Informing the development of the SUCCEED reporting guideline for studies on the scaling of health interventions: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Quality reporting contributes to effective translation of health research in practice and policy. As an initial step in the development of a reporting guideline for scaling, the Standards for reporting stUdies of sCaling evidenCEd-informED interventions (SUCCEED), we performed a systematic review to identify relevant guidelines and compile a list of potential items. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review according to Cochrane method guidelines. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, from their respective inceptions. We also searched websites of relevant organizations and Google. We included any document that provided instructions or recommendations, e.g., reporting guideline, checklist, guidance, framework, standard; could inform the design or reporting of scaling interventions; and related to the health sector. We extracted characteristics of the included guidelines and assessed their methodological quality using a 3-item internal validity assessment tool. We extracted all items from the guidelines and classified them according to the main sections of reporting guidelines (title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and other information). We performed a narrative synthesis based on descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 7704 records screened (published between 1999 and 2019), we included 39 guidelines, from which data were extracted from 57 reports. Of the 39 guidelines, 17 were for designing scaling interventions and 22 for reporting implementation interventions. At least one female author was listed in 31 guidelines, and 21 first authors were female. None of the authors belonged to the patient stakeholder group. Only one guideline clearly identified a patient as having participated in the consensus process. More than half the guidelines (56%) had been developed using an evidence-based process. In total, 750 items were extracted from the 39 guidelines and distributed into the 7 main sections. CONCLUSION: Relevant items identified could inform the development of a reporting guideline for scaling studies of evidence-based health interventions. This and our assessment of guidelines could contribute to better reporting in the science and practice of scaling.

Transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of endometrioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of endometriomas in patients with endometriosis is of primary importance because it influences the management and prognosis of infertility and pain. Imaging techniques are evolving constantly. This study aimed to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting endometrioma using the surgical visualisation of lesions with or without histopathological confirmation as reference standards in patients of reproductive age with suspected endometriosis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from their inception to 12 October 2022, using a manual search for additional articles. Two authors independently performed title, abstract and full-text screening of the identified records, extracted study details and quantitative data and assessed the quality of the studies using the 'Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Study 2' tool. Bivariate random-effects models were used to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity, compare the two imaging modalities and evaluate the sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Sixteen prospective studies (10 assessing TVUS, 4 assessing MRI and 2 assessing both TVUS and MRI) were included, representing 1976 participants. Pooled TVUS and MRI sensitivities for endometrioma were 0.89 (95% confidence interval 'CI', 0.86-0.92) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.74-0.99), respectively (indirect comparison p-value of 0.47). Pooled TVUS and MRI specificities for endometrioma were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.97) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97), respectively (indirect comparison p-value of 0.51). These studies had a high or unclear risk of bias. A direct comparison (all participants undergoing TVUS and MRI) of the modalities was available in only two studies. CONCLUSION: TVUS and MRI have high accuracy for diagnosing endometriomas; however, high-quality studies comparing the two modalities are lacking.

The diagnosis of endometriomas in patients with endometriosis impacts infertility and pain management. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of endometrioma in patients of reproductive age with suspected endometriosis, and to compare the accuracy of the two imaging modalities. Five databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and ClinicalTrials.gov databases) were searched. Sixteen prospective studies were included, representing 1976 participants. We found high accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing endometriomas. There was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two modalities. However, high-quality studies comparing the two modalities in the same population are lacking.

Knowledge exchange sessions on primary health care research findings in public libraries: A qualitative study with citizens in Quebec.

Little is known about knowledge transfer with the public. We explored how citizens, physicians, and communication specialists understand knowledge transfer in public spaces such as libraries. The initial study aimed at evaluating the scaling up of a program on disseminating research findings on potentially inappropriate medication. Twenty-two citizen workshops were offered by 16 physicians and facilitated by 6 communication specialists to 322 citizens in libraries during spring 2019. We did secondary analysis using the recorded workshop discussions to explore the type of knowledge participants used. Participants described four kinds of knowledge: biomedical, sociocultural beliefs, value-based reasoning, and institutional knowledge. Biomedical knowledge included scientific evidence, research methods, clinical guidelines, and access to research outcomes. Participants discussed beliefs in scientific progress, innovative clinical practices, and doctors' behaviours. Participants discussed values related to reliability, transparency, respect for patient autonomy and participation in decision-making. All categories of participants used these four kinds of knowledge. However, their descriptions varied particularly for biomedical knowledge which was described by physician-speakers and communication specialists-facilitators as scientific evidence, epidemiological and clinical practice guidelines, and pathophysiological theories. Communication specialists-facilitators also described scientific journalistic sources and scientific journalistic reports as proxies of scientific evidence. Citizens described biomedical knowledge in terms of knowledge to make informed decisions. These findings offer insights for future scientific knowledge exchange interventions with the public.

Evidence on Scaling in Health and Social Care: An Umbrella Review.

Policy Points More rigorous methodologies and systematic approaches should be encouraged in the science of scaling. This will help researchers better determine the effectiveness of scaling, guide stakeholders in the scaling process, and ultimately increase the impacts of health innovations. The practice and the science of scaling need to expand worldwide to address complex health conditions such as noncommunicable and chronic diseases. Although most of the scaling experiences described in the literature are occurring in the Global South, most of the authors publishing on it are based in the Global North. As the science of scaling spreads across the world with the aim of reducing health inequities, it is also essential to address the power imbalance in how we do scaling research globally. CONTEXT: Scaling of effective innovations in health and social care is essential to increase their impact. We aimed to synthesize the evidence base on scaling and identify current knowledge gaps. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual. We included any type of review that 1) focused on scaling, 2) covered health or social care, and 3) presented a methods section. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global from their inception to August 6, 2020. We searched the gray literature using, e.g., Google and WHO-ExpandNet. We assessed methodological quality with AMSTAR2. Paired reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reviews and assessed study quality. A narrative synthesis was performed. FINDINGS: Of 24,269 records, 137 unique reviews were included. The quality of the 58 systematic reviews was critically low (n = 42). The most frequent review type was systematic review (n = 58). Most reported on scaling in low- and middle-income countries (n = 59), whereas most first authors were from high-income countries (n = 114). Most reviews concerned infectious diseases (n = 36) or maternal-child health (n = 28). They mainly focused on interventions (n = 37), barriers and facilitators (n = 29), frameworks (n = 24), scalability (n = 24), and costs (n = 14). The WHO/ExpandNet scaling definition was the definition most frequently used (n = 26). Domains most reported as influencing scaling success were building scaling infrastructure (e.g., creating new service sites) and human resources (e.g., training community health care providers). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base on scaling is evolving rapidly as reflected by publication trends, the range of focus areas, and diversity of scaling definitions. Our study highlights knowledge gaps around methodology and research infrastructures to facilitate equitable North-South research relationships. Common efforts are needed to ensure scaling expands the impacts of health and social innovations to broader populations.

Linkages between health systems and communities for chronic care: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Linkages between health systems and communities may leverage community assets to address unmet needs and provide services for improved continuity and coordination of care. However, there are limited examples of specific strategies for such linkages for chronic disease management. Guided by a local need from stakeholders, this scoping review aims to clarify and map methods and strategies for linkages between communities and health systems across chronic diseases, to inform future implementation efforts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will be conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework and latest Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines, with continuous stakeholder engagement throughout. A structured literature search of records from January 2001 to April 2022 will be completed in MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, in addition to grey literature. Two reviewers will independently complete study selection following inclusion criteria reflecting population (chronic disease), concept (integrated care) and context (health systems and communities) and will chart the data. Data will be analysed using descriptive qualitative and quantitative methods, to map and operationalise the linkages between health systems and communities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The scoping review does not require ethics approval as it will examine and collect data from publicly available materials, and all stakeholder engagement will follow guidelines for patient and public involvement. Findings will be reported through a summarising list of considerations for different linkage strategies between health systems and community resources and implications for future research, practice and policy will be discussed and presented. The results will also be used to inform an integrated knowledge translation project to implement community-health system linkages to support chronic pain management. REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UTSN9.

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Shared Decision Making: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results in various fields of medicine. It has the potential to facilitate shared decision making (SDM). However, there is no comprehensive mapping of how AI may be used for SDM. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI to facilitate SDM. METHODS: We performed a scoping review informed by the methodological framework proposed by Levac et al, modifications to the original Arksey and O'Malley framework of a scoping review, and the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework. We reported our results based on the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guideline. At the identification stage, an information specialist performed a comprehensive search of 6 electronic databases from their inception to May 2021. The inclusion criteria were: all populations; all AI interventions that were used to facilitate SDM, and if the AI intervention was not used for the decision-making point in SDM, it was excluded; any outcome related to patients, health care providers, or health care systems; studies in any health care setting, only studies published in the English language, and all study types. Overall, 2 reviewers independently performed the study selection process and extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. A descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: The search process yielded 1445 records. After removing duplicates, 894 documents were screened, and 6 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Overall, 2 of them were conducted in North America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Australia, and 1 in Asia. Most articles were published after 2017. Overall, 3 articles focused on primary care, and 3 articles focused on secondary care. All studies used machine learning methods. Moreover, 3 articles included health care providers in the validation stage of the AI intervention, and 1 article included both health care providers and patients in clinical validation, but none of the articles included health care providers or patients in the design and development of the AI intervention. All used AI to support SDM by providing clinical recommendations or predictions. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of the use of AI in SDM is in its infancy. We found AI supporting SDM in similar ways across the included articles. We observed a lack of emphasis on patients' values and preferences, as well as poor reporting of AI interventions, resulting in a lack of clarity about different aspects. Little effort was made to address the topics of explainability of AI interventions and to include end-users in the design and development of the interventions. Further efforts are required to strengthen and standardize the use of AI in different steps of SDM and to evaluate its impact on various decisions, populations, and settings.

Scaling Up Citizen Workshops in Public Libraries to Disseminate and Discuss Primary Care Research Results: Quasi-Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about engaging patients and stakeholders in the process of scaling up effective knowledge translation interventions targeting the public. OBJECTIVE: Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, we aimed to scale up and evaluate an effective pilot program to disseminate research results in public libraries. METHODS: We conducted a scaling-up study targeting the public. On the basis of our successful pilot project, we codeveloped and implemented a large-scale program of free citizen workshops in public libraries, in a close research partnership with stakeholders and patient representatives. Citizen workshops, each facilitated by 1 participating physician and 1 science communicator, consisted of a 45-minute computer-assisted presentation and a 45-minute open exchange. The intervention outcome was knowledge gained. The scale-up outcomes were satisfaction, appropriateness, coverage, and costs. An evaluation questionnaire was used to collect data of interest. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed. RESULTS: The workshop theme chosen by the patient and stakeholder representatives was the high prevalence of medication overuse among people aged ≥65 years. From April to May 2019, 26 workshops were conducted in 25 public libraries reaching 362 people. The mean age of participants was 64.8 (SD 12.5) years. In total, 18 participating physicians and 6 science communicators facilitated the workshops. Participants reported significant knowledge gain (mean difference 2.1, 95% CI 2.0-2.2; P<.001). The median score for overall public satisfaction was 9 out of 10 (IQR 8-10). The public participants globally rated the workshops as having a high level of appropriateness. Coverage was 92% (25/27) of the total number of public libraries targeted. Costs were CAD $6051.84 (US $4519.69) for workshop design and CAD $22,935.41 (US $17,128.85) for scaling them up. CONCLUSIONS: This project successfully established a large-scale and successful implementation science or knowledge translation bridge among researchers, clinicians, and citizens via public libraries. This study provides a model for a dissemination practice that benefits the public by both engaging them in the dissemination process and targeting them directly.

Shared Decision-Making Training for Home Care Teams to Engage Frail Older Adults and Caregivers in Housing Decisions: Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Frail older adults and caregivers need support from their home care teams in making difficult housing decisions, such as whether to remain at home, with or without assistance, or move into residential care. However, home care teams are often understaffed and busy, and shared decision-making training is costly. Nevertheless, overall awareness of shared decision-making is increasing. We hypothesized that distributing a decision aid could be sufficient for providing decision support without the addition of shared decision-making training for home care teams. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effectiveness of adding web-based training and workshops for care teams in interprofessional shared decision-making to passive dissemination of a decision guide on the proportion of frail older adults or caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults reporting active roles in housing decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial with home care teams in 9 health centers in Quebec, Canada. Participants were frail older adults or caregivers of cognitively impaired frail older adults facing housing decisions and receiving care from the home care team at one of the participating health centers. The intervention consisted of a 1.5-hour web-based tutorial for the home care teams plus a 3.5-hour interactive workshop in interprofessional shared decision-making using a decision guide that was designed to support frail older adults and caregivers in making housing decisions. The control was passive dissemination of the decision guide. The primary outcome was an active role in decision-making among frail older adults and caregivers, measured using the Control Preferences Scale. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict and perceptions of how much care teams involved frail older adults and caregivers in decision-making. We performed an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 311 frail older adults were included in the analysis, including 208 (66.9%) women, with a mean age of 81.2 (SD 7.5) years. Among 339 caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults, 239 (70.5%) were female and their mean age was 66.4 (SD 11.7) years. The intervention increased the proportion of frail older adults reporting an active role in decision-making by 3.3% (95% CI -5.8% to 12.4%, P=.47) and the proportion of caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults by 6.1% (95% CI -11.2% to 23.4%, P=.49). There was no significant impact on the secondary outcomes. However, the mean score for the frail older adults' perception of how much health professionals involved them in decision-making increased by 5.4 (95% CI -0.6 to 11.4, P=.07) and the proportion of caregivers who reported decisional conflict decreased by 7.5% (95% CI -16.5% to 1.6%, P=.10). CONCLUSIONS: Although it slightly reduced decisional conflict for caregivers, shared decision-making training did not equip home care teams significantly better than provision of a decision aid for involving frail older adults and their caregivers in decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02592525; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02592525.

Implementation Strategies for Knowledge Products in Primary Health Care: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The underuse or overuse of knowledge products leads to waste in health care, and primary care is no exception. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize which knowledge products are frequently implemented, the implementation strategies used in primary care, and the implementation outcomes that are measured. METHODS: We performed a systematic review (SR) of SRs using the Cochrane systematic approach to include eligible SRs. The inclusion criteria were any primary care contexts, health care professionals and patients, any Effective Practice and Organization of Care implementation strategies of specified knowledge products, any comparators, and any implementation outcomes based on the Proctor framework. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to October 2019 without any restrictions. We searched the references of the included SRs. Pairs of reviewers independently performed selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment by using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. Data extraction was informed by the Effective Practice and Organization of Care taxonomy for implementation strategies and the Proctor framework for implementation outcomes. We performed a descriptive analysis and summarized the results by using a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 11,101 records identified, 81 (0.73%) SRs were included. Of these 81, a total of 47 (58%) SRs involved health care professionals alone. Moreover, 15 SRs had a high or moderate methodological quality. Most of them addressed 1 type of knowledge product (56/81, 69%), common clinical practice guidelines (26/56, 46%) or management, and behavioral or pharmacological health interventions (24/56, 43%). Mixed strategies were used for implementation (67/81, 83%), predominantly education-based (meetings in 60/81, 74%; materials distribution in 59/81, 73%; and academic detailing in 45/81, 56%), reminder (53/81, 36%), and audit and feedback (40/81, 49%) strategies. Education meetings (P=.13) and academic detailing (P=.11) seemed to be used more when the population was composed of health care professionals alone. Improvements in the adoption of knowledge products were the most commonly measured outcome (72/81, 89%). The evidence level was reported in 12% (10/81) of SRs on 62 outcomes (including 48 improvements in adoption), of which 16 (26%) outcomes were of moderate or high level. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines and management and behavioral or pharmacological health interventions are the most commonly implemented knowledge products and are implemented through the mixed use of educational, reminder, and audit and feedback strategies. There is a need for a strong methodology for the SR of randomized controlled trials to explore their effectiveness and the entire cascade of implementation outcomes.

Tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen growing interest in scaling up of innovations to strengthen healthcare systems. However, the lack of appropriate methods for determining their potential for scale-up is an unfortunate global handicap. Thus, we aimed to review tools proposed for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following the COSMIN methodology. We included any empirical research which aimed to investigate the creation, validation or interpretability of a scalability assessment tool in health. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and ERIC from their inception to 20 March 2019. We also searched relevant websites, screened the reference lists of relevant reports and consulted experts in the field. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports and assessed the methodological quality of tools. We summarized data using a narrative approach involving thematic syntheses and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We identified 31 reports describing 21 tools. Types of tools included criteria (47.6%), scales (33.3%) and checklists (19.0%). Most tools were published from 2010 onwards (90.5%), in open-access sources (85.7%) and funded by governmental or nongovernmental organizations (76.2%). All tools were in English; four were translated into French or Spanish (19.0%). Tool creation involved single (23.8%) or multiple (19.0%) types of stakeholders, or stakeholder involvement was not reported (57.1%). No studies reported involving patients or the public, or reported the sex of tool creators. Tools were created for use in high-income countries (28.6%), low- or middle-income countries (19.0%), or both (9.5%), or for transferring innovations from low- or middle-income countries to high-income countries (4.8%). Healthcare levels included public or population health (47.6%), primary healthcare (33.3%) and home care (4.8%). Most tools provided limited information on content validity (85.7%), and none reported on other measurement properties. The methodological quality of tools was deemed inadequate (61.9%) or doubtful (38.1%). CONCLUSIONS: We inventoried tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. Existing tools are as yet of limited utility for assessing scalability in health. More work needs to be done to establish key psychometric properties of these tools. Trial registration We registered this review with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019107095).

Use of the CPD-REACTION Questionnaire to Evaluate Continuing Professional Development Activities for Health Professionals: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Continuing professional development (CPD) is essential for physicians to maintain and enhance their knowledge, competence, skills, and performance. Web-based CPD plays an essential role. However, validated theory-informed measures of their impact are lacking. The CPD-REACTION questionnaire is a validated theory-informed tool that evaluates the impact of CPD activities on clinicians' behavioral intentions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to review the use of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire, which measures the impact of CPD activities on health professionals' intentions to change clinical behavior. We examined CPD activity characteristics, ranges of intention, mean scores, score distributions, and psychometric properties. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review informed by the Cochrane review methodology. We searched 8 databases from January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2021. Gray literature was identified using Google Scholar and Research Gate. Eligibility criteria included all health care professionals, any study design, and participants' completion of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire either before, after, or before and after a CPD activity. Study selection, data extraction, and study quality evaluation were independently performed by 2 reviewers. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, the CPD activity (eg, targeted clinical behavior and format), and CPD-REACTION use. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. Data extracted were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Student t test (2-tailed) for bivariate analysis. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 65 citations were eligible and referred to 52 primary studies. The number of primary studies reporting the use of CPD-REACTION has increased continuously since 2014 from 1 to 16 publications per year (2021). It is available in English, French, Spanish, and Dutch. Most of the studies were conducted in Canada (30/52, 58%). Furthermore, 40 different clinical behaviors were identified. The most common CPD format was e-learning (34/52, 65%). The original version of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire was used in 31 of 52 studies, and an adapted version in 18 of 52 studies. In addition, 31% (16/52) of the studies measured both the pre- and postintervention scores. In 22 studies, CPD providers were university-based. Most studies targeted interprofessional groups of health professionals (31/52, 60%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of CPD-REACTION has increased rapidly and across a wide range of clinical behaviors and formats, including a web-based format. Further research should investigate the most effective way to adapt the CPD-REACTION questionnaire to a variety of clinical behaviors and contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018116492; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=116492.

Sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing recognition of the importance of sex and gender considerations in health research, they are rarely integrated into research design and reporting. We sought to assess the integration of sex, as a biological attribute, and gender, as a socially constructed identity, in published reporting guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published reporting guidelines listed on the EQUATOR website ( www.equator-nework.org ) from inception until December 2018. We selected all reporting guidelines (original and extensions) listed in the EQUATOR library. We used EndNote Citation Software to build a database of the statements of each guideline identified as a "full bibliographic reference" and retrieved the full texts. Reviewers independently extracted the data on use of sex and gender terms from the checklist/abstract/main text of guidelines. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 407 reporting guidelines were included; they were published between 1995 and 2018. Of the 407 guidelines, 235 (57.7%) mentioned at least one of the sex- and gender-related words. In the checklist of the reporting guidelines (n = 363), "sex" and "gender" were mentioned in 50 (13.8%) and 40 (11%), respectively. Only one reporting guideline met our criteria (nonbinary, appropriate categorization, and non-interchangeability) for correct use of sex and gender concepts. Trends in the use of "sex" and "gender" in the checklists showed that the use of "sex" only started in 2003, while "gender" has been in use since 1996. CONCLUSIONS: We assessed the integration of sex and gender in reporting guidelines based on the use of sex- and gender-related words. Our findings showed a low use and integration of sex and gender concepts and their incorrect use. Authors of reporting guidelines should reduce this gap for a better use of research knowledge. Trial registration PROSPERO no. CRD42019136491.

Integrated Community Care Delivered by Public Health Care and Social Care Systems: Protocol for a Realist Synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Integrated Community Care (ICC) is defined as an interweaving of territory scale and time scale health care and social care interventions implemented in proximity (spatial and relational) in an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral manner. However, the deployment of in public health and social care networks can be complex owing to their broad mandate and the complexity of their management and accountability. Therefore, we aim to describe integrated community care in order to shed light on how they work, for whom and in what circumstances. THEORY AND METHODS: We will conduct a realist synthesis to design a flexible and scalable theory of the functioning of ICC deployed by public health and social care networks. To do so, a two-phase approach will be used: a systematic review on the topic of interest; and co-development and refinement of theory with local and international stakeholders. This data will be analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods. DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS: The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, academic presentations and a policy brief. This last document will include evidence on how ICC can be deployed by public health and social care networks to produce the impacts targeted.

Evidence on scaling in health and social care: protocol for a living umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in scaling effective health innovations to promote equitable access to high-quality health services worldwide. However, multiple challenges persist in scaling innovations. In this study, we aim to summarize the scaling evidence in the health and social care literature and identify current knowledge gaps. METHODS: We will conduct a living umbrella review according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual. We will consider all knowledge syntheses addressing scaling in health or social care (e.g., any setting, any clinical area) and conducted in a systematic way. We will search the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, PsychINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Sociological Abstract (Proquest), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), and Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global, from inception. Furthermore, we will conduct searches of the grey literature. No restriction regarding date or language will be applied. Each phase of the review will be processed by two independent reviewers. We will develop a data extraction form on Covidence. We will assess the methodological quality of the included reviews using AMSTAR2 and the risk of bias using ROBIS. Results will be presented in tabular form and accompanied by a narrative synthesis covering the traditional themes of scaling science that emerge from the analysis, such as coverage, range, and sustainability, as well as themes less covered in the literature, including reporting guidance, models, tools, barriers, and/or facilitators to scaling innovations, evidence regarding application in high-income or low-income countries, and end-user engagement. We will disseminate the findings via publications and through relevant networks. DISCUSSION: The findings of the umbrella review will facilitate access to scaling evidence in the literature and help strengthen the science of scaling for researchers, policy makers, and program managers. Finally, this work will highlight important knowledge gaps and help prioritize future research questions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on November 11, 2020 (registration number: CRD42020183774 ).

Economic evaluations of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Scaling science aims to help roll out evidence-based research results on a wide scale to benefit more individuals. Yet, little is known on how to evaluate economic aspects of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on systematic reviews, we will conduct a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied in economic evaluations in scaling up strategies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must include a scaling up strategy of an evidence-based health intervention delivered and received by any individual or organisation in any country and setting. They must report costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We will consider full or partial economic evaluations, modelling and methodological studies. We searched peer-reviewed publications in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception onwards. We will search grey literature from international organisations, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancy firms websites and region-specific databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the records against the eligibility criteria and extract data using a pretested extraction form. We will extract data on study characteristics, scaling up strategies, economic evaluation methods and their components. We will appraise the methodological quality of included studies using the BMJ Checklist. We will narratively summarise the studies' descriptive characteristics, methodological strengths/weaknesses and the main drivers of cost-effectiveness outcomes. This study will help identify what are the trade-offs of scaling up evidence-based interventions to allocate resources efficiently. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal and presented at national and international conferences.

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Community-Based Primary Health Care: Systematic Scoping Review and Critical Appraisal.

BACKGROUND: Research on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into community-based primary health care (CBPHC) has highlighted several advantages and disadvantages in practice regarding, for example, facilitating diagnosis and disease management, as well as doubts concerning the unintended harmful effects of this integration. However, there is a lack of evidence about a comprehensive knowledge synthesis that could shed light on AI systems tested or implemented in CBPHC. OBJECTIVE: We intended to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI in CBPHC settings. METHODS: We conducted a systematic scoping review informed by an earlier study and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework and reported the findings according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from the date of inception until February 2020, in seven bibliographic databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore. The selected studies considered all populations who provide and receive care in CBPHC settings, AI interventions that had been implemented, tested, or both, and assessed outcomes related to patients, health care providers, or CBPHC systems. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified records, read the selected full texts, and extracted data from the included studies using a validated extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. A third reviewer also validated all the extracted data. RESULTS: We retrieved 22,113 documents. After the removal of duplicates, 16,870 documents were screened, and 90 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Machine learning (ML) (41/90, 45%), natural language processing (NLP) (24/90, 27%), and expert systems (17/90, 19%) were the most commonly studied AI interventions. These were primarily implemented for diagnosis, detection, or surveillance purposes. Neural networks (ie, convolutional neural networks and abductive networks) demonstrated the highest accuracy, considering the given database for the given clinical task. The risk of bias in diagnosis or prognosis studies was the lowest in the participant category (4/49, 4%) and the highest in the outcome category (22/49, 45%). CONCLUSIONS: We observed variabilities in reporting the participants, types of AI methods, analyses, and outcomes, and highlighted the large gap in the effective development and implementation of AI in CBPHC. Further studies are needed to efficiently guide the development and implementation of AI interventions in CBPHC settings.

Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Health-Related Out-of-Pocket Costs: The Cost for Patients Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: The growth of healthcare spending is a major concern for insurers and governments but also for patients whose health problems may result in costs going beyond direct medical costs. To develop a comprehensive tool to measure direct and indirect costs of a health condition for patients and their families to various outpatient contexts. METHODS: We conducted a content and face validation including results of a systematic review to identify the items related to direct and indirect costs for patients or their families and an online Delphi to determine the cost items to retain. We conducted a pilot test-retest with 18 naive participants and analyzed data calculating intraclass correlation and kappa coefficients. RESULTS: An initial list of 34 items was established from the systematic review. Each round of the Delphi panel incorporated feedback from the previous round until a strong consensus was achieved. After 4 rounds of the Delphi to reach consensus on items to be included and wording, the questionnaire had a total of 32 cost items. For the test-retest, kappa coefficients ranged from -0.11 to 1.00 (median = 0.86), and intraclass correlation ranged from -0.02 to 0.99 (median = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: A rigorous process of content and face development was implemented for the Cost for Patients Questionnaire, and this study allowed to set a list of cost elements to be considered from the patient's perspective. Additional research including a test-retest with a larger sample will be part of a subsequent validation strategy.

Evaluating communication with parents in paediatric patient encounters: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Breaking bad news and dealing with difficult patient encounters is a skill that medical residents must learn during their curriculum. Many different tools are available to measure communication quality, but their development and validation processes are often missing. In this paper, we present the protocol of a systematic review aiming to identify the validated tools for measuring communication skills or communication effectiveness with parents in a paediatrics setting in general, including for difficult patient encounters. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct our systematic review in accordance with the methodology suggested by COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and will report this paper following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. We will include the studies in which authors developed and/or validated tools for assessing the quality of communication with families by residents and/or physicians during patient encounters in paediatric settings. Studies assessing communication in telemedicine and studies that use the tool to measure a different outcome than its validation will be excluded. Our search strategy will be developed by a scientific librarian and validated using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategy (PRESS) tool. Two reviewers will independently screen the studies for selection, extract data of the ones included and assess their level of risk of bias using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. We will perform a narrative synthesis on the study selection process, the characteristics of studies and study population, the characteristics of tools identified, their process of development and/or validation and their psychometric properties. If sufficient data are available, we will do quantitative analyses for each psychometric property. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from an ethics committee is not required, as there is no primary data collection. Our findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and at local, national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020151642.

Interventions to Improve Trainers' Learning and Behaviors for Educating Health Care Professionals Using Train-the-Trainer Method: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Train-the-trainer (TTT) programs are frequently used to facilitate knowledge dissemination. However, little is known about the effectiveness of these programs. Therefore, we sought to assess the impact of TTT programs on learning and behavior of trainers for educating health and social professionals (trainees). METHODS: Guided by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, we conducted a systematic review. We searched 12 databases until April 2018 and extracted data according to the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome model. Population was defined as trainers delivering training program to health care professionals, and the intervention consists in any organized activity provided by a trainer. There were no restrictive comparators, and outcomes were knowledge, attitude, skill, confidence, commitment, and behavior of trainers. We estimated the pooled effect size and its 95% confidence interval using a random-effect model. We performed a narrative synthesis when meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: Of 11,202 potentially eligible references, we identified 16 unique studies. Studies were mostly controlled before-and-after studies and covered a unique training intervention. Targeted trainers were mostly nurses (n = 10) and physicians (n = 5). The most frequent measured outcome was knowledge (n = 12). TTT programs demonstrated significant effect on knowledge (Standardized mean deviation = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.11-1.06; I2 = 90%; P < .01; 10 studies). No studies measured trainers' ability to deliver the training program. DISCUSSION: TTT programs may improve the knowledge of trainers. However, the heterogeneity and small number of studies hamper our ability to draw conclusions that are more robust.

Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives in health and social services: protocol for a scoping review and Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: The scale-up of evidence-based innovations is required to reduce waste and inequities in health and social services (HSS). However, it often tends to be a top-down process initiated by policy makers, and the values of the intended beneficiaries are forgotten. Involving multiple stakeholders including patients and the public in the scaling-up process is thus essential but highly complex. We propose to identify relevant strategies for meaningfully and equitably involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling up in HSS. METHODS: We will adapt our overall method from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Following this, we will perform a two-prong study design (knowledge synthesis and Delphi study) grounded in an integrated knowledge translation approach. This approach involves extensive participation of a network of stakeholders interested in patient and public involvement (PPI) in scaling up and a multidisciplinary steering committee. We will conduct a systematic scoping review following the methodology recommended in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. We will use the following eligibility criteria: (1) participants-any stakeholder involved in creating or testing a strategy for PPI; (2) intervention-any PPI strategy proposed for scaling-up initiatives; (3) comparator-no restriction; (4) outcomes: any process or outcome metrics related to PPI; and (5) setting-HSS. We will search electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Web of Science, Sociological Abstract) from inception onwards, hand search relevant websites, screen the reference lists of included records, and consult experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently select and extract eligible studies. We will summarize data quantitatively and qualitatively and report results using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We will conduct an online Delphi survey to achieve consensus on the relevant strategies for PPI in scaling-up initiatives in HSS. Participants will include stakeholders from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We anticipate that three rounds will allow an acceptable degree of agreement on research priorities. DISCUSSION: Our findings will advance understanding of how to meaningfully and equitably involve patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives for sustainable HSS. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: We registered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on August 19, 2020 ( https://osf.io/zqpx7/ ).