Practical guide to undertaking scoping reviews for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Scoping reviews are a valuable evidence synthesis methodology. They can be used to map the evidence related to any topic to allow examination of practice, methods, policy and where (and how) future research could be undertaken. As such, they are a useful form of evidence synthesis for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to review a broad range of evidence sources. COMMENT: This commentary presents the most comprehensive and up to date methodology for scoping reviews published by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). This approach builds upon two older approaches by Arksey and O'Malley, and Levac. To assist reviewers working in the field of pharmacy with planning and conducting scoping reviews, this paper describes how to undertake scoping reviews from inception to publication with specific examples related to pharmacy topics. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The JBI scoping review methodology is a valuable evidence synthesis approach to the field of pharmacy and therapeutics. This approach can assist pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to gain an understanding of the extant literature, to identify gaps, to explore concepts, characteristics and to examine current practice.

Culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening for transgender people: A scoping review protocol.

AIM: To develop evidence-based recommendations for provision of culturally safe, high-quality services for breast cancer screening for transgender people. DESIGN: The scoping review will follow the JBI methodological guidance for scoping reviews. METHODS: A search using MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, the Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Methodology Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the World Health Organization, Australia Government Department of Health and Google Scholar will be undertaken. The review will include people of any age and ethnicity defined in the source of evidence as transgender. The review will include individuals who have used gender-affirming interventions or not and sources of evidence that report information relevant to the provision of culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for transgender people. English language sources of evidence published from database inception with information from any country will be eligible for inclusion. Sources will be screened for inclusion by three independent reviewers. Results will be extracted using a purpose-built tool and presented in relation to the review questions and objective in the final report using tables, figures and corresponding narrative. Project funding was approved by the Australian Government Department of Health in June 2020. DISCUSSION: There are a range of factors that impact on the equity of health access and outcomes for people who are not cisgender. Transgender people are at risk of breast cancer but there is relatively little evidence about how their risks may or may not differ substantially from cis-gendered individuals and little guidance for health providers to ensure inclusive, culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for both transgender males, transgender females and gender diverse people who may not identify as male or as female. IMPACT: It is important to provide culturally safe, high-quality services for breast cancer screening for transgender people.

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.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Experiences and unmet needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people with cancer care: A systematic review and meta-synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the cancer care experiences and unmet needs of people who identify as a sexual or gender minority. METHODS: A qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis was undertaken based on a registered protocol. Following literature searching and study selection, study quality was examined by using the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme Checklist. Qualitative data were extracted verbatim from included studies and synthesized by using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen studies that included lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people living with or beyond cancer were included in the review. Studies including gender minorities were not identified. Most of the study participants were sexual minority women with breast cancer or sexual minority men with prostate cancer. Meta-synthesis of 106 individual findings generated 6 overarching themes pertaining to sexual orientation disclosure, experiences and fear of homophobia, positive and negative health-care professional behaviors, heterocentric systems and care, inadequacy of available support groups, and unmet needs for patient-centered care and LGB-specific information. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people often reported feelings of anxiety, invisibility, isolation, and frustration throughout the cancer care continuum. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the experiences of LGB people with cancer care shows that LGB people face numerous challenges due to their sexual orientation and receive care that does not adequately address their needs. Training and education of health-care professionals are strongly recommended to address some of these challenges and practice gaps. Culturally appropriate care includes avoiding heterosexual assumptions, use of inclusive language, the provision of tailored information, and involving partners in care.

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.

An International Educational Training Course for Conducting Systematic Reviews in Health Care: The Joanna Briggs Institute's Comprehensive Systematic Review Training Program.

BACKGROUND: The cornerstone of evidence-based health care is the systematic review of international evidence. Systematic reviews follow a rigorous, standardized approach in their conduct and reporting, and as such, education and training are essential prior to commencement. AIMS: This study reports on the evolution of the Joanna Briggs Institute Comprehensive Systematic Review Training Program (JBICSRTP) as an exemplar approach for teaching systematic review methods. RESULTS: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) is an international research and development center at the University of Adelaide, South Australia. Its mission is to promote and facilitate evidence-based best practice globally, largely through the provision of education and training. JBI was one of the first to consider all forms of evidence in systematic reviews, and as such, implementation of standardized training was essential. Since 1999, JBI has offered a systematic review training program. The JBICSRTP is now delivered face to face over 5 days, with an optional online component; the content aligns to that proposed in the Sicily statement. Over the last 3 years, JBI and its Collaboration have trained over 3,300 people from over 30 countries. A "train-the-trainer" (TtT) style program was established to cope with demand, and to date, hundreds of trainers have been licensed across the globe to deliver the JBICSRTP. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Providing standardized training materials, ensuring open and ongoing communication, and adopting a TtT style program while still allowing for local adaptability are strategies that have led to the establishment of a highly skilled global training network and ensured the success and longevity of the JBICSRTP.

Effectiveness of public health messaging and communication channels during smoke events: A rapid systematic review.

Exposure to smoke emitted from wildfire and planned burns (i.e., smoke events) has been associated with numerous negative health outcomes, including respiratory symptoms and conditions. This rapid review investigates recent evidence (post-2009) regarding the effectiveness of public health messaging during smoke events. The objectives were to determine the effectiveness of various communication channels used and public health messages disseminated during smoke events, for general and at-risk populations. A search of 12 databases and grey literature yielded 1775 unique articles, of which 10 were included in this review. Principal results were: 1) Smoke-related public health messages are communicated via a variety of channels, but limited evidence is available regarding their effectiveness for the general public or at-risk groups. 2) Messages that use simple language are more commonly recalled, understood, and complied with. Compliance differs according to socio-demographic characteristics. 3) At-risk groups may be advised to stay indoors before the general population, in order to protect the most vulnerable people in a community. The research included in this review was observational and predominantly descriptive, and is therefore unable to sufficiently answer questions regarding effectiveness. Experimental research, as well as evaluations, are required to examine the effectiveness of modern communication channels, channels to reach at-risk groups, and the 'stay indoors' message.

Managing and Coding References for Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews in EndNote.

This article describes a novel approach for using EndNote to manage and code references in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and scoping reviews. The process is simple and easy for reviewers new to both EndNote and systematic reviews. This process allows reviewers to easily conduct and report systematic reviews in line with the internationally recognized PRISMA reporting guidelines and also facilitates the overall task of systematic or scoping review conduct and reporting from the initial search through to structuring the results, discussion, and conclusions in a rigorous, reproducible, and user-friendly manner.

Provision of Meaningful Care at Diagnosis, Birth, and after Stillbirth: A Qualitative Synthesis of Parents' Experiences.

BACKGROUND: The care provided to parents experiencing stillbirth can have significant and lasting impacts on their immediate and long-term psychological well being. The aim of this qualitative synthesis was to investigate parents' experiences of care received during and after stillbirth. METHODS: Qualitative findings extracted from 20 included studies were pooled using a meta-aggregative approach. RESULTS: Four meta-syntheses encompassing parents' experiences of care at diagnosis of stillbirth, induction and birth, immediately postbirth and onwards, revealed care strategies that parents appreciated and found helpful, and also actions and behaviors that were distressing. Helpful strategies included a warm and sensitive communication style, provision of clear and understandable information, shared decision making, and respect for individual needs and preferences. Parents appreciated guidance from health care professionals about seeing and holding, including being prepared for their baby's possible appearance, information on how to spend time with their baby, and collection of memorabilia. After stillbirth, offers of follow-up care, including referrals for professional support, were appreciated. CONCLUSIONS: Care received during and after stillbirth may have lasting impacts on parents' future well being. Health care professionals may aid in improving parents' well being after stillbirth by providing care that is cognizant of parents' emotional states. Care strategies arising from the findings of this review are suggested.

Effectiveness, cost effectiveness, acceptability and implementation barriers/enablers of chronic kidney disease management programs for Indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand and Canada: a systematic review of mixed evidence.

BACKGROUND: Indigenous peoples in Australia, New Zealand and Canada carry a greater burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) than the general populations in each country, and this burden is predicted to increase. Given the human and economic cost of dialysis, understanding how to better manage CKD at earlier stages of disease progression is an important priority for practitioners and policy-makers. A systematic review of mixed evidence was undertaken to examine the evidence relating to the effectivness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of chronic kidney disease management programs designed for Indigenous people, as well as barriers and enablers of implementation of such programs. METHODS: Published and unpublished studies reporting quantitative and qualitative data on health sector-led management programs and models of care explicitly designed to manage, slow progression or otherwise improve the lives of Indigenous people with CKD published between 2000 and 2014 were considered for inclusion. Data on clinical effectiveness, ability to self-manage, quality of life, acceptability, cost and cost-benefit, barriers and enablers of implementation were of interest. Quantitative data was summarized in narrative and tabular form and qualitative data was synthesized using the Joanna Briggs Institute meta-aggregation approach. RESULTS: Ten studies were included. Six studies provided evidence of clinical effectiveness of CKD programs designed for Indigenous people, two provided evidence of cost and cost-effectiveness of a CKD program, and two provided qualitative evidence of barriers and enablers of implementation of effective and/or acceptable CKD management programs. Common features of effective and acceptable programs were integration within existing services, nurse-led care, intensive follow-up, provision of culturally-appropriate education, governance structures supporting community ownership, robust clinical systems supporting communication and a central role for Indigenous Health Workers. CONCLUSIONS: Given the human cost of dialysis and the growing population of people living with CKD, there is an urgent need to draw lessons from the available evidence from this and other sources, including studies in the broader population, to better serve this population with programs that address the barriers to receiving high-quality care and improve quality of life.

Cancer Screening and Prevention in the Transgender and Gender Diverse Population: Considerations and Strategies for Advanced Practice Nurses.

OBJECTIVES: This discussion paper presents recent evidence regarding cancer screening and prevention among the transgender and gender diverse (TGD) community and highlights where and how advanced practice nurses (APNs), particularly those in primary care, can better contribute to closing the gap between healthcare disparities between TGD and cisgendered populations. METHODS: Relevant publications on the topic and professional guidelines and evidence have formed the basis for this discussion paper. RESULTS: TGD individuals are a vulnerable population with unique needs. They remain at risk of cancer and might be at greater risk of developing some cancers compared to cisgendered people but are underscreened. Barriers to gender-affirming care need to be addressed to improve access to prevention and screening services and improve the cancer care experiences and outcomes of TGD people. CONCLUSION: APNs can work in collaboration with TGD individuals and the healthcare system to improve access to culturally safe cancer screening and more effective prevention of cancer and poor cancer outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: APNs have the potential to improve access to cancer screening for TGD people by increasing their understanding of the needs of the population, providing culturally safe care, and advocating for more preventative care and cancer screening. With greater knowledge and understanding of the needs and preferences of TGD people both broadly and in relation to cancer screening and prevention, targeted interventions and care approaches can be implemented. APNs should also aim to conduct evaluations and research into cancer prevention and screening to build the currently limited evidence base and nursing knowledge in this important field.

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.

Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews.

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group. RESULTS: This paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de-duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability. CONCLUSION: This paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high-quality scoping reviews.

The impact of elder abuse training on subacute health providers and older adults: study protocol for a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Elder abuse often goes unreported and undetected. Older people may be ashamed, fearful, or otherwise reticent to disclose abuse, and many health providers are not confident in asking about it. In the No More Shame study, we will evaluate a co-designed, multi-component intervention that aims to improve health providers' recognition, response, and referral of elder abuse. METHODS: This is a single-blinded, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Ten subacute hospital sites (i.e. clusters) across Australia will be allocated 1:1, stratified by state to a multi-component intervention comprising a training programme for health providers, implementation of a screening tool and use of site champions, or no additional training or support. Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 4 and 9 months. Our co-primary outcomes are change in health providers' knowledge of responding to elder abuse and older people's sense of safety and quality of life. We will include all inpatients at participating sites, aged 65 + (or aged 50 + if Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander), who are able to provide informed consent and all unit staff who provide direct care to older people; a sample size of at least 92 health providers and 612 older people will provide sufficient power for primary analyses. DISCUSSION: This will be one of the first trials in the world to evaluate a multi-component elder abuse intervention. If successful, it will provide the most robust evidence base to date for health providers to draw on to create a safe environment for reporting, response, and referral. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR, ACTRN12623000676617p . Registered 22 June 2023.

Barriers and enablers of culturally safe care for transgender and gender-diverse people in hospital emergency departments: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to identify barriers and enablers of the provision and accessibility of culturally safe care to transgender (trans) and gender-diverse patients in the emergency department. INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments have a unique role in creating patient experiences that influence positive or negative health outcomes. It is vital that emergency departments provide equitable experiences for all patients regardless of gender. Culturally safe care aims to support inclusive, effective, and appropriate care for trans and gender-diverse patients. Identifying the reported barriers and enablers of culturally safe care for trans and gender-diverse people in emergency departments will support knowledge users to advocate for and implement improvements to care. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies that describe barriers and enablers of accessing culturally safe care in emergency departments reported by trans and gender-diverse people, their families and loved ones, as well as health care workers involved in the provision of care. English-language, published, and gray literature sources from January 1, 2000, to the present from all countries will be eligible. METHODS: The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Database searches of MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase, ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ProQuest will be undertaken. Data will be presented in tabular format or graphs, with an accompanying narrative summary.

Reflection in the training of general practitioners in clinical practice settings: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to explore formalized methods of reflection that are used in clinical settings in general practice when training medical students, postgraduate trainees, general practitioners, and family physicians. INTRODUCTION: Medical professionals are increasingly required to demonstrate competency in their ability to reflect on clinical practice. To accommodate this, the teaching of reflection is common in medical programs; however, there is a lack of clarity in the literature on how reflection is taught. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will seek evidence describing the tools and approaches to reflection used by medical students, postgraduate trainees, and other registered medical professionals in general practice. The review will also include any evidence from those who teach reflection in a general practice setting. Evidence regarding reflection in training programs for other medical specialties will not be considered for inclusion. METHODS: This review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), and the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched will include MEDLINE (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Extracted evidence will be presented using figurative, tabular, and accompanying narrative synthesis, in line with the review questions. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/uxw7d.

Culturally safe, appropriate, and high-quality breast cancer screening for transgender people: A scoping review.

Background: There is a recognized need for evidence to inform breast cancer screening guidelines and services for transgender people, who face barriers to accessing appropriate and inclusive health care. Aims: This review summarized evidence for breast cancer risk and screening guidelines in transgender individuals, including the potential impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT); factors that may influence screening decision-making and behaviors; and considerations for providing culturally safe, high-quality screening services. Methods: A protocol was developed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Searches were performed in Medline, Emcare, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for articles reporting information on the provision of culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for transgender people. Results: We identified 57 sources for inclusion: 13 cross-sectional studies, 6 case reports, 2 case series, 28 review or opinion articles, 6 systematic reviews, 1 qualitative study, and 1 book chapter. Evidence on rates of breast cancer screening among transgender people and the association between GAHT and breast cancer risk was inconclusive. Factors negatively associated with cancer screening behaviors included socioeconomic barriers, stigma, and lack of health provider awareness of transgender health issues. Breast cancer screening recommendations varied and were generally based on expert opinion due to the lack of clear evidence. Considerations for providing culturally safe care to transgender people were identified and mapped to the areas of workplace policies and procedures, patient information, clinic environment, professional conduct, communication, and knowledge and competency. Discussion: Screening recommendations for transgender individuals are complicated by the lack of robust epidemiological data and clear understanding of the role GAHT may play in breast cancer pathogenesis. Guidelines have been developed based on expert opinion and are subsequently not uniform or evidence based. Further work is required to clarify and consolidate recommendations.

Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews.

Scoping reviewers often face challenges in the extraction, analysis, and presentation of scoping review results. Using best-practice examples and drawing on the expertise of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group and an editor of a journal that publishes scoping reviews, this paper expands on existing JBI scoping review guidance. The aim of this article is to clarify the process of extracting data from different sources of evidence; discuss what data should be extracted (and what should not); outline how to analyze extracted data, including an explanation of basic qualitative content analysis; and offer suggestions for the presentation of results in scoping reviews.

Addressing vaccine hesitancy and resistance for COVID-19 vaccines.

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has had various degrees of success in different countries. Achieving high levels of vaccine coverage is key to responding to and mitigating the impact of the pandemic on health and aged care systems and the community. In many countries, vaccine hesitancy, resistance, and refusal are emerging as significant barriers to immunisation uptake and the relaxation of policies that limit everyday life. Vaccine hesitancy/ resistance/ refusal is complex and multi-faceted. Individuals and groups have diverse and often multiple reasons for delaying or refusing vaccination. These reasons include: social determinants of health, convenience, ease of availability and access, health literacy understandability and clarity of information, judgements around risk versus benefit, notions of collective versus individual responsibility, trust or mistrust of authority or healthcare, and personal or group beliefs, customs, or ideologies. Published evidence suggests that targeting and adapting interventions to particular population groups, contexts, and specific reasons for vaccine hesitancy/ resistance may enhance the effectiveness of interventions. While evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to address vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake is limited and generally unable to underpin any specific strategy, multi-pronged interventions are promising. In many settings, mandating vaccination, particularly for those working in health or high risk/ transmission industries, has been implemented or debated by Governments, decision-makers, and health authorities. While mandatory vaccination is effective for seasonal influenza uptake amongst healthcare workers, this evidence may not be appropriately transferred to the context of COVID-19. Financial or other incentives for addressing vaccine hesitancy may have limited effectiveness with much evidence for benefit appearing to have been translated across from other public/preventive health issues such as smoking cessation. Multicomponent, dialogue-based (i.e., communication) interventions are effective in addressing vaccine hesitancy/resistance. Multicomponent interventions that encompasses the following might be effective: (i) targeting specific groups such as unvaccinated/under-vaccinated groups or healthcare workers, (ii) increasing vaccine knowledge and awareness, (iii) enhanced access and convenience of vaccination, (iv) mandating vaccination or implementing sanctions against non-vaccination, (v) engaging religious and community leaders, (vi) embedding new vaccine knowledge and evidence in routine health practices and procedures, and (vii) addressing mistrust and improving trust in healthcare providers and institutions via genuine engagement and dialogue. It is universally important that healthcare professionals and representative groups, as often highly trusted sources of health guidance, should be closely involved in policymaker and health authority decisions regarding the establishment and implementation of vaccine recommendations and interventions to address vaccine hesitancy.