Background: Telehealth technologies can enhance patients' and their families' access to high-quality resources in home-based palliative care. Nurses are deeply involved in delivering telehealth in home-based palliative care. However, no previous integrative systematic reviews have synthesized evidence on nurses' roles, facilitators, and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care. Objective: This integrative systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the roles of nurses and the multilevel facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care, which could inform future policy development, research, and clinical practice. Methods: This integrative systematic review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. We systematically searched articles published from January 1, 2014, to May 2024 in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. We included English-language; peer-reviewed; original; and qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that centered on nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the included articles. Furthermore, 3 authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of articles. The entities to extract were identified by research questions of interest regardless of the type of study. We applied a convergent synthesis approach to integrate quantitative and qualitative data. Guided by the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0, we synthesized the facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care. Results: This integrative systematic review identified 4819 unique articles, including 34 papers encompassing 29 unique primary research studies. Innovations were mainly delivered by nurses (n=8) and nurse-involved multiprofessional teams (n=18). The roles of nurses in telehealth home-based palliative care involve palliative care nurses, community nurses, nurse coordinators, nurse coaches or nurse navigators, and nurse case managers. Guided by CFIR 2.0, facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered, telehealth, home-based palliative care were identified to 6 implementation levels and 20 constructs. The key facilitators included the COVID-19 pandemic, cost avoidance to the health care system, engagement of patients and their family caregivers, and so on. The barriers included a lack of reimbursement and payment mechanisms, technical problems, insufficiently trained health care providers, and so on. Conclusions: This integrative systematic review synthesizes evidence on nurses' evolving roles in telehealth home-based palliative care and identifies multilevel facilitators and barriers to nurse-delivered, home-based palliative care implementation. With the empowerment of telehealth technologies, nurses could establish a stronger professional identity and develop leadership in home-based palliative care. Nurses should leverage influence to promote nursing practice, clinical management, and policy support in the implementation of telehealth home-based palliative care. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42024541038; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024541038.

Background: Telehealth technologies can enhance patients' and their families' access to high-quality resources in home-based palliative care. Nurses are deeply involved in delivering telehealth in home-based palliative care. However, no previous integrative systematic reviews have synthesized evidence on nurses' roles, facilitators, and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care. Objective: This integrative systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the roles of nurses and the multilevel facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care, which could inform future policy development, research, and clinical practice. Methods: This integrative systematic review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. We systematically searched articles published from January 1, 2014, to May 2024 in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. We included English-language; peer-reviewed; original; and qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that centered on nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the included articles. Furthermore, 3 authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of articles. The entities to extract were identified by research questions of interest regardless of the type of study. We applied a convergent synthesis approach to integrate quantitative and qualitative data. Guided by the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0, we synthesized the facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care. Results: This integrative systematic review identified 4819 unique articles, including 34 papers encompassing 29 unique primary research studies. Innovations were mainly delivered by nurses (n=8) and nurse-involved multiprofessional teams (n=18). The roles of nurses in telehealth home-based palliative care involve palliative care nurses, community nurses, nurse coordinators, nurse coaches or nurse navigators, and nurse case managers. Guided by CFIR 2.0, facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered, telehealth, home-based palliative care were identified to 6 implementation levels and 20 constructs. The key facilitators included the COVID-19 pandemic, cost avoidance to the health care system, engagement of patients and their family caregivers, and so on. The barriers included a lack of reimbursement and payment mechanisms, technical problems, insufficiently trained health care providers, and so on. Conclusions: This integrative systematic review synthesizes evidence on nurses' evolving roles in telehealth home-based palliative care and identifies multilevel facilitators and barriers to nurse-delivered, home-based palliative care implementation. With the empowerment of telehealth technologies, nurses could establish a stronger professional identity and develop leadership in home-based palliative care. Nurses should leverage influence to promote nursing practice, clinical management, and policy support in the implementation of telehealth home-based palliative care. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42024541038; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024541038.

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.

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: 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: 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.

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).

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.

Background The uptake of guidelines in care is inconsistent. This review focuses on guideline implementation strategies used by guideline organizations (governmental agencies, scientific/professional societies and other umbrella organizations), experienced implementation barriers and facilitators and impact of their implementation efforts. Methods We searched PUBMED, EMBASE and CINAHL and conducted snowballing. Eligibility criteria included guidelines focused on hospital care and OECD countries. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We used framework analysis, narrative synthesis and summary statistics. Results Twenty-six articles were included. Sixty-two implementation strategies were reported, used in different combinations and ranged between 1 and 16 strategies per initiative. Most frequently reported strategies were educational session(s) and implementation supporting materials. The most commonly reported barrier and facilitator were respectively insufficient healthcare professionals’ time and resources; and guideline's credibility, evidence base and relevance. Eighty-five percent of initiatives that measured impact achieved improvements in adoption, knowledge, behavior and/or clinical outcomes. No clear optimal approach for improving guideline uptake and impact was found. However, we found indications that employing multiple active implementation strategies and involving external organizations and hospital staff were associated with improvements. Conclusion Guideline organizations employ diverse implementation strategies and encounter multiple barriers and facilitators. Our study uncovered potential effective implementation practices. However, further research is needed on effective tailoring of implementation approaches to increase uptake and impact of guidelines.

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.

Background: Expanding chronic hepatitis B (CHB) testing through effective implementation strategies in primary- and community-care setting is crucial for elimination. Our study aimed to determine the effectiveness of all available strategies in the literature and evaluate their specifications and implementation outcomes, thereby informing future programming and policymaking. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023455781), searching Scopus, Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL databases up to June 05, 2024, for randomized controlled trials investigating primary- and community-care-based implementation strategies to promote CHB testing. Studies were screened against a priori eligibility criteria, and their data were extracted using a standardized protocol if included. ROB-2 was used to assess the risk of bias. Implementation strategies' components were characterized using the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) framework. Random-effect models were applied to pool the effectiveness estimate by strategy. Mixed-effect meta-regression was employed to investigate if effectiveness varied by the number of strategy's BCW components. Findings: 7146 unique records were identified. 25 studies were eligible for the review, contributing 130,598 participants. 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. No studies were conducted in low-and-middle-income countries. Implementation outcomes were reported in only ten studies (40%). Community-based strategies included lay health workers-led education (Pooled Risk Difference = 27.9% [95% Confidence Interval = 3.4-52.4], I2 = 99.3%) or crowdsourced education on social media (3.1% [-2.2 to 8.4], 0.0%). Primary care-based strategies consisted of electronic alert system (8.4% [3.7-13.1], 95.0%) and healthcare providers-led education (HCPs, 62.5% [53.1-71.9], 27.5%). The number of BCW-framework-driven strategy components showed a significant dose-response relationship with effectiveness. Interpretation: HCPs-led education stands out, and more enriched multicomponent strategies had better effectiveness. Future implementation strategies should consider critical contextual factors and policies to achieve a sustainable impact towards hepatitis B elimination targets. Funding: Tran Dolch Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore MD, USA.

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 Indigenous people experience a unique set of health inequalities and social determinants that can negatively affect their physical health, mental health and wellness. This critical state of affairs is compounded by the limited availability of culturally appropriate care services and treatments for the different groups. In response, increasing numbers of studies are turning their focus to art-based interventions and how these might benefit Indigenous lives. The proposed scoping review aims to map this growing field of research.Methods and analysis This scoping review is based on the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework and the subsequent enhancements proposed by Levac et al. Academic databases and grey literature sources will be searched to identify appropriate studies for inclusion. The search strategies of all databases were tested on 25 April 2024. This will be followed by a two-step screening process to be conducted by two researchers and consisting of (1) a title and abstract review and (2) a full-text review. Data from the selected studies will be extracted, collated and charted to summarise all relevant interventions, their outcomes and key findings. An Indigenous research partner will be hired as a consultant, and the research will be further informed by other stakeholders.Ethics and dissemination This study is the first step in a research programme involving working with Indigenous artists to codesign a pilot art-based intervention aimed at improving mental health and wellness among Indigenous people. The scoping review will identify the specific components in documented art-based interventions that have proven beneficial to this group. Since it will draw exclusively on data from published and public sources, no ethics approval is required. The results will be disseminated through knowledge translation activities with Indigenous organisations and art therapy groups; a summary of the results will also be distributed through Indigenous networks.

Background: Achievement of evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) requires the integration of evidence into all practice decisions by identifying and synthesizing evidence, then developing and executing plans to implement and evaluate changes to practice. This rapid systematic review synthesizes evidence for strategies for the implementation of EIDM across organizations, mapping facilitators and barriers to the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour) model for behaviour change. The review was conducted to support leadership at organizations delivering public health services (health promotion, communicable disease prevention) to drive change toward evidence-informed public health. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in multiple databases and by reviewing publications of key authors. Articles that describe interventions to drive EIDM within teams, departments, or organizations were eligible for inclusion. For each included article, quality was assessed, and details of the intervention, setting, outcomes, facilitators and barriers were extracted. A convergent integrated approach was undertaken to analyze both quantitative and qualitative findings. Results: Thirty-seven articles are included. Studies were conducted in primary care, public health, social services, and occupational health settings. Strategies to implement EIDM included the establishment of Knowledge Broker-type roles, building the EIDM capacity of staff, and research or academic partnerships. Facilitators and barriers align with the COM-B model for behaviour change. Facilitators for capability include the development of staff knowledge and skill, establishing specialized roles, and knowledge sharing across the organization, though staff turnover and subsequent knowledge loss was a barrier to capability. For opportunity, facilitators include the development of processes or mechanisms to support new practices, forums for learning and skill development, and protected time, and barriers include competing priorities. Facilitators identified for motivation include supportive organizational culture, expectations for new practices to occur, recognition and positive reinforcement, and strong leadership support. Barriers include negative attitudes toward new practices, and lack of understanding and support from management. Conclusion: This review provides a comprehensive analysis of facilitators and barriers for the implementation of EIDM in organizations for public health, mapped to the COM-B model for behaviour change. The existing literature for strategies to support EIDM in public health illustrates several facilitators and barriers linked to realizing EIDM. Knowledge of these factors will help senior leadership develop and implement EIDM strategies tailored to their organization, leading to increased likelihood of implementation success. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022318994.

Context: Many countries and institutions have adopted policies to promote healthier food and drink availability in various settings, including public sector workplaces. Objective: The objective of this review was to systematically synthesize evidence on barriers and facilitators to implementation of and compliance with healthy food and drink policies aimed at the general adult population in public sector workplaces. Data sources: Nine scientific databases, 9 grey literature sources, and government websites in key English-speaking countries along with reference lists. Data extraction: All identified records (N = 8559) were assessed for eligibility. Studies reporting on barriers and facilitators were included irrespective of study design and methods used but were excluded if they were published before 2000 or in a non-English language. Data analysis: Forty-one studies were eligible for inclusion, mainly from Australia, the United States, and Canada. The most common workplace settings were healthcare facilities, sports and recreation centers, and government agencies. Interviews and surveys were the predominant methods of data collection. Methodological aspects were assessed with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Qualitative Studies Checklist. Generally, there was poor reporting of data collection and analysis methods. Thematic synthesis identified 4 themes: (1) a ratified policy as the foundation of a successful implementation plan; (2) food providers' acceptance of implementation is rooted in positive stakeholder relationships, recognizing opportunities, and taking ownership; (3) creating customer demand for healthier options may relieve tension between policy objectives and business goals; and (4) food supply may limit the ability of food providers to implement the policy. Conclusions: Findings suggest that although vendors encounter challenges, there are also factors that support healthy food and drink policy implementation in public sector workplaces. Understanding barriers and facilitators to successful policy implementation will significantly benefit stakeholders interested or engaging in healthy food and drink policy development and implementation. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021246340.

Background: Digital health interventions (DHIs) are a central focus of health care transformation efforts, yet their uptake in practice continues to fall short of their potential. In order to achieve their desired outcomes and impact, DHIs need to reach their target population and need to be used. Many factors can rapidly intersect between this dynamic of users and interventions. The application of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) can facilitate the systematic understanding and explanation of the complex interactions between users, practices, technology, and health system factors that underpin research questions. There remains a gap in our understanding of how TMFs have been applied to guide the evaluation of DHIs with real-world health system operations. Objective: This study aims to map TMFs used in studies to guide the evaluation of DHIs. The objectives are to (1) describe the TMFs and the constructs they target, (2) identify how TMFs have been prospectively used (ie, their roles) in primary studies to evaluate DHIs, and (3) to reflect on the relevance and utility of our findings for knowledge users. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in partnership with knowledge users using an integrated knowledge translation approach. We included papers (eg, reports; empirical quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies; conference proceedings; and dissertations) if primary insights resulting from the application of TMFs were presented. Any type of DHI was eligible. Papers published from 2000 and onward were mainly identified from the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid), EBM Reviews (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid). Results: A total of 156 studies published between 2000 and 2022 were included. A total of 68 distinct TMFs were identified across 85 individual studies. In more than half (85/156, 55%) of the included studies, 1 of following 6 prevailing TMFs were reported: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (n=39); the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Framework (n=17); the Technology of Acceptance Model (n=16); the Unified Theory on Acceptance and Use of Technology (n=12); the Diffusion of Innovation Theory (n=10); and Normalization Process Theory (n=9). The most common intended roles of the 6 TMFs were to inform data collection (n=86), to inform data analysis (n=69), and to identify key constructs that may serve as barriers and facilitators (n=52). Conclusions: As TMFs are most often reported to be applied to support data collection and analysis, researchers should consider more clearly synthesizing key insights as practical use cases to both increase the relevance and digestibility of their findings. There is also a need to adapt or develop guidelines for better reporting DHIs and the use of TMFs to guide evaluation. Hence, it would contribute to ensuring ongoing technology transformation efforts are evidence and theory informed rather than anecdotally driven.

Background: Building healthcare service and health professionals' capacity and capability to rapidly translate research evidence into health practice is critical to the effectiveness and sustainability of healthcare systems. This review scoped the literature describing programmes to build knowledge translation capacity and capability in health professionals and healthcare services, and the evidence supporting these. Methods: This scoping review was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Four research databases (Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo) were searched using a pre-determined strategy. Eligible studies described a programme implemented in healthcare settings to build health professional or healthcare service knowledge translation capacity and capability. Abstracts and full texts considered for inclusion were screened by two researchers. Data from included papers were extracted using a bespoke tool informed by the scoping review questions. Results: Database searches yielded 10,509 unique citations, of which 136 full texts were reviewed. Thirty-four papers were included, with three additional papers identified on citation searching, resulting in 37 papers describing 34 knowledge translation capability building programmes. Programmes were often multifaceted, comprising a combination of two or more strategies including education, dedicated implementation support roles, strategic research-practice partnerships and collaborations, co-designed knowledge translation capability building programmes, and dedicated funding for knowledge translation. Many programmes utilised experiential and collaborative learning, and targeted either individual, team, organisational, or system levels of impact. Twenty-seven programmes were evaluated formally using one or more data collection methods. Outcomes measured varied significantly and included participant self-reported outcomes, perceived barriers and enablers of knowledge translation, milestone achievement and behaviour change. All papers reported that programme objectives were achieved to varying degrees. Conclusions: Knowledge translation capacity and capability building programmes in healthcare settings are multifaceted, often include education to facilitate experiential and collaborative learning, and target individual, team, organisational, or supra-organisational levels of impact. Although measured differently across the programmes, the outcomes were positive. The sustainability of programmes and outcomes may be undermined by the lack of long-term funding and inconsistent evaluation. Future research is required to develop evidence-informed frameworks to guide methods and outcome measures for short-, medium- and longer-term programme evaluation at the different structural levels.