A Qualitative Study of Naturally Living Parents and Child Oral Health: Omissions and Commissions.

BACKGROUND: Oral health continues to be one of the most common and costly diseases in early childhood, and there is a need for further, innovative research. PURPOSE: We explored the ways naturally living parents (those who embody the "natural" within their parenting ideology and behavior) navigated and perceived their children's oral health. METHODS: Twelve participants who identified as being "naturally living parents" participated in semistructured interviews. Data were thematically analyzed, and findings were aligned to an omissions and commissions framework to exhibit the complexity of parent decision-making. RESULTS: Parents performed distinct omissions, including omitting fluoride, sugar, and "toxins" to maintain their children's oral health. Parents talked about having a commitment to knowledge building to protect their children's oral health (e.g., ingredient label reading and increasing knowledge of "safe" ingredients). Findings also provide insight into how parents consider and trust health information and health care providers and ways they gather information relating to oral health. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis indicated that although parents navigated both omissions and commissions, omissions were more overtly present. Compared to previous health research using this framework, omissions and commissions were not as clearly demarcated in relation to oral health. The results show that oral health is a complex interplay of omissions and commissions, and parents must navigate not only discrete elements that affect the oral health of their children but also how these are influenced by considerations including social well-being. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The study highlights the need for dentists and early childhood health professionals to consider the complex way some parents perceive, inform, and rationalize decisions regarding their children's oral health. There is a need for nuance when considering children's oral health and naturally living parenting, especially in relation to effectively communicating health information that fosters trust and is considerate of broader lifestyle and health factors.

Evidências para a Promoção da Saúde no Brasil: relato de um serviço de resposta rápida / Evidence for Health Promotion in Brazil: report on a rapid response service / Evidencia para la promoción de la salud en Brasil: informe sobre un servicio de respuesta rápida

[RESUMO]. Objetivo. Apresentar a experiência de um serviço de resposta rápida para apoiar a tomada de decisão em saúde. Método. São descritos os processos e resultados de um serviço de produção de revisões rápidas e mapas de evidências para apoiar a tomada de decisão no âmbito da Política Nacional de Promoção da Saúde, bem como a percepção dos autores sobre o processo de trabalho. Resultados. O serviço de resposta rápida teve início em 2020. Até dezembro de 2023, foram produzidas 54 revisões rápidas e cinco mapas de evidências, abrangendo nove temáticas de Promoção da Saúde. Estes produtos foram desenvolvidos em quatorze etapas por uma equipe composta por coordenador, supervisoras, revisores e bibliotecária. O desenvolvimento das respostas rápidas se configurou um processo de tradução do conhecimento e envolveu a interação contínua entre as equipes demandantes e de produção. O estabelecimento de comunicação efetiva foi um fator crítico para que os produtos fossem entregues em tempo oportuno e alinhados às necessidades dos tomadores de decisão e seus apoiadores. Conclusão. Os serviços de resposta rápida podem contribuir para melhorar o uso de evidências na tomada de decisão nas políticas e sistemas de saúde.

[ABSTRACT]. Objective. Present the experience of a rapid response service to support decision-making in health systems. Methodology. Description of the processes and results of a service that produces rapid reviews and evidence maps to support decision-making under the National Health Promotion Policy, as well as the authors' perception of the work process. Results. The rapid response service started in 2020. By December 2023, 54 rapid reviews and five evidence maps had been produced, covering nine health promotion topics. These products were developed in 14 stages by a team made up of a coordinator, supervisors, proofreaders, and a librarian. The development of rapid responses involved a knowledge translation process, with continuous interactions between the requesting teams and production teams. Establishing effective communication was a critical factor in delivering products on time and in line with the needs of decision-makers and their supporters. Conclusion. Rapid response services can help improve the use of evidence for decision-making in health policies and health systems.

[RESUMEN]. Objetivo. Presentación de la experiencia de un servicio de respuesta rápida para brindar apoyo a la toma de decisiones en materia de salud. Método. Se describen los procesos y resultados de un servicio de elaboración de revisiones rápidas y mapas de evidencia para brindar apoyo a la toma de decisiones en el marco de la Política Nacional de Promoción de la Salud, así como la percepción de los autores sobre el proceso de trabajo. Resultados. El servicio de respuesta rápida se inició en el 2020. Hasta diciembre del 2023, se habían elaborado 54 revisiones rápidas y cinco mapas de evidencia, que abarcaban nueve temas de promoción de la salud. Estos productos fueron elaborados en 14 etapas por un equipo formado por un coordinador, varios supervisores y revisores y un bibliotecario. La elaboración de respuestas rápidas fue un proceso de traducción del conocimiento e implicó una interacción continua entre los equipos solicitantes y el equipo de elaboración. El establecimiento de una comunicación eficaz fue un factor decisivo para entregar los productos a tiempo y en consonancia con las necesidades de los responsables de la toma de decisiones y su personal de apoyo. Conclusión. Los servicios de respuesta rápida pueden ayudar a mejorar el uso de evidencia en la toma de decisiones relacionadas con las políticas y los sistemas de salud.

[Evidence for Health Promotion in Brazil: report on a rapid response serviceEvidencia para la promoción de la salud en Brasil: informe sobre un servicio de respuesta rápida]. / Evidências para a Promoção da Saúde no Brasil: relato de um serviço de resposta rápida.

Objective: Present the experience of a rapid response service to support decision-making in health systems. Methodology: Description of the processes and results of a service that produces rapid reviews and evidence maps to support decision-making under the National Health Promotion Policy, as well as the authors' perception of the work process. Results: The rapid response service started in 2020. By December 2023, 54 rapid reviews and five evidence maps had been produced, covering nine health promotion topics. These products were developed in 14 stages by a team made up of a coordinator, supervisors, proofreaders, and a librarian. The development of rapid responses involved a knowledge translation process, with continuous interactions between the requesting teams and production teams. Establishing effective communication was a critical factor in delivering products on time and in line with the needs of decision-makers and their supporters. Conclusion: Rapid response services can help improve the use of evidence for decision-making in health policies and health systems.

Objetivo: Presentación de la experiencia de un servicio de respuesta rápida para brindar apoyo a la toma de decisiones en materia de salud. Método: Se describen los procesos y resultados de un servicio de elaboración de revisiones rápidas y mapas de evidencia para brindar apoyo a la toma de decisiones en el marco de la Política Nacional de Promoción de la Salud, así como la percepción de los autores sobre el proceso de trabajo. Resultados: El servicio de respuesta rápida se inició en el 2020. Hasta diciembre del 2023, se habían elaborado 54 revisiones rápidas y cinco mapas de evidencia, que abarcaban nueve temas de promoción de la salud. Estos productos fueron elaborados en 14 etapas por un equipo formado por un coordinador, varios supervisores y revisores y un bibliotecario. La elaboración de respuestas rápidas fue un proceso de traducción del conocimiento e implicó una interacción continua entre los equipos solicitantes y el equipo de elaboración. El establecimiento de una comunicación eficaz fue un factor decisivo para entregar los productos a tiempo y en consonancia con las necesidades de los responsables de la toma de decisiones y su personal de apoyo. Conclusión: Los servicios de respuesta rápida pueden ayudar a mejorar el uso de evidencia en la toma de decisiones relacionadas con las políticas y los sistemas de salud.

Trusting AI made decisions in healthcare by making them explainable.

OBJECTIVES: In solving the trust issues surrounding machine learning algorithms whose reasoning cannot be understood, advancements can be made toward the integration of machine learning algorithms into mHealth applications. The aim of this paper is to provide a transparency layer to black-box machine learning algorithms and empower mHealth applications to maximize their efficiency. METHODS: Using a machine learning testing framework, we present the process of knowledge transfer between a white-box model and a black-box model and the evaluation process to validate the success of the knowledge transfer. RESULTS: The presentation layer of the final output of the base white-box model and the knowledge-infused white-box model shows clear differences in reasoning. The correlation between the base black-box model and the new knowledge-infused model is very high, indicating that the knowledge transfer was successful. CONCLUSION: There is a clear need for transparency in digital health and health in general. Adding solutions to the toolbox of explainable artificial intelligence is one way to gradually decrease the obscurity of black-box models.

Interventions to enhance the use of Evidence Based Decision Making for Quality Care among Nurses: A Systematic Review.

Background: Decision-making is the cognitive process that results in the selection of a course of action from several possible alternative options. The complexity of nurses' decisions requires a broad knowledge base and access to reliable sources of information; as well as a supportive working environment therefore requiring that decision making be evidence based with robust knowledge translation platforms to disseminate the evidence. This review aimed to assess interventions for enhancing the use of evidence-based decision making for quality care among nurses. Methods: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis review (PRISMA 2020) checklist. This study protocol was registered with PROSPERO number CRD42021262318. Results: The search revealed a total of 143 papers divided as follows: PubMed- 65 papers, CINAHL 25 papers and Cochrane 53 papers. In addition, references of included studies were scanned manually for potential papers and another 46 papers extracted. A total of 133 papers were chosen for detailed extraction following removal of 10 duplicate studies. Conclusion: Results of this review revealed that the interventions that have been used to enhance the use of evidence for decision making are majorly educational. A few interventions have taken the form of modelling, guidelines and programming. Online solutions have also been seen to enhance the use of evidence for clinical practice of nurses.

Exploring Strategies to Mitigate the Adverse Health Impacts of Air Pollution on Children in India: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Air pollution poses a significant threat to global public health, contributing to high rates of mortality and morbidity. India, home to the world's largest population of children, is particularly affected. This study aims to identify effective strategies to mitigate the adverse health impacts of air pollution on this vulnerable group. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study utilized directed content analysis using a deductive approach and purposeful sampling to carry out in-depth interviews with researchers, academicians, paediatricians, public health experts, and climate change experts from different organizations in India. In total, 17 interviews were conducted over two months in March and April 2024 until data saturation was reached. RESULTS:  A total of 29 subcategories were extracted. The main sub-categories include strategies for reducing indoor emissions and multisectoral emission reduction, strategies to reduce exposure at home, schools and transit, strategies for public awareness, effective communication, health sector communication and awareness, and raising awareness by frontline workers and educational institutions, strategies for capacity building of health sector and frontline stakeholders, strategies for building research and knowledge translation, strategies for vertical and horizontal collaboration, strategies for child-centric policies, school closure policies, fiscal policies, comprehensive policymaking, sectoral policymaking, advocacy in policymaking, strategies for monitoring, and strategies for mother and child health. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that mitigating the adverse health impacts of pollution for children would entail a multi-pronged approach encompassing effective communication and education strategies and awareness raising of important stakeholders such as health professionals, community, grassroots-level workers, parents, teachers and children. Such strategies could be useful to trigger the desired change in behaviour of all concerned. Also, there is a need for collaboration and partnership between various stakeholders and ministries as policy-making bodies. There is a need to build on the research and strengthen the monitoring and surveillance.

The effects of shared decision making on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time: An umbrella review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effects of shared decision making (SDM) on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review and searched systematic reviews on SDM from PubMed, CINHAL, and Web of Science. We included reviews on SDM interventions used in a health care setting with patients. We assessed the eligibility of retrieved articles and evaluated whether the review addressed Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) characteristics. RESULTS: Out of 3678 records, 48 reviews were included. Half of the reviews focused exclusively on RCT studies (n = 21). A little less than half were focused specifically on decision aids (n = 23). Thirty-two reviews discussed CFIR characteristics explicitly or implicitly; the majority of which were specific to intervention characteristics. Reviews tended to cluster around patient populations and tended to be low or critically low to moderate in their quality. Reviews of SDM on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time were highly uncertain but often ranged from neutral to positive. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that SDM implementation did not typically increase costs or increase consultation time while having some neutral to positive benefits on outcomes and quality for certain populations. Gaps in knowledge remain including better research on the climate where SDM is most effective.

Challenges in institutionalizing evidence-informed priority setting for health service packages: a qualitative document and interview analysis from Iran.

BACKGROUND: Setting and implementing evidence-informed health service packages (HSPs) is crucial for improving health and demonstrating the effective use of evidence in real-world settings. Despite extensive training for large groups on evidence generation and utilization and establishing structures such as evidence-generation entities in many countries, the institutionalization of setting and implementing evidence-informed HSPs remains unachieved. This study aims to review the actions taken to set the HSP in Iran and to identify the challenges of institutionalizing the evidence-informed priority-setting process. METHODS: Relevant documents were obtained through website search, Google queries, expert consultations and library manual search. Subsequently, we conducted nine qualitative semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. The participants were purposively sampled to represent diverse backgrounds relevant to health policymaking and financing. These interviews were meticulously audio-recorded, transcribed and reviewed. We employed the framework analysis approach, guided by the Kuchenmüller et al. framework, to interpret data. RESULTS: Efforts to incorporate evidence-informed process in setting HSP in Iran began in the 1970s in the pilot project of primary health care. These initiatives continued through the Health Transformation Plan in 2015 and targeted disease-specific efforts in 2019 in recent years. However, full institutionalization remains a challenge. The principal challenges encompass legal gaps, methodological diversity, fragile partnerships, leadership changeovers, inadequate financial backing of HSP and the dearth of an accountability culture. These factors impede the seamless integration and enduring sustainability of evidence-informed practices, hindering collaborative decision-making and optimal resource allocation. CONCLUSIONS: Technical aspects of using evidence for policymaking alone will not ensure sustainability unless it achieves the necessary requirements for institutionalization. While addressing all challenges is crucial, the primary focus should be on required transparency and accountability, public participation with an intersectionality lens and making this process resilience to shocks. It is imperative to establish a robust legal framework and a strong and sustainable political commitment to embrace and drive change, ensuring sustainable progress.

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

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

Informing pandemic management in Germany with trustworthy living evidence syntheses and guideline development: lessons learned from the COVID-19 evidence ecosystem.

OBJECTIVES: We present the 'COVID-19 evidence ecosystem' (CEOsys) as a German network to inform pandemic management and to support clinical and public health decision-making. We discuss challenges faced when organizing the ecosystem and derive lessons learned for similar networks acting during pandemics or health-related crises. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Bringing together 18 university hospitals and additional institutions, CEOsys key activities included research prioritization, conducting living systematic reviews (LSRs), supporting evidence-based (living) guidelines, knowledge translation (KT), detecting research gaps, and deriving recommendations, backed by technical infrastructure and capacity building. RESULTS: CEOsys rapidly produced 31 high-quality evidence syntheses and supported three living guidelines on COVID-19-related topics, while also developing methodological procedures. Challenges included CEOsys' late initiation in relation to the pandemic outbreak, the delayed prioritization of research questions, the continuously evolving COVID-19-related evidence, and establishing a technical infrastructure. Methodological-clinical tandems, the cooperation with national guideline groups and international collaborations were key for efficiency. CONCLUSION: CEOsys provided a proof-of-concept for a functioning evidence ecosystem at the national level. Lessons learned include that similar networks should, among others, involve methodological and clinical key stakeholders early on, aim for (inter)national collaborations, and systematically evaluate their value. We particularly call for a sustainable network.

What role can 'health decision-makers' play in supporting knowledge translation of health and medical research?

CEmbedding research users into the research process can better support its translation into health systems and services. Still, the role of health decision-makers (HDMs) as research partners is poorly understood. HDMs, such as policymakers, administrators, directors or other managers, understand the broader contexts of a health service and have a mandate to facilitate change where appropriate, so they could play an important partnership role in research activities.

Co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching: a mixed methods case study within a review.

BACKGROUND: Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis. RESULTS: We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.

Health research evidence: its current usage in health planning, determinants and readiness to use knowledge translation tools among health planning teams in Tanzania-an exploratory mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Achieving universal health coverage requires using research evidence to inform decision-making. However, little information is available on the use of research evidence in planning in lower middle-income countries, including Tanzania. This paper presents a protocol that aims to investigate the usage of research evidence in health planning, determinants and readiness of the planning team members to use knowledge translation tools in Tanzania. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will employ a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design, with participants selected from national, regional and council levels. Qualitative data will be collected through a maximum of 52 in-depth interviews and 12 focused group discussions until saturation. To collect quantitative data, a structured questionnaire will be used to survey 422 participants, and a document review will be conducted from health facilities. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis, while descriptive and inferential analyses will be employed for quantitative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study participants will provide written informed consent, and all recorded data will be stored on a secured research server accessible only to the investigators. Ethical approval has been obtained from the University of Dodoma Research Ethics Committee (ref. MA.84/261/02/'A'/64/91). The findings of this study will inform policymakers, researchers and implementers in the country on the use of research evidence in decision-making. We will disseminate our findings through publications, conferences, workshops and interactive communication with national, regional, council and health facility planning teams.

Translational Bioethical Decision-Making: Human Brain Organoids as a Case Study.

In an earlier essay, I advocated that translational bioethics uses the public's values, determined through social science, in its analysis of translational science technologies. It may be unclear what those values might be, and whether such a translational ethics would necessarily conclude that cutting edge technologies should not be developed. In this essay, I show the public's values relevant to human brain organoids and argue that a translational bioethics analysis using these values would support continued organoid research.

Hybrid knowledge transfer for MARL based on action advising and experience sharing.

Multiagent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) has been well adopted due to its exceptional ability to solve multiagent decision-making problems. To further enhance learning efficiency, knowledge transfer algorithms have been developed, among which experience-sharing-based and action-advising-based transfer strategies share the mainstream. However, it is notable that, although there exist many successful applications of both strategies, they are not flawless. For the long-developed action-advising-based methods (namely KT-AA, short for knowledge transfer based on action advising), their data efficiency and scalability are not satisfactory. As for the newly proposed experience-sharing-based knowledge transfer methods (KT-ES), although the shortcomings of KT-AA have been partially overcome, they are incompetent to correct specific bad decisions in the later learning stage. To leverage the superiority of both KT-AA and KT-ES, this study proposes KT-Hybrid, a hybrid knowledge transfer approach. In the early learning phase, KT-ES methods are employed, expecting better data efficiency from KT-ES to enhance the policy to a basic level as soon as possible. Later, we focus on correcting specific errors made by the basic policy, trying to use KT-AA methods to further improve the performance. Simulations demonstrate that the proposed KT-Hybrid outperforms well-received action-advising- and experience-sharing-based methods.

Research outcomes informing the selection of public health interventions and strategies to implement them: A cross-sectional survey of Australian policy-maker and practitioner preferences.

BACKGROUND: A key role of public health policy-makers and practitioners is to ensure beneficial interventions are implemented effectively enough to yield improvements in public health. The use of evidence to guide public health decision-making to achieve this is recommended. However, few studies have examined the relative value, as reported by policy-makers and practitioners, of different broad research outcomes (that is, measures of cost, acceptability, and effectiveness). To guide the conduct of research and better inform public health policy and practice, this study aimed at describing the research outcomes that Australian policy-makers and practitioners consider important for their decision-making when selecting: (a) public health interventions; (b) strategies to support their implementation; and (c) to assess the differences in research outcome preferences between policy-makers and practitioners. METHOD: An online value-weighting survey was conducted with Australian public health policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of non-communicable disease prevention. Participants were presented with a list of research outcomes and were asked to select up to five they considered most critical to their decision-making. They then allocated 100 points across these - allocating more points to outcomes perceived as more important. Outcome lists were derived from a review and consolidation of evaluation and outcome frameworks in the fields of public health knowledge translation and implementation. We used descriptive statistics to report relative preferences overall and for policy-makers and practitioners separately. RESULTS: Of the 186 participants; 90 primarily identified as policy-makers and 96 as public health prevention practitioners. Overall, research outcomes of effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and sustainability were identified as the four most important outcomes when considering either interventions or strategies to implement them. Scores were similar for most outcomes between policy-makers and practitioners. CONCLUSION: For Australian policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of non-communicable disease prevention, outcomes related to effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and sustainability appear particularly important to their decisions about the interventions they select and the strategies they employ to implement them. The findings suggest researchers should seek to meet these information needs and prioritize the inclusion of such outcomes in their research and dissemination activities. The extent to which these outcomes are critical to informing the decision of policy-makers and practitioners working in other jurisdictions or contexts warrants further investigation.

The Power of Rapid Reviews for Bridging the Knowledge-to-Action Gap in Evidence-Based Virtual Health Care.

Despite the surge in popularity of virtual health care services as a means of delivering health care through technology, the integration of research evidence into practice remains a challenge. Rapid reviews, a type of time-efficient evidence synthesis, offer a potential solution to bridge the gap between knowledge and action. This paper aims to highlight the experiences of the Fraser Health Authority's Virtual Health team in conducting rapid reviews. This paper discusses the experiences of the Virtual Health team in conducting 15 rapid reviews over the course of 1.5 years and the benefit of involving diverse stakeholders including researchers, project and clinical leads, and students for the creation of user-friendly knowledge products to summarize results. The Virtual Health team found rapid reviews to be a valuable tool for evidence-informed decision-making in virtual health care. Involving stakeholders and focusing on implementation considerations are crucial for maximizing the impact of rapid reviews. Health care decision makers are encouraged to consider implementing rapid review processes to improve the translation of research evidence into practice, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and promoting a culture of evidence-informed care.

From Detection to Protection: The Role of Optical Sensors, Robots, and Artificial Intelligence in Modern Plant Disease Management.

In the past decade, there has been a recognized need for innovative methods to monitor and manage plant diseases, aiming to meet the precision demands of modern agriculture. Over the last 15 years, significant advances in the detection, monitoring, and management of plant diseases have been made, largely propelled by cutting-edge technologies. Recent advances in precision agriculture have been driven by sophisticated tools such as optical sensors, artificial intelligence, microsensor networks, and autonomous driving vehicles. These technologies have enabled the development of novel cropping systems, allowing for targeted management of crops, contrasting with the traditional, homogeneous treatment of large crop areas. The research in this field is usually a highly collaborative and interdisciplinary endeavor. It brings together experts from diverse fields such as plant pathology, computer science, statistics, engineering, and agronomy to forge comprehensive solutions. Despite the progress, translating the advancements in the precision of decision-making or automation into agricultural practice remains a challenge. The knowledge transfer to agricultural practice and extension has been particularly challenging. Enhancing the accuracy and timeliness of disease detection continues to be a priority, with data-driven artificial intelligence systems poised to play a pivotal role. This perspective article addresses critical questions and challenges faced in the implementation of digital technologies for plant disease management. It underscores the urgency of integrating innovative technological advances with traditional integrated pest management. It highlights unresolved issues regarding the establishment of control thresholds for site-specific treatments and the necessary alignment of digital technology use with regulatory frameworks. Importantly, the paper calls for intensified research efforts, widespread knowledge dissemination, and education to optimize the application of digital tools for plant disease management, recognizing the intersection of technology's potential with its current practical limitations.

Patient, caregiver and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Patient engagement and integrated knowledge translation (iKT) processes improve health outcomes and care experiences through meaningful partnerships in consensus-building initiatives and research. Consensus-building is essential for engaging a diverse group of experienced knowledge users in co-developing and supporting a solution where none readily exists or is less optimal. Patients and caregivers provide invaluable insights for building consensus in decision-making around healthcare, policy and research. However, despite emerging evidence, patient engagement remains sparse within consensus-building initiatives. Specifically, our research has identified a lack of opportunity for youth living with chronic health conditions and their caregivers to participate in developing consensus on indicators/benchmarks for transition into adult care. To bridge this gap and inform our consensus-building approach with youth/caregivers, this scoping review will synthesise the extent of the literature on patient and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following the scoping review methodology from Joanna Briggs Institute, published literature will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from inception to July 2023. Grey literature will be hand-searched. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of articles in a two-stage process, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Included studies must be consensus-building studies within the healthcare context that involve patient engagement strategies. Data from eligible studies will be extracted and charted on a standardised form. Abstracted data will be analysed quantitatively and descriptively, according to specific consensus methodologies, and patient engagement models and/or strategies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review protocol. The review process and findings will be shared with and informed by relevant knowledge users. Dissemination of findings will also include peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The results will offer new insights for supporting patient engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/beqjr.