Search

Background. Informal caregivers are regularly faced with difficult housing decisions for older adults with cognitive impairment. They often regret the decision they made. We aimed to identify factors associated with decision regret among informal caregivers engaging in housing decisions for cognitively impaired older adults. Methods. We performed a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data collected from a cluster-randomized trial. Eligible participants were informal caregivers involved in making housing decisions for cognitively impaired older adults. Decision regret was assessed after caregivers’ enrollment in the study using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), scored from 0 to 100. We used a conceptual framework of potential predictors of regret to identify independent variables. We performed multilevel analyses using a mixed linear model by estimating fixed effects (β) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results. The mean (SD) DRS score of 296 informal caregivers (mean [SD] age, 62 [12] years) was 12.4 (18.4). Factors associated with less decision regret were having a college degree compared to primary education (β [95% CI]: –11.14 [–18.36, –3.92]), being married compared to being single (–5.60 [–10.05, –1.15]), informal caregivers’ perception that a joint process occurred (–0.14 [–0.25, –0.02]), and older adults’ not having a specific housing preference compared to preferring to stay at home (–4.13 [–7.40, –0.86]). Factors associated with more decision regret were being retired compared to being a homemaker (7.74 [1.32, 14.16]), higher burden of care (0.14 [0.05, 0.22]), and higher decisional conflict (0.51 [0.34, 0.67]). Limitations. Our analysis may not illustrate all predictors of decision regret among informal caregivers. Conclusions. Our findings will allow risk-mitigation strategies for informal caregivers at risk of experiencing regret.

Background. Cluster randomized trials are important sources of information on evidence-based practices in primary care. However, there are few sources of intracluster correlation coefficients (ICCs) for designing such trials. We inventoried ICC estimates for shared decision-making (SDM) measures in primary care. Methods. Data sources were studies led by the Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Transition. Eligible studies were conducted in primary care, included at least 2 hierarchical levels, included SDM measures for individual units nested under any type of cluster (area, clinic, or provider), and were approved by an ethics committee. We classified measures into decision antecedents, decision processes, and decision outcomes. We used Bayesian random-effect models to estimate mode ICCs and the 95% highest probability density interval (HPDI). We summarized estimates by calculating median and interquartile range (IQR). Results. Six of 14 studies were included. There were 97 ICC estimates for 17 measures. ICC estimates ranged from 0 to 0.5 (median, 0.03; IRQ, 0–0.07). They were higher for process measures (median, 0.03; IQR, 0–0.07) than for antecedent measures (0.02; 0–0.07) or outcome measures (0.02; 0–0.06), for which, respectively, “decisional conflict” (mode, 0.48; 95% HPDI, 0.39–0.57), “reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients” (0.5; 0.11–0.89), and “quality of the decision” (0.45; 0.14–0.84) had the highest ICCs. ICCs for provider-level clustering (median, 0.06; IQR, 0–0.13) were higher than for other levels. Limitations. This convenience sample of studies may not reflect all potential ICC ranges for primary care SDM measures. Conclusions. Our inventory of ICC estimates for SDM measures in primary care will improve the ease and accuracy of power calculations in cluster randomized trials and inspire its further expansion in SDM contexts.

International audience; Background: Harm reduction (HR) interventions are essential to reduce human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission in people who inject drugs (PWID). Preliminary testing of the Individually Tailored Support and Education for Safer Injection (ITSESI) evidence-based educational intervention for PWID was performed in France in 2011. We created the Eurosider project to implement and evaluate ITSESI at a wider European level, with a view to its future pan-European diffusion.Methods: We performed a mixed-methods study involving quantitative (a 6-month before-after study with PWID) and qualitative (focus groups with field workers) components. The study was conducted in 2018-2019 with 307 eligible PWID participating in four existing HR programmes in Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, and Romania. ITSESI consists in trained field workers observing PWID injection practices and providing an educational exchange. For the present study, PWID participants were allocated to either the control group (i.e., they continued receiving only the current HR services) or the intervention group (i.e., current HR services plus ITSESI). We used the RE-AIM QuEST framework to assess the effectiveness of ITSESI and its acceptability by field workers. Effectiveness was defined as a reduction in both syringe sharing - the highest HIV/HCV transmission risk practice - and in cutaneous abscesses. We used a multivariable mixed logit model to analyse both effectiveness outcomes and to provide adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Field workers' acceptability of the intervention was described using a thematic analysis of the qualitative data.Results: Of the 307 PWID, 55% received ITSESI. Syringe sharing and cutaneous abscesses decreased during follow-up in the intervention group (from 25 to 16% and from 27 to 14%, respectively). Reductions were smaller in the control group (from 29 to 24% and from 23 to 18%, respectively). The multivariable analyses confirmed the effect of the intervention on both of these outcomes (aOR [95% CI]: 0.38 [0.17, 0.85]) and (aOR [95% CI]: 0.38 [0.16, 0.90], respectively). Our qualitative data on acceptability showed the feasibility of involving field workers as proactive research partners in making ITSESI more accessible and acceptable across Europe.Conclusions: We demonstrated both the effectiveness of ITSESI in reducing syringe sharing and cutaneous abscesses in four European countries, and a high level of intervention acceptability by field workers. Our findings provide important insights into how ITSESI can be adapted for pan-European implementation.

Little is known about cancer survivors&rsquo, sexual health (SH)&mdash, particularly, from well after diagnosis and in cancers unrelated to sexuality. This study aimed to assess SH deterioration five years after diagnosis. We analyzed data from the French national VIe apr&egrave, s le CANcer (VICAN) survey. Six items from the Relationship and Sexuality Scale were used to assess SH. Respondents were grouped according to an ascending hierarchical classification in four clusters: strong, moderate, and weak deterioration or stable (WD, SD, MD, or St). Out of 2195 eligible participants, 57.3% reported substantial SH deterioration as either SD (30.8%) or MD (26.5%), while WD and St accounted for 31.2% and 11.5% of respondents, respectively. Substantial deterioration was reported in all cancer sites (from 27.7% in melanoma to 83.1% in prostate). Treatment type, cancer sequelae, and pain, as well as psychological consequences (depression and anxiety, especially for younger patients) were associated with substantial SH deterioration. The same factors were identified after restricting the analysis to survivors of cancers unrelated to sexuality. Five years after diagnosis, the majority of cancer survivors reported SH deterioration. Interventions should be developed to improve SH regardless of cancer site. Particular attention should be paid to depression and anxiety, especially in younger survivors.

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

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

Aim: To describe activities and outcomes of a cross-team capacity building strategy that took place over a five-year funding period within the broader context of 12 community-based primary health care (CBPHC) teams. Background: In 2013, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research funded 12 CBPHC Teams (12-Teams) to conduct innovative cross-jurisdictional research to improve the delivery of high-quality CBPHC to Canadians. This signature initiative also aimed to enhance CBPHC research capacity among an interdisciplinary group of trainees, facilitated by a collaboration between a capacity building committee led by senior researchers and a trainee-led working group. Methods: After the committee and working group were established, capacity building activities were organized based on needs and interests identified by trainees of the CBPHC Teams. This paper presents a summary of the activities accomplished, as well as the outcomes reported through an online semistructured survey completed by the trainees toward the end of the five-year funding period. This survey was designed to capture the capacity building and mentorship activities that trainees either had experienced or would like to experience in the future. Descriptive and thematic analyses were conducted based on survey responses, and these findings were compared with the existing core competencies in the literature. Findings: Since 2013, nine webinars and three online workshops were hosted by trainees and senior researchers, respectively. Many of the CBPHC Teams provided exposure for trainees to innovative methods, CBPHC content, and showcased trainee research. A total of 27 trainees from 10 of the 12-Teams responded to the survey (41.5%). Trainees identified key areas of benefit from their involvement in this initiative: skills training, networking opportunities, and academic productivity. Trainees identified gaps in research and professional skill development, indicating areas for further improvement in capacity building programs, particularly for trainees to play a more active role in their education and preparation.

Background In 2013, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research funded 12 community-based primary health care research teams to develop evidence-based innovations. We aimed to explore the scalability of these innovations. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we invited the 12 teams to rate their evidence-based innovations for scalability. Based on a systematic review, we developed a self-administered questionnaire with 16 scalability assessment criteria grouped into 5 dimensions (theory, impact, coverage, setting and cost). Teams completed a questionnaire for each of their innovations. We analyzed the data using simple frequency counts and hierarchical cluster analysis. We calculated the mean number and standard deviation (SD) of innovations that met criteria within each dimension that included more than 1 criterion. The analysis unit was the innovation. Results The 11 responding teams evaluated 33 evidence-based innovations (median 3, range 1-8 per team). The innovations focused on access to care and chronic disease prevention and management, and varied from health interventions to methodological innovations. Most of the innovations were health interventions (n = 21), followed by analytical methods (n = 4), conceptual frameworks (n = 4), measures (n = 3) and strategies to build research capacity (n = 1). Most (29) met criteria in the theory dimension, followed by impact (mean 22.3 [SD 5.6] innovations per dimension), setting (mean 21.7 [SD 8.5]), cost (mean 17.5 [SD 2.1]) and coverage (mean 14.0 [SD 4.1]). On average, the innovations met 10 of the 16 criteria. Adoption was the least assessed criterion (n = 9). Most (20) of the innovations were highly ranked for scalability. Interpretation Scalability varied among innovations, which suggests that readiness for scale up was suboptimal for some innovations. Coverage remained largely unaddressed; further investigation of this critical dimension is necessary.

Policy-makers worldwide are increasingly interested in scaling up evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to larger populations, and implementation scientists are developing frameworks and methodologies for achieving this. But scaling-up does not always produce the desired results. Why not? We aimed to enhance awareness of the various pitfalls to be anticipated when planning scale-up. In lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the scale-up of health programs to prevent or respond to outbreaks of communicable diseases has been occurring for many decades. In high-income countries, there is new interest in the scaling up of interventions that address communicable and non-communicable diseases alike. We scanned the literature worldwide on problems encountered when implementing scale-up plans revealed a number of potential pitfalls that we discuss in this paper. We identified and discussed the following six major pitfalls of scaling-up EBIs: 1) the cost-effectiveness estimation pitfall, i.e. accurate cost-effectiveness estimates about real-world implementation are almost impossible, making predictions of economies of scale unreliable; 2) the health inequities pitfall, i.e. some people will necessarily be left out and therefore not benefit from the scaled-up EBIs; 3) the scaled-up harm pitfall, i.e. the harms as well as the benefits may be amplified by the scaling-up; 4) the ethical pitfall, i.e. informed consent may be a challenge on a grander scale; 5) the top-down pitfall, i.e. the needs, preferences and culture of end-users may be forgotten when scale-up is directed from above; and 6) the contextual pitfall, i.e. it may not be possible to adapt the EBIs to every context. If its pitfalls are addressed head on, scaling-up may be a powerful process for translating research data into practical improvements in healthcare in both LMICs and high-income countries, ensuring that more people benefit from EBIs.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is accompanied by specific treatment-related physical (ostomy, incontinence) and psychosexual (body image, depression) consequences on sexual health. Aim To assess sexual health of patients with CRC 2 years after diagnosis. Methods We selected all patients with CRC from a French nationwide longitudinal study. Data sources included patient questionnaires, medical questionnaires, and medico-administrative databases. Main Outcome Measure We evaluated sexual health using the Relationship and Sexuality Scale and assessed self-reported rates of discussion about sexuality with health care providers. Results Across the 487 patients, 258 were men and 229 were women; 77% were diagnosed with colon cancer and 23% with rectal cancer. Overall, 54% of patients reported a decrease in sexual desire, 61% a decrease in frequency of intercourse, and 48% a decrease in the possibility to reach an orgasm. Patients still experiencing fecal incontinence 2 years after diagnosis had decreases in all sexual desire, intercourse, orgasm, and satisfaction Relationship and Sexuality Scale items. Patients with rectal cancer had significantly more frequent troubles with desire and orgasm than did patients with colon cancer (P = .003 and P = .014, respectively). Regarding the discussion about sexuality, only 20% of men, 11% of women, 11% of patients with colon cancer, and 33% of patients with rectal cancer recalled having discussed sexuality with the medical team. Factors independently increasing the chance to have discussed sexuality with the medical team were younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 2.77 [1.31; 5.84]; P = .007), having an ostomy (OR = 2.93 [1.27; 6.73]; P = .011), and radiotherapy (OR = 2.78 [1.23; 6.27]; P = .014). Clinical Implications These results highlight the need for developing interventions to improve information delivery at cancer announcement and for managing sexual troubles during survivorship in patients with CRC, particularly those experiencing fecal incontinence. Strength & Limitations Strengths are the sample size and the national representation using the data of a large-scale nation-wide survey, with the possibility of comparing colon and rectal cancers. Limitations are the assessment of sexuality 2 years after diagnosis and using only self-reported measures. Conclusion This study highlights the lack of discussion about sexuality with the oncology team and the need for specific sexual rehabilitation interventions, especially for patients with rectal cancer and fecal incontinence. Developing these aspects may help patients with CRC improve their sexual prognosis.

Introduction A discussion about sexuality should become a routine part of the personalized care pathway for patients with cancer. Aim To assess rates of patient discussion about sexuality with health care providers after cancer. Methods We used data from the representative French nationwide 2012 VICAN survey, which included 4,349 adults 18 to 82 years old who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis at 12 cancer sites. Main Outcome Measures Self-reported rates of discussion about sexuality with health care providers were assessed, and associated factors were tested after systematic adjustment for a sexual health indicator (created from six items of the Relationship and Sexuality Scale). Results Of 4,181 respondents to the question on a discussion about sexuality, 54.7% reported that nobody had proposed a discussion to them, 21.9% did not want any discussion, and 23.4% had had a discussion. Women had less discussion about sexuality with health care providers (11.1% vs 36.7% of men, P < .001) and were more likely to request a discussion at their own initiative (62.9% vs 48.0% of men, P < .001). Discussion about sexuality was more frequent with patients with prostate (56.3%) and cervical (39.6%) cancer, but increasing age was associated with a greater reluctance to discuss this issue (odds ratio = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.04–1.2). The likelihood of discussion increased with severe sexual problems, radiotherapy, general sequelae, having an information-seeker profile, previous professional psychological help, and initial treatment in private centers. Patients initially wishing for psychological help were more likely to desire a discussion about sexuality. Conclusion Sexuality receives little attention in French patients with cancer. Inequalities in the discussion about sexuality were observed in relation to the type of care center where the patient was initially managed. Information on supportive interventions, including more systematic referral for professional psychological help, should be developed to facilitate discussion and should be offered to all patients, irrespective of severity of sexual problems, age, sex, cancer site, and care center.

Background Given the substantial period of time adults spend in their workplaces each day, these provide an opportune setting for interventions addressing modifiable behavioural risk factors for chronic disease. Previous reviews of trials of workplace-based interventions suggest they can be effective in modifying a range of risk factors including diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use and tobacco use. However, such interventions are often poorly implemented in workplaces, limiting their impact on employee health. Identifying strategies that are effective in improving the implementation of workplace-based interventions has the potential to improve their effects on health outcomes. Objectives To assess the effects of strategies for improving the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use and alcohol use.Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of such strategies on employee health behaviours, including dietary intake, physical activity, weight status, and alcohol and tobacco use; evaluate their cost-effectiveness; and identify any unintended adverse effects of implementation strategies on workplaces or workplace staff. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases on 31 August 2017: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; MEDLINE In Process; the Campbell Library; PsycINFO; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and Scopus. We also handsearched all publications between August 2012 and September 2017 in two speciality journals: Implementation Science and Journal of Translational Behavioral Medicine. We conducted searches up to September 2017 in Dissertations and Theses, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the US National Institutes of Health Registry. We screened the reference lists of included trials and contacted authors to identify other potentially relevant trials. We also consulted experts in the field to identify other relevant research. Selection criteria Implementation strategies were defined as strategies specifically employed to improve the implementation of health interventions into routine practice within specific settings. We included any trial with a parallel control group (randomised or non-randomised) and conducted at any scale that compared strategies to support implementation of workplace policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use or tobacco use versus no intervention (i.e. wait-list, usual practice or minimal support control) or another implementation strategy. Implementation strategies could include those identified by the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy such as quality improvement initiatives and education and training, as well as other strategies. Implementation interventions could target policies or practices directly instituted in the workplace environment, as well as workplace-instituted efforts encouraging the use of external health promotion services (e.g. gym membership subsidies). Data collection and analysis Review authors working in pairs independently performed citation screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, resolving disagreements via consensus or a third reviewer. We narratively synthesised findings for all included trials by first describing trial characteristics, participants, interventions and outcomes. We then described the effect size of the outcome measure for policy or practice implementation. We performed meta-analysis of implementation outcomes for trials of comparable design and outcome. Main results We included six trials, four of which took place in the USA. Four trials employed randomised controlled trial (RCT) designs. Trials were conducted in workplaces from the manufacturing, industrial and services-based sectors. The sample sizes of workplaces ranged from 12 to 114. Workplace policies and practices targeted included: healthy catering policies; point-of-purchase nutrition labelling; environmental supports for healthy eating and physical activity; tobacco control policies; weight management programmes; and adherence to guidelines for staff health promotion. All implementation interventions utilised multiple implementation strategies, the most common of which were educational meetings, tailored interventions and local consensus processes. Four trials compared an implementation strategy intervention with a no intervention control, one trial compared different implementation interventions, and one three-arm trial compared two implementation strategies with each other and a control. Four trials reported a single implementation outcome, whilst the other two reported multiple outcomes. Investigators assessed outcomes using surveys, audits and environmental observations. We judged most trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias and at unclear risk of reporting and attrition bias.Of the five trials comparing implementation strategies with a no intervention control, pooled analysis was possible for three RCTs reporting continuous score-based measures of implementation outcomes. The meta-analysis found no difference in standardised effects (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.30; 164 participants; 3 studies; low certainty evidence), suggesting no benefit of implementation support in improving policy or practice implementation, relative to control. Findings for other continuous or dichotomous implementation outcomes reported across these five trials were mixed. For the two non-randomised trials examining comparative effectiveness, both reported improvements in implementation, favouring the more intensive implementation group (very low certainty evidence). Three trials examined the impact of implementation strategies on employee health behaviours, reporting mixed effects for diet and weight status (very low certainty evidence) and no effect for physical activity (very low certainty evidence) or tobacco use (low certainty evidence). One trial reported an increase in absolute workplace costs for health promotion in the implementation group (low certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed adverse consequences. Limitations of the review included the small number of trials identified and the lack of consistent terminology applied in the implementation science field, which may have resulted in us overlooking potentially relevant trials in the search. Authors' conclusions Available evidence regarding the effectiveness of implementation strategies for improving implementation of health-promoting policies and practices in the workplace setting is sparse and inconsistent. Low certainty evidence suggests that such strategies may make little or no difference on measures of implementation fidelity or different employee health behaviour outcomes. It is also unclear if such strategies are cost-effective or have potential unintended adverse consequences. The limited number of trials identified suggests implementation research in the workplace setting is in its infancy, warranting further research to guide evidence translation in this setting.

Background While an extensive array of existing evidence-based practices (EBPs) have the potential to improve patient outcomes, little is known about how to implement EBPs on a larger scale. Therefore, we sought to identify effective strategies for scaling up EBPs in primary care. Methods We conducted a systematic review with the following inclusion criteria: (i) study design: randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, before-and-after (with/without control), and interrupted time series; (ii) participants: primary care-related units (e.g., clinical sites, patients); (iii) intervention: any strategy used to scale up an EBP; (iv) comparator: no restrictions; and (v) outcomes: no restrictions. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to August 2016 and consulted clinical trial registries and gray literature. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies, then extracted and analyzed data following the Cochrane methodology. We extracted components of scaling-up strategies and classified them into five categories: infrastructure, policy/regulation, financial, human resources-related, and patient involvement. We extracted scaling-up process outcomes, such as coverage, and provider/patient outcomes. We validated data extraction with study authors. Results We included 14 studies. They were published since 2003 and primarily conducted in low-/middle-income countries (n = 11). Most were funded by governmental organizations (n = 8). The clinical area most represented was infectious diseases (HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, n = 8), followed by newborn/child care (n = 4), depression (n = 1), and preventing seniors’ falls (n = 1). Study designs were mostly before-and-after (without control, n = 8). The most frequently targeted unit of scaling up was the clinical site (n = 11). The component of a scaling-up strategy most frequently mentioned was human resource-related (n = 12). All studies reported patient/provider outcomes. Three studies reported scaling-up coverage, but no study quantitatively reported achieving a coverage of 80% in combination with a favorable impact. Conclusions We found few studies assessing strategies for scaling up EBPs in primary care settings. It is uncertain whether any strategies were effective as most studies focused more on patient/provider outcomes and less on scaling-up process outcomes. Minimal consensus on the metrics of scaling up are needed for assessing the scaling up of EBPs in primary care. Trial registration This review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041461. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0672-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Up to now, little attention has been paid to West Africa when it comes to shared decision making (SDM). West African countries seem to lag behind with regard to SDM initiatives compared to many other countries in the world. There is some interest in informed decision making or informed consent, but little in a full SDM process. Few decision-making tools are available for healthcare professionals and the majority are not designed to support decision-making with patients. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, there are no training programs for implementing SDM in healthcare teams. Many barriers exist to implementing SDM in West Africa, including lack of options, few or poor health resources and low levels of education. However, African countries present many opportunities for SDM as well. Existing SDM innovations developed for other populations with low literacy could be explored and adapted to the West African context, and research on implementation and outcomes in West Africa could contribute to SDM worldwide. West African countries are in an excellent position to both learn from other countries and contribute to SDM development in other parts of the world. In this paper we reflect on SDM challenges and opportunities, and propose a research agenda for West Africa. We hope to awaken interest in SDM in West Africa and encourage future collaborations on SDM with various West African stakeholders, including patients, healthcare professionals, policymakers, non-government organisations (NGOs) and academic institutions.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The primary aim of this review is to determine the effectiveness of implementation strategies for policies, practices or programmes that aim to improve health behaviours or reduce unhealthy behaviours commonly associated with risk factors for chronic disease in the workplace. Specifically, this review will target interventions that address diet, physical inactivity, obesity, risky alcohol use and tobacco use. In addition, this review will determine: the effectiveness of implementation strategies on health behaviour outcomes (nutrition, physical activity, obesity, alcohol use and smoking); the cost‐effectiveness of these strategies; the existence of adverse outcomes resulting from the implementation of these strategies.

BACKGROUND Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis has been shown to reduce the risk of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in some studies, but conflicting results have been reported among studies, probably due to challenges of adherence to a daily regimen. METHODS We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial of antiretroviral therapy for preexposure HIV-1 prophylaxis among men who have unprotected anal sex with men. Participants were randomly assigned to take a combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and emtricitabine (FTC) or placebo before and after sexual activity. All participants received risk-reduction counseling and condoms and were regularly tested for HIV-1 and HIV-2 and other sexually transmitted infections. RESULTS Of the 414 participants who underwent randomization, 400 who did not have HIV infection were enrolled (199 in the TDF-FTC group and 201 in the placebo group). All participants were followed for a median of 9.3 months (interquartile range, 4.9 to 20.6). A total of 16 HIV-1 infections occurred during follow-up, 2 in the TDF-FTC group (incidence, 0.91 per 100 person-years) and 14 in the placebo group (incidence, 6.60 per 100 person-years), a relative reduction in the TDF-FTC group of 86% (95% confidence interval, 40 to 98; P = 0.002). Participants took a median of 15 pills of TDF-FTC or placebo per month (P = 0.57). The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two study groups. In the TDF-FTC group, as compared with the placebo group, there were higher rates of gastrointestinal adverse events (14% vs. 5%, P = 0.002) and renal adverse events (18% vs. 10%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS The use of TDF-FTC before and after sexual activity provided protection against HIV-1 infection in men who have sex with men. The treatment was associated with increased rates of gastrointestinal and renal adverse events. (Funded by the National Agency of Research on AIDS and Viral Hepatitis [ANRS] and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01473472.)