BackgroundCerebral palsy (CP) is the most common childhood physical disability, imposing substantial costs on individuals and society. Early interventions that promote brain optimization and reorganization are vital for children with CP. Integrating early evidence-based practice (EBP) remains challenging but enhances functional outcomes.MethodsFollowing a scoping review methodology, databases were searched to identify studies examining the impact of knowledge translation (KT) strategies for pediatric CP interventions. Extraction included study characteristics, methodology, KT strategies, barriers, and facilitators. Numerical and inductive content analysis identified themes among KT strategies. A final stakeholder consultation to discuss the results was conducted.ResultsThis review included seventeen articles. Common outcomes included participant change in EBP knowledge and behaviour. Common barriers included a need for more resources, protected time, and funding. Most studies followed a multifaceted KT approach. Various KT strategies were used, primarily mentoring, workshops, case studies, and online tools.InterpretationResults underscored the need for tailored KT strategies for implementing EBP for children with CP. Additionally, user-friendly KT tools and involving mentors to facilitate the intervention can haste EBP uptake. Successful adoption depends on challenges in healthcare settings. This study provides insights into current KT strategies for advancing best practices for children with CP. Employing multifaceted knowledge translation strategies in a pediatric rehabilitation setting can support the adoption of evidence-based practices for children with cerebral palsy.It is important to identify and address common barriers hindering the use of evidence-based practices in cerebral palsy rehabilitation in a specific context to tailor a knowledge translation strategy.Having qualified rehabilitation professionals act as evidence-based practice leaders in a healthcare setting is crucial for promoting evidence-based practices among other professionals.

Background: Translating research into clinical practice is challenging. One implementation intervention that supports translation is employment of a change champion. It is important to understand how individuals are prepared for the change champion role. This rapid systematic review aimed to identify the education, training, and support provided to individuals in change champion roles within implementation trials. Method: Rapid review approach. We searched the Scopus database to identify systematic reviews on champions, knowledge brokers, facilitators, and implementation support practitioners. The most recent reviews on each topic were screened to find eligible studies. To identify studies published after these reviews, we searched Medline, PsycINFO, OVID, CINAHL, ProQuest, SCOPUS, and EBSCO. We included randomised and cluster randomised controlled trials that reported on implementation interventions in healthcare settings involving a local change champion. Results: Fifteen cluster randomised controlled trials were included. Specific champion training was provided in 12 studies (80%), but none reported incorporating adult learning principles into their education program. Some form of post-training support was reported in 11 studies (73%). Only two studies included content on behaviour or organizational change in the champion preparation program. Most programs were not individualized, and details of training and support were poorly reported. Conclusions: Training needs and educational outcomes of change champions are poorly reported in implementation trials. Training tends not to align with adult learning. More rigorous development and reporting of programs to prepare change champions to support implementation of evidence in healthcare is recommended. Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42022368276.

Background: Evidence-based practice is defined as using the best available research and clinical evidence by incorporating patients' values and preferences for their health needs. The use of evidence-based intrapartum care practices is an essential tool to improve the quality of obstetrics care. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of evidence-based intrapartum care and associated factors among obstetrics care providers in Ethiopia. Method: Important articles were retrieved from universally accepted and used databases, including Cochran, PubMed, HINARI, Google Scholar, Web of Science, African OnLine, and repositories of Ethiopian Universities. We extracted articles by using a standard JOANNA Briggs Institute data extraction sheet. To determine the existence of heterogeneity in studies, I 2 statistics and Cochran Q tests were used. The publication bias of the included studies was checked using Egger's test and a Funnel plot. Result: A total of 2035 obstetrics care providers were involved in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The estimated overall rate of evidence-based intrapartum care practice in Ethiopia was 54.45% (95% CI: 43.06, 65.83); I 2 = 96.6%, p < 0.001). The studies with a sample size greater than 300 count for 47.25% (95% CI: 36.14, 65.83). Whereas obstetrics care providers have a decent knowledge of intrapartum care evidence 3.31 times, a positive attitude toward evidence 3.34 times, training 2.21 times, and work experience ⩾5 years 3.31 times associated with the practice of evidence-based intrapartum care. Conclusion: The overall practice of evidence-based intrapartum care among obstetrics workers in Ethiopia is estimated to be low. Therefore, there should be a focused effort on training and disseminating protocols and guidelines to enhance knowledge and foster a positive attitude among obstetrics care providers. Additionally, the Ethiopian government should prioritize the implementation of the 2021 to 2025 National Health Equity Strategic Plan to achieve its objective of improving the quality of health services.

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a cornerstone for safe, high-quality care. Implementation science recognizes that many factors influence the successful use of EBP, from attitudes and beliefs, self-efficacy, and knowledge and skills to contextual factors related to unit and organizational culture. This integrative review aimed to identify valid and reliable instruments measuring critical EBP domains with nursing professionals. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted. CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Joanna Briggs were searched to identify original research publications testing the reliability and validity of EBP nursing instruments. Results: Of 347 records, 48 studies representing 50 instruments were identified as having undergone psychometric testing, thus meeting the inclusion criteria. Most instruments were validated in English-speaking countries. Content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency standards were met for 70%, 62%, and 94% of instruments, respectively. Limited testing was found for other types of validity, test-retest reliability, acceptability, feasibility, or responsivity and sensitivity, thus representing gaps in psychometric validation. Less than 20% of instruments have been translated to other languages limiting their use to advance EBP worldwide. Linking evidence to action: Eighty-two percent of instruments met minimal psychometric standards and are sound for education, practice, and research. Expanding psychometric testing and utilizing validated EBP instruments will further the EBP movement to improve global population health.

Objective: This study aimed to determine whether targeting specific implementation determinants is associated with allied health clinicians' uptake of evidence when implemented within stroke rehabilitation settings. Data sources: 7 key databases were searched to identify articles published between 1990 and 2022 for inclusion. Reference lists of relevant articles were hand searched. Study selection: Studies were independently screened by 2 authors and included if the implementation intervention targeted allied health clinical practice in any stroke rehabilitation context and reported at least 1 quantitative measure of evidence uptake. Thirty studies met inclusion criteria. Data extraction: Data were independently extracted by the first and second author. Implementation outcomes for each study were categorized as either mostly successful, partially successful, or not successful based on the degree of evidence uptake achieved. Determinants targeted were categorized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data synthesis: Patterns between the degree of evidence uptake and determinants targeted across studies were analyzed by the first and second authors in 1 of 3 groups: A (pre-post statistical analysis), B (pre-post descriptive analysis), or C (post-only descriptive analysis). Patterns between evidence uptake and determinants targeted were first identified within groups A and B, with group C consulted to support findings. All studies categorized as "mostly successful" targeted facilitation in combination with establishing face-to-face networks and communication strategies. Conversely, no studies rated "not successful" targeted either of these determinants. Studies rated "partially successful" targeted either 1, but seldom both, of these determinants. Conclusions: This review has provided descriptive evidence of determinants which may be important to target for allied health clinicians' uptake of evidence within stroke rehabilitation settings.

ObjectivesTo systematically collect and analyse diverse definitions of 'evidence' in both health and social sciences, and help users to correctly use the term 'evidence' and rethink what is the definition of 'evidence' in scientific research.DesignScoping review.MethodsDefinitions of evidence in the health sciences and social sciences were included. We have excluded the definition of evidence applied in the legal field, abstracts without full text, documents not published in either Chinese or English and so on. We established a multidisciplinary working group and systematically searched five electronic databases including Medline, Web of Science, EBSCO, the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index and the Chinese Science Citation Database from their inception to 26 February 2022. We also searched websites and reviewed the reference lists of the identified studies. Six reviewers working in pairs, independently, selected studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and extracted information. Any differences were discussed in pairs, and if there was disagreement, it was resolved via discussion or with the help of a third reviewer. Reviewers extracted document characteristics, the original content for the definitions of 'evidence', assessed definitions as either intensional or extensional, and any citations for the given definition.ResultsForty-nine documents were finally included after screening, and 68 definitions were obtained. After excluding duplicates, a total of 54 different definitions of 'evidence' were identified. There were 42 intensional definitions and 12 extensional definitions. The top three definiens were 'information', 'fact' and 'research/study'. The definition of 'evidence' differed between health and social sciences. The term 'research' appeared most frequently in the definitions.ConclusionsThe definition of 'evidence' has gradually attracted the attention of many scholars and decision-makers in health and social sciences. Nevertheless, there is no widely recognised and accepted definition in scientific research. Given the wide use of the term, we need to think about whether, or under what circumstances, a standardised, clear, meaningful and widely applicable definition of 'evidence' might be helpful.

Rapid recommendation is a novel methodological framework for developing clinical practice guidelines and this framework shares the basic features of classical guidelines but differs from classical clinical practice guidelines in its ‘rapid’ development process (typically within 90 days) with an aim of translat-ing practice-changing studies to recommendations. A recent global innovation of guideline development methodology is the proposal of a rapid recommendation framework for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), which has the potential to add value to the translation of evidence to practice for TCM inter- ventions. Up to now, more than 180 rapid recommendations have been published, but none of them is pertaining to TCM interventions. Due to the nature of multi-dimensional evidence sources for TCM inter- ventions, including classical randomized controlled trials and real world evidence, a more sophisticated methodological approach to synthesize and evaluate the totality of evidence about effects of TCM in- terventions is required. Therefore, appropriate modification to the rapid recommendation framework is necessary. In the efforts to respond to these needs, we have proposed a specific approach to developing rapid recommendations for TCM interventions the Multi-dimensional Evidence Synthesis, Evaluation and Recommendations for TCM interventions (MESERT)

Background:This study aims to develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline of acupuncture in the treatment of patients with moderate and severe cancer pain. Methods:The development of this guideline was triggered by a systematic review published in JAMA Oncology in 2020. We searched databases and websites for evidence on patient preferences and values, and other resources of using acupuncture for treatment of cancer pain. Recommendations were developed through a Delphi consensus of an international multidisciplinary panel including 13 western medicine oncologists, Chinese medicine/acupuncture clinical practitioners, and two patient representatives. The certainty of evidence, patient preferences and values, resources, and other factors were fully considered in formulating the recommendations. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Results:The guideline proposed three recommendations: (1) a strong recommendation for the treatment of acupuncture rather than no treatment to relieve pain in patients with moderate to severe cancer pain; (2) a weak recommendation for the combination treatments with acupuncture/acupressure to reduce pain intensity, decrease the opioid dose, and alleviate opioid-related side effects in moderate to severe cancer pain patients who are using analgesics; and (3) a strong recommendation for acupuncture in breast cancer patients to relieve their aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia. Conclusion:This proposed guideline provides recommendations for the management of patients with cancer pain. The small sample sizes of evidence limit the strength of the recommendations and highlights the need for additional research.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has turned into a pandemic and resulted in huge death tolls and burdens. Integrating Chinese and western medicine has played an important role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Purpose We aimed to develop a living evidence-based guideline of integrating Chinese and western medicine for COVID-19. Study design Living evidence-based guideline. Methods This living guideline was developed using internationally recognized and accepted guideline standards, dynamically monitoring the release of new clinical evidence, and quickly updating the linked living systematic review, evidence summary tables, and recommendations. Modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus for all recommendations. The certainty of the evidence, resources, and other factors were fully considered, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Results The first version of this living guidance focuses on patients who are mild or moderate COVID-19. A multidisciplinary guideline development panel was established. Ten clinical questions were identified based on the status of evidence and a face-to-face experts' consensus. Finally, nine recommendations were reached consensus, and were formulated from systematic reviews of the benefits and harms, certainty of evidence, public accessibility, policy supports, feedback on proposed recommendations from multidisciplinary experts, and consensus meetings. Conclusion This guideline panel made nine recommendations, which covered five traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) prescription granules/decoction (MXXFJD, QFPD, XFBD, TJQW, and JWDY), three Chinese patent medicines (LHQW granules/capsule, JHQG granules, and LHQK granules), and one Chinese herbal injection (XBJ injection). Of them, two were strongly recommended (LHQW granules/capsule and QFPD decoction), and five were weakly recommended (MXXFJD decoction, XFBD decoction, JHQG granules, TJQW granules, and JWDY decoction) for the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19; two were weakly recommended against (XBJ injection and LHQK granules) the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19. The users of this living guideline are most likely to be clinicians, patients, governments, ministries, and health administrators.

Background: The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on making an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and creating a CERQual Evidence Profile and a CERQual Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Methods: We developed this guidance by examining the methods used by other GRADE approaches, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We then piloted the guidance on several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the approach. Results: Confidence in the evidence is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. Creating a summary of each review finding and deciding whether or not CERQual should be used are important steps prior to assessing confidence. Confidence should be assessed for each review finding individually, based on the judgements made for each of the four CERQual components. Four levels are used to describe the overall assessment of confidence: high, moderate, low or very low. The overall CERQual assessment for each review finding should be explained in a CERQual Evidence Profile and Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Conclusions: Structuring and summarising review findings, assessing confidence in those findings using CERQual and creating a CERQual Evidence Profile and Summary of Qualitative Findings table should be essential components of undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses. This paper describes the end point of a CERQual assessment and should be read in conjunction with the other papers in the series that provide information on assessing individual CERQual components.