Barriers and enablers to the implementation of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs): protocol for an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) are evidence-based, standardized questionnaires that can be used to capture patients' perspectives of their health and health care. While substantial investments have been made in the implementation of PROMs and PREMs, their use remains fragmented and limited in many settings. Analysis of multi-level barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs and PREMs has been hampered by the lack of use of state-of-the-art implementation science frameworks. This umbrella review aims to consolidate available evidence from existing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews covering factors that influence the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings. METHODS: An umbrella review of systematic and scoping reviews will be conducted following the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods reviews of studies focusing on the implementation of PROMs and/or PREMs in all healthcare settings will be considered for inclusion. Eight bibliographical databases will be searched. All review steps will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Included reviews will be appraised and data will be extracted in four steps: (1) assessing the methodological quality of reviews using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist; (2) extracting data from included reviews; (3) theory-based coding of barriers and enablers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0; and (4) identifying the barriers and enablers best supported by reviews using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Findings will be presented in diagrammatic and tabular forms in a manner that aligns with the objective and scope of this umbrella review, along with a narrative summary. DISCUSSION: This umbrella review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews will inform policymakers, researchers, managers, and clinicians regarding which factors hamper or enable the adoption and sustained use of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings, and the level of confidence in the evidence supporting these factors. Findings will orient the selection and adaptation of implementation strategies tailored to the factors identified. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023421845.

Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

Motivation to participate and attrition factors in a COVID-19 biobank: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Biobanque québécoise de la COVID-19 (Quebec Biobank for COVID-19, or BQC19) is a provincial initiative that aims to manage the longitudinal collection, storage, and sharing of biological samples and clinical data related to COVID-19. During the study, BQC19 investigators reported a high loss-to-follow-up rate. The current study aimed to explore motivational and attrition factors from the perspective of BQC19 participants and health care and research professionals. METHODS: This was an inductive exploratory qualitative study. Using a theoretical sampling approach, a sample of BQC19 participants and professionals were invited to participate via semi-structured interviews. Topics included motivations to participate; participants' fears, doubts, and barriers to participation; and professionals' experiences with biobanking during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with BQC19 participants (n = 23) and professionals (n = 17) from 8 clinical data collection sites. Motivations included the contribution to science and society in crisis, self-worth, and interactions with medical professionals. Reasons for attrition included logistical barriers, negative attitudes about public health measures or genomic studies, fear of clinical settings, and a desire to move on from COVID-19. Motivations and barriers seemed to evolve over time and with COVID-19 trends and surges. Certain situations were associated with attrition, such as when patients experienced indirect verbal consent during hospitalization. Barriers related to human and material resources and containment/prevention measures limited the ability of research teams to recruit and retain participants, especially in the ever-evolving context of crisis. CONCLUSION: The pandemic setting impacted participation and attrition, either by influencing participants' motivations and barriers or by affecting research teams' ability to recruit and retain participants. Longitudinal and/or biobanking studies in a public health crisis setting should consider these factors to limit attrition.

Development of a patient-reported outcome measure of digital health literacy for chronic patients: results of a French international online Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: A psychometrically robust patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess digital health literacy for chronic patients is needed in the context of digital health. We defined measurement constructs for a new PROM in previous studies using a systematic review, a qualitative description of constructs from patients, health professionals and an item pool identification process. This study aimed to evaluate the content validity of a digital health literacy PROM for chronic patients using an e-Delphi technique. METHODS: An international three-round online Delphi (e-Delphi) study was conducted among a francophone expert panel gathering academics, clinicians and patient partners. These experts rated the relevance, improvability, and self-ratability of each construct (n = 5) and items (n = 14) of the preliminary version of the PROM on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus attainment was defined as strong if ≥ 70% panelists agree or strongly agree. A qualitative analysis of comments was carried out to describe personal coping strategies in healthcare expressed by the panel. Qualitative results were presented using a conceptually clustered matrix. RESULTS: Thirty-four experts completed the study (with 10% attrition at the second round and 5% at the third round). The panel included mostly nurses working in clinical practice and academics from nursing science, medicine, public health background and patient partners. Five items were excluded, and one question was added during the consensus attainment process. Qualitative comments describing the panel view of coping strategies in healthcare were analysed. Results showed two important themes that underpin most of personal coping strategies related to using information and communications technologies: 1) questionable patient capacity to assess digital health literacy, 2) digital devices as a factor influencing patient and care. CONCLUSION: Consensus was reached on the relevance, improvability, and self-ratability of 5 constructs and 11 items for a digital health literacy PROM. Evaluation of e-health programs requires validated measurement of digital health literacy including the empowerment construct. This new PROM appears as a relevant tool, but requires further validation.

Effectiveness of Interventions to Improve Digital Health Literacy in Forced Migrant Populations: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital health literacy is considered a health determinant that can influence improved health and well-being, health equity, and the reduction of social health inequalities. Therefore, it serves as an asset for individuals to promote their health. However, low digital health literacy is a major problem among forced migrant populations. They do not always have the capacity and skills to access digital health resources and use them appropriately. To our knowledge, no studies are currently available to examine effective interventions for improving digital health literacy among forced migrant populations. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a systematic review that aims to assess the effectiveness of digital health literacy interventions among forced migrant populations. With this review, our objectives are as follows: (1) identify interventions designed to improve digital health literacy among forced migrant populations, including interventions aimed at creating enabling conditions or environments that cater to the needs and expectations of forced migrants limited by low levels of digital health literacy, with the goal of facilitating their access to and use of eHealth resources; (2) define the categories and describe the characteristics of these interventions, which are designed to enhance the abilities of forced migrants or adapt digital health services to meet the needs and expectations of forced migrant populations. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review will be conducted according to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) checklist. The research will be conducted in an iterative process among the different authors. With the help of a medical information specialist, a specific search strategy will be formulated for the 6 most relevant databases (ie, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier, PsycINFO, and the Google Scholar search engine). A literature search covering studies published between 2000 and 2022 has already been conducted. Two reviewers then proceeded, individually and independently, to conduct a double selection of titles, abstracts, and then full texts. Data extraction will be conducted by a reviewer and validated by a senior researcher. We will use the narrative synthesis method (ie, structured narrative summaries of key themes) to present a comprehensive picture of effective digital health literacy interventions among forced migrant populations and the success factors of these interventions. RESULTS: The search strategy and literature search were completed in December 2022. A total of 1232 articles were identified. The first selection was completed in July 2023. The second selection is still in progress. The publication of the systematic review is scheduled for December 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This mixed methods systematic review will provide comprehensive knowledge on effective interventions for digital literacy among forced migrant populations. The evidence generated will further inform stakeholders and aid decision makers in promoting equitable access to and use of digital health resources for forced migrant populations and the general population in host countries. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/50798.

Implementation model for a national learning health system (IMPLEMENT-National LHS): a concept analysis and systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite efforts and repeated calls to improve the organisation and quality of healthcare and services, and in view of the many challenges facing health systems, the results and capacity to adapt and integrate innovations and new knowledge remain suboptimal. Learning health systems (LHS) may be an effective model to accelerate the application of research for real quality improvement in healthcare. However, while recognising the enormous potential of LHS, the literature suggests the model remains more of an aspiration than a reality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To reach a fine understanding of the implementation of the concepts involved in LHS, we will use a hybrid method which combines concept analyses with systematic review methodology. We will use a two-step analysis, a content analysis to analyse the definitions, uses and attributes of the concept and a systematic review to analyse the concept's implementation mechanisms. We will search eight databases and grey literature and present a broad synthesis of the available evidence regarding design, implementation and evaluation of LHS in a multilevel perspective. We will follow the latest Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement for conducting and reporting a systematic review. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria followed by full-text screening of potentially relevant articles for final inclusion decision. Conflicts will be resolved with a senior author. We will include published primary studies that use qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. The assessment of risk of bias will be made using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review is exempt from ethics approval. The results formulated will highlight evidence-based interventions that support the implementation of a national LHS. They will be of particular interest to decision makers, researchers, managers, clinicians and patients allowing finally to implement the promising proposal of LHSs at national scale. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023393565.

Clinical Integration of Digital Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Primary Health Care for Chronic Disease Management: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Health measurement guides policies and health care decisions are necessary to describe and attain the quintuple aim of improving patient experience, population health, care team well-being, health care costs, and equity. In the primary care setting, patient-reported outcome measurement allows outcome comparisons within and across settings and helps improve the clinical management of patients. However, these digital patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are still not adapted to the clinical context of primary health care, which is an indication of the complexity of integrating these tools in this context. We must then gather evidence of their impact on chronic disease management in primary health care and understand the characteristics of effective implementation. OBJECTIVE: We will conduct a systematic review to identify and assess the impact of electronic PROMs (ePROMs) implementation in primary health care for chronic disease management. Our specific objectives are to (1) determine the impact of ePROMs in primary health care for chronic disease management and (2) compare and contrast characteristics of effective ePROMs' implementation strategies. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review of the literature in accordance with the guidelines of the Cochrane Methods Group and in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for its reporting. A specific search strategy was developed for relevant databases to identify studies. Two reviewers will independently apply the inclusion criteria using full texts and will extract the data. We will use a 2-phase sequential mixed methods synthesis design by conducting a qualitative synthesis first, and use its results to perform a quantitative synthesis. RESULTS: This study was initiated in June 2022 by assembling the research team and the knowledge transfer committee. The preliminary search strategy will be developed and completed in September 2022. The main search strategy, data collection, study selection, and application of inclusion criteria were completed between October and December 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this review will help support implementation efforts to accelerate innovations and digital adoption for primary health care and will be relevant for improving clinical management of chronic diseases and health care services and policies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022333513; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=333513. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48155.

Understanding the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care experiences of people with mental-physical multimorbidity: protocol for a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care and other health services have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet the consequences of these service disruptions on patients' care experiences remain largely unstudied. People with mental-physical multimorbidity are vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic, and to sudden service disruptions. It is thus essential to better understand how their care experiences have been impacted by the current pandemic. This study aims to improve understanding of the care experiences of people with mental-physical multimorbidity during the pandemic and identify strategies to enhance these experiences. METHODS: We will conduct a mixed-methods study with multi-phase approach involving four distinct phases. Phase 1 will be a qualitative descriptive study in which we interview individuals with mental-physical multimorbidity and health professionals in order to explore the impacts of the pandemic on care experiences, as well as their perspectives on how care can be improved. The results of this phase will inform the design of study phases 2 and 3. Phase 2 will involve journey mapping exercises with a sub-group of participants with mental-physical multimorbidity to visually map out their care interactions and experiences over time and the critical moments that shaped their experiences. Phase 3 will involve an online, cross-sectional survey of care experiences administered to a larger group of people with mental disorders and/or chronic physical conditions. In phase 4, deliberative dialogues will be held with key partners to discuss and plan strategies for improving the delivery of care to people with mental-physical multimorbidity. Pre-dialogue workshops will enable us to synthesize an prepare the results from the previous three study phases. DISCUSSION: Our study results will generate much needed evidence of the positive and negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care experiences of people with mental-physical multimorbidity and shed light on strategies that could improve care quality and experiences.

Risk of Bias Mitigation for Vulnerable and Diverse Groups in Community-Based Primary Health Care Artificial Intelligence Models: Protocol for a Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: The current literature identifies several potential benefits of artificial intelligence models for populations' health and health care systems' efficiency. However, there is a lack of understanding on how the risk of bias is considered in the development of primary health care and community health service artificial intelligence algorithms and to what extent they perpetuate or introduce potential biases toward groups that could be considered vulnerable in terms of their characteristics. To the best of our knowledge, no reviews are currently available to identify relevant methods to assess the risk of bias in these algorithms. The primary research question of this review is which strategies can assess the risk of bias in primary health care algorithms toward vulnerable or diverse groups? OBJECTIVE: This review aims to identify relevant methods to assess the risk of bias toward vulnerable or diverse groups in the development or deployment of algorithms in community-based primary health care and mitigation interventions deployed to promote and increase equity, diversity, and inclusion. This review looks at what attempts to mitigate bias have been documented and which vulnerable or diverse groups have been considered. METHODS: A rapid systematic review of the scientific literature will be conducted. In November 2022, an information specialist developed a specific search strategy based on the main concepts of our primary review question in 4 relevant databases in the last 5 years. We completed the search strategy in December 2022, and 1022 sources were identified. Since February 2023, two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts on the Covidence systematic review software. Conflicts are solved through consensus and discussion with a senior researcher. We include all studies on methods developed or tested to assess the risk of bias in algorithms that are relevant in community-based primary health care. RESULTS: In early May 2023, almost 47% (479/1022) of the titles and abstracts have been screened. We completed this first stage in May 2023. In June and July 2023, two reviewers will independently apply the same criteria to full texts, and all exclusion motives will be recorded. Data from selected studies will be extracted using a validated grid in August and analyzed in September 2023. Results will be presented using structured qualitative narrative summaries and submitted for publication by the end of 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The approach to identifying methods and target populations of this review is primarily qualitative. However, we will consider a meta-analysis if quantitative data and results are sufficient. This review will develop structured qualitative summaries of strategies to mitigate bias toward vulnerable populations and diverse groups in artificial intelligence models. This could be useful to researchers and other stakeholders to identify potential sources of bias in algorithms and try to reduce or eliminate them. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries qbph8; https://osf.io/qbph8. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46684.

The impact of technology systems and level of support in digital mental health interventions: a secondary meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people with a chronic disease (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, COPD) have more than one concurrent condition and are also at higher risk for developing comorbidities in mental health, including anxiety and depression. There is an urgent need for more relevant and accurate data on digital interventions in this area to prepare for an increase demand for mental health services. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of the digital mental health interventions for people with comorbid physical and mental chronic diseases to compare the effect of technology systems and level of support. METHODS: This secondary meta-analysis follows a rapid review of systematic reviews, a virtual workshop with knowledge users to identify research questions and a modified Delphi study to guide research methods: What types of digital health interventions (according to a recognized categorization) are the most effective for the management of concomitant mental health and chronic disease conditions in adults? We conducted a secondary analysis of the primary studies identified in the rapid review. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts and applied inclusion criteria: RCT design using a digital mental health intervention in a population of adults with another chronic condition, published after 2010 in French or English, and including an outcome measurement of anxiety or depression. RESULTS: Seven hundred eight primary studies were extracted from the systematic reviews and 84 primary studies met the inclusion criteria Digital mental health interventions were significantly more effective than in-person care for both anxiety and depression outcomes. Online messaging was the most effective technology to improve anxiety and depression scores; however, all technology types were effective. Interventions partially supported by healthcare professionals were more effective than self-administered. CONCLUSIONS: While our meta-analysis identifies digital intervention's characteristics are associated with better effectiveness, all technologies and levels of support could be used considering implementation context and population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review is registered in the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Service (ID 75).

Engaging patients and citizens in digital health technology development through the virtual space.

Digital technologies are increasingly empowering individuals to take charge of their health and improve their well-being. However, there are disparities in access related to demographic, economic, and sociocultural factors that result in exclusion from the use of digital technologies for different groups of the population. The development of digital technology in health is a powerful lever for improving care and services, but also brings risks for certain users in vulnerable situations. Increased digital health inequalities are associated with limited digital literacy, lack of interest, and low levels of self-efficacy in using technology. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic healthcare systems, the leap to digital is essential. To foster responsible innovation and optimal use of digital health by all, including vulnerable groups, we propose that patient and citizen engagement must be an essential component of the research strategy. Patient partners will define expectations and establish research priorities using their experiential knowledge, while benefiting from rich exposure to the research process to increase their self-efficacy and digital literacy. We will support this proposition with an operationalised example aiming to implement a Virtual Community of Patients and Citizens Partners (COMVIP), a digital tool co-created with patients and public experts, as active team members in research. Founded on the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion, this base of citizen expertise will assemble individuals from different backgrounds and literacy levels living in vulnerable situations to acquire knowledge, and share their experiences, while contributing actively in the co-development of innovative strategies and health technology assessment.

Existing eHealth Solutions for Older Adults Living With Neurocognitive Disorders (Mild and Major) or Dementia and Their Informal Caregivers: Protocol for an Environmental Scan.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is one of the main public health priorities for current and future societies worldwide. Over the past years, eHealth solutions have added numerous promising solutions to enhance the health and wellness of people living with dementia-related cognitive problems and their primary caregivers. Previous studies have shown that an environmental scan identifies the knowledge-to-action gap meaningfully. This paper presents the protocol of an environmental scan to monitor the currently available eHealth solutions targeting dementia and other neurocognitive disorders against selected attributes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the characteristics of currently available eHealth solutions recommended for older adults with cognitive problems and their informal caregivers. To inform the recommendations regarding eHealth solutions for these people, it is important to obtain a comprehensive view of currently available technologies and document their outcomes and conditions of success. METHODS: We will perform an environmental scan of available eHealth solutions for older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia and their informal caregivers. Potential solutions will be initially identified from a previous systematic review. We will also conduct targeted searches for gray literature on Google and specialized websites covering the regions of Canada and Europe. Technological tools will be scanned based on a preformatted extraction grid. The relevance and efficiency based on the selected attributes will be assessed. RESULTS: We will prioritize relevant solutions based on the needs and preferences identified from a qualitative study among older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia and their informal caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: This environmental scan will identify eHealth solutions that are currently available and scientifically appraised for older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia and their informal caregivers. This knowledge will inform the development of a decision support tool to assist older adults and their informal caregivers in their search for adequate eHealth solutions according to their needs and preferences based on trustable information. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/41015.

Revising the advanced access model pillars: a multimethod study.

BACKGROUND: The advanced access model was developed 20 years ago and has been implemented in several countries. We aimed to revise and operationalize the pillars and subpillars of the advanced access model based on its contemporary practice by professionals in primary health care. METHODS: This multimethod sequential study was informed by a literature review and an expert panel of provincial and local decision-makers, primary health care clinic members (family physicians, nurses and administrative staff), patients and researchers from the province of Quebec. Throughout the consultation process, participants were asked to develop a common vision of the pillars and subpillars that make up the advanced access model and to react to suggested definitions or content. RESULTS: The revised advanced access model is defined by 5 pillars, of which 2 were updated from the original model ("Appointment system" and "Interprofessional practice"), 1 was merged with a revised pillar ("Develop contingency plans" with "Planning of needs and supply") and 1 underwent major transformations ("Backlog reduction" to "Continuous adjustment"). A new pillar concerning communication emerged from the consultation process. Subsequent steps for operationalizing definitions of subpillars confirmed the nature of the revised advanced access pillars and stabilized their content. INTERPRETATION: The overall consultation process resulted in a revised contemporary advanced access model, with strong consensus among participating experts. The revised model will be used to develop a reflective tool for primary health care professionals to evaluate their advanced access practice.

Interactive Conversational Agents for Health Promotion, Prevention, and Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Systematic Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Interactive conversational agents, also known as "chatbots," are computer programs that use natural language processing to engage in conversations with humans to provide or collect information. Although the literature on the development and use of chatbots for health interventions is growing, important knowledge gaps remain, such as identifying design aspects relevant to health care and functions to offer transparency in decision-making automation. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a scoping review that aims to identify and categorize the interactive conversational agents currently used in health care. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic scoping review will be conducted according to the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the guidance of Peters et al for systematic scoping reviews. A specific search strategy will be formulated for 5 of the most relevant databases to identify studies published in the last 20 years. Two reviewers will independently apply the inclusion criteria using the full texts and extract data. We will use structured narrative summaries of main themes to present a portrait of the current scope of available interactive conversational agents targeting health promotion, prevention, and care. We will also summarize the differences and similarities between these conversational agents. RESULTS: The search strategy and screening steps were completed in March 2022. Data extraction and analysis started in May 2022, and the results are expected to be published in October 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This fundamental knowledge will be useful for the development of interactive conversational agents adapted to specific groups in vulnerable situations in health care and community settings. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/40265.

eHealth literacy measurement tools: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Improving eHealth literacy (eHL) is one of the biggest challenges currently facing the global healthcare community. Indeed the use of digital services has the potential to engage patients in care as well as improve the effectiveness of chronic disease self-management, it remains highly dependent on a patient's specific skills and experiences in the health care systems. Although eHealth literacy has gained momentum in the past decade, it remains an underresearched area, particularly eHealth literacy measurement. The aim of the review is to identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of eHealth literacy for adult populations and to summarize the evidence on their psychometric properties. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic literature review of the tools used to measure eHealth literacy for adult population. The search strategy aims to find published studies. A three-step search strategy will be used in this review. Published studies will be searched in CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception until end. Grey literature will be searched to find theses. Database search strategies will be formulated and tested with the assistance of an expert Health Sciences Librarian. The selection of studies will be done by two independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved through consensus, and a third reviewer will solve discrepancies. Furthermore, two reviewers will independently evaluate the methodological rigor of the instruments development and testing and assign a grade using the standardized Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Disagreements will be discussed with a third reviewer, expert in psychometrics. Extracted data will be aggregated and analyzed to produce a set of synthesized findings that will be used to develop evidence-informed recommendations in regard of eHL instruments. We will present a synthesis of all instruments, their psychometric properties, and make recommendations for eHL instrument selection in practice. Reporting will be informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis and a PRISMA flow diagram. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will summarize the evidence on the psychometric properties of PROMs instruments used to measure eHL and will help clinicians, managers, and policy-makers to select an appropriate instrument. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021232765.

Assessing facilitating conditions and barriers for innovation implementation in Canadian long-term care homes: a research protocol.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected the health and care of older adults, with particularly negative consequences for those residing in long-term care homes (LTCH) and retirement homes (RH). To inform the implementation of interventions with the most potential for impact, Healthcare Excellence Canada identified six promising practices and policy options that can be introduced to ensure that LTCH and RH are better prepared for potential future outbreaks. A total of 22 implementation science teams (ISTs) were funded to support LTCH and RH across Canada in their implementation of these practices. This study aims to identify the enablers and barriers to the successful implementation of evidence-based practices and the impact of intervention in LTCH and RH across Canada. METHODS: A survey-based longitudinal correlational design will be used. The Organizational Readiness for Knowledge Translation (OR4KT) tool will be used to assess the readiness of LTCH and RH to implement the selected practice. The OR4KT includes 59 questions and takes about 15 min to complete. Five to ten respondents per organization, holding different job positions, will be invited by the ISTs to complete the OR4KT in 91 LTCH or RH across Canada at the beginning of the project (T1) and 6 months after the first measurement (T2). DISCUSSION: The study will provide a benchmark for assessing the readiness of LTCH and RH to implement evidence-based practices. It will also inform decision-makers about barriers and facilitators that influence the integration of promising practices in these organizations.

Classification of Digital Mental Health Interventions: A Rapid Review and Framework Proposal.

The modern context of mental health interventions asks for an inclusion of digital solutions to the face-to-face approach, providing better access and reduced inequity for patients. The current classification of digital mental health interventions can be system specific (mobile apps) or general (virtual therapy), which causes inadequacy in applications. The goal of this study was to develop a framework to improve digital mental health interventions classification. We performed a rapid review of the literature on existing digital mental health interventions frameworks. We identified four existing frameworks, extracted their purpose, categories and items, completed a thematic analysis and formulated a four domains framework proposal. This framework allows to classify digital mental health interventions on their system, function, time and facilitation, which should facilitate our understanding of the effect of singular characteristics on patient outcomes.

Development of a self-reported reflective tool on advanced access to support primary healthcare providers: study protocol of a mixed-method research design using an e-Delphi survey.

INTRODUCTION: Timely access is one of the cornerstones of strong primary healthcare (PHC). New models to increase timely access have emerged across the world, including advanced access (AA). Recently in Quebec, Canada, the AA model has spread widely across the province. The model has largely been implemented by PHC professionals with important variations; however, a tool to assess their practice improvement within AA is lacking. The general objective of this study is to develop a self-reported online reflective tool that will guide PHC professionals' reflection on their individual AA practice and formulation of recommendations for improvement. Specific objectives are: (1) operationalisation of the pillars and subpillars of AA; (2) development of a self-reported questionnaire; and (3) evaluation of the psychometrics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The pillars composing Murray's model of AA will first be reviewed in collaboration with PHC professional and stakeholders, patients and researchers in a face-to-face meeting, with the goal to establish consensus on the pillars and subpillars of AA. Leading from these definitions, items will be identified for evaluation through an e-Delphi consultation. Three rounds are planned in 2020-2021 with a group of 20-25 experts. A repository of recommendations on how to improve one's AA practice will be populated based on the literature and enriched by our experts throughout the consultation. Median and measures of dispersions will be used to evaluate agreement. The resulting tool will then be evaluated by PHC professionals for psychometrics in 2021-2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Centre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Montérégie-Centre Scientific Research Committee approved the protocol, and the Research Ethics Board provided ethics approval (2020-441, CP 980475). Dissemination plan is a mix of community diffusion through and for our partners and to the scientific community including peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Evaluating the implementation of interdisciplinary patient-centred care intervention for people with multimorbidity in primary care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: A patient-centred care interdisciplinary pragmatic intervention to support self-management for patients with multimorbidity was implemented in one region of Quebec, Canada. This embedded study aimed to evaluate the process of implementation. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative study was conducted in 2016-2017 using semistructured individual interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide the data coding, analysis and reporting of the findings. SETTING: The study took place in seven Family Medicine Groups in one region (Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean) of Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Ten managers (including two family physicians) and 19 healthcare professionals (HCPs), nurses, kinesiologists, nutritionists and a respiratory therapist, were interviewed. RESULTS: Many key elements within the five CFIR domains were identified as impacting the implementation of the intervention : (1) intervention characteristics-evidence strength and quality, design quality and packaging, relative advantage and complexity; (2) outer setting-patients' needs and resources, external policies and incentives; (3) inner setting-structural characteristics, networks and communication, culture, compatibility, readiness for implementation and leadership engagement; (4) characteristics of the managers and HCPs-knowledge and belief about the intervention; (5) process-planning, opinion leaders, formally appointed internal implementation leaders, reflecting and evaluating. CONCLUSION: This study revealed the organisational and contextual aspects of the implementation based on different and complementary perspectives. With the growing demand for interdisciplinary teams in primary care, we believe that our insights will be helpful for practices, researchers, and policymakers interested in the implementation of disease prevention and management programmes for people with multiple chronic conditions in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02789800.

Evaluating the content of a patient-reported outcome measure for people with multimorbidity: a Delphi consensus.

PURPOSE: Evidence supporting multimorbidity-adapted interventions is scarce, mostly due to a lack of adapted outcome measures. Measurement constructs for a novel patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) were defined in previous studies using a literature review, a qualitative description from stakeholders, and an item pool identification process. The aim of this study was to attain consensus on the content of this novel PROM. METHODS: A three-round electronic modified Delphi technique was conducted using an academic and clinical expert panel. Using a Likert scale, the panel rated the relevance, improvability, and self-ratability of each construct and item of the preliminary version of the PROM. The main outcome was consensus attainment, defined as strong (≥ 70%), moderate (50-69%) or low agreement (< 50%). Constructs and items with strong consensus were kept, moderate were sent to the next round and low agreement were rejected. RESULTS: From the 61 experts contacted, 39 participated in the first round of the Delphi, with a 12.8% attrition at the second round (n = 34) and 38.2% at the third round (n = 21). The panel included mostly female academic experts from nursing and medicine backgrounds. The preliminary PROM included 19 constructs and 70 items; from these, 16 constructs and 50 items attained consensus. The consensus attainment process excluded three constructs and their items: awareness, weight control and social integration. CONCLUSION: Consensus was reached for a patient-reported outcome measure adapted for people with multimorbidity including 50 relevant, improvable and self-ratable items categorized under 16 constructs. As more interventions tailored to multimorbidity are implemented, there is an increasing need for a valid measure of the effectiveness of these interventions.