Exploring the impact of information and communication technologies on loneliness and social isolation in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Recognizing the escalating public health concerns of loneliness and social isolation in aging populations, this study seeks to comprehensively explore the potential of information and communication technology (ICT)-based interventions to address these issues among older adults. This scoping review of reviews aims to map and synthesize existing evidence on the effectiveness and scope of ICT interventions targeting loneliness and social isolation in community-dwelling older adults, elucidating types of technology, impacts, facilitators, barriers, and research gaps. METHODS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute framework, we systematically searched eight diverse databases identifying relevant published reviews. We included English-written, peer-reviewed reviews of all types, with no limits regarding time of publication about ICTs targeting loneliness and/or social isolation for community-dwelling older adults. Eligible reviews were analysed and summarized, offering a holistic narrative of the reported types of ICTs and their impact, the identified facilitators and barriers influencing the implementation and adoption of ICT interventions, and the research gaps identified in the literature. RESULTS: The review included 39 publications published between 2012 and 2024, spanning systematic, scoping, and reviews of reviews. Various ICTs were reported, primarily social media virtual communities, followed by video-mediated friendly visits, conversational agents, social robots, exergames and online gameplay. Predominantly positive impacts on mitigating social isolation and loneliness were evident for these ICTs, although methodological diversity and contradictory findings complicated definite conclusions. Facilitators and barriers encompassed individual competencies, access and usage, and intervention design and implementation. Research gaps involved targeting specific subgroups, exploring innovative technologies, incorporating diverse study designs, improving research methodologies, and addressing usability and accessibility. Future research should focus on identifying elderly individuals who can benefit the most from ICT use, exploring novel technologies, using a wider range of study designs, and enhancing usability and accessibility considerations. CONCLUSIONS: This review sheds light on the diverse range of ICTs, their impact, and the facilitators and barriers associated with their use. Future investigations should prioritize refining outcome measures, addressing gender differences, and enhancing the usability and accessibility of interventions. The involvement of older adults in the design process and the exploration of technological training interventions hold promise in overcoming barriers.

Longitudinal Coadaptation of Older Adults With Wearables and Voice-Activated Virtual Assistants: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The integration of smart technologies, including wearables and voice-activated devices, is increasingly recognized for enhancing the independence and well-being of older adults. However, the long-term dynamics of their use and the coadaptation process with older adults remain poorly understood. This scoping review explores how interactions between older adults and smart technologies evolve over time to improve both user experience and technology utility. OBJECTIVE: This review synthesizes existing research on the coadaptation between older adults and smart technologies, focusing on longitudinal changes in use patterns, the effectiveness of technological adaptations, and the implications for future technology development and deployment to improve user experiences. METHODS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, this scoping review examined peer-reviewed papers from databases including Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PEDro, Ovid PsycINFO, and EBSCO CINAHL from the year 2000 to August 28, 2023, and included forward and backward searches. The search was updated on March 1, 2024. Empirical studies were included if they involved (1) individuals aged 55 years or older living independently and (2) focused on interactions and adaptations between older adults and wearables and voice-activated virtual assistants in interventions for a minimum period of 8 weeks. Data extraction was informed by the selection and optimization with compensation framework and the sex- and gender-based analysis plus theoretical framework and used a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: The search yielded 16,143 papers. Following title and abstract screening and a full-text review, 5 papers met the inclusion criteria. Study populations were mostly female participants and aged 73-83 years from the United States and engaged with voice-activated virtual assistants accessed through smart speakers and wearables. Users frequently used simple commands related to music and weather, integrating devices into daily routines. However, communication barriers often led to frustration due to devices' inability to recognize cues or provide personalized responses. The findings suggest that while older adults can integrate smart technologies into their lives, a lack of customization and user-friendly interfaces hinder long-term adoption and satisfaction. The studies highlight the need for technology to be further developed so they can better meet this demographic's evolving needs and call for research addressing small sample sizes and limited diversity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight a critical need for continued research into the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between smart technologies and older adults over time. Future studies should focus on more diverse populations and extend monitoring periods to provide deeper insights into the coadaptation process. Insights gained from this review are vital for informing the development of more intuitive, user-centric smart technology solutions to better support the aging population in maintaining independence and enhancing their quality of life. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/51129.

Exploring the structure of relative age effects research using citation network analysis.

Since the 1980s, research on relative age effects (RAEs) consistently shows that relatively older individuals are advantaged in sport and other contexts. With the recent proliferation of studies on RAEs, periodic knowledge synthesis becomes imperative. Our purpose was to conduct a cross-disciplinary citation network analysis of RAEs literature to enhance our knowledge of RAEs citation structures and the interconnectivity of RAEs studies. We analysed 484 RAEs articles found in Web of Science that were published before 2022. Descriptive results revealed a 12.6% annual growth rate for total RAEs articles published since 1980. The articles appeared in 151 journals, had 1,180 unique authors, and averaged 23.9 citations received. Three theoretical/review papers had the most substantial influence on the field. For the conceptual structure of the field, it was apparent that RAEs research focused mainly on sport performance, maturity, and competition. Regarding intellectual structure, three distinct clusters of articles were cited together, and 13 authorship clusters were detected with few between-cluster connections. The results describe a field with productivity but little interconnectivity among authors and papers. We offer insights into this trend and the role that influential authors/articles have in the field.

Searches as data: archiving and sharing search strategies using an institutional data repository.

Background: By defining search strategies and related database exports as code/scripts and data, librarians and information professionals can expand the mandate of research data management (RDM) infrastructure to include this work. This new initiative aimed to create a space in McGill University's institutional data repository for our librarians to deposit and share their search strategies for knowledge syntheses (KS). Case Presentation: The authors, a health sciences librarian and an RDM specialist, created a repository collection of librarian-authored knowledge synthesis (KS) searches in McGill University's Borealis Dataverse collection. We developed and hosted a half-day "Dataverse-a-thon" where we worked with a team of health sciences librarians to develop a standardized KS data management plan (DMP), search reporting documentation, Dataverse software training, and howto guidance for the repository. Conclusion: In addition to better documentation and tracking of KS searches at our institution, the KS Dataverse collection enables sharing of searches among colleagues with discoverable metadata fields for searching within deposited searches. While the initial creation of the DMP and documentation took about six hours, the subsequent deposit of search strategies into the institutional data repository requires minimal effort (e.g., 5-10 minutes on average per deposit). The Dataverse collection also empowers librarians to retain intellectual ownership over search strategies as valuable stand-alone research outputs and raise the visibility of their labor. Overall, institutional data repositories provide specific benefits in facilitating compliance both with PRISMA-S guidance and with RDM best practices.

Outcome domains measured in randomized controlled trials of physical activity for older adults: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Toward development of a core outcome set for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of physical activity (PA) interventions for older adults, the purpose of this study was to identify outcome domains and subdomains ('what' was measured) in previously published RCTs of PA for older adults. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review and searched Ovid MEDLINE for recently- published (2015-2021), English-language, RCTs of PA interventions for older adults (mean age 60+ yrs). We limited to articles published in Web of Science top-10 journals in general and internal medicine, geriatrics and gerontology, rehabilitation, and sports science. Two reviewers independently completed eligibility screening; two other reviewers abstracted trial descriptors and study outcomes. We classified study outcomes according to the standard outcome classification taxonomy endorsed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. RESULTS: Our search yielded 548 articles; 67 articles were eligible to be included. Of these, 82% were efficacy/effectiveness trials, 85% included both male and female participants, and 84% recruited community-dwelling older adults. Forty percent of articles reported on interventions that involved a combination of group and individual PAs, and 60% involved a combination of PA modes (e.g., aerobic, resistance). Trial sample size ranged from 14 to 2157 participants, with median (IQR) of 94 (57-517); 28,649 participants were included across all trials. We identified 21 unique outcome domains, spanning 4/5 possible core areas (physiological/clinical; life impact; resource use; adverse events). The five most commonly reported outcome domains were physical functioning (included in n=51 articles), musculoskeletal and connective tissue (n=30), general (n=26), cognitive functioning (n=16), and emotional functioning/wellbeing (n=14). Under these five outcome domains, we further identified 10 unique outcome subdomains (e.g., fall-related; body composition; quality of life). No outcome domains or subdomains were reported consistently in all RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: We found extensive variability in outcome domains and subdomains used in RCTs of PA for older adults, reflecting the broad range of potential health benefits derived from PA and also investigator interest to monitor a range of safety parameters related to adverse events. This study will inform development of a core outcome set to improve outcome reporting consistency and evidence quality.

Nurse practitioner/physician collaborative models of care: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, many long-term care (LTC) homes experienced difficulties in providing residents with access to primary care, typically delivered by community-based family physicians or nurse practitioners (NPs). During the pandemic, legislative changes in Ontario, Canada enabled NPs to act in the role of Medical Directors thereby empowering NPs to work to their full scope of practice. Emerging from this new context, it remains unclear how NPs and physicians will best work together as primary care providers. NP/physician collaborative models appear key to achieving optimal resident outcomes. This scoping review aims to map available evidence on existing collaborative models of care between NPs and physicians within LTC homes. METHODS: The review will be guided by the research question, "What are the structures, processes and outcomes of collaborative models of care involving NPs and Physicians in LTC homes?" This scoping review will be conducted according to the methods framework for scoping reviews outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by Levac et al., Colquhoun et al., and Daudt et al., as well as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Statement. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase + Embase Classic, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED, CINAHL, Ageline, and Scopus), grey literature, and reference lists of included articles will be searched. English language studies that describe NP and physician collaborative models within the LTC setting will be included. DISCUSSION: This scoping review will consolidate what is known about existing NP/physician collaborative models of care in LTC homes. Results will be used to inform the development of a collaborative practice framework for long-term care clinical leadership.

Professionals Evaluating Clients' Suitability for Digital Health and Social Care: Scoping Review of Assessment Instruments.

BACKGROUND: Increased digital health and social care services are generally considered to improve people's access to services. However, not everyone can equally access and use these resources. Health and social care professionals should assess clients' suitability for digital solutions, but to succeed, they need information about what to evaluate and how. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to identify evaluation tools that professionals can use when assessing clients' suitability for digital health and social care. We summarized the dimensions and the practical usefulness of the instruments. METHODS: The MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, Web of Science, and ASSIA databases were searched in February 2023 following the Joanna Briggs Institute's Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Studies were included if they focused on health and social care clients and professionals, examined clients' suitability for using digital health or social care, and applied related assessment methods in the direct client work of professionals. Studies focusing primarily on instruments intended for research use without clear applicability to professionals' practical contexts were excluded. Details of the eligible studies were extracted, and qualitative content analysis according to the research objectives was performed. RESULTS: A total of 19 articles introducing 12 different assessment instruments intended for the health care context were included in the review. No instruments were found for evaluating the suitability for digital social care. The instruments contained 60 dimensions of the client's suitability for digital health, which reflected four perspectives: (1) skill-based suitability, (2) suitability based on general ability to maintain health, (3) suitability based on attitude and experience, and (4) suitability based on practical matters. The described practical usefulness of the instruments included professionals' possibility to (1) identify clients most in need of education and support, (2) direct and recommend the right clients for the right digital services, (3) ensure that clients can use digital health, (4) improve effectiveness and maximize the provision of digital health, (5) develop and redesign services, and (6) empower clients. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the diverse assessment instruments available and the dimensions they measure, there seems to be no comprehensive evaluation tool for assessing clients' prerequisites to use digital solutions. It is important to further develop comprehensive screening tools applicable to professionals' busy work (both in health and social care) with defined threshold values for suitability.

Embedding rapid reviews in health policy and systems decision-making: Impacts and lessons learned from four low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Demand for rapid evidence-based syntheses to inform health policy and systems decision-making has increased worldwide, including in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To promote use of rapid syntheses in LMICs, the WHO's Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (AHPSR) created the Embedding Rapid Reviews in Health Systems Decision-Making (ERA) Initiative. Following a call for proposals, four LMICs were selected (Georgia, India, Malaysia and Zimbabwe) and supported for 1 year to embed rapid response platforms within a public institution with a health policy or systems decision-making mandate. METHODS: While the selected platforms had experience in health policy and systems research and evidence syntheses, platforms were less confident conducting rapid evidence syntheses. A technical assistance centre (TAC) was created from the outset to develop and lead a capacity-strengthening program for rapid syntheses, tailored to the platforms based on their original proposals and needs as assessed in a baseline questionnaire. The program included training in rapid synthesis methods, as well as generating synthesis demand, engaging knowledge users and ensuring knowledge uptake. Modalities included live training webinars, in-country workshops and support through phone, email and an online platform. LMICs provided regular updates on policy-makers' requests and the rapid products provided, as well as barriers, facilitators and impacts. Post-initiative, platforms were surveyed. RESULTS: Platforms provided rapid syntheses across a range of AHPSR themes, and successfully engaged national- and state-level policy-makers. Examples of substantial policy impact were observed, including for COVID-19. Although the post-initiative survey response rate was low, three quarters of those responding felt confident in their ability to conduct a rapid evidence synthesis. Lessons learned coalesced around three themes - the importance of context-specific expertise in conducting reviews, facilitating cross-platform learning, and planning for platform sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: The ERA initiative successfully established rapid response platforms in four LMICs. The short timeframe limited the number of rapid products produced, but there were examples of substantial impact and growing demand. We emphasize that LMICs can and should be involved not only in identifying and articulating needs but as co-designers in their own capacity-strengthening programs. More time is required to assess whether these platforms will be sustained for the long-term.

Controlled-release hydromorphone and risk of infection in adults: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence suggests that people who inject drugs (PWID) may be at an increased risk of developing infective endocarditis (IE), hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and/or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection from hydromorphone controlled-release formulation. The hypothesized mechanism is related to insolubility of the drug, which promotes reuse, leading to contamination of injecting equipment. However, this relationship has not been confirmed. We aimed to conduct a systematic review including adult PWID exposed to controlled-release hydromorphone and the risk of acquiring IE, HCV, and HIV. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Evidence Based Medicine reviews from inception until September 2021. Following pilot testing, two reviewers conducted all screening of citations and full-text articles, as well as abstracted data, and appraised risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Effective Practice and Organization of Care tool. Equity issues were examined using the PROGRESS-PLUS framework. Discrepancies were resolved consistently by a third reviewer. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity across the studies. RESULTS: After screening 3,231 citations from electronic databases, 722 citations from unpublished sources/reference scanning, and 626 full-text articles, five studies were included. Five were cohort studies, and one was a case-control study. The risk of bias varied across the studies. Two studies reported on gender, as well as other PROGRESS-PLUS criteria (race, housing, and employment). Three studies focused specifically on the controlled-release formulation of hydromorphone, whereas two studies focused on all formulations of hydromorphone. One retrospective cohort study found an association between controlled-release hydromorphone and IE, whereas a case-control study found no evidence of an association. One retrospective cohort study found an association between the number of hydromorphone controlled-release prescriptions and prevalence of HCV. None of the studies specifically reported on associations with HIV. DISCUSSION: Very few studies have examined the risk of IE, HCV, and HIV infection after exposure to controlled-release hydromorphone. Very low-quality and scant evidence suggests uncertainty around the risks of blood-borne infections, such as HCV and IE to PWID using this medication.

Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study.

Objective: To evaluate open science policies of imaging journals, and compliance to these policies in published articles. Methods: From imaging journals listed we extracted open science policy details: protocol registration, reporting guidelines, funding, ethics and conflicts of interest (COI), data sharing, and open access publishing. The 10 most recently published studies from each journal were assessed to determine adherence to these policies. We calculated the proportion of open science policies into an Open Science Score (OSS) for all journals and articles. We evaluated relationships between OSS and journal/article level variables. Results: 82 journals/820 articles were included. The OSS of journals and articles was 58.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Of the journals, 65.9% had registration and 78.1% had reporting guideline policies. 79.3% of journals were members of COPE, 81.7% had plagiarism policies, 100% required disclosure of funding, and 97.6% required disclosure of COI and ethics approval. 81.7% had data sharing policies and 15.9% were fully open access. 7.8% of articles had a registered protocol, 8.4% followed a reporting guideline, 77.4% disclosed funding, 88.7% disclosed COI, and 85.6% reported ethics approval. 12.3% of articles shared their data. 51% of articles were available through open access or as a preprint. OSS was higher for journal with DOAJ membership (80% vs 54.2%; P < .0001). Impact factor was not correlated with journal OSS. Knowledge synthesis articles has a higher OSS scores (44.5%) than prospective/retrospective studies (32.6%, 30.0%, P < .0001). Conclusion: Imaging journals endorsed just over half of open science practices considered; however, the application of these practices at the article level was lower.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Intermediate-Acting, Long-Acting, Ultralong-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus is increasing every year requiring substantial expenditure on treatment and complications. A systematic review was conducted on the cost-effectiveness of insulin formulations, including ultralong-, long-, or intermediate-acting insulin, and their biosimilar insulin equivalents. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HTA, and NHS EED were searched from inception to June 11, 2021. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were included if insulin formulations in adults (≥ 16 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus were evaluated. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, extracted study data, and appraised their quality using the Drummond 10-item checklist. Costs were converted to 2020 US dollars adjusting for inflation and purchasing power parity across currencies. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged widely across the studies. All pairwise comparisons (11 of 11, 100%) found that ultralong-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with other long-acting insulins, including a long-acting biosimilar. Most pairwise comparisons (24 of 27, 89%) concluded that long-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Few studies compared long-acting insulins with one another. CONCLUSIONS: Long-acting insulin may be cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Future studies should directly compare biosimilar options and long-acting insulin options and evaluate the long-term consequences of ultralong-acting insulins.

How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm.

INTRODUCTION: The exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SRs) presents challenges for decision makers seeking to answer clinical, public health or policy questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad et al. to choose the best SR across multiple. Our study aims to replicate author assessments using the Jadad algorithm to determine: (i) if we chose the same SR as the authors; and (ii) if we reach the same results. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database of SRs. We included any study using the Jadad algorithm. We used consensus building strategies to operationalise the algorithm and to ensure a consistent approach to interpretation. RESULTS: We identified 21 studies that used the Jadad algorithm to choose one or more SRs. In 62% (13/21) of cases, we were unable to replicate the Jadad assessment and ultimately chose a different SR than the authors. Overall, 18 out of the 21 (86%) independent Jadad assessments agreed in direction of the findings despite 13 having chosen a different SR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the Jadad algorithm is not reproducible between users as there are no prescriptive instructions about how to operationalise the algorithm. In the absence of a validated algorithm, we recommend that healthcare providers, policy makers, patients and researchers address conflicts between review findings by choosing the SR(s) with meta-analysis of RCTs that most closely resemble their clinical, public health, or policy question, are the most recent, comprehensive (i.e. number of included RCTs), and at the lowest risk of bias.

A mixed methodology for evaluating use of evidence in conservation planning.

Conservation practitioners widely recognize the importance of making decisions based on the best available evidence. However, the effectiveness of evidence use in conservation planning is rarely assessed, which limits opportunities to improve evidence-based practice. We devised a mixed methodology for empirically evaluating use of evidence that applies social science tools to systematically appraise what kinds of evidence are used in conservation planning, to what effect, and under what limitations. We applied our approach in a case study of the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), a leading land conservation organization. We conducted qualitative and quantitative analyses of 65 NCC planning documents (n = 13 in-depth) to identify patterns in evidence use, and surveyed 35 conservation planners to examine experiences of and barriers to using evidence. Although claims in plans contained a wide range of evidence types, 26% of claims were not referenced or associated with an identifiable source. Lack of evidence use was particularly apparent in claims associated with direct threats, particularly those identified as low (71% coded as insufficient or lacking evidence) or medium (45%) threats. Survey participants described relying heavily on practitioner experience and highlighted capacity limitations and disciplinary gaps in expertise among planning teams as barriers to using evidence effectively. We found that although time-intensive, this approach yielded actionable recommendations for improving evidence use in NCC conservation plans. Similar mixed-method assessments may streamline the process by including interviews and refining the document analysis frames to target issues or sections of concern. We suggest our method provides an accessible and robust point of departure for conservation practitioners to evaluate whether the use of conservation planning reflects in-house standards and more broadly recognized best practices.

RESUMEN: Los practicantes de la conservación reconocen ampliamente la importancia de tomar decisiones con base en la mejor evidencia disponible. Sin embargo, pocas veces se evalúa la efectividad del uso de evidencias en la planeación de la conservación, lo que limita las oportunidades para mejorar la práctica basada en evidencias. Diseñamos una metodología mixta para evaluar empíricamente el uso de evidencias que aplica herramientas de las ciencias sociales para estimar cuáles son los tipos de evidencia que se usan en la planeación de la conservación, con cuál efecto y con cuáles limitaciones. Aplicamos nuestra estrategia a un estudio de caso de la Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), una organización puntera en la conservación del suelo. Realizamos el análisis cualitativo y cuantitativo de 65 documentos de planeación de NCC (n = 13 a fondo) para identificar patrones en el uso de evidencias y encuestamos a 35 planeadores de la conservación para examinar las barreras y las experiencias del uso de evidencias. Aunque las afirmaciones en los planes contenían una amplia gama de tipos de evidencia, el 26% de éstas no estuvo referenciado o asociado con una fuente identificable. La falta del uso de evidencias fue particularmente evidente en las afirmaciones asociadas con amenazas directas, particularmente aquellas identificadas como amenaza menor (71% codificado como insuficiente o falto de evidencias) o media (45%). Los participantes de la encuesta describieron una fuerte dependencia de la experiencia de los practicantes y resaltaron las limitaciones de capacidades y brechas disciplinarias en la experiencia entre los equipos de planeación como barreras para el uso efectivo de las evidencias. Descubrimos que, aunque lleva tiempo, esta estrategia produjo recomendaciones viables para mejorar el uso de evidencias en los planes de conservación de la NCC. Las evaluaciones similares de métodos mixtos pueden simplificar el proceso al incluir entrevistas y refinar los marcos de análisis documental para enfocarse en temas o secciones de interés. Sugerimos que nuestro método proporciona un punto de partida accesible y sólido para que los practicantes de la conservación evalúen si el uso de la planeación de la conservación refleja los estándares internos y las mejores prácticas reconocidas más ampliamente. Una Metodología Mixta para la Evaluación del Uso de Evidencias en la Planeación de la Conservación.

Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Information specialists conducting searches for systematic reviews need to consider key questions around which and how many sources to search. This is particularly important for public health topics where evidence may be found in diverse sources. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to give an overview of recent studies on information retrieval guidance and methods that could be applied to public health evidence and used to guide future searches. METHODS: A literature search was performed in core databases and supplemented by browsing health information journals and citation searching. Results were sifted and reviewed. RESULTS: Seventy-two papers were found and grouped into themes covering sources and search techniques. Public health topics were poorly covered in this literature. DISCUSSION: Many researchers follow the recommendations to search multiple databases. The review topic influences decisions about sources. Additional sources covering grey literature eliminate bias but are time-consuming and difficult to search systematically. Public health searching is complex, often requiring searches in multidisciplinary sources and using additional methods. CONCLUSIONS: Search planning is advisable to enable decisions about which and how many sources to search. This could improve with more work on modelling search scenarios, particularly in public health topics, to examine where publications were found and guide future research.

Global trends health science libraries: Part 2.

This is the second of three articles which explore trends in health science libraries. It is based on a series of articles called New Directions in Health Science Libraries published in a HILJ regular feature (International Perspectives and Initiatives) between June 2017 and March 2020. The series covered 12 countries: The United States, Canada, Australia, China, England, two countries in Africa (Uganda and Tanzania) and five in Europe (Sweden, Romania, Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland). The commissioning editor identified potential authors and invited them to write a short piece. They were given a briefing sheet which said: 'Your article should serve as a road map, describing the key changes in the field and explain the factors driving the changes'. A review of the 12 articles identified 11 trends. This is the article which explores the trends four trends, using examples provided by the authors. The trends covered are: Involvement in systematic reviews and data synthesis; Professional development for health science librarians; Providing education and training to students, researchers, and clinicians; Supporting the delivery of health literacy.

Designing, planning, and conducting systematic reviews and other knowledge syntheses: Six key practical recommendations to improve feasibility and efficiency.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge syntheses, such as systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and realist reviews, are crucial tools to guide nursing practice, policy, and research. However, conducting high-quality knowledge syntheses is a complex and time-consuming endeavor. It is imperative for nursing students, clinicians, and researchers to be aware of key practical recommendations regarding the conduct of knowledge syntheses to improve the feasibility and efficiency of such projects. AIM: The aim of this paper was to discuss key practical recommendations for designing, planning, and conducting knowledge syntheses relevant to nursing policy, practice, and research. METHODS: The recommendations discussed are based on best-practice guidance about knowledge synthesis methodology proposed by The Campbell Collaboration (Campbell systematic reviews: Policies and guidelines, 2020), Cochrane (Cochrane training, 2019), and the Joanna Briggs Institute (The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual, 2020) and on strategies used by the authors to improve the feasibility and efficiency of knowledge syntheses. RESULTS: This paper highlights six key practical recommendations that nursing students, clinicians, and researchers should take into account when deciding to embark on a knowledge synthesis project: (1) determining if (and why) knowledge synthesis should be conducted; (2) selecting the appropriate type of knowledge synthesis, as well as the associated methodological guidance and reporting standards; (3) developing a search strategy that balances sensitivity and specificity; (4) writing a protocol and obtaining feedback; (5) determining the resources required to conduct the different stages of the knowledge synthesis; and (6) keeping an audit trail. Fifteen common types of knowledge synthesis are presented with their definitions, relevant methodological guidance, and reporting standards. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: The recommendations discussed, used in conjunction with appropriate methodological guidelines, may help ensure the success of a knowledge synthesis project by providing best-practice and experience-based guidance to newcomers in the field.

The Hierarchy-of-Hypotheses Approach: A Synthesis Method for Enhancing Theory Development in Ecology and Evolution.

In the current era of Big Data, existing synthesis tools such as formal meta-analyses are critical means to handle the deluge of information. However, there is a need for complementary tools that help to (a) organize evidence, (b) organize theory, and (c) closely connect evidence to theory. We present the hierarchy-of-hypotheses (HoH) approach to address these issues. In an HoH, hypotheses are conceptually and visually structured in a hierarchically nested way where the lower branches can be directly connected to empirical results. Used for organizing evidence, this tool allows researchers to conceptually connect empirical results derived through diverse approaches and to reveal under which circumstances hypotheses are applicable. Used for organizing theory, it allows researchers to uncover mechanistic components of hypotheses and previously neglected conceptual connections. In the present article, we offer guidance on how to build an HoH, provide examples from population and evolutionary biology and propose terminological clarifications.

Guidance for using artificial intelligence for title and abstract screening while conducting knowledge syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine. However, systematic reviews are time consuming and there is growing demand to produce evidence more quickly, while maintaining robust methods. In recent years, artificial intelligence and active-machine learning (AML) have been implemented into several SR software applications. As some of the barriers to adoption of new technologies are the challenges in set-up and how best to use these technologies, we have provided different situations and considerations for knowledge synthesis teams to consider when using artificial intelligence and AML for title and abstract screening. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the implementation and performance of AML across a set of ten historically completed systematic reviews. Based upon the findings from this work and in consideration of the barriers we have encountered and navigated during the past 24 months in using these tools prospectively in our research, we discussed and developed a series of practical recommendations for research teams to consider in seeking to implement AML tools for citation screening into their workflow. RESULTS: We developed a seven-step framework and provide guidance for when and how to integrate artificial intelligence and AML into the title and abstract screening process. Steps include: (1) Consulting with Knowledge user/Expert Panel; (2) Developing the search strategy; (3) Preparing your review team; (4) Preparing your database; (5) Building the initial training set; (6) Ongoing screening; and (7) Truncating screening. During Step 6 and/or 7, you may also choose to optimize your team, by shifting some members to other review stages (e.g., full-text screening, data extraction). CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence and, more specifically, AML are well-developed tools for title and abstract screening and can be integrated into the screening process in several ways. Regardless of the method chosen, transparent reporting of these methods is critical for future studies evaluating artificial intelligence and AML.

The quality of systematic reviews and other synthesis in the time of COVID-19.

COVID-19 research has been produced at an unprecedented rate and managing what is currently known is in part being accomplished through synthesis research. Here we evaluated how the need to rapidly produce syntheses has impacted the quality of the synthesis research. Thus, we sought to identify, evaluate and map the synthesis research on COVID-19 published up to 10 July 2020. A COVID-19 literature database was created using pre-specified COVID-19 search algorithms carried out in eight databases. We identified 863 citations considered to be synthesis research for evaluation in this project. Four-hundred and thirty-nine reviews were fully assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and rated as very low-quality (n = 145), low-quality (n = 80), medium-quality (n = 208) and high-quality (n = 151). The quality of these reviews fell short of what is expected for synthesis research with key domains being left out of the typical methodology. The increase in risk of bias due to non-adherence to systematic review methodology is unknown and prevents the reader from assessing the validity of the review. The responsibility to assure the quality is held by both producers and publishers of synthesis research and our findings indicate there is a need to equip readers with the expertise to evaluate the review conduct before using it for decision-making purposes.

Patient partners' perspectives of meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews: A patient-oriented rapid review.

BACKGROUND: A growing literature describes promising practices for patient-oriented research (POR) generally; however, those for systematic reviews are largely derived through the lens of a researcher. This rapid review sought to understand meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews from the patient partner (PP) perspective. DESIGN: The review team comprised PPs, librarians, SCPOR staff and academic faculty. We searched OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and core POR websites. Documents describing PP reflections on their involvement in synthesis reviews were included. Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Thematic analysis was employed to identify themes in the data regarding PP perceptions of engagement in synthesis reviews. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1386 citations. Eight journal articles and one blog post were included. Seven studies focused on conducting systematic reviews on a particular health or patient-related topic to which PP involvement was an important part and two studies focused specifically on the experience of including PP in synthesis reviews. PPs engaged in the review process through a variety of mechanisms, levels and stages of the review process. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) foster partnerships through team development, (2) provide opportunities for outcomes valued by PP and (3) strengthen the research endeavour. CONCLUSION: Fostering partnerships through team development is foundational for meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews. It requires sensitively balancing of various needs (eg overburdening with contributions). Meaningful involvement in reviews has both personal and research benefits. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the review.