and their impact on clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically identify, appraise, and summarize research on the effects of behavioral interventions to prevent cognitive decline in community-dwelling older adults using a holistic wellness framework. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials that tested the effectiveness of behavioral interventions within each of the six dimensions of wellness: occupational, social, intellectual, physical, emotional and spiritual. Databases searched included PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ALOIS, and The Grey Literature Report through July 1, 2014. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 60 and older (N = 6,254). MEASUREMENTS: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Checklist. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Interventions in the physical dimension of wellness were most common (11 studies); interventions in the spiritual dimension were least common (0 studies). Fifty-nine different measures were used to measure multiple cognitive domains, with memory being the most commonly measured (17 studies) and language being the least commonly measured (5 studies). Fifty percent of the interventions examined in the 18 studies demonstrated statistically significant outcomes on at least one cognitive measure. Interventions in the intellectual dimension that examined cognitively stimulating activities using pen and paper or a computer represented the greatest percentage of statistically significant outcomes. CONCLUSION: Intellectual and physical interventions were most studied, with varied results. Future research is needed using more-consistent methods to measure cognition. Researchers should include the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery among measurement tools to facilitate effective data harmonization, pooling, and comparison

PURPOSE: We conducted this review to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer risk assessment tools used in primary care and to determine their impact on clinical utility (clinicians), screening uptake (patients), and psychosocial outcomes (patients). METHODS: We searched EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane databases for RCTs of cancer risk assessment tools in primary care up to May 2014. Only studies set in primary care, with patients eligible for screening, and English-language articles were included. RESULTS: The review included 11 trials of 7 risk tools. The trials were heterogeneous with respect to type of tool that was used, type(s) of cancer assessed, and outcomes measured. Evidence suggested risk tools improved patient risk perception, knowledge, and screening intentions, but not necessarily screening behavior. Overall, uptake of a tool was greater if initiated by patients, if used by a dedicated clinician, and when combined with decision support. There was no increase in cancer worry. Health promotion messages within the tool had positive effects on behavior change. Trials were limited by low-recruitment uptake, and the heterogeneity of the findings necessitated a narrative review rather than a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Risk tools may increase intentions to have cancer screening, but additional interventions at the clinician or health system levels may be needed to increase risk-appropriate cancer screening behavior