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: 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.

Objectives: This systematic review aimed to identify the nature and effects of implementation strategies used to improve the care of older people with frailty in hospital settings. Methods: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, before-after studies and interrupted time series describing clinical frailty-focussed interventions and implementation strategies aimed at improving outcomes for older people with frailty in hospital settings. We included peer-review articles and PhD theses published from the Year 2000 onwards. We excluded publications not in English and conference abstracts. Four electronic databases (Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Scopus) were searched, alongside grey literature, in April 2024. Risk of bias was analysed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool. A narrative synthesis approach was undertaken, with the RE-AIM framework used to present data for implementation outcomes and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy used to categorise implementation strategies. Results: Fifteen studies were included; all were pre-/postdesigns and published post-2014. Most studies involved implementing frailty assessments to trigger care planning and pathways for people with frailty. Twelve studies reported positive improvements in one or more primary outcomes. Common implementation strategies included developing quality monitoring tools, mandating change, promoting adaptability of the intervention and distributing educational materials. Conclusions: Frailty interventions in hospital settings are usually multicomponent and highly influenced by context. This review confirms the feasibility of frailty screening and intervention in hospital settings, but implementation strategies are not well-reported. Future research should prioritise rigorous study designs and reporting to optimise the transferability of successful implementation strategies for frailty interventions to other health-care settings.

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.

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: The uptake, adoption and integration of new medicines and treatment regimens within healthcare delivery can take a decade or more. Increasingly, implementation science (IS) research is being used to bridge this gap between the availability of new therapeutic evidence and its actual application in clinical practice. Little is known, however, about the quality of IS research in this area, including the degree to which theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) are being used. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the use of TMFs in implementation research involving medicinal products. Methods: A search was conducted for English language abstracts and manuscripts describing the application of TMFs in IS studies for medicinal products. Eligible publications were those published between 1 January 1974 and 12 December 2022. All records were screened at the title and abstract stage; included full-text papers were abstracted using data extraction tables designed for the study. Study quality was appraised using the Implementation Research Development Tool. Results: The initial scoping search identified 2697 publications, of which 9 were ultimately eligible for inclusion in the review. Most studies were published after 2020 and varied in their objectives, design and therapeutic area. Most studies had sample sizes of fewer than 50 participants, and all focused on the post-marketing phase of drug development. The TMF most frequently used was the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Although most studies applied all TMF domains, TMF use was limited to instrument development and/or qualitative analysis. Quality appraisals indicated the need for engaging patients and other stakeholders in the implementation research, reporting on the cost of implementation strategies, and evaluating the unintended consequences of implementation efforts. Conclusions: We found that few IS studies involving medicinal products reported using TMFs. Those that did encompassed a wide variety of therapeutic indications and medicinal products; all were in the post-marketing phase and involved limited application of the TMFs. Researchers should consider conducting IS in earlier phases of drug development and integrating the TMFs throughout the research process. More consistent and in-depth use of TMFs may help advance research in this area.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Despite global support, there remain gaps in the integration of early palliative care into cancer care. The methods of implementation whereby evidence of benefits of palliative care is translated into practice deserve attention. AIM: To identify implementation frameworks utilised in integrated palliative care in hospital-based oncology services and to describe the associated enablers and barriers to service integration. DESIGN: Systematic review with a narrative synthesis including qualitative, mixed methods, pre-post and quasi experimental designs following the guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO registration CRD42021252092). DATA SOURCES: Six databases searched in 2021: EMBASE, EMCARE, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Ovid MEDLINE searched in 2023. Included were qualitative or quantitative studies, in English language, involving adults >18 years, and implementing hospital-based palliative care into cancer care. Critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality and rigour. RESULTS: Seven of the 16 studies explicitly cited the use of frameworks including those based on RE-AIM, Medical Research Council evaluation of complex interventions and WHO constructs of health service evaluation. Enablers included an existing supportive culture, clear introduction to the programme across services, adequate funding, human resources and identification of advocates. Barriers included a lack of communication with the patients, caregivers, physicians and palliative care team about programme goals, stigma around the term 'palliative', a lack of robust training, or awareness of guidelines and undefined staff roles. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science frameworks provide a method to underpin programme development and evaluation as palliative care is integrated within the oncology setting.

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.

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.

Background: Research centers and programs focused on dissemination and implementation science (DIS) training, mentorship, and capacity building have proliferated in recent years. There has yet to be a comprehensive inventory of DIS capacity building program (CBP) cataloging information about activities, infrastructure, and priorities as well as opportunities for shared resources, collaboration, and growth. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide the first inventory of DIS CBPs and describe their key features and offerings. Methods: We defined DIS CBPs as organizations or groups with an explicit focus on building practical knowledge and skills to conduct DIS for health promotion. CBPs were included if they had at least one capacity building activity other than educational coursework or training alone. A multi-method strategy was used to identify DIS CBPs. Data about the characteristics of DIS CBPs were abstracted from each program's website. In addition, a survey instrument was developed and fielded to gather in-depth information about the structure, activities, and resources of each CBP. Results: In total, 165 DIS CBPs met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final CBP inventory. Of these, 68% are affiliated with a United States (US) institution and 32% are internationally based. There was one CBP identified in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC). Of the US-affiliated CBPs, 55% are embedded within a Clinical and Translational Science Award program. Eighty-seven CBPs (53%) responded to a follow-up survey. Of those who completed a survey, the majority used multiple DIS capacity building activities with the most popular being Training and Education (n=69, 79%) followed by Mentorship (n=58, 67%), provision of DIS Resources and Tools (n=57, 66%), Consultation (n=58, 67%), Professional Networking (n=54, 62%), Technical Assistance (n=46, 52%), and Grant Development Support (n=45, 52%). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to catalog DIS programs and synthesize learnings into a set of priorities and sustainment strategies to support DIS capacity building efforts. There is a need for formal certification, accessible options for learners in LMICs, opportunities for practitioners, and opportunities for mid/later stage researchers. Similarly, harmonized measures of reporting and evaluation would facilitate targeted cross-program comparison and collaboration.

Despite many evidence-based adolescent and young adult (AYA) HIV interventions, few are implemented at scale in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). A growing implementation science literature provides important context for scaling up AYA HIV interventions in this high HIV-burden region. This scoping review examined the use of implementation research in AYA HIV studies conducted in SSA. We searched five databases and included articles which focused on AYA (10-24 years old), addressed HIV prevention or treatment, were conducted exclusively in SSA countries, and included an implementation science outcome. We included 44 articles in 13 SSA countries. Most were in East (52.3%) and South Africa (27.3%), and half focused exclusively on HIV prevention components of the care continuum. Acceptability and feasibility were the most cited implementation science outcomes. Only four articles used an established implementation science framework. The findings informed our recommendations to guide the design, implementation, and dissemination of further studies and health policymaking.

There is a lack of knowledge about the successful implementation of family nursing practices. This scoping review maps current knowledge about the implementation of evidence-informed family nursing practices across settings and populations. A systematic search (CINAHL, PubMed, Medline) identified 24 publications, published between 2010 and 2020. We found nurses' implementation experience to be one of disruption, learning, and moving to new ways of practicing. The implementation resulted in benefits to families and self but was marked by fluctuation and partial integration of evidence-informed family nursing practices into care delivery. Uptake was shaped by various contextual determinants, with barriers mainly at the team and organizational levels. We identified low-quality, tentative evidence that capacity-building strategies coupled with dissemination-educational strategies may enable family nursing practice skills and increase the quality of family care. More rigorous research is needed to build further knowledge about effective implementation. Future implementation endeavors should utilize the evolving knowledge base in family nursing and tailor implementation strategies to contextual barriers.

We sought to aggregate common barriers and facilitators to screening adolescents for sensitive health topics (e.g., depression, chlamydia) in primary care, as well as those that are unique to a given health topic. We conducted a literature search of three databases (PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and CINAHL) and reference lists of included articles. Studies focused on barriers and facilitators to screening adolescents (ages 12-17Â years) for sensitive health topics in primary care that are recommended by national guidelines. Articles were peer-reviewed, presented empirical data, and were published in English in 2006-2021. We coded barriers and facilitators using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, a well-established framework within implementation science. In total, 39 studies met inclusion criteria and spanned several health topics: depression, suicide, substance use, HIV, and chlamydia. We found common barriers and facilitators to screening across health topics, with most relating to characteristics of the primary care clinics (e.g., time constraints). Other factors relevant to screening implementation ranged from confidentiality concerns to clinician knowledge. Barriers and facilitators specific to certain health topics, such as the availability of on-site laboratories for HIV screening, were also noted. Findings can guide refinements to screening implementation.

Background Effective integration of evidence and youth perspectives into policy is crucial for supporting the future health and well-being of young people. The aim of this project was to translate evidence from the Access 3 project to support development of a new state policy on youth health and well-being within New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Ensuring the active contribution of young people within policy development was a key objective of the knowledge translation (KT) process. Methods The KT activity consisted of a 1-day facilitated forum with 64 purposively sampled stakeholders. Participants included eight young people, 14 policy-makers, 15 academics, 22 clinicians or managers from NSW health services, four general practitioners and one mental health service worker. Research to be translated came from the synthesized findings of the NSW Access 3 project. The design of the forum included stakeholder presentations and group workshops, guided by the 2003 Lavis et al. KT framework that was improved by the Grimshaw et al. KT framework in 2012. Members of the Access 3 research team took on the role of knowledge brokers throughout the KT process. Participant satisfaction with the workshop was evaluated using a brief self-report survey. Policy uptake was determined through examination of the subsequent NSW Youth Health Framework 2017-2024. Results A total of 25 policy recommendations were established through the workshop, and these were grouped into six themes that broadly aligned with the synthesized findings from the Access 3 project. The six policy themes were (1) technology solutions, (2) integrated care and investment to build capacity, (3) adolescent health checks, (4) workforce, (5) youth participation and (6) youth health indicators. Forum members were asked to vote on the importance of individual recommendations. These policy recommendations were subsequently presented to the NSW Ministry of Health, with some evidence of policy uptake identified. The majority of participants rated the forum positively. Conclusions The utilization of KT theories and active youth engagement led to the successful translation of research evidence and youth perspectives into NSW youth health policy. Future research should examine the implementation of policy arising from these KT efforts.

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation plays a crucial role in bridging the knowledge-action gaps and reducing health inequities. Little is known about its development in China. This study aims to provide an overview of the EBP implementation research progress in healthcare in China and identify gaps for future studies. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology and the Cochrane Collaboration's guidance on living reviews. We performed a literature search in four Chinese databases (i.e., China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, The VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine) and three English databases (i.e., Ovid MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and EMBASE), Google scholar, and Baidu scholar from 1996 to 2021. We included EBP implementation studies conducted in healthcare settings in China and were published in Chinese and English literature. The search will be run on a regular basis to monitor the development of new literature and determine when to update the review. Findings: Of the 11,276 records identified, we finally included 309 papers. The publications were on a sharp rise since 2013 and were predominantly from the nursing field (292/309, 94.50%). The commonly researched areas were symptom management (75/309, 24.27%), tube care (46/309, 14.89%), perioperative care (43/309, 13.92%), and fundamental care (43/309, 13.92%). Joanna Briggs Institute model was the most frequently used model to guide the implementation process (92/159, 59.75%). A median number of 8 people often comprised an implementation team, with 113 studies (36.57%) taking a multidisciplinary approach. 204 studies reported utilizing audit criteria to assist evaluation of evidence implementation rate with diversified methods measuring the criteria. Lack of knowledge, skills, and resources, and incomplete procedures or pathways were top barriers impeding EBP implementation. Leadership support was considered the most common facilitator. Education and training were the most frequently described implementation strategies for healthcare professionals and patients. Optimizing workflows and developing evaluation tools were the primary strategies adopted by organizations. 291 studies measured patient outcomes and 174 studies measured healthcare professional outcomes. Interpretation: To our knowledge, this scoping review is the first one to systematically examine the EBP implementation research progress in healthcare in China. Based on this review, we identified contributions that Chinese EBP implementation research made to the global community, and provided eight recommendations for Chinese researchers in conducting implementation studies in the future. Funding: None.