A summary of the 2023 Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) hypertension in pregnancy guideline.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) affect up to 10% of all pregnancies annually and are associated with an increased risk of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. This guideline represents an update of the Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) guidelines for the management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 2014 and has been approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) under section 14A of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992. In approving the guideline recommendations, NHMRC considers that the guideline meets NHMRC's standard for clinical practice guidelines. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: A total of 39 recommendations on screening, preventing, diagnosing and managing HDP, especially preeclampsia, are presented in this guideline. Recommendations are presented as either evidence-based recommendations or practice points. Evidence-based recommendations are presented with the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Practice points were generated where there was inadequate evidence to develop specific recommendations and are based on the expertise of the working group. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINE: This version of the SOMANZ guideline was developed in an academically robust and rigorous manner and includes recommendations on the use of combined first trimester screening to identify women at risk of developing preeclampsia, 14 pharmacological and two non-pharmacological preventive interventions, clinical use of angiogenic biomarkers and the long term care of women who experience HDP. The guideline also includes six multilingual patient infographics which can be accessed through the main website of the guideline. All measures were taken to ensure that this guideline is applicable and relevant to clinicians and multicultural women in regional and metropolitan settings in Australia and New Zealand.

A Reporting Tool for Adapted Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation of existing guidelines can be an efficient way to develop contextualized recommendations. Transparent reporting of the adaptation approach can support the transparency and usability of the adapted guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (including recommendations that have been adopted, adapted, or developed de novo), the RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist. DESIGN: A multistep process was followed to develop the checklist: establishing a working group, generating an initial checklist, optimizing the checklist (through an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review, and a final assessment of adapted guidelines), and approval of the final checklist by the working group. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 119 professionals participated in the development process. MEASUREMENTS: Participants' consensus on items in the checklist. RESULTS: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist contains 34 items grouped in 7 sections: basic information (7 items); scope (6 items); rigor of development (10 items); recommendations (4 items); external review and quality assurance (2 items); funding, declaration, and management of interest (2 items); and other information (3 items). A user guide with explanations and real-world examples for each item was developed to provide a better user experience. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist requires further validation in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist has been developed to improve the reporting of adapted guidelines, focusing on the standardization, rigor, and transparency of the process and the clarity and explicitness of adapted recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Change in CT-measured acetabular bone density following total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Assessing peri-acetabular bone quality is valuable for optimizing the outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) as preservation of good quality bone stock likely affects implant stability. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of peri-acetabular bone mineral density (BMD) changes over time measured using quantitative computer tomography (CT) and, second, to investigate the influence of age, sex, and fixation on the change in BMD over time. METHODS: A systematic search of Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases identified 19 studies that measured BMD using CT following THA. The regions of interest (ROI), reporting of BMD results, and scan protocols were extracted. A meta-analysis of BMD was performed on 12 studies that reported measurements immediately postoperatively and at follow-up. RESULTS: The meta-analysis determined that periacetabular BMD around both cemented and uncemented components decreases over time. The amount of BMD loss increased relative to proximity of the acetabular component. There was a greater decrease in cortical BMD over time in females and cancellous BMD for young patients of any sex. CONCLUSION: Peri-acetabular BMD decreases at different rates relative to its proximity to the acetabular component. Cancellous BMD decreases more in young patients and cortical bone decreases more in females. Standardized reporting parameters and suggested ROI to measure peri-acetabular BMD are proposed, to enable comparison between implant and patient variables in the future.

Prevalence of Mental Disorders in Uganda: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review was conducted to determine the prevalence of mental disorders among children and adults in Uganda. A comprehensive systematic search for relevant studies reporting prevalence of mental disorders in children or adults in Uganda was conducted in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science databases and grey literature sources. Study was eligible if, validated instrument based on the International Classification of Diseases or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria to assess a mental disorder was used. Eligible studies were critically appraised, prevalence data extracted and pooled using the random-effects model. Certainty in the pooled prevalence estimates was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A total of 632 records were obtained, of which 26 articles from 24 studies conducted in Uganda were included in the review. Overall and with moderate level of certainty, the prevalence of any mental disorder in Uganda was 22.9% (95% C.I 11.0% - 34.9%) in children and 24.2% (95% C.I 19.8% - 28.6%) in adults. Prevalence of anxiety disorders was 14.4% (95% C.I 4.9% - 24.0%) in children and 20.2% (95% C.I 14.5% - 25.9%) in adults. The prevalence of current depressive disorders was 22.2% (95% C.I 9.2% - 35.2%) in children and 21.2% (95% C.I 16.8% - 25.6%) in adults. Eating disorder and psychotic syndrome disorder were also reported. Our findings suggest that depression and anxiety disorders are common mental disorders in Uganda, affecting approximately one in four persons. The findings provide essential insights for health service planning, clinical practice, and future epidemiological research in Uganda.

Leveraging phone-based mobile technology to improve data quality at health facilities in rural Malawi: a best practice project.

BACKGROUND: To further reduce malaria burden, identification of areas with highest burden for targeted interventions needs to occur. Routine health information has the potential to indicate where and when clinical malaria occurs the most. Developing countries mostly use paper-based data systems however they are error-prone as they require manual aggregation, tallying and transferring of data. Piloting was done using electronic data capture (EDC) with a cheap and user friendly software in rural Malawian primary healthcare setting to improve the quality of health records. METHODS: Audit and feedback tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute (Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System and Getting Research into Practice) were used in four primary healthcare facilities. Using this approach, the best available evidence for a malaria information system (MIS) was identified. Baseline audit of the existing MIS was conducted in the facilities based on available best practice for MIS; this included ensuring data consistency and completeness in MIS by sampling 25 random records of malaria positive cases. Implementation of an adapted evidence-based EDC system using tablets on an OpenDataKit platform was done. An end line audit following implementation was then conducted. Users had interviews on experiences and challenges concerning EDC at the beginning and end of the survey. RESULTS: The existing MIS was paper-based, occupied huge storage space, had some data losses due to torn out papers and were illegible in some facilities. The existing MIS did not have documentation of necessary parameters, such as malaria deaths and treatment within 14 days. Training manuals and modules were absent. One health centre solely had data completeness and consistency at 100% of the malaria-positive sampled records. Data completeness and consistency rose to 100% with readily available records containing information on recent malaria treatment. Interview findings at the end of the survey showed that EDC was acceptable among users and they agreed that the tablets and the OpenDataKit were easy to use, improved productivity and quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement of data quality and use in the Malawian rural facilities was achieved through the introduction of EDC using OpenDataKit. Health workers in the facilities showed satisfaction with the use of EDC.

Bias Assessment in Outcomes Research: The Role of Relative Versus Absolute Approaches.

OBJECTIVES: Bias assessment tools vary in content and detail, and the method used for assessment may produce different assessment results in a study if not carefully considered. Therefore, taking an approach to the assessment of studies that produces a similar result regardless of the tool used for assessment (tool independence) is important. METHODS: A preexisting study that used 25 different quality scales was assessed to examine tool dependence of 2 common approaches to bias assessments-absolute value judgments (defined as the qualitative risk of bias judgment based on a threshold across studies) and relative ranks (defined as the relative probability toward bias of a study relative to the best assessed study). Agreement between each of the 25 scales and a composite scale (that includes all unique safeguards across all scales) was computed (using the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]; consistency). Tool dependence was considered present when the ICCs were inconsistent across the 25 scales for the same study. RESULTS: We found that using relative ranks for tools with different numbers and types of items produced consistent results, with only small differences in the agreement for the various tools with the composite tool, whereas consistency (measured by the ICC) varied considerably when using absolute judgments. Inconsistency is problematic because it means that the assessment result is linked to the scale and not to the study. CONCLUSIONS: Tool independence is an important attribute of a bias assessment tool. On the basis of this study, the use of relative ranks retains tool independence and therefore produces consistent ranks for the same study across tools.

Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence.

BACKGROUND: Single group data present unique challenges for synthesises of evidence. Proportional meta-analysis is becoming an increasingly common technique employed for the synthesis of single group data. Proportional meta-analysis shares many similarities with the conduct and reporting of comparative, or pairwise, meta-analysis. While robust and comprehensive methods exist detailing how researchers can conduct a meta-analysis that compares two (or more) groups against a common intervention, there is a scarcity of methodological guidance available to assist synthesisers of evidence in the conduct, interpretation, and importance of proportional meta-analysis in systematic reviews. MAIN BODY: This paper presents an overview targeted to synthesisers of evidence and systematic review authors that details the methods, importance, and interpretation of a proportional meta-analysis. We provide worked examples of how proportional meta-analyses have been conducted in research syntheses previously and consider the methods, statistical considerations, and presentation of this technique. CONCLUSION: This overview is designed to serve as practical guidance for synthesisers of evidence in the conduct of proportional meta-analyses.

Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

AIM: The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best-practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research. DESIGN: Discussion Paper. DATA SOURCES: Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA-ScR). IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND MIDWIFERY: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency. CONCLUSION: This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery. IMPACT: With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

Imiquimod to prevent keloid recurrence postexcision: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Imiquimod 5% cream, an immune response modifier capable of inducing IFN-α, TNF-α, and interleukins 1, 6, and 8. It was approved for use in the management of genital and perianal warts and soon embraced as a method to diminish the recurrence of keloids postexcision. A previous meta-analysis included four studies. This meta-analysis is part of a larger systematic review project on the effect of moisturizers on scars. It was conducted following an a priori protocol and the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute. Databases searched included PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science. After screening and critical appraisal, subgroup meta-analysis on excision method and location of the keloid was conducted using the Miller approach for proportional meta-analysis and a random effects model. Seven studies, including 77 participants and 82 keloids were included. Meta-analysis revealed a recurrence rate of 39% (95% CI = 8.474.4%; I2 = 87.5%) following application of Imiquimod postexcision. The use of primary excision or tangential excision did not alter the outcome. For analysis based on the location of the keloid scar, earlobe keloids had a recurrence rate of 5.4% (95% CI = 0-21.7%; I2 = 52.9%). For keloids excised from other areas (predominantly on the trunk) recurrence rate was higher, at 76.8% (95% CI = 36.1-100%). For keloids, Imiquimod application postexcision results in highly variable recurrence rates. There is very low certainty in the effect of Imiquimod and it therefore is not recommended as a treatment option.

How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study.

BACKGROUND: There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting and methodology of the reviews. RESULTS: A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3-6) and the median number of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15-41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Nine reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (4 using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I2 was estimated in 95% of analysis. Publication bias was examined in 48%. The most common software used was STATA (55%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.

Rinse-free hand wash for reducing absenteeism among preschool and school children.

BACKGROUND: Illness-related absenteeism is an important problem among preschool and school children for low-, middle- and high- income countries. Appropriate hand hygiene is one commonly investigated and implemented strategy to reduce the spread of illness and subsequently the number of days spent absent. Most hand hygiene strategies involve washing hands with soap and water, however this is associated with a number of factors that act as a barrier to its use, such as requiring running water, and the need to dry hands after cleaning. An alternative method involves washing hands using rinse-free hand wash. This technique has a number of benefits over traditional hand hygiene strategies and may prove to be beneficial in reducing illness-related absenteeism in preschool and school children. OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the effectiveness of rinse-free hand washing for reducing absenteeism due to illness in preschool and school children compared to no hand washing, conventional hand washing with soap and water or other hand hygiene strategies. 2. To determine which rinse-free hand washing products are the most effective (if head-to-head comparisons exist), and what effect additional strategies in combination with rinse-free hand washing have on the outcomes of interest. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2020 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, 12 other databases and three clinical trial registries. We also reviewed the reference lists of included studies and made direct contact with lead authors of studies to collect additional information as required. No date or language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, comparing rinse-free hand wash in any form (hand rub, hand sanitizer, gel, foam etc.) with conventional hand washing using soap and water, other hand hygiene programs (such as education alone), or no intervention. The population of interest was children aged between two and 18 years attending preschool (childcare, day care, kindergarten, etc.) or school (primary, secondary, elementary, etc.). Primary outcomes included child or student absenteeism for any reason, absenteeism due to any illness and adverse skin reactions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Following standard Cochrane methods, two review authors (out of ZM, CT, CL, CS, TB), independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted relevant data. Absences were extracted as the number of student days absent out of total days. This was sometimes reported with the raw numbers and other times as an incidence rate ratio (IRR), which we also extracted. For adverse event data, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs) and present these with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data analysis and followed the GRADE approach to establish certainty in the findings. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 19 studies with 30,747 participants. Most studies were conducted in the USA (eight studies), two were conducted in Spain, and one each in China, Colombia, Finland, France, Kenya, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Sweden, and Thailand. Six studies were conducted in preschools or day-care centres (children aged from birth to < five years), with the remaining 13 conducted in elementary or primary schools (children aged five to 14 years). The included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in several domains, most-notably across the domains of performance and detection bias due to the difficulty to blind those delivering the intervention or those assessing the outcome. Additionally, every outcome of interest was graded as low or very low certainty of evidence, primarily due to high risk of bias, as well as imprecision of the effect estimates and inconsistency between pooled data. For the outcome of absenteeism for any reason, the pooled estimate for rinse-free hand washing was an IRR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.01; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates there may be little to no difference between groups. For absenteeism for any illness, the pooled IRR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates that rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (13 days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (16 days absent per 1000). For the outcome of absenteeism for acute respiratory illness, the pooled IRR was 0.79 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates that rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (33 days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (42 days absent per 1000). When evaluating absenteeism for acute gastrointestinal illness, the pooled estimate found an IRR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.85; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence), which indicates rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (six days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (eight days absent per 1000). There may be little to no difference between rinse-free hand washing and 'no rinse-free' group regarding adverse skin reactions with a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.32; 3 studies, 4365 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Broadly, compliance with the intervention appeared to range from moderate to high compliance (9 studies, 10,749 participants; very-low certainty evidence); narrativley, no authors reported substantial issues with compliance. Overall, most studies that included data on perception reported that teachers and students perceived rinse-free hand wash positively and were willing to continue its use (3 studies, 1229 participants; very-low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review may have identified a small yet potentially beneficial effect of rinse-free hand washing regimes on illness-related absenteeism. However, the certainty of the evidence that contributed to this conclusion was low or very low according to the GRADE approach and is therefore uncertain. Further research is required at all levels of schooling to evaluate rinse-free hand washing regimens in order to provide more conclusive, higher-certainty evidence regarding its impact. When considering the use of a rinse-free hand washing program in a local setting, there needs to be consideration of the current rates of illness-related absenteeism and whether the small beneficial effects seen here will translate into a meaningful reduction across their settings.

What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have been considered as the pillar on which evidence-based healthcare rests. Systematic review methodology has evolved and been modified over the years to accommodate the range of questions that may arise in the health and medical sciences. This paper explores a concept still rarely considered by novice authors and in the literature: determining the type of systematic review to undertake based on a research question or priority. RESULTS: Within the framework of the evidence-based healthcare paradigm, defining the question and type of systematic review to conduct is a pivotal first step that will guide the rest of the process and has the potential to impact on other aspects of the evidence-based healthcare cycle (evidence generation, transfer and implementation). It is something that novice reviewers (and others not familiar with the range of review types available) need to take account of but frequently overlook. Our aim is to provide a typology of review types and describe key elements that need to be addressed during question development for each type. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper a typology is proposed of various systematic review methodologies. The review types are defined and situated with regard to establishing corresponding questions and inclusion criteria. The ultimate objective is to provide clarified guidance for both novice and experienced reviewers and a unified typology with respect to review types.

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.

BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. RESULTS: Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. CONCLUSIONS: Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

Characteristics of Indigenous primary health care service delivery models: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Indigenous populations have poorer health outcomes compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. The evolution of Indigenous primary health care services arose from mainstream health services being unable to adequately meet the needs of Indigenous communities and Indigenous peoples often being excluded and marginalised from mainstream health services. Part of the solution has been to establish Indigenous specific primary health care services, for and managed by Indigenous peoples. There are a number of reasons why Indigenous primary health care services are more likely than mainstream services to improve the health of Indigenous communities. Their success is partly due to the fact that they often provide comprehensive programs that incorporate treatment and management, prevention and health promotion, as well as addressing the social determinants of health. However, there are gaps in the evidence base including the characteristics that contribute to the success of Indigenous primary health care services in providing comprehensive primary health care. This systematic scoping review aims to identify the characteristics of Indigenous primary health care service delivery models. METHOD: This systematic scoping review was led by an Aboriginal researcher, using the Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Review Methodology. All published peer-reviewed and grey literature indexed in PubMed, EBSCO CINAHL, Embase, Informit, Mednar, and Trove databases from September 1978 to May 2015 were reviewed for inclusion. Studies were included if they describe the characteristics of service delivery models implemented within an Indigenous primary health care service. Sixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and then thematically analysed to identify the characteristics of Indigenous PHC service delivery models. RESULTS: Culture was the most prominent characteristic underpinning all of the other seven characteristics which were identified - accessible health services, community participation, continuous quality improvement, culturally appropriate and skilled workforce, flexible approach to care, holistic health care, and self-determination and empowerment. CONCLUSION: While the eight characteristics were clearly distinguishable within the review, the interdependence between each characteristic was also evident. These findings were used to develop a new Indigenous PHC Service Delivery Model, which clearly demonstrates some of the unique characteristics of Indigenous specific models.

Access to primary health care services for Indigenous peoples: A framework synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Indigenous peoples often find it difficult to access appropriate mainstream primary health care services. Securing access to primary health care services requires more than just services that are situated within easy reach. Ensuring the accessibility of health care for Indigenous peoples who are often faced with a vast array of additional barriers including experiences of discrimination and racism, can be complex. This framework synthesis aimed to identify issues that hindered Indigenous peoples from accessing primary health care and then explore how, if at all, these were addressed by Indigenous health care services. METHODS: To be included in this framework synthesis papers must have presented findings focused on access to (factors relating to Indigenous peoples, their families and their communities) or accessibility of Indigenous primary health care services. Findings were imported into NVivo and a framework analysis undertaken whereby findings were coded to and then thematically analysed using Levesque and colleague's accessibility framework. RESULTS: Issues relating to the cultural and social determinants of health such as unemployment and low levels of education influenced whether Indigenous patients, their families and communities were able to access health care. Indigenous health care services addressed these issues in a number of ways including the provision of transport to and from appointments, a reduction in health care costs for people on low incomes and close consultation with, if not the direct involvement of, community members in identifying and then addressing health care needs. CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous health care services appear to be best placed to overcome both the social and cultural determinants of health which hamper Indigenous peoples from accessing health care. Findings of this synthesis also suggest that Levesque and colleague's accessibility framework should be broadened to include factors related to the health care system such as funding.

Wear of highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular components.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Wear rates of highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) acetabular components have varied considerably between different published studies. This variation is in part due to the different techniques used to measure wear and to the errors inherent in measuring the relatively low amounts of wear in XLPE bearings. We undertook a scoping review of studies that have examined the in vivo wear of XLPE acetabular components using the most sensitive method available, radiostereometric analysis (RSA). METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify published studies in which RSA was used to measure wear of XLPE components in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). RESULTS: 18 publications examined 12 primary THA cohorts, comprising only 260 THAs at 2-10 years of follow-up. The mean or median proximal wear rate reported ranged from 0.00 to 0.06 mm/year. However, differences in the manner in which wear was determined made it difficult to compare some studies. Furthermore, differences in RSA methodology between studies, such as the use of supine or standing radiographs and the use of beaded or unbeaded reference segments, may limit future meta-analyses examining the effect of patient and implant variables on wear rates. INTERPRETATION: This scoping review confirmed the low wear rates of XLPE in THA, as measured by RSA. We make recommendations to enhance the standardization of reporting of RSA wear results, which will facilitate early identification of poorly performing implants and enable a better understanding of the effects of surgical and patient factors on wear.