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

Background: 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.

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 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: 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.

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.

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.

Purpose: To systematically review the typology, impact, quality of evidence, barriers, and facilitators to implementation of Quality Improvement (QI) interventions for adult critical care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on 1st September 2022. The studies were included if they described the implementation of QI interventions for adult critical care in LMICs, available as full text, in English and published after 2000. The risks of bias were assessed using the ROB 2.0/ROBINS-I tools. Intervention strategies were categorised according to a Knowledge Translation framework. Interventions' effectiveness were synthesised by vote counting and assessed with a binomial test. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were narratively synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: 78 studies were included. Risk of bias was high. The most common intervention strategies were Education, Audit & Feedback (A&F) and Protocols/Guidelines/Bundles/Checklists (PGBC). Two multifaceted strategies improved both process and outcome measures: Education and A&F (p = 0.008); and PGBC with Education and A&F (p = 0.001, p < 0.001). Facilitators to implementation were stakeholder engagement, organisational readiness for implementation, and adaptability of interventions. Barriers were lack of resources and incompatibility with clinical workflows. Conclusions: The evidence for QI in critical care in LMICs is sparse and at high risk of bias but suggests that multifaceted interventions are most effective. Co-designing interventions with and engaging stakeholders, communicating relative advantages, employing local champions and adapting to feedback can improve implementation. Hybrid study designs, process evaluations and adherence to reporting guidelines would improve the evidence base.

Operating theatres consume large amounts of energy and consumables and produce large amounts of waste. There is an increasing evidence base for reducing the climate impacts of healthcare that could be enacted into routine practice; yet, healthcare-associated emissions increase annually. Implementation science aims to improve the systematic uptake of evidence-based care into practice and could, therefore, assist in addressing the environmental impacts of healthcare. The aim of this systematic search with narrative synthesis was to explore what implementation approaches have been applied to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatre activities, described by implementation phases and methodologies. A search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed, and CINAHL, limited to English and publication since 2010. In total, 3886 articles were retrieved and 11 were included. All were in the exploratory phase (seven of 11) or initial implementation phase (four of 11), but none were in the installation or full implementation phase. Three studies utilised a recognised implementation theory, model, or framework in the design. Four studies used interprofessional education to influence individuals' behaviour to reduce waste, improve waste segregation, or reduce anaesthetic gases. Of those that utilised behaviour change interventions, all were qualitatively successful in achieving environmental improvement. There was an absence of evidence for sustained effects in the intervention studies and little follow-up from studies that explored barriers to innovation. This review demonstrates a gap between evidence for reducing environmental impacts and uptake of proposed practice changes to deliver low-carbon healthcare. Future research into 'greening' healthcare should use implementation research methods to establish a solid implementation evidence base. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42022342786.

Background: Knowledge translation (KT) strategies are widely used to facilitate the implementation of EBIs into healthcare practices. However, it is unknown what and how KT strategies are used to facilitate the sustainability of EBIs in institutional healthcare settings. Objectives: This scoping review aimed to consolidate the current evidence on (i) what and how KT strategies are being used for the sustainability of EBIs in institutional healthcare settings; (ii) the reported KT strategy outcomes (e.g., acceptability) for EBI sustainability, and (iii) the reported EBI sustainability outcomes (e.g., EBI activities or component of the intervention continue). Methods: We conducted a scoping review of five electronic databases. We included studies describing the use of specific KT strategies to facilitate the sustainability of EBIs (more than 1-year post-implementation). We coded KT strategies using the clustered ERIC taxonomy and AIMD framework, we coded KT strategy outcomes using Tierney et al.'s measures, and EBI sustainability outcomes using Scheirer and Dearing's and Lennox's taxonomy. We conducted descriptive numerical summaries and a narrative synthesis to analyze the results. Results: The search identified 3776 studies for review. Following the screening, 25 studies (reported in 27 papers due to two companion reports) met the final inclusion criteria. Most studies used multi-component KT strategies for EBI sustainability (n = 24). The most common ERIC KT strategy clusters were to train and educate stakeholders (n = 38) and develop stakeholder interrelationships (n = 34). Education was the most widely used KT strategy (n = 17). Many studies (n = 11) did not clearly report whether they used different or the same KT strategies between EBI implementation and sustainability. Seven studies adapted KT strategies from implementation to sustainability efforts. Only two studies reported using a new KT strategy for EBI sustainability. The most reported KT strategy outcomes were acceptability (n = 10), sustainability (n = 5); and adoption (n = 4). The most commonly measured EBI sustainability outcome was the continuation of EBI activities or components (n = 23), followed by continued benefits for patients, staff, and stakeholders (n = 22). Conclusions: Our review provides insight into a conceptual problem where initial EBI implementation and sustainability are considered as two discrete time periods. Our findings show we need to consider EBI implementation and sustainability as a continuum and design and select KT strategies with this in mind. Our review has emphasized areas that require further research (e.g., KT strategy adaptation for EBI sustainability). To advance understanding of how to employ KT strategies for EBI sustainability, we recommend clearly reporting the dose, frequency, adaptations, fidelity, and cost of KT strategies. Advancing our understanding in this area would facilitate better design, selection, tailored, and adapted use of KT strategies for EBI sustainability, thereby contributing to improved patient, provider, and health system outcomes.

Purpose: Though a growing crop of health care reforms aims to encourage health care-based social screening, no literature has synthesized existing social screening implementation research to inform screening practice and policymaking. Methods: Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed literature on social screening implementation published 1/1/2011-2/17/2022. We applied a 2-concept search (health care-based screening; social risk factors) to PubMed and Embase. Studies had to explore the implementation of health care-based multi-domain social screening and describe 1+ outcome related to the reach, adoption, implementation, and/or maintenance of screening. Two reviewers extracted data related to key study elements, including sample, setting, and implementation outcomes. Results: Forty-two articles met inclusion criteria. Reach (n = 7): We found differences in screening rates by patient race/ethnicity; findings varied across studies. Patients who preferred Spanish had lower screening rates than English-preferring patients. Adoption (n = 13): Workforce education and dedicated quality improvement projects increased screening adoption. Implementation (n = 32): Time was the most cited barrier to screening; administration time differed by tool/workforce/modality. Use of standardized screening tools/workflows improved screening integration. Use of community health workers and/or technology improved risk disclosure and facilitated screening in resource-limited settings. Maintenance (n = 1): Only 1 study reported on maintenance; results showed a drop in screening over 21 months. Conclusions: Critical evidence gaps in social screening implementation persist. These include gaps in knowledge about effective strategies for integrating social screening into clinical workflows and ways to maximize screening equity. Future research should leverage the rapidly increasing number of screening initiatives to elevate and scale best practices.

Background: Health Service implementation projects are often guided by theoretical implementation frameworks. Little is known about the effectiveness of these frameworks to facilitate change in processes of care and patient outcomes within the inpatient setting. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of the application of theoretical implementation frameworks in inpatient healthcare settings to change processes of care and associated patient outcomes. Method: We conducted a search in CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EMCARE and Cochrane Library databases from 1st January 1995 to 15th June 2021. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to potentially eligible studies. Eligible studies: implemented evidence-based care into an in-patient setting using a theoretical implementation framework applied prospectively; used a prospective study design; presented process of care or patient outcomes; and were published in English. We extracted theoretical implementation frameworks and study design against the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) Checklist and implementation strategies mapped to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. We summarised all interventions using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. We appraised study quality using the Item bank on risk of bias and precision of observational studies and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for cluster randomised trials. We extracted process of care and patient outcomes and described descriptively. We conducted meta-analysis for process of care and patient outcomes with reference to framework category. Results: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one used a pre-post (no comparison), two a pre-post with a comparison, and two a cluster randomised trial design. Eleven theoretical implementation frameworks were prospectively applied: six process models; five determinant frameworks; and one classic theory. Four studies used two theoretical implementation frameworks. No authors reported their justification for selecting a particular framework and implementation strategies were generally poorly described. No consensus was reached for a preferred framework or subset of frameworks based on meta-analysis results. Conclusions: Rather than the ongoing development of new implementation frameworks, a more consistent approach to framework selection and strengthening of existing approaches is recommended to further develop the implementation evidence base. Trial registration: CRD42019119429.

Objectives: Little is known about how complex, multilevel, and multicomponent suicide prevention interventions work in real life settings. Understanding the methods used to systematically adopt, deliver, and sustain these interventions could ensure that they have the best chance of unfolding their full effect. This systematic review aimed to examine the application and extent of utilisation of implementation science in understanding and evaluating complex suicide prevention interventions. Methods: The review adhered to updated PRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021247950). PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest, SCOPUS and CENTRAL were searched. All English-language records (1990-2022) with suicide and/or self-harm as the primary aims or targets of intervention were eligible. A forward citation search and a reference search further bolstered the search strategy. Interventions were considered complex if they consisted of three or more components and were implemented across two or more levels of socio-ecology or levels of prevention. Results: One hundred thirty-nine records describing 19 complex interventions were identified. In 13 interventions, use of implementation science approaches, primarily process evaluations, was explicitly stated. However, extent of utilisation of implementation science approaches was found to be inconsistent and incomprehensive. Limitations: The inclusion criteria, along with a narrow definition of complex interventions may have limited our findings. Conclusion: Understanding the implementation of complex interventions is crucial for unlocking key questions about theory-practice knowledge translation. Inconsistent reporting and inadequate understanding of implementation processes can lead to loss of critical, experiential knowledge related to what works to prevent suicide in real world settings.