BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews (ScRs) (PRISMA-ScR) was published in 2018 to provide reporting guidance. A substantial increase in published ScRs in recent years coupled with the omission or lack of engagement of interest-holders, including patients and public partners, as research partners throughout its development necessitate updating PRISMA-ScR. Important methodological advancements have emerged since PRISMA-ScR 2018, including automation and data extraction, which need to be incorporated into this update and reflected in new reporting items. Aligned with PRISMA 2020, this ScR underpins the update by identifying potential new reporting items for consideration from recent studies related to reporting guidance and the evaluation of reporting completeness in ScRs. METHODS:The protocol for this review was published and registered with the Open Science Framework and in a peer-reviewed journal. We conducted database searches in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Methodology Register and gray literature searches guided by the Canada's Drug Agency Gray Matters tool. Retrieved sources were screened in duplicate to assess eligibility. Included studies underwent data extraction with one extractor and one verifier. We summarized results and proposed additional PRISMA-ScR reporting items. RESULTS:Of the 8265 records screened, 43 unique documents (13 overviews of ScRs and 30 guidance documents) were included and extracted. Thirty-seven potential reporting items for ScRs were identified; these will be evaluated in a subsequent Delphi survey to inform the PRISMA-ScR update. The most common additional items were related to objectives (67.4%), eligibility criteria (62.8%), search strategy (51.2%), data collection process (53.5%), and results of synthesis (51.2%). Newly identified items included reporting the inclusion criteria using a suitable framework (e.g., Population, Concept, and Context), reporting protocol deviations in the final ScR, and visually presenting results along with relevant text to support the visuals. CONCLUSION:This ScR highlights gaps in existing PRISMA-ScR reporting guidance and provides additional reporting items for consideration and potential inclusion in an updated guideline. When aligned with the latest methodological advancements and involving interest-holders, including patients and public partners, the updated guideline will enhance the transparency and robustness of ScRs. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY:The goal of this project is to update the reporting guideline for ScRs. The reporting guideline is called PRISMA-ScR. ScRs collect and summarize information from many studies addressing a broad research question. They are useful because they help researchers see what is already known. They also find gaps in knowledge and inform what research should be conducted next. ScRs also help health-care workers, leaders, and policy makers make informed decisions. PRISMA-ScR is a guide to help researchers clearly explain the methods they used to conduct their ScR. Clear reporting of the methods used is important so readers can judge the quality of the review and know if they can be confident in the results. It allows other researchers to repeat the study to check if the results are reliable. Health professionals also use the information to guide patient care and healthcare planning. An update to PRISMA-ScR is needed for several reasons. 1. ScRs are not always reported in a clear or consistent way. This can make them hard to understand or use. 2. The original guideline from 2018 did not include patients or public partners. In this project, patients and public partners are involved throughout the entire process. Their experiences and perspectives help make the guideline more useful and relevant. 3. New methods for doing ScRs have been developed since 2018. The guideline needs to reflect these changes. To support the guidance update, researchers looked at current guidelines. They also completed a new ScR. They found 47 research papers that suggested 37 new reporting items. These items suggest there may be gaps in the existing guidelines. As a result, the new reporting items will be considered as part of the PRISMA-ScR update.

Objectives To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research. Design Scoping review. Participants Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers. Primary and secondary outcome measures Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support. Results Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%). Conclusions Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity. Trial registration number Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/ .

BackgroundPreliminary 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAfter 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.DiscussionVery 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.

Abstract Background Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. Methods Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. Eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). Information sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database’s inception to March 2020. Outcome measures: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. Data synthesis: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. Results We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [− 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [− 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I2 = 25%; St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire: MD − 2.12, 95% CI [− 3.72, − 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I2 = 21%). Conclusions KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

Abstract Background Prescribing trends suggest that pharmacologic alternatives to antipsychotics are gaining in popularity, but randomized trial (RCT) data of their comparative safety is scarce. Our objective was to describe the comparative safety of pharmacologic interventions for treating neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception to May 28, 2019, for studies of pharmacologic interventions used to treat neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia. Dementia care partners selected fracture risk as our primary outcome. Pairs of reviewers, working independently, conducted all study screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias appraisal. We conducted Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses (NMAs) using data from RCTs to derive odds ratios (ORs). In secondary analyses, we conducted frequentist random-effects NMAs using data from RCTs and Bayesian three-level hierarchical random-effects NMAs incorporating data from RCTs and non-randomized studies. Results Our systematic review included 209 randomized and non-randomized studies (889,378 persons with dementia). In NMAs of data from randomized trials, there were no increased odds of fracture associated with any intervention in primary analyses; however, data were sparse. We found increased odds of cerebrovascular events associated with antipsychotics (odds ratio [OR] 2.12, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.29 to 3.62; number needed to harm [NNH] = 99) and increased odds of falls associated with dextromethorphan-quinidine (OR 4.16, 95% CrI 1.47 to 14.22; NNH = 55) compared to placebo in persons with dementia. In a subgroup of persons with Alzheimer disease, antipsychotics were associated with increased odds of fracture compared to anticonvulsants (OR 54.1, 95% CrI 1.15 to 38,300; NNH = 18). In older persons (mean age ≥ 80 years) with dementia, anticonvulsants were associated with increased odds of death compared to placebo (OR 8.36, 95% CrI 1.17 to 203.4; NNH = 35) and antipsychotics were associated with increased odds of death compared to antidepressants (OR 5.28, 95% CrI 1.06 to 3.51; NNH = 47). Conclusion Although antipsychotics were associated with greater harm than antidepressants and anticonvulsants in subgroups of persons with dementia, medications used in lieu of antipsychotics for treating neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia, such as anticonvulsants and dextromethorphan-quinidine, were also associated with harm. Decision-making concerning treatments prescribed in lieu of antipsychotics should include potential harms. PROSPERO registration CRD42017050130.

Abstract Background Positive impacts of quality improvement initiatives on health care and services have not been substantial. Knowledge translation (KT) strategies (tools, products and interventions) strive to facilitate the uptake of knowledge thereby the potential to improve care, but there is little guidance on how to develop them. Existing KT guidance or planning tools fall short in operationalizing all aspects of KT practice activities conducted by knowledge users (researchers, clinicians, patients, decision-makers), and most do not consider their variable needs or to deliver recommendations that are most relevant and useful for them. Methods We conducted a 3-phase study. In phase 1, we used several sources to develop a conceptual framework for creating optimized Knowledge-activated Tools (KaT) (consultation with our integrated KT team, the use of existing KT models and frameworks, findings of a systematic review of multimorbidity interventions and a literature review and document analysis on existing KT guidance tools). In phase 2, we invited KT experts to participate in a Delphi study to refine and evaluate the conceptual KaT framework. In phase 3, we administered an online survey to knowledge users (researchers, clinicians, decision-makers, trainees) to evaluate the potential usefulness of an online mock-up version of the KaT framework. Results We developed the conceptual KaT framework, and iteratively refined it with 35 KT experts in a 3-round Delphi study. The final framework represents the blueprint for what is needed to create KT strategies. Feedback from 201 researcher, clinician, decision-maker and trainee knowledge users on the potential need and usefulness of an online, interactive version of KaT indicated that they liked the idea of it (mean score 4.36 on a 5-point Likert scale) and its proposed features (mean score range 4.30–4.79). Conclusions Our findings suggest that mostly Canadian KT experts and knowledge users perceived the KaT framework and the future development of an online, interactive version to be important and needed. We anticipate that the KaT framework will provide clarity for knowledge users about how to identify their KT needs and what activities can address these needs, and to help streamline the process of these activities to facilitate efficient uptake of knowledge.

Objectives To understand how and why effective multi-chronic disease management interventions influence health outcomes in older adults 65 years of age or older. Design A realist review. Data sources Electronic databases including Medline and Embase (inception to December 2017); and the grey literature. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We considered any studies (ie, experimental quasi-experimental, observational, qualitative and mixed-methods studies) as long as they provided data to explain our programme theories and effectiveness review (published elsewhere) findings. The population of interest was older adults (age ≥65 years) with two or more chronic conditions. Analysis We used the Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) quality and publication criteria for our synthesis aimed at refining our programme theories such that they contained multiple context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing the ways different mechanisms fire to generate outcomes. We created a 3-step synthesis process grounded in meta-ethnography to separate units of data from articles, and to derive explanatory statements across them. Results 106 articles contributed to the analysis. We refined our programme theories to explain multimorbidity management in older adults: (1) care coordination interventions with the best potential for impact are team-based strategies, disease management programmes and case management; (2) optimised disease prioritisation involves ensuring that clinician work with patients to identify what symptoms are problematic and why, and to explore options that are acceptable to both clinicians and patients and (3) optimised patient self-management is dependent on patients’ capacity for selfcare and to what extent, and establishing what patients need to enable selfcare. Conclusions To optimise care, both clinical management and patient self-management need to be considered from multiple perspectives (patient, provider and system). To mitigate the complexities of multimorbidity management, patients focus on reducing symptoms and preserving quality of life while providers focus on the condition that most threaten morbidity and mortality. PROSPERO registration number CRD42014014489.

INTRODUCTION: More than half of older adults (age >= 65 yr) have 2 or more high-burden multimorbidity conditions (i.e., highly prevalent chronic diseases, which are associated with increased health care utilization; these include diabetes [DM], dementia, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], cardiovascular disease [CVD], arthritis, and heart failure [HF]), yet most existing interventions for managing chronic disease focus on a single disease or do not respond to the specialized needs of older adults. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify effective multimorbidity interventions compared with a control or usual care strategy for older adults. METHODS: We searched bibliometric databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for managing multiple chronic diseases in any language from 1990 to December 2017. The primary outcome was any outcome specific to managing multiple chronic diseases as reported by studies. Reviewer pairs independently screened citations and full-text articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed statistical and methodological heterogeneity and performed a meta-analysis of RCTs with similar interventions and components. RESULTS: We included 25 studies (including 15 RCTs and 6 cluster RCTs) (12 579 older adults; mean age 67.3 yr). In patients with [depression + COPD] or [CVD + DM], care-coordination strategies significantly improved depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference -0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.59 to -0.22; I-2 = 0%) and reduced glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels (mean difference -0.51; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.11; I-2 = 0%), but not mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.79; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.17; I-2 = 0%). Among secondary outcomes, care-coordination strategies reduced functional impairment in patients with [arthritis + depression] (between-group difference -0.82; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.47) or [DM + depression] (between-group difference 3.21; 95% CI 1.78 to 4.63); improved cognitive functioning in patients with [DM + depression] (between-group difference 2.44; 95% CI 0.79 to 4.09) or [HF + COPD] (p = 0.006); and increased use of mental health services in those with [DM + (CVD or depression)] (RR 2.57; 95% CI 1.90 to 3.49; I-2 = 0%). INTERPRETATION: Subgroup analyses showed that older adults with diabetes and either depression or cardiovascular disease, or with coexistence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure, can benefit from care-coordination strategies with or without education to lower HbA(1c), reduce depressive symptoms, improve health-related functional status, and increase the use of mental health services.

OBJECTIVES:To conduct a scoping review of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks that have been used to guide dissemination or implementation of evidence-based interventions targeted to prevention and/or management of cancer or other chronic diseases. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:We used a comprehensive multistage search process from 2000 to 2016, which included traditional bibliographic database searching, searching using names of theories, models and frameworks, and cited reference searching. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and abstracted the data. RESULTS:We found 596 studies reporting on the use of 159 KT theories, models, or frameworks. A majority (87%) of the identified theories, models, or frameworks were used in five or fewer studies, with 60% used once. The theories, models, and frameworks were most commonly used to inform planning/design, implementation and evaluation activities, and least commonly used to inform dissemination and sustainability/scalability activities. Twenty-six were used across the full implementation spectrum (from planning/design to sustainability/scalability) either within or across studies. All were used for at least individual-level behavior change, whereas 48% were used for organization-level, 33% for community-level, and 17% for system-level change. CONCLUSION:We found a significant number of KT theories, models, and frameworks with a limited evidence base describing their use.

Jeffs, Lianne PhD, RN; Lo, Joyce MN, RN; Beswick, Susan MN, RN; Chuun, Aline BSc, MSc; Lai, Yonda BSc; Campbell, Heather MS, RN; Ferris, Ella MBA, RN Author Information

IntroductionPerformance data can be used to monitor and guide interventions aimed at improving the quality and safety of patient care. To use performance data effectively, nurses need to understand how to interpret and use data in meaningful ways to guide practice. Dashboards are interactive computerised tools that display performance data. In one large, urban teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada, unit-specific dashboards were implemented across the organisation.MethodsA qualitative study was undertaken to explore the perceptions and experiences of front-line nurses and managers associated with the implementation of a unit-level dashboard. Six units were selected to participate in the study. Data were analysed using a directed content analysis approach.ResultsThe sample included 56 study participants, including 51 front-line nurses and 5 unit managers. Three key themes emerged around nurses’ and unit managers’ perspectives on the implementation of unit-specific dashboards. Nurses and managers described that the Care Utilising Evidence dashboard was a visual tool that displayed data on the impact of the nursing care provided to patients. This tool also was used by the nurses and managers to keep track of processes of care and patient outcomes and experiences at a unit level. Further, nurses were able to use performance data to identify quality care improvements specific to their unit.ConclusionsThe results highlight how unit-specific dashboards are being used to monitor performance and drive quality improvement efforts from the perspectives of nurses and unit managers. In practice, nurse leaders may consider investing in dashboards as a quality improvement strategy to optimise the use of performance data at their organisations.