Abstract Background: with Europe's demographic diversity growing due to immigration, understanding and addressing the barriers to healthcare experienced by immigrants is of paramount importance. However, an updated systematic review of the literature on this topic is missing. Methods: we systematically searched the PubMed and Scopus databases to synthesise quantitative evidence regarding self-perceived barriers to healthcare access faced by immigrants in Europe. Peer-reviewed articles, written in English, published from 2011 onwards, studying adult populations not in detention centres were eligible for the review. Articles were charted according to the population of study, sample size, geographical area and level of study (local vs national), and applied methodology (descriptive vs inferential). Results: linguistic and health literacy barriers emerge as the most prominent, and most studied, barriers to healthcare for immigrants. The extant literature covers disproportionally Northern European countries; often uses small sample sizes and convenience sampling; and is particularly limited as far as the undocumented population is concerned. Discussion: policies should aim at increasing the availability of interpreters and healthcare materials translated in different languages, as well as at better training health professionals to address specific immigrants' needs. We encourage future research to focus on healthcare barriers faced by immigrants in Southern and Central European contexts; to improve results' robustness and external validity by using high quality sampling techniques and larger sample sizes, and including native populations as comparison groups; and to put more attention to the experience of undocumented immigrants, as they are the immigrant population with the most critical and precarious healthcare status.

Background: Although the implementation process of digital health technologies (DHTs) has been extensively documented in high-income countries, the factors that facilitate and prevent their implementation in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may differ for various reasons. Objective: To address this gap in research, this scoping review aims to determine the facilitators and barriers to implementing DHTs in LMIC hospital settings following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the review outlined the types of DHTs that have been implemented in LMICs' hospitals during this pandemic and finally developed a classification framework to categorize the landscape of DHTs. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for studies published from March 2020 to December 2023. We extracted data on authors, publication years, study objectives, study countries, disease conditions, types of DHTs, fields of clinical medicine where the DHTs are applied, study designs, sample sizes, characteristics of the study population, study location, and data collection methods of the included studies. Both quantitative and qualitative data were utilized to conduct a thematic analysis, using a deductive method based on the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), to identify facilitators and barriers to DHT implementation. Finally, all accessible DHTs were identified and organized to create a novel classification framework. Results: Twelve studies were included from 292 retrieved articles. Telemedicine (n=5) was the most commonly used DHT in LMICs' hospitals, followed by hospital information systems (n=4), electronic medical records (n=2), and mobile health (n=1). These 4 DHTs, among the other existing DHTs, allowed us to develop a novel classification framework for DHTs. The included studies used qualitative methods (n=4), which included interviews and focus groups, quantitative methods (n=5), or a combination of both (n=2). Among the 64 facilitators of DHT implementation, the availability of continuous on-the-job training (n=3), the ability of DHTs to prevent cross-infection (n=2), and positive previous experiences using DHTs (n=2) were the top 3 reported facilitators. However, of the 44 barriers to DHT implementation, patients with poor digital literacy and skills in DHTs (n=3), inadequate awareness regarding DHTs among health care professionals and stakeholders (n=2), and concerns regarding the accuracy of disease diagnosis and treatment through DHTs (n=2) were commonly reported. Conclusions: In the postpandemic era, telemedicine, along with other DHTs, has seen increased implementation in hospitals within LMICs. All facilitators and barriers can be categorized into 6 themes, namely, (1) Aspects of the Health Care System; (2) Perspectives of Patients; (3) External Environment; (4) Implementation of Sustainable Infrastructure; (5) Characteristics of Health Care Organization; and (6) Characteristics of Patients.

Access to climate finance is a prominent feature of the debate for the upcoming COP29 decision to set a New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance. Countries, communities and groups representing marginalised collectives who are most impacted by the climate crisis are in urgent need of scaled-up, accessible and adequate climate finance. Findings from participatory research conducted with more than 100 organisations in the Sahel show that there are still numerous challenges to address in terms of how climate finance mechanisms are designed, how capacities need to be supported, how decision-making spaces affecting climate finance need to be more inclusive, and how gender, intersectional and geographical fragility factors shape unequal access to climate finance. In order to effectively bridge the climate finance access gap, rich countries need to make an urgent commitment to undertake concrete and bold actions to address climate finance access barriers for local actors in climate-vulnerable contexts.

Background: There is a large number of research studies about the prevention of non-communicable diseases (NCD), with findings taking several years to be translated into practice. One reason for this lack of translation is a limited understanding of how to best disseminate NCD research findings to user-groups in a way that is salient and useful. An understanding of barriers and facilitators to dissemination is key to informing the development of strategies to increase dissemination. Therefore, this review aims to identify and synthesise the barriers and facilitators to dissemination of NCD research findings. Methods: A mixed studies systematic review was performed following JBI (formerly known as Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology. The search included articles from January 2000 until May 2021. We conducted a comprehensive search of bibliographic and grey literature of five databases to identify eligible studies. Studies were included if they involved end-users of public health research that were decision-makers in their setting and examined barriers/facilitators to disseminating research findings. Two pairs of reviewers mapped data from included studies against the Framework of Knowledge Translation (FKT) and used a convergent approach to synthesise the data. Results: The database search yielded 27,192 reports. Following screening and full text review, 15 studies (ten qualitative, one quantitative and four mixed methods) were included. Studies were conducted in 12 mostly high-income countries, with a total of 871 participants. We identified 12 barriers and 14 facilitators mapped to five elements of the FKT. Barriers related to: (i) the user-group (n = 3) such as not perceiving health as important and (ii) the dissemination strategies (n = 3) such as lack of understanding of content of guidelines. Several facilitators related to dissemination strategies (n = 5) such as using different channels of communication. Facilitators also related to the user-group (n = 4) such as the user-groups' interest in health and research. Conclusion: Researchers and government organisations should consider these factors when identifying ways to disseminate research findings to decision-maker audiences. Future research should aim to build the evidence base on different strategies to overcome these barriers. Systematic review registration: The protocol of this review was deposited in Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5QSGD).

This systematic review provides an overview of the unique challenges allied health professions face in the translation and implementation of evidence into practice, which remain relatively under reported and uninformed by a theoretical basis of behaviour change. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus databases from 2010 to 2022 were searched for primary study designs resulting in 21 articles included in this review (PROSPERO: 2022 CRD42022314996). Allied health disciplines reported in the review were mainly from occupational therapy, physiotherapy, dietetics, and speech pathology. The most frequently reported implementation determinants across the Theoretical Domains Framework were identified as 'environmental context and resources', and 'knowledge'. The results also identified a greater influence of 'social influences' and 'beliefs about consequences' in implementation. Implementing evidence into clinical practice is a multifaceted, complex process, and the use of the Theoretical Domains Framework provided a systematic approach to understanding the drivers behind the target behaviours. However, there is a paucity of studies across the allied health professions that describe implementation strategies used and their impact. Many of the studies focused on implementation by the individual clinician rather than the role organizations can play in the translation of evidence into practice.

Background: Despite increasing interest in quality end-of-life care (EOLC), critically ill patients often receive suboptimal care. Critical care nurses play a crucial role in EOLC, but face numerous barriers that hinder their ability to provide compassionate and effective care. Methods: An integrative literature review was conducted to investigate barriers impacting the quality of end-of-life care. This review process involved searching database like MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EBSCO, and ScienceDirect up to November 2023. Search strategies focused on keywords related to barriers in end-of-life care and critical care nurses from October 30th to November 10th, 2023. The inclusion criteria specified full-text English articles published between 2010 and 2023 that addressed barriers perceived by critical care nurses. This integrative review employs an integrated thematic analysis approach, which combines elements of deductive and inductive analysis, to explore the identified barriers, with coding and theme development overseen by the primary and secondary authors. Results: Out of 103 articles published, 11 articles were included in the review. There were eight cross-sectional descriptive studies and three qualitative studies, which demonstrated barriers affecting end-of-life care quality. Quality appraisal using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was completed by two authors confirmed the high credibility of the selected studies, indicating the presence of high-quality evidence across the reviewed articles. Thematic analysis led to the three main themes (1) barriers related to patients and their families, (2) barriers related to nurses and their demographic characteristics, and (3) barriers related to health care environment and institutions. Conclusion: This review highlights barriers influencing the quality of end of life care perceived by critical care nurses and the gaps that need attention to improve the quality of care provided for patients in their final stages and their fsmilies within the context of critical care. This review also notes the need for additional research to investigate the uncover patterns and insights that have not been fully explored in the existing literature to enhance understanding of these barriers. This can help to inform future research, care provision, and policy-making. Specifically, this review examines how these barriers interact, their cumulative impact on care quality, and potential strategies to overcome.

OBJECTIVE: This study provides a comprehensive overview of the knowledge structure and research hotspots regarding barriers and strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: Publications on barriers and strategies for guideline implementation were searched for on Web of Science Core Collection from database inception to October 24, 2022. R package bibliometrix, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace were used to conduct the analysis. RESULTS: The search yielded 21,768 records from 3,975 journals by 99,998 authors from 3,964 institutions in 186 countries between 1983 and 2022. The number of published papers had a roughly increasing trend annually. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada contributed the majority of records. The University of Toronto, the University of Washington, and the University of Sydney were the biggest node in their cluster on the collaboration network map. The three journals that published the greatest number of relevant studies were Implementation Science, BMJ Open, and BMC Health Services Research. Grimshaw JM was the author with the most published articles, and was the second most co-cited author. Research hotspots in this field focused on public health and education, evidence-based medicine and quality promotion, diagnosis and treatment, and knowledge translation and barriers. Challenges and barriers, as well as societal impacts and inequalities, are likely to be key directions for future research. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first bibliometric study to comprehensively summarize the research trends of research on barriers and strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation. A better understanding of collaboration patterns and research hotspots may be useful for researchers. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A247.

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.

Introduction: The suboptimal case notification rates for tuberculosis (TB) globally could partly be due to the poor implementation of TB testing guidelines or policies. We identified, appraised and synthesized qualitative evidence exploring the barriers and facilitators to implementing TB testing guidelines. Methods: We searched electronic databases and grey literature and included studies based on predefined inclusion criteria (PROSPERO registered protocol CRD42016039790) until 9th February 2023. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Two authors reviewed the search output, extracted data and assessed methodological quality independently, resolving disagreements by consensus. We used the Supporting the Use of Research Evidence framework to identify themes and analyse and synthesize our data. We applied the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research approach to assess the confidence of the review findings. Results: Our search output was 6976 articles, from which we included 25 qualitative studies, mostly from low- and middle-income countries (n=19) and about national guidelines (n=22). All studies were from healthcare settings. Most barriers revolved around health system constraints involving the guidelines (low trust and adherence, ambiguous and poorly developed or adapted guidelines) and poorly resourced and organized health facilities to enable the implementation of the guidelines. Individual-level barriers included low trust and low awareness among recipients and providers of care. Donor dependence was the main socio-political constraint. These barriers were similar across all income settings except poorly resourced health facilities and social and political constraints which were only reported in low- and middle-income settings. The reported facilitators were improved trust and knowledge of guidelines, national leadership support and availability of training tools and opportunities for guidelines across all income settings. We had high confidence in most of the review findings. Conclusion: Limited guideline knowledge, trust and adherence related to poorly developed and disseminated guidelines in all income settings and poorly resourced facilities in low- and middle-income countries hinder the implementation of TB testing guidelines. This could be improved by better guideline training and adaptation and resourcing of health facilities. Trial registration: The protocol of this review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42016039790, and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Background Migrants and refugees may not access mental health services due to linguistic and cultural discordance between them and health and social care professionals (HSCPs). The aim of this review is to identify the communication needs and barriers experienced by third-country nationals (TCNs), their carers, and HSCPs, as well as the strategies they use and their preferences when accessing/providing mental health services and language barriers are present. Methods We undertook a rapid systematic review of the literature (01/01/2011 – 09/03/2022) on seeking and/or providing mental health services in linguistically discordant settings. Quality appraisal was performed, data was extracted, and evidence was reviewed and synthesised qualitatively. Results 58/5,650 papers met the inclusion criteria. Both TCNs (and their carers) and HSCPs experience difficulties when seeking or providing mental health services and language barriers are present. TCNs and HSCPs prefer linguistically and culturally concordant provision of mental health services but professional interpreters are often required. However, their use is not always preferred, nor is it without problems. Conclusions Language barriers impede TCNs’ access to mental health services. Improving language support options and cultural competency in mental health services is crucial to ensure that individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds can access and/or provide high-quality mental health services.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the digital transition in healthcare, which required a rapid adaptation of stakeholders. Telemedicine has emerged as an ideal tool to ensure continuity of care by allowing remote access to specialized medical services. However, its rapid implementation has exacerbated disparities in healthcare access, especially for the most vulnerable populations. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the determinants factors (facilitators and barriers) of access to hospital medical specialty telemedicine consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic; to identify the main opportunities and challenges (technological, ethical, legal and/or social) generated by the use of telemedicine in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Four databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register) were searched for empirical studies published between January 3rd, 2020, and December 31st, 2021, using established criteria. The protocol of this review was registered and published in PROSPERO (CRD42022302825). A methodological quality assessment was performed, and results were integrated into a thematic synthesis. The identification of main opportunities and challenges was done by interpreting and aggregating the thematic synthesis results. RESULTS: Of the 106 studies identified, 9 met the inclusion criteria and the intended quality characteristics. All studies were originally from the United States of America (USA). The following facilitating factors of telemedicine use were identified: health insurance coverage; prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; access to Internet services; access to technological devices; better management of work-life balance; and savings in travel costs. We identified the following barriers to telemedicine use: lack of access to Internet services; lack of access to technological devices; racial and ethnic disparities; low digital literacy; low income; age; language barriers; health insurance coverage; concerns about data privacy and confidentiality; geographic disparities; and need for complementary diagnostic tests or for the delivery of test results. CONCLUSIONS: The facilitating factors and barriers identified in this systematic review present different opportunities and challenges, including those of technological nature (access to technological devices and internet services, level of digital literacy), sociocultural and demographic nature (ethnic and racial disparities, geographical disparities, language barriers, age), socioeconomic nature (income level and health insurance coverage), and ethical and legal nature (data privacy and confidentiality). To expand telemedicine access to hospital-based specialty medical consultations and provide high-quality care to all, including the most vulnerable communities, the challenges identified must be thoroughly researched and addressed with informed and dedicated responses.

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.

BACKGROUND: The present study was conducted to identify barriers and facilitators of early diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer. METHODS: Comprehensive search was conducted on 2021 in various databases, including Medline, Web of science, and Scopus. Keywords such as gastric cancer, screening programs, endoscopy, barriers, facilitators, and factor were used for the search, as single or in combination. Also a manual search was done in valid scientific journals to find related full-text articles. The search results were entered into the Endonote-X8 software, which automatically removes duplicate articles. Then, the title and the abstract and finally, the text of the articles were studied. Articles that addressed barriers and facilitators of early diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer were included. RESULTS: In according to the results of 22 included articles, delay time in the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer were high, and factors such as age, sex, race and ethnicity, economic and social status, access to diagnostic services, implementation of screening programs, type and accuracy of screening methods, use of insurance services, error in care services, and presence of gastrointestinal symptoms were considered to be contributing factors in this regard. CONCLUSIONS: It seems that to reduce delay in the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer, factors such as implementing screening programs using acceptable methods with high sensitivity and accuracy with a high level of participation, increasing insurance coverage and reducing the share of people in payments, increasing people's access to diagnostic services, educating people about the symptoms and risks of gastric cancer, undertaking proper follow-up in patients and suspects cases identified in screening, as well as increasing patients' access to medical services through financial and insurance support are significantly important.

PURPOSE: While calls have been made for exercise to become standard practice in oncology, barriers to implementation in real-world settings are not well described. This systematic scoping review aimed to comprehensively describe barriers impeding integration of exercise into routine oncology care within healthcare systems. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted across six electronic databases (since 2010) to identify barriers to implementing exercise into real-world settings. An ecological framework was used to classify barriers according to their respective level within the healthcare system. RESULTS: A total of 1,376 results were retrieved; 50 articles describing implementation barriers in real-world exercise oncology settings were reviewed. Two hundred and forty-three barriers were identified across all levels of the healthcare system. Nearly 40% of barriers existed at the organizational level (n = 93). Lack of structures to support exercise integration and absence of staff/resources to facilitate its delivery were the most common issues reported. Despite the frequency of barriers at the organizational level, organizational stakeholders were largely absent from the research. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing exercise into routine cancer care is hindered by a web of interrelated barriers across all levels of the healthcare system. Organizational barriers are central to most issues. Future work should take an interdisciplinary approach to explore best practices for overcoming implementation barriers, with organizations as a central focus. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This blueprint of implementation barriers highlights critical issues that need to be overcome to ensure people with cancer have access to the therapeutic benefits of exercise during treatment and beyond.

PURPOSE: Access to health care is a long-standing concern for rural patients; however, administrative measures fail to capture the subjective patient experience of accessing health care. The purpose of this review was to synthesize the qualitative literature on patient and caregiver experiences of accessing health care services for chronic disease management among US residents of rural areas. METHODS: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Scopus to identify qualitative studies published during 2010-2019. A thematic synthesis approach was used to analyze findings from included studies. RESULTS: A total of 62 studies involving 1,354 unique participants were included. The largest share of studies (24.2%) was focused on the experience of patients with cancer, followed by behavioral health (16.1%), HIV and AIDS (14.5%), and diabetes (12.9%). We identified 4 primary analytic themes of barriers and facilitators associated with the experience of accessing health care services for chronic disease management in rural areas: (1) navigating the rural environment, (2) navigating the health care system, (3) financing chronic disease management, and (4) rural life (ie, common elements of a distinct "rural" way of thinking and behaving). CONCLUSIONS: In this comprehensive review, we found that important cultural, structural, and individual factors influenced the rural patient's experience of healthcare access and use, including barriers and facilitators posed by geographic and built environments, and distinct rural mores. Our findings can inform policies and programs that both facilitate structural aspects of access and include culturally appropriate interventions.

Individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) may require assistance in accessing healthcare services, including cancer screening. A better understanding of the factors affecting cancer screening utilisation among these individuals is needed for the development of strategies to promote screening uptake in them. This review aimed to explore the facilitators of and barriers to cancer screening utilisation among people with ID. A literature search was conducted using five databases, and an additional snowball search yielded 16 studies for inclusion in the review. Overall, the methodological quality of these studies was good (43-100%). In this review, we noted barriers to screening among individuals with ID, including perceptions of fear, distress, and embarrassment; unpreparedness for screening; negative interactions with healthcare professionals; a lack of knowledge about cancer screening; mobility issues; a high severity of ID; and a lack of ability to provide consent and communicate verbally. Facilitators to screening among these individuals were also identified, including living in a supervised setting, prior use of other healthcare services, being educated about screening via social media, having carers accompany them to screening appointments, and having dual insurance coverage or a higher income. Our review highlights the current needs of individuals with ID undergoing cancer screening. Strategies should be developed to address these needs, such as the provision of training to healthcare professionals on how to conduct screening for people with ID.

Inadequate attendance to antenatal care has been associated with negative maternal and fetal outcomes, including stillbirth. This study aimed to identify facilitators and barriers to antenatal care attendance. A systematic search was conducted in March 2019 and updated in January 2021. Qualitative studies involving pregnant or post-partum women up to 12 months from high-income countries that provided data about facilitators and barriers to antenatal care attendance were sought. Meta-ethnography was used to inform this meta-synthesis. Fifteen studies were included in the analysis. Findings indicate that inadequate antenatal care attendance is influenced at different levels. Aspects like sociodemographic factors, difficulties navigating the health system, administrative delays, lack of flexibility and tailored care, constant change of carer and communication issues also act as barriers. These issues affect women's access to knowledge and the formation of women's beliefs and feelings towards seeking care. On the contrary, having a positive attitude towards the pregnancy, encountering empathetic healthcare professionals and availing of social support acted as facilitators. The reasons why women seek or delay attending antenatal care are multifactorial and can be explained using the Social Determinants of Health Framework. Any response needs to be taken across all levels of influence and not just focused on the individual. A better understanding of the barriers and facilitators to antenatal care might contribute to informing intervention or policy development addressing this issue.

Background: The long-term care setting poses unique challenges and opportunities for effective knowledge translation. The objectives of this review are to (1) synthesize barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based guidelines in long-term care, as defined as a home where residents require 24-h nursing care, and 50% of the population is over the age of 65 years; and (2) map barriers and facilitators to the Behaviour Change Wheel framework to inform theory-guided knowledge translation strategies. Methods: Following the guidance of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series and the ENTREQ reporting guidelines, we systematically reviewed the reported experiences of long-term care staff on implementing evidence-based guidelines into practice. MEDLINE Pubmed, EMBASE Ovid, and CINAHL were searched from the earliest date available until May 2021. Two independent reviewers selected primary studies for inclusion if they were conducted in long-term care and reported the perspective or experiences of long-term care staff with implementing an evidence-based practice guideline about health conditions. Appraisal of the included studies was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist and confidence in the findings with the GRADE-CERQual approach. Findings: After screening 2680 abstracts, we retrieved 115 full-text articles; 33 of these articles met the inclusion criteria. Barriers included time constraints and inadequate staffing, cost and lack of resources, and lack of teamwork and organizational support. Facilitators included leadership and champions, well-designed strategies, protocols, and resources, and adequate services, resources, and time. The most frequent Behaviour Change Wheel components were physical and social opportunity and psychological capability. We concluded moderate or high confidence in all but one of our review findings. Conclusions: Future knowledge translation strategies to implement guidelines in long-term care should target physical and social opportunity and psychological capability, and include interventions such as environmental restructuring, training, and education.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines commonly recommend adopting a biopsychosocial (BPS) framework by practitioners managing musculoskeletal pain. However, it remains unclear how osteopaths implement a BPS framework in the management of musculoskeletal pain. Hence, the objective of this review was to systematically appraise the literature on the current practices, barriers and facilitators experienced by osteopaths in implementing a BPS framework of care when managing people with musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: The following electronic databases from January 2005 to August 2020 were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Science Direct, Google Scholar, ProQuest Central and SCOPUS. Two independent reviewers reviewed the articles retrieved from the databases to assess for eligibility. Any studies (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) that investigated the use or application of the BPS approach in osteopathic practice were included in the review. The critical appraisal skills program (CASP) checklist was used to appraise the qualitative studies and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to appraise quantitative or mixed methods studies. Advanced convergent meta-integration was used to synthesise data from quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. RESULTS: A total of 6 studies (two quantitative, three qualitative and one mixed methods) were included in the final review. While two key concepts (current practice and embracing a BPS approach) were generated using advanced meta-integration synthesis, two concepts (barriers and enablers) were informed from qualitative only data. DISCUSSION: Our review finding showed that current osteopathic practice occurs within in the biomedical model of care. Although, osteopaths are aware of the theoretical underpinnings of the BPS model and identified the need to embrace it, various barriers exist that may prevent osteopaths from implementing the BPS model in clinical practice. Ongoing education and/or workshops may be necessary to enable osteopaths to implement a BPS approach.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial issues, such as social isolation and loneliness among older adults and people with dementia, continue to pose challenges with a rapidly aging population worldwide. Social robots are a rapidly emerging field of technology, developed to help address the psychosocial needs of this population. Although studies have reported positive findings regarding their psychosocial benefits, their implementation in real-world practice remains a challenge. Nevertheless, little is known about the factors affecting their implementation. The purpose of this review is to provide a systematic overview of the barriers and facilitators affecting the implementation of social robots for older adults and people with dementia. METHOD: The Arksey and O'Malley approach with methodological enhancement by Levac et al. was used to guide the conduct of this review. Seven electronic databases were searched. In addition, hand searching and backward citation tracing was conducted. Three independent reviewers were involved in the screening and data charting process. Findings were synthesised and categorised into the five domains outlined in the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: A total of 53 studies were included in the final review. Most of the included studies were based in participants' homes and in care facilities. Barriers and facilitators were mapped onto 18 constructs in the five domains of the CFIR. The most frequently cited barriers were mapped to the constructs within the domain of "Intervention characteristics", where issues such as the complexity of using the technology and technical obstacles impeded implementation. Most facilitators were mapped onto the domain "Patient needs and resources". Overall, existing research are disproportionately focused on the internal validity (i.e. characteristics) of social robots, and there is significantly less research investigating their external validity, such as organisational or wider contextual factors that can affect their implementation in real-world practice. CONCLUSION: This review has identified and synthesised the breadth of evidence on the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of social robots for older adults and people with dementia. Future research should pay more attention to investigating the contextual factors, using an implementation framework, to identify barriers and facilitators to guide the implementation of social robots.