Online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study investigated the online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception up to May 2023. Cochrane reviews with any population (P), intervention or concept supported by any digital technology (I), any or no comparison (C), and any health outcome (O) were included. Data on review characteristics (bibliographic information, PICO, and evidence quality) and dissemination strategies were extracted and processed. Dissemination was assessed using review information on the Cochrane website and Altmetric data that trace the mentions of academic publications in nonacademic online channels. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Out of 170 records identified in the search, 100 Cochrane reviews, published between 2005 and 2023, were included. The reviews focused on consumers (e.g. patients, n = 86), people of any age (n = 44), and clinical populations (n = 68). All reviews addressed interventions or concepts supported by digital technologies with any devices (n = 73), mobile devices (n = 17), or computers (n = 10). The outcomes focused on disease treatment (n = 56), health promotion and disease prevention (n = 27), or management of care delivery (n = 17). All reviews included 1-132 studies, and half included 1-10 studies. Meta-analysis was performed in 69 reviews, and certainty of evidence was rated as high or moderate for at least one outcome in 46 reviews. In agreement with the Cochrane guidelines, all reviews had a plain language summary (PLS) that was available in 3-14 languages. The reviews were disseminated (i.e. mentioned online) predominantly via X/Twitter (n = 99) and Facebook (n = 69). Overall, 51 reviews were mentioned in up to 25% and 49 reviews in 5% of all research outputs traced by Altmetric data. Dissemination (i.e. higher Altmetric scores) was associated with bibliographic review characteristics (i.e. earlier publication year and PLS available in more languages), but not with evidence quality (i.e. certainty of evidence rating, number of studies, or meta-analysis performed in review). CONCLUSIONS: Online attention towards Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies is high. Dissemination is higher for older reviews and reviews with more PLS translations. Measures are required to improve dissemination of Cochrane reviews based on evidence quality. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/mpw8u/ ).

The effectiveness of mental health interventions involving non-specialists and digital technology in low-and middle-income countries - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Combining non-specialists and digital technologies in mental health interventions could decrease the mental healthcare gap in resource scarce countries. This systematic review examined different combinations of non-specialists and digital technologies in mental health interventions and their effectiveness in reducing the mental healthcare gap in low-and middle-income countries. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in four databases (September 2023), three trial registries (January-February 2022), and using forward and backward citation searches (May-June 2022). The review included primary studies on mental health interventions combining non-specialists and digital technologies in low-and middle-income countries. The outcomes were: (1) the mental health of intervention receivers and (2) the competencies of non-specialists to deliver mental health interventions. Data were expressed as standardised effect sizes (Cohen's d) and narratively synthesised. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for individual and cluster randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. RESULTS: Of the 28 included studies (n = 32 interventions), digital technology was mainly used in non-specialist primary-delivery treatment models for common mental disorders or subthreshold symptoms. The competencies of non-specialists were improved with digital training (d ≤ 0.8 in 4/7 outcomes, n = 4 studies, 398 participants). The mental health of receivers improved through non-specialist-delivered interventions, in which digital technologies were used to support the delivery of the intervention (d > 0.8 in 24/40 outcomes, n = 11, 2469) or to supervise the non-specialists' work (d = 0.2-0.8 in 10/17 outcomes, n = 3, 3096). Additionally, the mental health of service receivers improved through digitally delivered mental health services with non-specialist involvement (d = 0.2-0.8 in 12/27 outcomes, n = 8, 2335). However, the overall certainty of the evidence was poor. CONCLUSION: Incorporating digital technologies into non-specialist mental health interventions tended to enhance non-specialists' competencies and knowledge in intervention delivery, and had a positive influence on the severity of mental health problems, mental healthcare utilization, and psychosocial functioning outcomes of service recipients, primarily within primary-deliverer care models. More robust evidence is needed to compare the magnitude of effectiveness and identify the clinical relevance of specific digital functions. Future studies should also explore long-term and potential adverse effects and interventions targeting men and marginalised communities.

Disaster Preparedness Evaluation Tool (DPET): Adaptation and psychometric evaluation for nurses in Germany.

Background: The Disaster Preparedness Evaluation Tool (DPET) with 47 items was developed to assess the disaster preparedness level among nurses in the USA. Aim: This study aimed (1) to adapt and validate the DPET for the nursing context in Germany and (2) to perform its psychometric evaluation. Methods: The DPET items were translated to German (DPET-GER). Adaptation was performed to identify irrelevant items and content validity was estimated using the scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) based on expert ratings. Psychometric evaluation was performed based on data from an online survey of 317 nurses. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and factor structure were assessed with an exploratory factor analysis. Results: Ten items were unanimously rated as irrelevant by four experts and removed. Based on ratings by further seven experts, the content validity of DPET-GER was low for all 37 items (S-CVI of 0.53) or moderate for 19 items rated as relevant (S-CVI of 0.74). The internal consistency of DPET-GER was high (Cronbach's alpha of 0.94) and 37 items were reduced to five factors that explain 55% of variance in all items. Conclusions: The DPET-GER has acceptable psychometric properties (internal consistency and factor structure). However, low content validity indicates that further adaptation of the DPET-GER is required before it could be used to assess disaster preparedness among nurses in Germany. More research is also needed to contextualize the construct of disaster preparedness.

Consideration of Sex, Gender, or Age on Outcomes of Digital Technologies for Treatment and Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Overview of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Several systematic reviews have addressed digital technology use for treatment and monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess if systematic reviews considered the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of such systematic reviews. The objectives of this overview were to (1) describe the definitions of sex or gender used in reviews; (2) determine whether the consideration of sex, gender, or age was planned in reviews; (3) determine whether sex, gender, or age was reported in review results; (4) determine whether sex, gender, or age was incorporated in implications for clinical practice in reviews; and (5) create an evidence map for development of individualized clinical recommendations for COPD based on sex, gender, or age diversity. METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, and the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews were searched to June 2022. Inclusion was based on the PICOS framework: (1) population (COPD), (2) intervention (any digital technology), (3) comparison (any), (4) outcome (any), and (5) study type (systematic review). Studies were independently selected by 2 authors based on title and abstract and full-text screening. Data were extracted by 1 author and checked by another author. Data items included systematic review characteristics; PICOS criteria; and variables related to sex, gender, or age. Systematic reviews were appraised using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1439 records, 30 systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2022 were included in this overview. The confidence in the results of 25 of the 30 (83%) reviews was critically low according to AMSTAR 2. The reviews focused on user outcomes that potentially depend on sex, gender, or age, such as efficacy or effectiveness (25/30, 83%) and acceptance, satisfaction, or adherence (3/30, 10%) to digital technologies for COPD. Reviews reported sex or gender (19/30 systematic reviews) or age (25/30 systematic reviews) among primary study characteristics. However, only 1 of 30 reviews included age in a subgroup analysis, and 3 of 30 reviews identified the effects of sex, gender, or age as evidence gaps. CONCLUSIONS: This overview shows that the effects of sex, gender, or age were rarely considered in 30 systematic reviews of digital technologies for COPD treatment and monitoring. Furthermore, systematic reviews did not incorporate sex, gender, nor age in their implications for clinical practice. We recommend that future systematic reviews should (1) evaluate the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD and (2) better adhere to reporting guidelines to improve the confidence in review results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322924. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/40538.

Dissemination of knowledge from Cochrane Public Health reviews: a bibliographic study.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate dissemination of public health evidence is of high importance to ensure that scientific knowledge reaches potential stakeholders and relevant population groups. A wide distrust towards science and its findings indicates that communication thereof remains below its potential. Cochrane Public Health provides an important source of high-quality scientific evidence in the field of public health via reviews with systematic methodology. The aims of this study were to identify (1) dissemination strategies and (2) stakeholders of Cochrane Public Health reviews. METHODS: This is a bibliographic study with a cross-sectional design. All 68 records (reviews or review protocols) listed on the Cochrane Public Health website ( https://ph.cochrane.org/cph-reviews-and-topics ) up to 8 March 2022 were included. Record characteristics, dissemination strategies, and potential stakeholder details were coded by one author, and 10% of records were checked by another author. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics or narratively into common themes. RESULTS: The 68 records were published between 2010 and 2022 and included 15 review protocols and 53 reviews with systematic methodology (46 systematic, 6 rapid, and 1 scoping review). All 53 reviews were disseminated via open-access plain language summaries (PLS) in English with translations into 3-13 other languages. Other dissemination strategies included information on Cochrane websites (e.g., clinical answers or guidelines) available for 41/53 reviews and Cochrane news or blogs that mentioned 19/53 reviews. Overall, 23/68 records mentioned the actual stakeholder involvement in review production, protocol development, or formulation of dissemination plans. The potential stakeholders included several highly diverse groups, such as the general population or specific communities (e.g., racial minority groups), policy and decision makers, and researchers and professionals in various fields (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, education, or care). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that Cochrane Public Health reviews are disseminated predominantly via PLS in different languages and via review information on Cochrane websites. Planned dissemination strategies were rarely reported although actual stakeholders were involved in the planning and production of some reviews. The relevance of Cochrane Public Health reviews for non-academic stakeholders and the general population highlights the need for the dissemination of evidence from such reviews beyond academia. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ga9pt/ ).

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncological care in Germany: rapid review.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic affected medical care for chronic diseases. This study aimed to systematically assess the pandemic impact on oncological care in Germany using a rapid review. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, study and preprint registries and study bibliographies were searched for studies published between 2020 and 2 November 2022. Inclusion was based on the PCC framework: population (cancer), concept (oncological care) and context (COVID-19 pandemic in Germany). Studies were selected after title/abstract and full-text screening by two authors. Extracted data were synthesized using descriptive statistics or narratively. Risk of bias was assessed and summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 77 records (59 peer-reviewed studies and 18 reports) with administrative, cancer registry and survey data were included. Disruptions in oncological care were reported and varied according to pandemic-related factors (e.g., pandemic stage) and other (non-pandemic) factors (e.g., care details). During higher restriction periods fewer consultations and non-urgent surgeries, and delayed diagnosis and screening were consistently reported. Heterogeneous results were reported for treatment types other than surgery (e.g., psychosocial care) and aftercare, while ongoing care remained mostly unchanged. The risk of bias was on average moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Disruptions in oncological care were reported during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Such disruptions probably depended on factors that were insufficiently controlled for in statistical analyses and evidence quality was on average only moderate. Research focus on patient outcomes (e.g., longer term consequences of disruptions) and pandemic management by healthcare systems is potentially relevant for future pandemics or health emergencies.

Improving academic and public health impact of Cochrane public health reviews: what can we learn from bibliographic metrics and author dissemination strategies? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate the development of impactful research dissemination strategies, this study aimed to: (i) survey authors of trials included in a sample of Cochrane reviews to describe strategies to disseminate trial findings, and examine their association with academic and policy impacts and (ii) audit academic and policy impact of CPH reviews. METHODS: Authors of 104 trials within identified Cochrane reviews completed survey items assessing the dissemination strategies. Field weighted citation (FWCI) data extracted from bibliographic databases served as a measure of academic impact of trials and CPH reviews. Policy and practice impacts of trials were assessed during the survey of trial authors using items based on the Payback Framework, and for CPH reviews using 'policy mention' data collected via Altmetric Explorer. RESULTS: Among the included trials, univariate (but not multivariable) regression models revealed significant associations between the use of dissemination strategies (i.e. posts on social media; workshops with end-users; media-releases) and policy or practice impacts. No significant associations were reported between dissemination strategies and trial FWCI. The mean FWCI of CPH reviews suggest that they are cited 220% more than other reviews in their field. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive dissemination strategies are likely required to maximize the potential the potential impacts of public health research.

Different Approaches to Appraising Systematic Reviews of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion Using AMSTAR 2 Tool: Cross-Sectional Study.

High-quality systematic reviews (SRs) can strengthen the evidence base for prevention and health promotion. A 16-item AMSTAR 2 tool allows the appraisal of SRs by deriving a confidence rating in their results. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to assess and compare two approaches to appraising 30 SRs of digital interventions for physical activity (PA) promotion using AMSTAR 2. Approach 1 (appraisals with 2/16 items) was used to identify SRs with critically low confidence ratings. Approach 2 (appraisals with all 16 items) was used (1) to derive the confidence ratings, (2) to identify SR strengths and weaknesses, and (3) to compare SR strengths among subgroups of SRs. The appraisal outcomes were summarized and compared using descriptive statistics. Approach 1 was quick (mean of 5 min/SR) at identifying SRs with critically low confidence ratings. Approach 2 was slower (mean of 20 min/SR), but allowed to identify SR strengths and weaknesses. Approach 2 showed that confidence ratings were low to critically low in 29/30 SRs. More strengths were identified in SRs with review protocols relative to SRs without review protocols and in newer SRs (published after AMSTAR 2 release) relative to older SRs. Only two items on AMSTAR 2 can quickly identify SRs with critical weaknesses. Although most SRs received low to critically low confidence ratings, SRs with review protocols and newer SRs tended to have more strengths. Future SRs require review protocols and better adherence to reporting guidelines to improve the confidence in their results.

In Cochrane nutrition reviews assessment of dietary adherence varied considerably.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to investigate if and how Cochrane nutrition reviews assess dietary adherence to a specific dietary regimen. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cochrane nutrition reviews fulfilling the following criteria were included: systematic review of randomized controlled trials including adults and investigating the effect of caloric restriction, dietary pattern, foods, nutrients, supplements, or other nutrition-related-interventions. Extensive data extraction and descriptive statistics were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 226 Cochrane reviews were included. Most reviews mentioned dietary adherence in the main text (n = 174), predominantly in the Methods and Results. Dietary adherence was assessed in 76 reviews and defined in 19. It was included in the risk of bias (RoB) assessment in 20 reviews with nine using a newly created RoB domain for dietary adherence, and considered as outcome in 37 reviews. Seventy-five reviews addressed degree of adherence and five treatment effects considering the degree of adherence. CONCLUSION: Dietary adherence was reported in a heterogeneous manner in Cochrane nutrition reviews. Due to its high importance, we suggest that systematic reviews report the assessment and degree of dietary adherence measured in primary studies. Dietary adherence can further be examined as outcome, evaluated within the RoB (deviations from intended interventions) and included in sensitivity analyses.

User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary.

BACKGROUND: 'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2' (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary aims to describe the challenges with rating of the individual items and the application of AMSTAR 2 from the user perspective. DISCUSSION: A group of six experienced users (methodologists working in different clinical fields for at least 10 years) identified and discussed the challenges in rating of each item and the general use of AMSTAR 2 to appraise SRs. A group discussion was used to develop recommendations on how users could deal with the identified challenges. We identified various challenges with the content of items 2-16 and with the derivation of the overall confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2. These challenges include the need (1) to provide additional definitions (e.g., what constitutes major deviations from SR protocol on item 2), (2) to choose a rating strategy for multiple conditions on single items (e.g., how to rate item 5 if studies were selected in duplicate, but consensus between two authors was not reported), and (3) to determine rules for deriving the confidence ratings (e.g., what items are critical for such ratings). Based on these challenges we formulated specific recommendations for items 2-16 that AMSTAR 2 users could consider before applying the tool. Our commentary adds to the existing literature by providing the first in-depth examination of the AMSTAR 2 tool from the user perspective. The identified challenges could be addressed by additional decision rules including definitions for ambiguous items and guidance for rating of complex items and derivation of confidence ratings. We recommend that a team consensus regarding such decision rules is required before appraisal procedure begins. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Digital Technologies for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention in Older People: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital technologies have the potential to contribute to health promotion and disease prevention in the aging world. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify digital technologies for health promotion and disease prevention that could be used independently by older people in nonclinical settings using a scoping review. METHODS: Through database (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and SCOPUS; to March 3, 2022) and manual searches (to June 14, 2022), 90 primary studies and 8 systematic reviews were included in this scoping review. The eligibility was based on the PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) criteria: (1) people aged 50 years or older (population), (2) any digital (health) technology (eg, smartphone apps, websites, virtual reality; concept), and (3) health promotion and disease prevention in daily life in nonclinical and noninstitutional settings (context). Data items included study characteristics, PCC criteria, opportunities versus challenges, and evidence gaps. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics or narratively described by identifying common themes. RESULTS: The studies were published in 2005-2022 and originated predominantly from North America and Europe. Most primary studies were nonrandomized, reported quantitative data, and investigated effectiveness or feasibility (eg, acceptance or usability) of digital technologies in older people. The participants were aged 50 years to 99 years, predominantly female, affluent (ie, with high income, education, and digital competence), and intended to use or used digital technologies for a median of 3 months independently at home or in community settings. The digital technologies included mobile or nonmobile technologies or virtual reality. The studies used "modern devices" (eg, smartphones, wearables, or gaming consoles) or modern and "older devices" (eg, computers or mobile phones). The users interacted with digital technologies via websites, emails, text messages, apps, or virtual reality. Health targets of digital technologies were mobility, mental health, nutrition, or cognition. The opportunities versus challenges of digital technologies were (1) potential health benefits versus unclear or no benefits for some outcomes, (2) monitoring of health versus ethical issues with data collection and management, (3) implications for functioning in daily life (ie, potential to prolong independent living) versus unclear application for clinical management or care, (4) tailoring of technical properties and content toward older users versus general use, (5) importance of human support for feasibility versus other factors required to improve feasibility, (6) reduction of social isolation versus access to digital technologies, and (7) improvement in digital competence versus digital divide. CONCLUSIONS: Various digital technologies were independently used by people aged 50 years or older for health promotion and disease prevention. Future studies should focus on (1) more diverse populations of older people, (2) new digital technologies, (3) other (clinical and care) settings, and (4) outcome evaluation to identify factors that could enhance any health benefits of digital technologies. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/37729.

The Influence of Sex, Gender, or Age on Outcomes of Digital Technologies for Treatment and Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Protocol for an Overview of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common chronic disease that can be treated and monitored with various digital technologies. Digital technologies offer unique opportunities for treating and monitoring people with chronic diseases, but little is known about whether the outcomes of such technologies depend on sex, gender, or age in people with COPD. OBJECTIVE: The general objective of this study is to assess the possible influence of sex, gender, or age on outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of systematic reviews. METHODS: The study is planned as an overview of systematic reviews. Study reporting is based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines because guidelines for overviews are not available as of this writing. The information sources for the overview will include 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and Web of Science) as well as the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews. The electronic search strategy will be developed and conducted in collaboration with an experienced database specialist. The search results will be presented in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The eligibility of studies is based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) criteria: (1) people with COPD (population), (2) digital technology intervention for treatment or monitoring (intervention), (3) any control group or no control group (comparison), (4) any outcome, and (5) systematic review of randomized controlled trials or non-randomized controlled trials with or without a meta-analysis (study design). Critical appraisal of the included systematic reviews will be performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data will be extracted using a standardized data extraction sheet. RESULTS: The literature search is scheduled for June 2022. We expect to select the relevant systematic reviews, code the data, and appraise the systematic reviews by December 2022. CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing recognition that the influence of sex, gender, or age should be considered in research design and outcome reporting in the context of health care interventions. Our overview will identify systematic reviews of various digital technologies for treatment or monitoring of COPD. The most interesting aspect of the overview will be to investigate if any systematic reviews considered the influence of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of such digital technologies in COPD. Evidence from the overview could be used to guide more individualized (sex, gender, or age-based) recommendations for the use of digital technologies among people with COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322924.

Digital Technologies for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention in Older People: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital technologies could contribute to health promotion and disease prevention. It is unclear if and how such digital technologies address the health needs of older people in nonclinical settings (ie, daily life). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify digital technologies for health promotion and disease prevention that target the needs of older people in nonclinical settings by performing a scoping review of the published literature. The scoping review is guided by the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. METHODS: Our scoping review follows the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The information sources are bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and SCOPUS) and bibliographies of any included systematic reviews. Manual searches for additional studies will be performed in Google Scholar and most relevant journals. The electronic search strategy was developed in collaboration with a librarian who performed the search for studies on digital technologies for health promotion and disease prevention targeting the needs of older people. Study selection and data coding will be performed independently by 2 authors. Consensus will be reached by discussion. Eligibility is based on the PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) criteria as follows: (1) older people (population); (2) any digital (health) technology, such as websites, smartphone apps, or wearables (concept); and (3) health promotion and disease prevention in nonclinical (daily life, home, or community) settings (context). Primary studies with any design or reviews with a systematic methodology published in peer-reviewed academic journals will be included. Data items will address study designs, PCC criteria, benefits or barriers related to digital technology use by older people, and evidence gaps. Data will be synthesized using descriptive statistics or narratively described by identifying common themes. Quality appraisal will be performed for any included systematic reviews, using a validated instrument for this study type (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 [AMSTAR2]). RESULTS: Following preliminary literature searches to test and calibrate the search syntax, the electronic literature search was performed in March 2022 and manual searches were completed in June 2022. Study selection based on titles and abstracts was completed in July 2022, and the full-text screen was initiated in July 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review will identify the types of digital technologies, health targets in the context of health promotion and disease prevention, and health benefits or barriers associated with the use of such technologies for older people in nonclinical settings. This knowledge could guide further research on how digital technologies can support healthy aging. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/37729.

Evaluation of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions are interventions supported by digital tools or technologies, such as mobile apps, wearables, or web-based software. Digital interventions in the context of public health are specifically designed to promote and improve health. Recent reviews have shown that many digital interventions target physical activity promotion; however, it is unclear how such digital interventions are evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate evaluation strategies in the context of digital interventions for physical activity promotion using a scoping review of published reviews. We focused on the target (ie, user outcomes or tool performance), methods (ie, tool data or self-reported data), and theoretical frameworks of the evaluation strategies. METHODS: A protocol for this study was preregistered and published. From among 300 reviews published up to March 19, 2021 in Medline, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases, 40 reviews (1 rapid, 9 scoping, and 30 systematic) were included in this scoping review. Two authors independently performed study selection and data coding. Consensus was reached by discussion. If applicable, data were coded quantitatively into predefined categories or qualitatively using definitions or author statements from the included reviews. Data were analyzed using either descriptive statistics, for quantitative data (relative frequencies out of all studies), or narrative synthesis focusing on common themes, for qualitative data. RESULTS: Most reviews that were included in our scoping review were published in the period from 2019 to 2021 and originated from Europe or Australia. Most primary studies cited in the reviews included adult populations in clinical or nonclinical settings, and focused on mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion. The evaluation target was a user outcome (efficacy, acceptability, usability, feasibility, or engagement) in 38 of the 40 reviews or tool performance in 24 of the 40 reviews. Evaluation methods relied upon objective tool data (in 35/40 reviews) or other data from self-reports or assessments (in 28/40 reviews). Evaluation frameworks based on behavior change theory, including goal setting, self-monitoring, feedback on behavior, and educational or motivational content, were mentioned in 22 out of 40 reviews. Behavior change theory was included in the development phases of digital interventions according to the findings of 20 out of 22 reviews. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of digital interventions is a high priority according to the reviews included in this scoping review. Evaluations of digital interventions, including mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion, typically target user outcomes and rely upon objective tool data. Behavior change theory may provide useful guidance not only for development of digital interventions but also for the evaluation of user outcomes in the context of physical activity promotion. Future research should investigate factors that could improve the efficacy of digital interventions and the standardization of terminology and reporting in this field. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/35332.

Health Literacy Needs Among Unemployed Persons: Collating Evidence Through Triangulation of Interview and Scoping Review Data.

Background: Unemployed persons are at high risk for low health literacy. Most studies addressing health literacy of unemployed persons focus on risk factors for low health literacy or correlates of health literacy, but studies on needs of unemployed persons regarding health literacy are scarce. We aimed to obtain better understanding of health literacy needs of unemployed adults by triangulating the results from a scoping review on health literacy needs in unemployed adults and additional in-depth qualitative interviews. Methods: Scoping review: We searched six databases up to January 2021 as well as gray literature for relevant studies following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened independently by two researchers. Qualitative study: Ten participants of a job-reintegration program in Germany were interviewed following a guideline covering topics including health issues of interest to the participants, their sources of health-related information and the barriers/facilitators they experience when accessing health services. Results: Scoping review: After screening 2,966 titles and abstracts, 36 full texts were considered, and five articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four focused on mental health literacy and outcomes, while the fifth assessed information-seeking practices. One additional report on health literacy was identified via the gray literature search. Awareness of one's condition was identified as a facilitator for mental health help-seeking, while fear of harmful effects of medication prevented help-seeking. Qualitative study: Participants were interested in and were generally well-informed about health topics such as nutrition and physical activity. The main challenge perceived was translating the knowledge into practice in daily life. GPs and the social services providers played an important role as a source of health information and advice. Regarding mental health, similar barriers, facilitators and needs were identified through triangulation of findings of the scoping review with those of the interviews. Conclusions: There is need to address health literacy needs of long-term unemployed persons that go beyond mental health literacy. Public health interventions should not only aim at improving health literacy scores, but also focus on how to help participants translate health literacy into practice. Population groups of interest should also be involved in all processes of designing interventions.

Evaluation of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions (DIs) could support physical activity (PA) promotion, according to recent reviews. However, it remains unclear if and how DIs for PA promotion are evaluated; thus, it is unclear if they support behavior change in real-world settings. A mapping of evidence from published reviews is required to focus on the evaluation of DIs for PA promotion. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to investigate evaluation strategies for any outcome in the context of DIs for PA promotion by conducting a scoping review of published reviews. METHODS: Our scoping review adheres to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The information sources include bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) and the bibliographies of the selected studies. The electronic search strategy was developed and conducted in collaboration with an experienced database specialist. The electronic search was conducted in English with no limits up to March 19, 2021, for sources with the terms digital intervention AND evaluation AND physical activity in titles or abstracts. After deduplication, 300 reviews selected from 4912 search results were assessed for eligibility by 2 authors working independently. The inclusion criteria were (1) healthy or clinical samples (population), (2) DIs for PA promotion (intervention), (3) comparisons to any other intervention or no intervention (comparison), (4) evaluation strategies (methods, results, or frameworks) for any outcome in the context of DIs for PA promotion (outcome), and (5) any published review (study type). According to the consensus reached during a discussion, 40 reviews met the inclusion criteria-36 from the electronic search and 4 from the manual search of the bibliographies of the 36 reviews. All reviews reported the evaluation strategies for any outcomes in the context of DIs for PA promotion in healthy or clinical samples. Data coding and the quality appraisal of systematic reviews are currently being performed independently by 2 authors. RESULTS: Our scoping review includes data from 40 published reviews (1 rapid review, 9 scoping reviews, and 30 systematic reviews). The focus of data coding is on evaluation strategies in the context of DIs for PA promotion and on the critical appraisal of the included systematic reviews. The final consensus regarding all data is expected in early 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions for PA promotion that are supported by digital technologies require evaluation to ensure their efficacy in real-world settings. Our scoping review is needed because it addresses novel objectives that focus on such evaluations and are not answered in the published reviews identified in our search. The evaluation strategies addressing DIs for PA promotion will be mapped to synthesize the results that have been reported in published reviews so far. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35332.

The application of AMSTAR2 in 32 overviews of systematic reviews of interventions for mental and behavioural disorders: A cross-sectional study.

'A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, version 2' (AMSTAR2) is a 16-item tool to critically appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions. This study aimed to assess the methods and outcomes of AMSTAR2 appraisals in overviews of SRs of interventions for mental and behavioural disorders. The cross-sectional study was conducted using 32 overviews of SRs selected from three electronic databases in January 2021. Data items included overview and SR characteristics and AMSTAR2 appraisal methods and outcomes. Data were extracted by two authors independently and narratively synthesised using descriptive statistics (means ± SD and relative frequencies). SR characteristics were compared based on AMSTAR2 appraisal outcomes using chi-square tests. The 32 overviews appraised SRs of predominantly non-pharmacological interventions for mental disorders. AMSTAR2 appraisals were reported as confidence ratings in 25/32 overviews or individual item scores in 24/32 overviews. Most SRs/overview were non-Cochrane (mean = 94%), included RCTs only (mean = 77%) and were published before AMSTAR2 release (mean = 79%). The confidence ratings derived in 25 overviews for 349 SRs were predominantly critically low (68%). Confidence ratings were similar for SRs with RCTs only versus RCTs+non-RCTs or SRs published before versus after AMSTAR2 release, while Cochrane SRs received more high+moderate than low+critically low confidence ratings (p < 0.01). Confidence ratings derived based on AMSTAR2 do not differentiate among SRs of healthcare interventions except for Cochrane SRs that fulfil the criteria for high confidence ratings. AMSTAR2 items should be consulted to avoid common weaknesses in future SRs.

Understanding Engagement Strategies in Digital Interventions for Mental Health Promotion: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions offer a solution to address the high demand for mental health promotion, especially when facing physical contact restrictions or lacking accessibility. Engagement with digital interventions is critical for their effectiveness; however, retaining users' engagement throughout the intervention is challenging. It remains unclear what strategies facilitate engagement with digital interventions that target mental health promotion. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to conduct a scoping review to investigate user engagement strategies and methods to evaluate engagement with digital interventions that target mental health promotion in adults. METHODS: This scoping review adheres to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for scoping reviews. The search was conducted in 7 electronic databases from inception to April 2020. The inclusion criteria for studies were as follows: adult (aged ≥18 years) users of digital interventions for mental health promotion from the general population; any digital intervention for mental health promotion; and user engagement strategies described in the intervention design. We extracted the following data items: study characteristics, digital intervention (type and engagement strategy), evaluation of engagement strategy (method and result specifying whether the strategy was effective at facilitating engagement), and features of engagement (extent of use and subjective experience of users). RESULTS: A total of 2766 studies were identified, of which 16 (0.58%) met the inclusion criteria. The 16 studies included randomized controlled trials (6/16, 37%), studies analyzing process data (5/16, 31%), observational studies (3/16, 19%), and qualitative studies (2/16, 13%). The digital interventions for mental health promotion were either web based (12/16, 75%) or mobile app based (4/16, 25%). The engagement strategies included personalized feedback about intervention content or users' mental health status; guidance regarding content and progress through e-coaching; social forums, and interactivity with peers; content gamification; reminders; and flexibility and ease of use. These engagement strategies were deemed effective based on qualitative user feedback or responses on questionnaires or tools (4/16, 25%), usability data (5/16, 31%), or both (7/16, 44%). Most studies identified personalized support in the form of e-coaching, peer support through a social platform, personalized feedback, or joint videoconference sessions as an engaging feature. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized support during the intervention, access to social support, and personalized feedback seem to promote engagement with digital interventions for mental health promotion. These findings need to be interpreted with caution because the included studies were heterogeneous, had small sample sizes, and typically did not address engagement as the primary outcome. Despite the importance of user engagement for the effectiveness of digital interventions, this field has not yet received much attention. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of different strategies required to facilitate user engagement in digital interventions for mental health promotion.

Digitization and Health in Germany: Cross-sectional Nationwide Survey.

BACKGROUND: Digital technologies are shaping medicine and public health. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes toward and the use of digital technologies for health-related purposes using a nationwide survey. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study using a panel sample of internet users selected from the general population living in Germany. Responses to a survey with 28 items were collected using computer-assisted telephone interviews conducted in October 2020. The items were divided into four topics: (1) general attitudes toward digitization, (2) COVID-19 pandemic, (3) physical activity, and (4) perceived digital health (eHealth) literacy measured with the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS; sum score of 8=lowest to 40=highest perceived eHealth literacy). The data were analyzed in IBM-SPSS24 using relative frequencies. Three univariate multiple regression analyses (linear or binary logistic) were performed to investigate the associations among the sociodemographic factors (age, gender, education, and household income) and digital technology use. RESULTS: The participants included 1014 internet users (n=528, 52.07% women) aged 14 to 93 years (mean 54, SD 17). Among all participants, 66.47% (674/1014) completed up to tertiary (primary and secondary) education and 45.07% (457/1017) reported a household income of up to 3500 Euro/month (1 Euro=US $1.18). Over half (579/1014, 57.10%) reported having used digital technologies for health-related purposes. The majority (898/1014, 88.56%) noted that digitization will be important for therapy and health care, in the future. Only 25.64% (260/1014) reported interest in smartphone apps for health promotion/prevention and 42.70% (433/1014) downloaded the COVID-19 contact-tracing app. Although 52.47% (532/1014) reported that they come across inaccurate digital information on the COVID-19 pandemic, 78.01% (791/1014) were confident in their ability to recognize such inaccurate information. Among those who use digital technologies for moderate physical activity (n=220), 187 (85.0%) found such technologies easy to use and 140 (63.6%) reported using them regularly (at least once a week). Although the perceived eHealth literacy was high (eHEALS mean score 31 points, SD 6), less than half (43.10%, 400/928) were confident in using digital information for health decisions. The use of digital technologies for health was associated with higher household income (odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% CI 1.11-1.47). The use of digital technologies for physical activity was associated with younger age (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.96) and more education (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.46). A higher perceived eHealth literacy score was associated with younger age (ß=-.22, P<.001), higher household income (ß=.21, P<.001), and more education (ß=.14, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Internet users in Germany expect that digitization will affect preventive and therapeutic health care in the future. The facilitators and barriers associated with the use of digital technologies for health warrant further research. A gap exists between high confidence in the perceived ability to evaluate digital information and low trust in internet-based information on the COVID-19 pandemic and health decisions.

The motor and the non-motor outcomes of Nordic Walking in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The current study investigated the motor and the non-motor outcomes of Nordic Walking (NW) in Parkinson's disease (PD) using a systematic review of studies with any design. METHODS: The search of PubMed, PsycInfo, Medline and SCOPUS until November 2018 identified k = 13 relevant studies: five randomised controlled-trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies. Study designs, intervention, patient and outcome details were coded. Study quality was assessed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. RESULTS: All studies reported either benefits or no effects of NW in 318 patients at the early stages of PD with low to moderate severity. NW was well accepted and relatively safe. Symptom severity, walking speed and gait pattern consistently improved after 4 - 24 weeks of NW relative to baseline or any control condition during the ON-phases of pharmacotherapy. The NW benefits were less consistent during the OFF-phases and at the follow-up in the absence of regular training. CONCLUSIONS: NW may contribute to the maintenance of the overall mobility in addition to pharmacotherapy. Since the quality of studies was poor to moderate, future single-blind RCTs should investigate the clinical relevance of the NW outcomes and the training parameters necessary to optimise the benefits of NW in PD.