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.

Collaboration and Partnership in a 5-Level Engagement Framework for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Management: A Patient-oriented Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: The management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) is complex, and patient engagement is essential for DFU healing, but it often comes down to the patient's consultation. Therefore, we sought to document patients' engagement in terms of collaboration and partnership for DFUs in 5 levels (direct care, organizational, policy level, research, and education), as well as strategies for patient engagement using an adapted engagement framework. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature from inception to April 2022 using the Joanna Briggs Institute method and a patient-oriented approach. We also consulted DFU stakeholders to obtain feedback on the findings. The data were extracted using PROGRESS+ factors for an equity lens. The effects of engagement were described using Bodenheimer's quadruple aims for value-based care. RESULTS: Of 4,211 potentially eligible records, 15 studies met our eligibility criteria, including 214 patients involved in engagement initiatives. Most studies were recent (9 of 15 since 2020) and involved patient engagement at the direct medical care level (8 of 15). Self-management (7 of 15) was the principal way to clinically engage the patients. None of the studies sought to define the direct influence of patient engagement on health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Very few studies described patients' characteristics. Engaged patients were typically men from high-income countries, in their 50s, with poorly managed type 2 diabetes. We found little rigorous research of patient engagement at all levels for DFUs. There is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in this area and to engage a diversity of patients.

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.

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).

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.

Extent and Predictors of Decision Regret among Informal Caregivers Making Decisions for a Loved One: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers often serve as decision makers for dependent or vulnerable individuals facing health care decisions. Decision regret is one of the most prevalent outcomes reported by informal caregivers who have made such decisions. OBJECTIVE: To examine levels of decision regret and its predictors among informal caregivers who have made health-related decisions for a loved one. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to November 2018. Participants were informal caregivers, and the outcome was decision regret as measured using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We performed a narrative synthesis and presented predictors of decision regret using a conceptual framework, dividing the predictors into decision antecedents, decision-making process, and decision outcomes. RESULTS: We included 16 of 3003 studies identified. Most studies (n = 13) reported a mean DRS score ranging from 7.0 to 32.3 out of 100 (median = 14.3). The methodological quality of studies was acceptable. We organized predictors and their estimated effects (ß) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as follows: decision antecedents (e.g., caregivers' desire to avoid the decision, OR 2.07, 95% CI [1.04-4.12], P = 0.04), decision-making process (e.g., caregivers' perception of effective decision making, ß = 0.49 [0.05, 0.93], P < 0.01), and decision outcomes (e.g., incontinence, OR = 4.4 [1.1, 18.1], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that informal caregivers' level of decision regret is generally low but is high for some decisions. We also identified predictors of regret during different stages of the decision-making process. These findings may guide future research on improving caregivers' experiences.

Improving the usefulness of evidence concerning the effectiveness of implementation strategies for knowledge products in primary healthcare: protocol for a series of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The literature on the implementation of knowledge products is extensive. However, this literature is still difficult to interpret for policymakers and other stakeholders when faced with choosing implementation strategies likely to bring about successful change in their health systems. This work has the particularity to examine the scope of this literature, and to clarify the effectiveness of implementation strategies for different knowledge products. Consequently, we aim to (1) determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature overviews; (2) produce a detailed portrait of the literature on implementation strategies for various knowledge products; and (3) assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies for each knowledge product identified and classify them. METHODS: We will use a three-phase approach consisting of a critical analysis of existing literature overviews, a systematic review of systematic reviews, and a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We will follow the Cochrane Methodology for each of the three phases. Our eligibility criteria are defined following a PICOS approach: Population, individuals or stakeholders participating in healthcare delivery, specifically, healthcare providers, caregivers, and end users; Intervention, any type of strategy aiming to implement a knowledge product including, but not limited to, a decision support tool, a clinical practice guideline, a policy brief, or a decision-making tool, a one-pager, or a health intervention; Comparison, any comparator will be considered; Outcomes, phases 1 and 2-any outcome related to implementation strategies including, but not limited to, the measures of adherence/fidelity to the use of knowledge products, their acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptability, implementation costs, penetration/reach and sustainability; phase 3-any additional outcome related to patients (psychosocial, health behavioral, and clinical outcomes) or healthcare professionals (behavioral and performance outcomes); Setting, primary healthcare has to be covered. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from their inception onwards. For each phase, two reviewers will independently perform the selection of studies, data extraction, and assess their methodological quality. We will analyze extracted data, and perform narrative syntheses, and meta-analyses when possible. DISCUSSION: Our results could inform not only the overviews' methodology but also the development of an online platform for the implementation strategies of knowledge products. This platform could be useful for stakeholders in implementation science. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol registered on Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/eb8w2/.

Essential items for reporting of scaling studies of health interventions (SUCCEED): protocol for a systematic review and Delphi process.

BACKGROUND: The lack of a reporting guideline for scaling of evidence-based practices (EBPs) studies has prompted the registration of the Standards for reporting studies assessing the impact of scaling strategies of EBPs (SUCCEED) with EQUATOR Network. The development of SUCCEED will be guided by the following main steps recommended for developing health research reporting guidelines. METHODS: Executive Committee. We established a committee composed of members of the core research team and of an advisory group. Systematic review. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework on 29 November 2019 (https://osf.io/vcwfx/). We will include reporting guidelines or other reports that may include items relevant to studies assessing the impact of scaling strategies. We will search the following electronic databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, from inception. In addition, we will systematically search websites of EQUATOR and other relevant organizations. Experts in the field of reporting guidelines will also be contacted. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers. A narrative analysis will be conducted to compile a list of items for the Delphi exercise. CONSENSUS PROCESS: We will invite panelists with expertise in: development of relevant reporting guidelines, methodologists, content experts, patient/member of the public, implementers, journal editors, and funders. We anticipated that three rounds of web-based Delphi consensus will be needed for an acceptable degree of agreement. We will use a 9-point scale (1 = extremely irrelevant to 9 = extremely relevant). Participants' response will be categorized as irrelevant (1-3), equivocal (4-6) and relevant (7-9). For each item, the consensus is reached if at least 80% of the participants' votes fall within the same category. The list of items from the final round will be discussed at face-to-face consensus meeting. Guideline validation. Participants will be authors of scaling studies. We will collect quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (semi-structured interview) data. Descriptive analyses will be conducted on quantitative data and constant comparative techniques on qualitative data. DISCUSSION: Essential items for reporting scaling studies will contribute to better reporting of scaling studies and facilitate the transparency and scaling of evidence-based health interventions.