Search

ObjectivesTo chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research.DesignScoping review.ParticipantsQuantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOutcomes 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.ResultsLiterature 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%).ConclusionsReviewed 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 numberOpen Science Framework:https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Background Clinical pathways aim to improve patient care. We sought to determine whether an online chronic kidney disease (CKD) clinical pathway was associated with improvements in CKD management. Methods We conducted a retrospective pre/post population-based cohort study using linked health data from Alberta, Canada. We included adults 18 years or older with mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 2. The primary outcome was measurement of an outpatient urine albumin creatinine ratio (ACR) in a 28-day period, among people without a test in the prior year. Secondary outcomes included use of guideline-recommended drug therapies (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and statins). Results The study period spanned October 2010 to March 2017. There were 84 independent 28-day periods (53 pre, 31 post pathway implementation) including 345,058 adults. The population was predominantly female (56%) with median age 77 years; most had category 3A CKD (67%) and hypertension (82%). In adjusted segmented regression models, the increase in the rate of change of ACR testing was greatest in Calgary zone (adjusted OR 1.19 per year, 95% CI 1.16–1.21), where dissemination of the pathway was strongest; this increase was more pronounced in those without diabetes (adjusted OR 1.25 per year, 95% CI 1.21–1.29). Small improvements in guideline-concordant medication use were also observed. Conclusions Following implementation of an online CKD clinical pathway, improvements in ACR testing were evident in regions where the pathway was most actively used, particularly among individuals without diabetes.

Background In the past decade, patient-oriented research (POR) has been at the forefront of healthcare research in Canada because it has the potential to make research more meaningful and relevant to patient needs. Despite this growing emphasis on and expectation to conduct POR, there is limited guidance about how to apply POR in practice. To address this capacity building need, the Knowledge Translation (KT) Program and patient partners co-designed, delivered, and evaluated Partners in Research (PiR), a 2-month online course for patients and researchers to collectively learn how to conduct and engage in POR. Methods PiR was delivered to 4 cohorts of patients and researchers between 2017 and 2018. For each cohort, we evaluated the impact of the course on participants’ knowledge, self-efficacy, intentions, and use of POR using surveys at 3 time points: baseline, post-course and 6-months post-course. We also monitored the process of course design and delivery by assessing implementation quality of the PiR course. Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with course format, course materials, quality of delivery and their level of engagement via a 7-point Likert scale in the post-course survey. Results A total of 151 participants enrolled in the PiR course throughout the 4 cohorts. Of these, 49 patients and 33 researchers (n = 82 participants) consented to participate in the course evaluation. Process and outcome evaluations collected over a 9-month period indicated that participation in the PiR course increased knowledge of POR concepts for patients (p, Plain English Summary Patient-oriented research (POR) is the meaningful inclusion of patients as active contributing partners in research. In meaningful POR, patients are engaged and valued as contributory members of the research team throughout the research process, from developing research questions, participating in research activities, to sharing new research findings. In Canada, POR is recognized as an important component of research and many healthcare institutions aim to engage patients in their work. However, there is little guidance on how patients and researchers can effectively participate as equal partners in research activities. To address the need for POR education opportunities, we launched Partners in Research (PiR), a 2–month online course for patients and researchers to learn how to conduct and engage in POR. This paper describes the design, delivery, and evaluation of the PiR course, with a focus on the following objectives:To assess the impact of the PiR course on participant knowledge, confidence, intentions and use of PORTo determine the quality of course design and delivery and its ability to achieve learning objectivesTo identify factors that limit and facilitate participation in POR The findings from the evaluation show that the PiR course was effective in increasing knowledge of, and confidence in POR concepts. In addition, the course was well-received, with participants reporting a high level of engagement in course content and activities. Overall, this work supports our understanding of how to design useful and engaging opportunities to increase patient and researcher capacity in POR. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-021-00316-8.

Background The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items: 27 core items as indicated in the 2009 PRISMA Statement and five items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although NMA reporting is improving, it is unclear whether PRISMA-NMA has accelerated this improvement. We aimed to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA and highlight key items that require attention and improvement. Methods We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and online supplements, using the PRISMA-NMA checklist. The PRISMA-NMA checklist originally includes 32 total items (i.e. a 32-point scale original PRISMA-NMA score). We also prepared a modified version of the PRISMA-NMA checklist with 49 items to evaluate separately at a more granular level all multiple-content items (i.e. a 49-point scale modified PRISMA-NMA score). We compared average reporting scores of articles published until and after 2015. Results In the 1144 included NMAs the mean modified PRISMA-NMA score was 32.1 (95% CI 31.8–32.4) of a possible 49-excellence-score. For 1-year increase, the mean modified score increased by 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.59) for 389 NMAs published until 2015 and by 0.53 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.04) for 755 NMAs published after 2015. The mean modified PRISMA-NMA score for NMAs published after 2015 was higher by 0.81 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.39) compared to before 2015 when adjusting for journal impact factor, type of review, funding, and treatment category. Description of summary effect sizes to be used, presentation of individual study data, sources of funding for the systematic review, and role of funders dropped in frequency after 2015 by 6–16%. Conclusions NMAs published after 2015 more frequently reported the five items associated with NMA compared to those published until 2015. However, improvement in reporting after 2015 is compatible with that observed on a yearly basis until 2015, and hence, it could not be attributed solely to the publication of the PRISMA-NMA.

BackgroundFalls are a leading cause of injury-related hospitalizations among adults aged 65 years and older and may result in social isolation.ObjectiveTo summarise evidence on falls and subsequent social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults through a scoping review.Eligibility criteriaStudies were eligible for inclusion if the population had a mean age of 60 years or older, they examined falls and subsequent social isolation, loneliness, fear of falling or risk factors and were primary studies (eg, experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and qualitative).Sources of evidenceMEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Ageline and grey literature from inception until 11 January 2021.Charting methodsA screening and charting form was developed and pilot-tested. Subsequently, two reviewers screened citations and full-text articles, and charted the evidence.ResultsAfter screening 4993 citations and 304 full-text articles, 39 studies were included in this review. Participants had a history of falling (range: 11% to 100%). Most studies were conducted in Europe (44%) and North America (33%) and were of the cross-sectional study design (66.7%), in the community (79%). Studies utilised 15 different scales. Six studies examined risk factors for social isolation and activity restriction associated with fear of falling. Six studies reported mental health outcomes related to falls and subsequent social isolation.ConclusionsConsistency in outcome measurement is recommended, as multiple outcomes were used across the included studies. Further research is warranted in this area, given the ageing population and the importance of falls and social isolation to the health of older adults.Scoping review registration number10.17605/OSF.IO/2R8HM.

Availability of data and materials: Not applicable for this opinion paper, but the Additional files contain a collation and account of many of the sources used. Copyright © The Author(s) 2022. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, astonishingly rapid research averted millions of deaths worldwide through new vaccines and repurposed and new drugs. Evidence use informed life-saving national policies including non-pharmaceutical interventions. Simultaneously, there was unprecedented waste, with many underpowered trials on the same drugs. We identified lessons from COVID-19 research responses by applying WHO’s framework for research systems. It has four functions—governance, securing finance, capacity-building, and production and use of research—and nine components. Two linked questions focused the analysis. First, to what extent have achievements in knowledge production and evidence use built on existing structures and capacity in national health research systems? Second, did the features of such systems mitigate waste? We collated evidence on seven countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, to identify examples of achievements and challenges. We used the data to develop lessons for each framework component. Research coordination, prioritization and expedited ethics approval contributed to rapid identification of new therapies, including dexamethasone in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Accelerated vaccines depended on extensive funding, especially through the Operation Warp Speed initiative in the United States, and new platforms created through long-term biomedical research capacity in the United Kingdom and, for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, in Canada, Germany and the United States. Research capacity embedded in the United Kingdom’s healthcare system resulted in trial acceleration and waste avoidance. Faster publication of research saved lives, but raised challenges. Public/private collaborations made major contributions to vastly accelerating new products, available worldwide, though unequally. Effective developments of living (i.e. regularly updated) reviews and guidelines, especially in Australia and Canada, extended existing expertise in meeting users’ needs. Despite complexities, effective national policy responses (less evident in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States) also saved lives by drawing on health research system features, including collaboration among politicians, civil servants and researchers; good communications; and willingness to use evidence. Comprehensive health research strategies contributed to success in research production in the United Kingdom and in evidence use by political leadership in New Zealand. In addition to waste, challenges included equity issues, public involvement and non-COVID research. We developed recommendations, but advocate studies of further countries. United Kingdom’s Medical Research Council grant MR/K014773/1 “Time Lags in the Translation of Medical Research: Developing a Case Study Approach to Achieve a Better Understanding” from the MRC’s Economic Impact call from the Methodology Research Programme.

Background The long-term care setting poses unique challenges and opportunities for effective knowledge translation. The objectives of this review are to (1) synthesize barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based guidelines in long-term care, as defined as a home where residents require 24-h nursing care, and 50% of the population is over the age of 65 years; and (2) map barriers and facilitators to the Behaviour Change Wheel framework to inform theory-guided knowledge translation strategies. Methods Following the guidance of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series and the ENTREQ reporting guidelines, we systematically reviewed the reported experiences of long-term care staff on implementing evidence-based guidelines into practice. MEDLINE Pubmed, EMBASE Ovid, and CINAHL were searched from the earliest date available until May 2021. Two independent reviewers selected primary studies for inclusion if they were conducted in long-term care and reported the perspective or experiences of long-term care staff with implementing an evidence-based practice guideline about health conditions. Appraisal of the included studies was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist and confidence in the findings with the GRADE-CERQual approach. Findings After screening 2680 abstracts, we retrieved 115 full-text articles; 33 of these articles met the inclusion criteria. Barriers included time constraints and inadequate staffing, cost and lack of resources, and lack of teamwork and organizational support. Facilitators included leadership and champions, well-designed strategies, protocols, and resources, and adequate services, resources, and time. The most frequent Behaviour Change Wheel components were physical and social opportunity and psychological capability. We concluded moderate or high confidence in all but one of our review findings. Conclusions Future knowledge translation strategies to implement guidelines in long-term care should target physical and social opportunity and psychological capability, and include interventions such as environmental restructuring, training, and education.

Evidence generated from partnering with parents to design and conduct research together may be used to refine, adjust, and modify future research approaches. This study aimed to describe the initial approaches to parent engagement in the design of the PARENT trial as well as understand parent perspectives on the acceptability and relevance of the PARENT trial and potential barriers and facilitators to participation.Parents participating in the TARGet Kids! cohort were invited to participate in a focus group, called the PARENT panel, to co-design the PARENT trial. This focus group was conducted to capture diverse individual and collective parents’ experiences. Overall methodological approaches for the PARENT panel were informed by the CIHR Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) guiding principles (mutual respect, co-building, inclusiveness, and support) for patient engagement in research, and facilitated through the Knowledge Translation Program in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute at Unity Health Toronto. Using a Nominal Group Technique, the PARENT panel provided feedback on the feasibility, relevance, and acceptability of the proposed intervention. Findings from this work will be used to further refine, adjust, and modify the next iteration of the PARENT trial, which will also serve as an opportunity to discuss the efforts made by researchers to incorporate parent suggestions and what additional steps are required for improved patient engagement.

Background: A previous review of sex, gender, and equity within cardiovascular (CV) medicine, surgery, and science in Canada has revealed parity during medical and graduate school training. The purpose of this study was to explore sex and gendered experiences within the Canadian CV landscape, and their impact on career training and progression. Methods: An environmental scan was conducted of the Canadian CV landscape, which included an equity survey using Qualtrics software. Results: The environmental scan revealed that women remain underrepresented within CV training programs as trainees (12%–30%), program directors (33%), in leadership roles at the divisional level (21%), and in other professional or career-related activities (< 30%). Our analysis also showed improvements of career engagement at these levels of women at over time. The thematic analysis of the equity survey responses (n = 71 respondents; 83% female; 9.7% response rate among female Canadian Cardiovascular Society members) identified the following themes reported within the socio-ecological framework: desire to report inequities vs staying the course (individual level); desire for social support and mentorship and challenges of dual responsibilities (interpersonal level); concerns over exclusionary cliques and desire for respect and opportunity (organizational level); and increasing awareness and actions to overcome institutional barriers and accountability (societal level). Conclusions: Although women face challenges and remain underrepresented in CV medicine, surgery, and science, this study highlights potential opportunities for improving access of female medical, surgical, and research trainees and professionals to specialized cardiovascular training, career advancement, leadership, and research. Résumé: Contexte: Une étude antérieure portant sur le sexe, le genre et l'équité en médecine, chirurgie et sciences cardiovasculaires (CV) au Canada a révélé une parité au cours de la formation médicale et des études supérieures. L'objectif de cette étude était d’évaluer les expériences liées au sexe et au genre dans le paysage canadien du domaine CV, et leur impact sur la formation et la progression de carrière. Méthodes: Une analyse de l'environnement du paysage canadien dans le domaine CV a été réalisée, incluant une étude sur l'équité en utilisant le logiciel Qualtrics. Résultats: L'analyse de l'environnement a révélé que les femmes restent sous-représentées dans les programmes de formation du domaine CV que ce soit en tant que stagiaires (12 à 30 %), directrices de programme (33 %), dans les rôles de direction au niveau divisionnaire (21 %) et dans d'autres activités professionnelles ou associées à la carrière (< 30 %). Notre analyse a également montré une amélioration de l'engagement professionnel des femmes à ces niveaux au fil du temps. L'analyse thématique des réponses à l'enquête sur l'équité (n = 71 répondants; 83 % de femmes ; 9,7 % de taux de réponse parmi les membres féminins de la Société canadienne de cardiologie) a permis de dégager les thèmes suivants au sein du système socioécologique : désir de signaler les inégalités par rapport à la volonté de maintenir cap précis (au niveau individuel); désir de soutien social et de mentorat et défis liés à la double responsabilité (au niveau interpersonnel); préoccupations concernant les cliques exclusives et désir de respect et d’opportunité (au niveau organisationnel); et sensibilisation et actions accrues pour surmonter les obstacles institutionnels et les niveaux de responsabilité (au niveau sociétal). Conclusions: Bien que les femmes soient confrontées à des défis et restent sous-représentées dans les domaines de la médecine, de la chirurgie et des sciences CV, cette étude met en évidence les possibilités d'améliorer l'accès des stagiaires féminines et des professionnelles de la médecine, de la chirurgie et de la recherche à la formation spécialisée en cardiologie, à l'avancement de carrière, au rôle de direction et à la recherche.

Background The objective of this review was to examine the current guidelines for infection prevention and control (IPAC) of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) or other coronaviruses in adults 60 years or older living in long-term care facilities (LTCF). Methods EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, pre-print servers, clinical trial registries, and relevant grey literature sources were searched until July 31, 2020, using database searching and an automated method called Continuous Active Learning® (CAL®). All search results were processed using CAL® to identify the most likely relevant citations that were then screened by a single human reviewer. Full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal were completed by a single reviewer and verified by a second. Results Nine clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were included. The most common recommendation in the CPGs was establishing surveillance and monitoring systems followed by mandating the use of PPE; physically distancing or cohorting residents; environmental cleaning and disinfection; promoting hand and respiratory hygiene among residents, staff, and visitors; and providing sick leave compensation for staff. Conclusions Current evidence suggests robust surveillance and monitoring along with support for IPAC initiatives are key to preventing the spread of COVID-19 in LTCF. However, there are significant gaps in the current recommendations especially with regard to the movement of staff between LTCF and their role as possible transmission vectors. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020181993

Background Diabetes is a highly prevalent chronic disease that places a large burden on individuals and health care systems. Models predicting the risk (also called predictive models) of other conditions often compare people with and without diabetes, which is of little to no relevance for people already living with diabetes (called patients). This review aims to identify and synthesize findings from existing predictive models of physical and mental health diabetes-related conditions. Methods We will use the scoping review frameworks developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and Levac and colleagues. We will perform a comprehensive search for studies from Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases. Studies involving patients with prediabetes and all types of diabetes will be considered, regardless of age and gender. We will limit the search to studies published between 2000 and 2018. There will be no restriction of studies based on country or publication language. Abstracts, full-text screening, and data extraction will be done independently by two individuals. Data abstraction will be conducted using a standard methodology. We will undertake a narrative synthesis of findings while considering the quality of the selected models according to validated and well-recognized tools and reporting standards. Discussion Predictive models are increasingly being recommended for risk assessment in treatment decision-making and clinical guidelines. This scoping review will provide an overview of existing predictive models of diabetes complications and how to apply them. By presenting people at higher risk of specific complications, this overview may help to enhance shared decision-making and preventive strategies concerning diabetes complications. Our anticipated limitation is potentially missing models because we will not search grey literature.

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.

Background Patient-centered care (PCC) is one approach for ameliorating persistent gendered disparities in health care quality, yet no prior research has studied how to achieve patient-centred care for women (PCCW). The purpose of this study was to explore how clinicians deliver PCCW, challenges they face, and the strategies they suggest are needed to support PCCW. Methods We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews (25–60 min) with clinicians. Thirty-seven clinicians representing 7 specialties (family physicians, cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, obstetricians/gynecologist, psychiatrists, nurses, social workers) who manage depression (n = 16), cardiovascular disease (n = 11) and contraceptive counseling (n = 10), conditions that affect women across the lifespan. We used constant comparative analysis to inductively analyze transcripts, mapped themes to a 6-domain PCC conceptual framework to interpret findings, and complied with qualitative research reporting standards. Results Clinicians said that women don’t always communicate their health concerns and physicians sometimes disregard women’s health concerns, warranting unique PCC approaches.. Clinicians described 39 approaches they used to tailor PCC for women across 6 PCC domains: foster a healing relationship, exchange information, address emotions/concerns, manage uncertainty, make decisions, and enable self-management. Additional conditions that facilitated PCCW were: privacy, access to female clinicians, accommodating children through onsite facilities, and flexible appointment formats and schedules. Clinicians suggested 7 strategies needed to address barriers of PCCW they identified at the: patient-level (online appointments, transport to health services, use of patient partners to plan and/or deliver services), clinician-level (medical training and continuing professional development in PCC and women’s health), and system-level (funding models for longer appointment times, multidisciplinary teamwork to address all PCC domains). Conclusions Our research revealed numerous strategies that clinicians can use to optimize PCCW, and health care managers and policy-makers can use to support PCCW through programs and policies. Identified strategies addressed all domains of an established PCC conceptual framework. Future research should evaluate the implementation and impact of these strategies on relevant outcomes such as perceived PCC among women and associated clinical outcomes to prepare for broad scale-up.

Background: Summaries of systematic reviews are a reference method for the dissemination of research evidence on the effectiveness of public health interventions beyond the scientific community. Motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance may interfere with readers’ ability to process the information included in such summaries. Methods: We conducted a web experiment on a panel of university-educated North Americans (N = 259) using a systematic review of the effectiveness of bicycle helmet legislation as a test case. The outcome variables were the perceived tentativeness of review findings and attitude toward bicycle helmet legislation. We manipulated two types of uncertainty: (i) deficient uncertainty (inclusion vs. non-inclusion of information on limitations of the studies included in the review) and (ii) consensus uncertainty (consensual findings showing legislation effectiveness vs. no evidence of effectiveness). We also examined whether reported expertise in helmet legislation and the frequency of wearing a helmet while cycling interact with the experimental factors. Results: None of the experimental manipulations had a main effect on the perceived tentativeness. The presentation of consensual efficacy findings had a positive main effect on the attitude toward the legislation. Self-reported expertise had a significant main effect on the perceived tentativeness, and exposing participants with reported expertise to results showing a lack of evidence of efficacy increased their favorable attitude toward the legislation. Participants’ helmet use was positively associated with their attitude toward the legislation (but not with perceived tentativeness). Helmet use did not interact with the experimental manipulations. Conclusions: Motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance influence a reader’s ability to process information contained in a systematic review summary.

ObjectivesThe objective of our systematic review was to identify the effective interventions to prevent or mitigate social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults who experienced a fall.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Ageline were searched (from inception to February 2020).MethodsStudies were eligible if they described any intervention for social isolation in older adults living in a community setting who experienced a fall, and reported outcomes related to social isolation or loneliness.Two independent reviewers screened citations, abstracted data and appraised risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The results were summarised descriptively.ResultsAfter screening 4069 citations and 55 full-text articles, four studies were included. The four studies varied in study design, including a randomised controlled trial, non-randomised controlled trial, an uncontrolled before-after study and a quasiexperimental study. Interventions varied widely, and included singing in a choir, a patient-centred, interprofessional primary care team-based approach, a multifactorial assessment targeting fall risk, appropriate medication use, loneliness and frailty, and a community-based care model that included comprehensive assessments and multilevel care coordination. Outcome measures varied and included scales for loneliness, social isolation, social interaction, social networks and social satisfaction. Mixed results were found, with three studies reporting no differences in social isolation or loneliness after the intervention. Only the multifactorial assessment intervention demonstrated a small positive effect on loneliness compared with the control group after adjustment (B=−0.18, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.02).ConclusionsFew studies examined the interventions for social isolation or loneliness in older adults who experienced a fall. More research is warranted in this area.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020198487.

Systematic reviews with network meta-analysis that ignore potential dose effects could limit the applicability and validity of review findings. This article aims to help content experts (eg, clinicians), methodologists, and statisticians better understand how to incorporate dose effects in network meta-analysis. Three models are described that make different clinical and statistical assumptions about how to model dose effects. This article also illustrates the importance of dose effects in understanding the potential risk of harm in people with dementia from cerebrovascular events associated with atypical antipsychotic drug use (quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone) and the potential risk of harm in people with nausea and headache associated with cholinesterase inhibitor use (donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine). Finally, important considerations when choosing between different network meta-analysis models incorporating dose effects are discussed.

Background: The interval between suspected cancer and diagnosis for symptomatic patients is often fragmented, leading to diagnosis delays and increased patient stress. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing and sustaining current initiatives across Canada that optimize early cancer diagnosis, with particular relevance for symptomatic patients. Methods: The national study included a document review and key informant interviews with purposefully recruited participants. Data were analyzed by two researchers using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-two participants from eight provinces participated in key informant interviews and reported on 17 early cancer diagnosis initiatives. Most initiatives (88%) were in early phases of implementation. Two patient-facing and eight provider/organization barriers to implementation (e.g., lack of stakeholder buy-in and limited resources) and five facilitators for implementation and sustainability were identified. Opportunities to improve early cancer diagnosis initiatives included building relationships with stakeholders, co-creating initiatives, developing initiatives for Indigenous and underserved populations, optimizing efficiency and sustainability, and standardizing metrics to evaluate impact. Conclusion: Early cancer diagnosis initiatives in Canada are in early implementation phases. Lack of stakeholder buy-in and limited resources pose a challenge to sustainability. We present opportunities for funders and policymakers to optimize the use and potential impact of early cancer diagnosis initiatives.

Background: Multiple long-term care (LTC) reports have issued similar recommendations for improvement across Canadian LTC homes. Our primary objective was to identify the most common recommendations made over the past 10 years. Our secondary objective was to estimate the total cost of studying LTC issues repeatedly from 1998 to 2020. Methods: The qualitative and cost analyses were conducted in Canada from July to October 2020. Using a list of reports, inquiries and commissions from The Royal Society of Canada Working Group on Long-Term Care, we coded recurrent recommendations in LTC reports. We contacted the sponsoring organizations for a cost estimate, including direct and indirect costs. All costs were adjusted to 2020 Canadian dollar values. Results: Of the 80 Canadian LTC reports spanning the years of 1998 to 2020, 24 (30%) were based on a national level and 56 (70%) were focused on provinces or municipalities. Report length ranged from 4 to 1491 pages and the median number of contributors was 14 (interquartile range, IQR, 5–26) per report. The most common recommendation was to increase funding to LTC to improve staffing, direct care and capacity (67% of reports). A median of 8 (IQR 3.25–18) recommendations were made per report. The total cost for all 80 reports was estimated to be $23,626,442.78. Conclusions: Problems in Canadian LTC homes and their solutions have been known for decades. Despite this, governments and non-governmental agencies continue to produce more reports at a monetary and societal cost to Canadians.

BackgroundMultiple long-term care (LTC) reports over the last 30 years issued similar recommendations for improvement across Canadian LTC homes. Our primary objective was to identify the most common recommendations made over the past 10 years. Our secondary objective was to estimate the total cost of studying LTC issues repeatedly over the past 30 years.MethodsThe qualitative and cost analyses were conducted in Canada from July to October 2020. Using a list of reports, inquiries and commission from The Royal Society of Canada Working Group on Long-Term Care, we coded recurrent recommendations in LTC reports. We contacted the sponsoring organizations for a cost estimate, including direct and indirect costs. All costs were adjusted to 2020 Canadian dollar values.ResultsOf the 80 Canadian LTC reports spanning the years of 1998 to 2020, twenty-four (30%) were based on a national level and 56 (70%) were focused on provinces or municipalities. Report length ranged from 4 to 1491 pages and the median number of contributors was 14 (interquartile range, IQR, 5–26) per report. The most common recommendation was to increase funding to LTC to improve staffing, direct care and capacity (67% of reports). A median of 8 (IQR 3.25– 18) recommendations were made per report. The total cost for all 80 reports was estimated to be $23,626,442.78.InterpretationProblems in Canadian LTC homes and their solutions have been known for decades. Despite this, governments and non-governmental agencies continue to produce more reports at a monetary and societal cost to Canadians.

Background Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. Results Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). Conclusions Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Trial registration: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.

BackgroundThe objective of this rapid scoping review was to identify studies of dose-sparing strategies for administration of intramuscular seasonal influenza vaccines in healthy individuals of all ages.MethodsComprehensive literature searches were executed in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library. The grey literature was searched via international clinical trial registries for relevant studies published in English in the last 20 years. We included studies in healthy humans of any age that used any dose-sparing strategy to administer intramuscular seasonal influenza vaccines. Title/abstract and full-text screening were carried out by pairs of reviewers independently. Data extraction was conducted by a single reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Our outcomes were influenza infections, intensive care unit admission, pneumonia, hospitalisations, adverse events and mortality. Results were summarised descriptively.ResultsA total of 13 studies with 10 351 participants were included in the review and all studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted between 2006 and 2019. The most common interventions were the trivalent influenza vaccine (n=10), followed by the quadrivalent influenza vaccine (n=4). Nine studies included infants/toddlers 6–36 months old and one of these studies also included children and adolescents. In these nine studies, no clinical effectiveness outcomes were reported. Of the four adult studies (≥18 years), two studies reported on effectiveness outcomes, however, only one RCT reported on laboratory-confirmed influenza.ConclusionsDue to the low number of studies in healthy adults and the lack of studies assessing confirmed influenza and influenza-like illness, there remains a need for further evaluation.

Background Application of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) is one method for successfully incorporating evidence into clinical care. However, there are multiple KT TMFs and little guidance on which to select. This study sought to identify and describe available full-spectrum KT TMFs to subsequently guide users. Methods A scoping review was completed. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, previous reviews, grey literature, and consultation with KT experts. Search terms included combinations of KT terms and theory-related terms. Included citations had to describe full-spectrum KT TMFs that had been applied or tested. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by two investigators. Each KT TMF was described by its characteristics including name, context, key components, how it was used, primary target audience, levels of use, and study outcomes. Each KT TMF was also categorized into theoretical approaches as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Within each category, KT TMFs were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and unique characteristics. Results Electronic searches yielded 7160 citations. Additional citations were identified from previous reviews (n = 41) and bibliographies of included full-text articles (n = 6). Thirty-six citations describing 36 full-spectrum were identified. In 24 KT TMFs, the primary target audience was multi-level including patients/public, professionals, organizational, and financial/regulatory. The majority of the KT TMFs were used within public health, followed by research (organizational, translation, health), or in multiple contexts. Twenty-six could be used at the individual, organization, or policy levels, five at the individual/organization levels, three at the individual level only, and two at the organizational/policy level. Categorization of the KT TMFs resulted in 18 process models, eight classic theories, three determinant frameworks, three evaluation frameworks, and four that fit more than one category. There were no KT TMFs that fit the implementation theory category. Within each category, similarities and unique characteristics emerged through comparison. Conclusions A systematic compilation of existing full-spectrum KT TMFs, categorization into different approaches, and comparison has been provided in a user-friendly way. This list provides options for users to select from when designing KT projects and interventions. Trial registration A protocol outlining the methodology of this scoping review was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018088564).

Background As the population ages, older hospitalized patients are at increased risk for hospital-acquired morbidity. The Mobilization of Vulnerable Elders (MOVE) program is an evidence-informed early mobilization intervention that was previously evaluated in Ontario, Canada. The program was effective at improving mobilization rates and decreasing length of stay in academic hospitals. The aim of this study was to scale-up the program and conduct a replication study evaluating the impact of the evidence-informed mobilization intervention on various units in community hospitals within a different Canadian province. Methods The MOVE program was tailored to the local context at four community hospitals in Alberta, Canada. The study population was patients aged 65 years and older who were admitted to medicine, surgery, rehabilitation and intensive care units between July 2015 and July 2016. The primary outcome was patient mobilization measured by conducting visual audits twice a week, three times a day. The secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay obtained from hospital administrative data, and perceptions of the intervention assessed through a qualitative assessment. Using an interrupted time series design, the intervention was evaluated over three time periods (pre-intervention, during, and post-intervention). Results A total of 3601 patients [mean age 80.1 years (SD = 8.4 years)] were included in the overall analysis. There was a significant increase in mobilization at the end of the intervention period compared to pre-intervention, with 6% more patients out of bed (95% confidence interval (CI) 1, 11; p-value = 0.0173). A decreasing trend in median length of stay was observed, where patients on average stayed an estimated 3.59 fewer days (95%CI -15.06, 7.88) during the intervention compared to pre-intervention period. Conclusions MOVE is a low-cost, effective and adaptable intervention that improves mobilization in older hospitalized patients. This intervention has been replicated and scaled up across various units and hospital settings.

Background Bed rest for older hospitalized patients places them at risk for hospital-acquired morbidity. We previously evaluated an early mobilization intervention and found it to be effective at improving mobilization rates and decreasing length of stay on internal medicine units. The aim of this study was to conduct a replication study evaluating the impact of the evidence-informed mobilization intervention on surgery, psychiatry, medicine, and cardiology inpatient units. Methods A multi-component early mobilization intervention was tailored to the local context at seven hospitals in Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was patient mobilization measured by conducting visual audits twice a week, three times a day. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and discharge destination, which were obtained from hospital decision support data. The study population was patients aged 65 years and older who were admitted to surgery, psychiatry, medicine, and cardiology inpatient units between March and August 2014. Using an interrupted time series design, the intervention was evaluated over three time periods–pre-intervention, during, and post-intervention. Results A total of 3098 patients [mean age 78.46 years (SD 8.38)] were included in the overall analysis. There was a significant increase in mobility immediately after the intervention period compared to pre-intervention with a slope change of 1.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–3.08, P-value = 0.0014). A decreasing trend in median length of stay was observed in the majority of the participating sites. Overall, a median length of stay of 26.24 days (95% CI 23.67–28.80) was observed pre-intervention compared to 23.81 days (95% CI 20.13–27.49) during the intervention and 24.69 days (95% CI 22.43–26.95) post-intervention. The overall decrease in median length of stay was associated with the increase in mobility across the sites. Conclusions MOVE increased mobilization and these results were replicated across surgery, psychiatry, medicine, and cardiology inpatient units. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-019-1124-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveTo assess implementation and to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation, sustainability and scalability of an implementation strategy to provide lay health workers (LHWs) with the knowledge, skills and tools needed to implement an intervention to support patient tuberculosis (TB) treatment adherence.DesignMixed-methods design including a cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation informed by the RE-AIM framework.SettingForty-five health centres (HCs) in four districts in the south east zone of Malawi, who had an opportunity to receive cascade training.ParticipantsForty-five peer-trainers (PTs), 23 patients and 20 LHWs.InterventionImplementation strategy employing peer-led educational outreach, a clinical support tool and peer support network to implement a TB treatment adherence intervention.Outcome measuresProcess data were collected from study initiation to the end-of-study PT meeting, and included: LHW and patient interviews, quarterly PT meeting notes, training logs and study team observations and meeting notes. Data sources were first analysed in isolation, followed by method, data source and analyst triangulation. Analyses were conducted independently by two study team members, and themes revised through discussion and involvement of additional study team members as needed.ResultsForty-one HCs (91%) trained at least one LHW. Of 256 LHWs eligible to participate at study start 152 (59%) completed training, with the proportion trained per HC ranging from 0% to 100% at the end of initial cascade training. Lack of training incentives was the primary barrier to implementation, with intrinsic motivation to improve knowledge and skills, and to improve patient care and outcomes the primary facilitators of participation.ConclusionWe identified important challenges to and potential facilitators of implementation, scalability and sustainability, of the TB treatment adherence intervention. Findings provide guidance to scale-up, and use of the implementation strategies employed, to address LHW training and supervision in other areas.Trial registration numberNCT02533089.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of single, multiple, and multifactorial interventions to prevent falls and fall-related fractures in community-dwelling older persons. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of fall prevention interventions in communitydwelling adults aged ≥65 years, from inception until February 27, 2019. Two large RCTs (published in 2020 after the search closed) were included in post hoc analyses. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. Results: NMA including 192 studies revealed that the following single interventions, compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in number of fallers: exercise (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–0.89) and quality improvement strategies (e.g., patient education) (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83–0.98). Exercise as a single intervention was associated with a reduction in falls rate (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73–0.86). Common components of multiple interventions significantly associated with a reduction in number of fallers and falls rate were exercise, assistive technology, environmental assessment and modifications, quality improvement strategies, and basic falls risk assessment (e.g., medication review). Multifactorial interventions were associated with a reduction in falls rate (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.80– 0.95), but not with a reduction in number of fallers (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.89– 1.01). The following single interventions, compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in number of fall-related fractures: basic falls risk assessment (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.39–0.94) and exercise (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42–0.90). Conclusions: In keeping with Tricco et al. (2017), several single and multiple fall prevention interventions are associated with fewer falls. In addition to Tricco, we observe a benefit at the NMA-level of some single interventions on preventing fall-related fractures.

Background: Multiple long-term care (LTC) reports have issued similar recommendations for improvement across Canadian LTC homes. Our primary objective was to identify the most common recommendations made over the past 10 years. Our secondary objective was to estimate the total cost of studying LTC issues repeatedly from 1998 to 2020. Methods: The qualitative and cost analyses were conducted in Canada from July to October 2020. Using a list of reports, inquiries and commissions from The Royal Society of Canada Working Group on Long-Term Care, we coded recurrent recommendations in LTC reports. We contacted the sponsoring organizations for a cost estimate, including direct and indirect costs. All costs were adjusted to 2020 Canadian dollar values. Results: Of the 80 Canadian LTC reports spanning the years of 1998 to 2020, 24 (30%) were based on a national level and 56 (70%) were focused on provinces or municipalities. Report length ranged from 4 to 1491 pages and the median number of contributors was 14 (interquartile range, IQR, 5–26) per report. The most common recommendation was to increase funding to LTC to improve staffing, direct care and capacity (67% of reports). A median of 8 (IQR 3.25–18) recommendations were made per report. The total cost for all 80 reports was estimated to be $23,626,442.78. Conclusions: Problems in Canadian LTC homes and their solutions have been known for decades. Despite this, governments and non-governmental agencies continue to produce more reports at a monetary and societal cost to Canadians.

Background: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has exposed a work-life (im)balance that has been present but not openly discussed in medicine, surgery, and science for decades. The pandemic has exposed inequities in existing institutional structure and policies concerning clinical workload, research productivity, and/or teaching excellence inadvertently privileging those who do not have significant caregiving responsibilities or those who have the resources to pay for their management. Methods: We sought to identify the challenges facing multidisciplinary faculty and trainees with dependents, and highlight a number of possible strategies to address challenges in work-life (im)balance. Results: To date, there are no Canadian-based data to quantify the physical and mental effect of COVID-19 on health care workers, multidisciplinary faculty, and trainees. As the pandemic evolves, formal strategies should be discussed with an intersectional lens to promote equity in the workforce, including (but not limited to): (1) the inclusion of broad representation (including equal representation of women and other marginalized persons) in institutional-based pandemic response and recovery planning and decision-making; (2) an evaluation (eg, institutional-led survey) of the effect of the pandemic on work-life balance; (3) the establishment of formal dialogue (eg, workshops, training, and media campaigns) to normalize coexistence of work and caregiving responsibilities and to remove stigma of gender roles; (4) a reevaluation of workload and promotion reviews; and (5) the development of formal mentorship programs to support faculty and trainees. Conclusions: We believe that a multistrategy approach needs to be considered by stakeholders (including policy-makers, institutions, and individuals) to create sustainable working conditions during and beyond this pandemic. Résumé: Contexte: La pandémie de COVID-19 a mis en lumière le déséquilibre entre travail et vie personnelle qui règne depuis des décennies dans les milieux de la médecine, de la chirurgie et des sciences, mais dont on ne parlait pas ouvertement. La pandémie a en effet mis au jour des iniquités dans la structure et les politiques des établissements en matière de charge de travail clinique, de productivité de la recherche et d’excellence en enseignement, qui favorisent par inadvertance les personnes qui n’ont pas de responsabilités familiales importantes ou qui ont les ressources nécessaires pour leur prise en charge. Méthodologie: Nous avons tenté de cerner les difficultés auxquelles font face les enseignants multidisciplinaires et les stagiaires ayant des personnes à charge, et nous proposons un certain nombre de stratégies possibles pour faciliter la conciliation travail-vie personnelle. Résultats: À ce jour, il n’existe pas de données canadiennes permettant de quantifier les répercussions physiques et mentales de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur les travailleurs de la santé, les enseignants multidisciplinaires et les stagiaires. Au fil de l’évolution de la pandémie, il conviendrait de formuler des stratégies officielles à la lumière des commentaires d’intervenants des différents secteurs concernés, afin de promouvoir l’équilibre au sein des effectifs; ces stratégies pourraient notamment inclure ce qui suit (sans toutefois s’y limiter) : 1) l’inclusion d’une vaste représentation (y compris une représentation égale des femmes et des autres personnes marginalisées) pour la réponse à la pandémie dans les établissements, la planification du rétablissement et la prise de décisions; 2) une évaluation (p. ex. au moyen d’un sondage mené sous la direction des établissements) des répercussions de la pandémie sur la conciliation travail-vie personnelle; 3) l’établissement d’un dialogue formel (p. ex. ateliers, activités de formation et campagnes dans les médias) afin de normaliser la coexistence des responsabilités professionnelles et familiales et d’éliminer la stigmatisation associée aux rôles des sexes; 4) une réévaluation de la charge de travail et des promotions; et 5) la mise sur pied de programmes formels de mentorat pour soutenir les enseignants et les stagiaires. Conclusions: Nous croyons que les intervenants (décideurs, établissements et personnes) devraient envisager une approche multistratégie afin d’instaurer des conditions de travail viables pendant la pandémie et par la suite.

Background: Funded health research is being published in journals that many regard as “predatory”, deceptive, and non-credible. We do not currently know whether funders provide guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded health research. Methods: We identified the largest 46 philanthropic, public, development assistance, public-private partnership, and multilateral funders of health research by expenditure, globally as well as four public funders from lower-middle income countries, from the list at https://healthresearchfunders.org. One of us identified guidance on disseminating funded research from each funders’ website (August/September 2017), then extracted information about selecting journals, which was verified by another assessor. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Results were summarized descriptively. This research used publicly available information; we did not seek verification with funding bodies. Results: The majority (44/50) of sampled funders indicated funding health research. 38 (of 44, 86%) had publicly available information about disseminating funded research, typically called “policies” (29, 76%). Of these 38, 36 (95%) mentioned journal publication for dissemination of which 13 (36.11%) offer variable guidance on selecting a journal, all of which relate to the funder’s open access mandate. Six funders (17%) outlined publisher requirements or features by which to select a journal. One funder linked to a document providing features of journals to look for (e.g. listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals) and to be wary of (e.g., no journal scope statement, uses direct and unsolicited marketing). Conclusions: Few funders provided guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded research. Funders have a duty to ensure that the research they fund is discoverable by others. This research is a benchmark for funder guidance on journal selection prior to the January 2021 implementation of Plan S (a global, funder-led initiative to ensure immediate, open access to funded, published research).

Objective: The objective of this review is to describe the global evidence of gender inequity among individuals with appointments at academic institutions that conduct health research, and examine how gender intersects with other social identities to influence outcomes. Introduction: The gender demographics of universities have shifted, yet the characteristics of those who lead academic health research institutions have not reflected this change. Synthesized evidence will guide decision-making and policy development to support the progress of gender and other under-represented social identities in academia. Inclusion Criteria: This review will consider any quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods primary research that reports outcome data related to gender equity and other social identities among individuals affiliated with academic or research institutions that conduct health research, originating from any country. Methods: The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Cochrane Collaboration's guidance on living reviews will inform the review methods. Information sources will include electronic databases, unpublished literature sources, reference scanning of relevant systematic reviews, and sources provided by experts on the research team. Searches will be run regularly to monitor the development of new literature and determine when the review will be updated. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers working independently, and all discrepancies will be resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data synthesis will summarize information using descriptive frequencies and simple thematic analysis. Results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to scoping reviews.

Background: The work of journal editors is essential to producing high-quality literature, and editing can be a very rewarding career; however, the profession may not be immune to gender pay gaps found in many professions and industries, including academia and clinical medicine. Our study aimed to quantify remuneration for journal editors from core clinical journals, determine if a gender pay gap exists, and assess if there are remuneration differences across publishing models and journal characteristics. Methods: We completed an online survey of journal editors with substantial editing roles including section editors and editors-in-chief, identified from the Abridged Index Medicus “Core Clinical” journals in MEDLINE. We analyzed information on demographics, editing income, and journal characteristics using a multivariable partial proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Results: There were 166 survey respondents (response rate of 9%), which represented editors from 69 of 111 journals (62%). A total of 140 fully completed surveys were analyzed (95 males and 45 females); 50 (36%) editors did not receive remuneration for editorial work. No gender pay gap and no difference in remuneration between editors who worked in subscription-based publishing vs. open access journals were detected. Editors who were not primarily health care providers were more likely to have higher editing incomes (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-7.46). Editors who worked more than 10 hours per week editing earned more than those who worked 10 hours or less per week (adjusted OR 16.7, 95%CI 7.02-39.76). Conclusions: We were unable to detect a gender pay gap and a difference in remuneration between editors who worked in subscription-based publishing and those in open access journals. More than one third of editors surveyed from core clinical journals did not get remunerated for their editing work.

IntroductionIn response to the burden of chronic disease among older adults, different chronic disease self-management tools have been created to optimise disease management. However, these seldom consider all aspects of disease management are not usually developed specifically for seniors or created for sustained use and are primarily focused on a single disease. We created an eHealth self-management application called ‘KeepWell’ that supports seniors with complex care needs in their homes. It incorporates the care for two or more chronic conditions from among the most prevalent high-burden chronic diseases.Methods and analysisWe will evaluate the effectiveness, cost and uptake of KeepWell in a 6-month, pragmatic, hybrid effectiveness–implementation randomised controlled trial. Older adults age ≥65 years with one or more chronic conditions who are English speaking are able to consent and have access to a computer or tablet device, internet and an email address will be eligible. All consenting participants will be randomly assigned to KeepWell or control. The allocation sequence will be determined using a random number generator.Primary outcome is perceived self-efficacy at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, health background/status, lifestyle (nutrition, physical activity, caffeine, alcohol, smoking and bladder health), social engagement and connections, eHealth literacy; all collected via a Health Risk Questionnaire embedded within KeepWell (intervention) or a survey platform (control). Implementation outcomes will include reach, effectiveness, adoption, fidelity, implementation cost and sustainability.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been received from the North York General Hospital Research and Ethics Board. The study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Ontario Ministry of Health. We will work with our team to develop a dissemination strategy which will include publications, presentations, plain language summaries and an end-of-grant meeting.Trial registration numberNCT04437238.

Background Balance and functional strength training can improve muscle strength and physical functioning outcomes and decrease the risk of falls in older adults. To maximize the benefits of strength training, adequate protein intake is also important. However, the number of older individuals that consume enough protein or routinely engage in strength training remains low at less than 5% and even lower for activities that challenge balance. Our primary aim was to assess the feasibility of implementing a model (MoveStrong) of service delivery to teach older adults about balance and functional strength training and methods to increase protein intake. Methods This study was a closed cohort stepped wedge randomized controlled trial. We recruited individuals ≥60 years considered pre-frail or frail with at least one chronic condition who were not currently engaging in regular strength training from Northern (rural) and Southern (urban) Ontario sites in Canada. The primary outcome was feasibility of implementation, defined by recruitment, retention, and adherence, and safety (defined by monitoring adverse events). We also reported participants’ and providers’ experience with MoveStrong, adaptations to the model based on participant’s and provider’s experience, and program fidelity. Results We recruited 44 participants to the study and the average adherence rate was 72% with a retention of 71%. The program had a high-fidelity score. One person experienced a fall-related injury during exercise, while two other participants reported pain during certain activities. Five individuals experienced injuries or health problems that were not related to the program. Suggestions for future trials include modifying some exercises, exploring volunteer assistance, increasing the diversity of participants enrolled, and considering a different study design. Conclusions Our pilot trial demonstrates the feasibility of recruitment and adherence for a larger multisite RCT of balance and functional strength training with attention to protein intake in pre-frail and frail older adults.