Barriers and facilitators to designing, maintaining, and utilizing rare disease patient registries: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this review are to identify barriers/facilitators to designing, maintaining, and utilizing rare disease patient registries (RDPRs); determine whether and how these differ among patient partners, other knowledge users (KUs), and researchers; and chart definitions of rare diseases and RDPRs. INTRODUCTION: RDPRs are vital to improving the understanding of the natural histories and predictors of outcomes for rare diseases, assessing interventions, and identifying potential participants for clinical trials. Currently, however, the functionality of RDPRs is not fully optimized. To improve the quality and functionality of RDPRs, it is important to understand the barriers and/or facilitators involved in their design, maintenance, and utilization; how these might differ among patient partners, other KUs, and researchers; and to delineate the range of definitions for rare diseases and RDPRs. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Evidence of any study design or format (including empirical studies, books, manuals, commentaries, editorials, guidance documents, conference abstracts, review documents, and gray literature) referencing barriers/facilitators for designing, maintaining, or utilizing RDPRs will be considered for inclusion. METHODS: The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will search health science databases, including the Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, the JBI EBP Database, and PsycINFO, from inception onwards, as well as gray literature using the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Grey Matters guidance. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and full-text documents, as well as abstract data. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Evidence will be synthesized descriptively and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRIMSA-ScR). REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mvf9r.

'How-To:' Scoping Review?

Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that aims to identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, within or across a defined context or contexts. Scoping reviews can contribute to clinical practice guideline development, policy making, reduce research waste by eliminating duplication of research effort, and be a precursor to a systematic review. This paper aims to provide a brief introduction of how to conduct and report scoping reviews, their role and value of within the evidence synthesis ecosystem, the differences and similarities between these reviews and other types of evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews, mapping reviews, evidence and gap maps and overviews and how to overcome common challenges often associated in the conduct, reporting and dissemination of scoping reviews.

Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews.

Rapid reviews (RRs) are produced using abbreviated methods compared with standard systematic reviews (SR) to expedite the process for decision-making. This paper provides interim guidance to support the complete reporting of RRs. Recommendations emerged from a survey informed by empirical studies of RR reporting, in addition to collective experience. RR producers should use existing, robustly developed reporting guidelines as the foundation for writing RRs: notably Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020; reporting for SRs), but also preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) items (reporting for overviews of SRs) where SRs are included in the RR. In addition, a minimum set of six items were identified for RRs: three items pertaining to methods and three addressing publication ethics. Authors should be reporting what a priori-defined iterative methods were used during conduct, what distinguishes their RR from an SR, and knowledge user (eg, policymaker) involvement in the process. Explicitly reporting deviations from standard SR methods, including omitted steps, is important. The inclusion of publication ethics items reflects the predominance of non-journal published RRs: reporting an authorship byline and corresponding author, acknowledging other contributors, and reporting the use of expert peer review. As various formats may be used when packaging and presenting information to decision-makers, it is practical to think of complete reporting as across a set of explicitly linked documents made available in an open-access journal or repository that is barrier-free. We encourage feedback from the RR community of the use of these items as we look to develop a consolidated list in the development of PRISMA-RR.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Exploring decision-makers' challenges and strategies when selecting multiple systematic reviews: insights for AI decision support tools in healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are being published at an accelerated rate. Decision-makers may struggle with comparing and choosing between multiple SRs on the same topic. We aimed to understand how healthcare decision-makers (eg, practitioners, policymakers, researchers) use SRs to inform decision-making and to explore the potential role of a proposed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to assist in critical appraisal and choosing among SRs. METHODS: We developed a survey with 21 open and closed questions. We followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks. RESULTS: Our survey response rate was lower than expected (7.9% of distributed emails). Of the 684 respondents, 58.2% identified as researchers, 37.1% as practitioners, 19.2% as students and 13.5% as policymakers. Respondents frequently sought out SRs (97.1%) as a source of evidence to inform decision-making. They frequently (97.9%) found more than one SR on a given topic of interest to them. Just over half (50.8%) struggled to choose the most trustworthy SR among multiple. These difficulties related to lack of time (55.2%), or difficulties comparing due to varying methodological quality of SRs (54.2%), differences in results and conclusions (49.7%) or variation in the included studies (44.6%). Respondents compared SRs based on the relevance to their question of interest, methodological quality, and recency of the SR search. Most respondents (87.0%) were interested in an AI tool to help appraise and compare SRs. CONCLUSIONS: Given the identified barriers of using SR evidence, an AI tool to facilitate comparison of the relevance of SRs, the search and methodological quality, could help users efficiently choose among SRs and make healthcare decisions.

Two decades of network meta-analysis: Roadmap to their applications and challenges.

Recently, Ades and colleagues discussed the controversies and advancements in network meta-analysis (NMA) over the past two decades, discussing its reliability, assumptions, novel approaches, and provided some useful recommendations for the conduction of NMAs. The present discussion paper builds on the insights by Ades and colleagues, providing a roadmap for NMA applications, advancements in software and tools, and approaches designed to facilitate the assessment and interpretation of NMA findings. It also discusses the impact of NMA across disciplines, particularly for policymakers and guideline developers. Despite 20 years of NMA history, challenges remain in understanding and assessing assumptions, communicating and interpreting findings, and applying common approaches like network meta-regression and NMA involving non-randomized studies in readily available software. NMA has proven particularly valuable in clinical decision-making, which highlights the need for additional training and interdisciplinary collaboration of knowledge users, including patient engagement, to enhance its adoption and address real-world problems.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: This paper was jointly developed by Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Quality of Life Research, Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes and jointly published by Elsevier Inc, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, and BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

A systematic survey of 200 systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (published 2020-2021) reveals that few reviews report structured evidence summaries.

OBJECTIVES: To map whether and how systematic reviews (SRs) with network meta-analysis (NMA) use presentation formats to report (a) structured evidence summaries - here defined as reporting of effects estimates in absolute effects with certainty ratings and with a method to rate interventions across one or more outcome(s) - and (b) NMA results in general. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic survey, searching MEDLINE (Ovid) for SRs with NMA published between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. We planned to include a random sample of publications, with predefined mechanisms in place for saturation, and included SRs that met prespecified quality criteria and extracted data on presentation formats that reported: (a) estimates of effects, (b) certainty of the evidence, or (c) rating of interventions. RESULTS: The 200 eligible SRs, from 158 unique Journals, utilized 1133 presentation formats. We found structured evidence summaries in 10 publications (5.0%), with 3 (1.5%) reporting structured evidence summaries across all outcomes, including benefits and harms. Sixteen of the 133 SRs (11.7%) reporting dichotomous outcomes included estimates of absolute effects. Seventy-six SRs (38.0%) reported both benefits and harms and 26 SRs (13.0%) reported certainty ratings in presentation formats, 20 (76.9%) used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and 6 (23.1%) used Confidence In Network Meta-analysis. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve was the most common method to rate interventions (69 SRs, 34.5%). NMA results were most often reported using forest plots (108 SRs, 54.0%) and league tables (93 SRs, 46.5%). CONCLUSION: Most SRs with NMA do not report structured evidence summaries and only rarely do such summaries include reporting of both benefits and harms; those that do offer effective user-friendly communication and provide models for optimal NMA presentation practice.

Large scoping reviews: managing volume and potential chaos in a pool of evidence sources.

Scoping reviews can identify a large number of evidence sources. This commentary describes and provides guidance on planning, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. This guidance is informed by experts in scoping review methodology, including JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Methodology group members, who have also conducted and reported large scoping reviews. We propose a working definition for large scoping reviews that includes approximately 100 sources of evidence but must also consider the volume of data to be extracted, the complexity of the analyses, and purpose. We pose 6 core questions for scoping review authors to consider when planning, developing, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. By considering and addressing these questions, scoping review authors might better streamline and manage the conduct and reporting of large scoping reviews from the planning to publishing stage.

Trivalent and quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in adults aged 60 and older: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of influenza vaccines of any valency for adults 60 years and older. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, JBI Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Database, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Evidence -Based Medicine database were searched from inception to 20 June 20, 2022. Two reviewers screened, abstracted, and appraised articles (Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) 2.0 tool) independently. We assessed certainty of findings using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approaches. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), and estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for count outcomes along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (≥60 years old) receiving an influenza vaccine licensed in Canada or the USA (vs placebo, no vaccine, or any other licensed vaccine), at any dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) and influenza-like illness (ILI). Secondary outcomes were the number of vascular adverse events, hospitalisation for acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI, inpatient hospitalisation, emergency room (ER) visit for ILI, outpatient visit, and mortality, among others. RESULTS: We included 41 RCTs and 15 companion reports comprising 8 vaccine types and 206 032 participants. Vaccines may prevent LCI compared with placebo, with high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) (NMA: 9 RCTs, 52 202 participants, OR 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.11 to 0.51), low certainty of evidence) and recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) (OR 0.25, 95%CI (0.08 to 0.73), low certainty of evidence) among the most efficacious vaccines. Standard dose trivalent IIV3 (IIV3-SD) may prevent ILI compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (meta-analysis: 2 RCTs, 854 participants, OR 0.39, 95%CI (0.15 to 1.02), low certainty of evidence). Any HD was associated with prevention of ILI compared with placebo (NMA: 9 RCTs, 65 658 participants, OR 0.38, 95%CI (0.15 to 0.93)). Adjuvanted quadrivalent IIV (IIV4-Adj) may be associated with the least vascular adverse events, but the results were very uncertain (NMA: eight 8 RCTs, 57 677 participants, IRR 0.18, 95%CI (0.07 to 0.43), very low certainty of evidence). RIV on all-cause mortality may be comparable to placebo (NMA: 20 RCTs, 140 577 participants, OR 1.01, 95%CI (0.23 to 4.49), low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated efficacy associated with IIV3-HD and RIV vaccines in protecting older persons against LCI. RIV vaccine may reduce all-cause mortality when compared with other vaccines, but the evidence is uncertain. Differences in efficacy between influenza vaccines remain uncertain with very low to moderate certainty of evidence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020177357.

Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). METHODS: Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. RESULTS: We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

An international modified Delphi process supported updating the web-based "right review" tool.

OBJECTIVES: The proliferation of evidence synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the ''right'' method. This study aimed to update the Right Review tool (a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of questions for recommending evidence synthesis methods) and establish a common set of questions for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative studies (https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A 2-round modified international electronic modified Delphi was conducted (2022) with researchers, health-care providers, patients, and policy makers. Panel members rated the importance/clarity of the Right Review tool's guiding questions, evidence synthesis type definitions and tool output. High agreement was defined as at least 70% agreement. Any items not reaching high agreement after round 2 were discussed by the international Project Steering Group. RESULTS: Twenty-four experts from 9 countries completed round 1, with 12 completing round 2. Of the 46 items presented in round 1, 21 reached high agreement. Twenty-seven items were presented in round 2, with 8 reaching high agreement. The Project Steering Group discussed items not reaching high agreement, including 8 guiding questions, 9 review definitions (predominantly related to qualitative synthesis), and 2 output items. Three items were removed entirely and the remaining 16 revised and edited and/or combined with existing items. The final tool comprises 42 items; 9 guiding questions, 25 evidence synthesis definitions and approaches, and 8 tool outputs. CONCLUSION: The freely accessible Right Review tool supports choosing an appropriate review method. The design and clarity of this tool was enhanced by harnessing the Delphi technique to shape ongoing development. The updated tool is expected to be available in Quarter 1, 2025.

Characterizing high-cost healthcare users among adults with back pain in Ontario, Canada: a population-based cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Some patients with back pain contribute disproportionately to high healthcare costs; however, characteristics of high-cost users with back pain are not well defined. We described high-cost healthcare users based on total costs among a population-based cohort of adults with back pain within the Ontario government's single-payer health system across sociodemographic, health, and behavioural characteristics. We conducted a population-based cohort study of Ontario adult (aged 18 years or older) respondents of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) with back pain (2003-2012), linked to administrative data (n = 36,605; weighted n = 2,076,937, representative of Ontario). Respondents were ranked based on gradients of total healthcare costs (top 1%, top 2%-5%, top 6%-50%, and bottom 50%) for 1 year following the CCHS survey, with high-cost users as top 5%. We used multinomial logistic regression to investigate characteristics associated with the 4 cost groups. Top 5% of cost users accounted for 49% ($4 billion CAD) of total healthcare spending, with inpatient hospital care as the largest contributing service type (approximately 40% of costs). Top 5% high-cost users were more likely aged 65 years or older (OR top1% = 16.6; OR top2-5% = 44.2), with lower income (OR top1% = 3.6; OR top 2-5% = 1.8), chronic disease(s) (OR top1% = 3.8; OR top2-5% = 1.6), Aggregated Diagnosis Groups measuring comorbidities (OR top1% = 25.4; OR top2-5% = 13.9), and fair/poor self-rated general health (OR top1% = 6.7; OR top2-5% = 4.6) compared with bottom 50% users. High-cost users tended to be current/former smokers, obese, and report fair/poor mental health. High-cost users (based on total costs) among adults with back pain account for nearly half of all healthcare spending over a 1-year period and are associated with older age, lower income, comorbidities, and fair/poor general health. Findings identify characteristics associated with a high-risk group for back pain to inform healthcare and public health strategies that target upstream determinants.

Youth, caregiver and healthcare professional perspectives on planning the implementation of a trauma-informed care programme: A qualitative study.

AIMS: To explore youth, caregiver and staff perspectives on their vision of trauma-informed care, and to identify and understand potential considerations for the implementation of a trauma-informed care programme in an inpatient mental health unit within a paediatric hospital. DESIGN AND METHODS: We applied the Interpretive Description approach, guided by complexity theory and the Implementation Roadmap, and used Applied Thematic Analysis methods. FINDINGS: Twenty-five individuals participated in individual or group interviews between March and June 2022, including 21 healthcare professionals, 3 youth and 1 caregiver. We identified two overarching themes. The first theme, 'Understanding and addressing the underlying reasons for distress', related to participants' understanding and vision of TIC in the current setting comprising: (a) 'Participants' understanding of TIC'; (b) 'Trauma screening and trauma processing within TIC'; (c) 'Taking "a more individualized approach"'; (d) 'Unit programming'; and (e) "Connecting to the community". The second theme, 'Factors that support or limit successful TIC implementation' comprises: (a) 'The need for a broad "cultural shift"'; (b) 'The physical environment on the unit'; and (c) 'Factors that may limit successful implementation'. CONCLUSION: We identified five key domains to consider within trauma-informed care implementation: (a) the centrality of engagement with youth, caregivers and staff in trauma-informed care delivery and implementation, (b) trauma-informed care core programme components, (c) factors that may support or limit success in implementing trauma-informed care within the mental health unit and (d) hospital-wide and (e) the importance of intersectoral collaboration (partnering with external organizations and sectors). IMPACT: When implementing TIC, there is an ongoing need to increase clarity regarding TIC interventions and implementation initiatives. Youth, caregiver and healthcare professional participants shared considerations important for planning the delivery and implementation of trauma-informed care in their setting. We identified five key domains to consider within trauma-informed care implementation: (a) the centrality of relational engagement, (b) trauma-informed care programme components, (c) factors that may support or limit successful implementation of trauma-informed care within the mental health unit and (d) hospital-wide and (e) the importance of intersectoral collaboration. Organizations wishing to implement trauma-informed care should consider ongoing engagement with all relevant knowledge user groups throughout the process. REPORTING METHOD: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The local hospital research institute's Patient and Family Advisory Committee reviewed the draft study methods and provided feedback.

Recent innovations in long-term care coverage and financing: a rapid scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, chart and analyse the literature on recent initiatives to improve long-term care (LTC) coverage, financial protection and financial sustainability for persons aged 60 and older. DESIGN: Rapid scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Four databases and four sources of grey literature were searched for reports published between 2017 and 2022. After using a supervised machine learning tool to rank titles and abstracts, two reviewers independently screened sources against inclusion criteria. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies published from 2017-2022 in any language that captured recent LTC initiatives for people aged 60 and older, involved evaluation and directly addressed financing were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted using a form designed to answer the review questions and analysed using descriptive qualitative content analysis, with data categorised according to a prespecified framework to capture the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 24 reports, 22 were published in peer-reviewed journals, and two were grey literature sources. Study designs included quasi-experimental study, policy analysis or comparison, qualitative description, comparative case study, cross-sectional study, systematic literature review, economic evaluation and survey. Studies addressed coverage based on the level of disability, income, rural/urban residence, employment and citizenship. Studies also addressed financial protection, including out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures, copayments and risk of poverty related to costs of care. The reports addressed challenges to financial sustainability such as lack of service coordination and system integration, insufficient economic development and inadequate funding models. CONCLUSIONS: Initiatives where LTC insurance is mandatory and accompanied by commensurate funding are situated to facilitate ageing in place. Efforts to expand population coverage are common across the initiatives, with the potential for wider economic benefits. Initiatives that enable older people to access the services needed while avoiding OOP-induced poverty contribute to improved health and well-being. Preserving health in older people longer may alleviate downstream costs and contribute to financial sustainability.