Uncovering the state of knowledge about healthcare gentrification: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare gentrification is the process in which the distribution of healthcare resources within a neighbourhood affects residents' access to healthcare services. To understand the complexity of healthcare access and to consider the socio-structural dimensions affecting equity in access to care, we aim to explore how healthcare gentrification has been described in the scientific literature and to document the reported relations between gentrification and healthcare access. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review from data published from inception to September 2024 based on the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and improved by Levac et al (2010). We will search the following databases: MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (embase.com), CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCO), Web of Science and Geobase (Engineering Village). The review will be conducted from February 2024 to September 2024. The search strategy will be elaborated in conjunction with a professional librarian. Screening of titles and abstracts and full-text screening will be done in duplicates. A third reviewer will arbitrate discrepancies during the screening process. We will present our results narratively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethical approval since it will be collected from publicly available documents. The results of this scoping review will also be presented as a scientific article, scientific conferences, research webinars also in social media, workshops and conferences organised by healthcare organisations or academic institutions or on any appropriate platform.

Interventions for undergraduate and postgraduate medical learners with academic difficulties: A BEME systematic review update: BEME Guide No. 85.

BACKGROUND: Clinical teachers often struggle to record trainee underperformance due to lacking evidence-based remediation options. OBJECTIVES: To provide updated evidence-based recommendations for addressing academic difficulties among undergraduate and postgraduate medical learners. METHODS: A systematic review searched databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, Education Source, and PsycINFO (2016-2021), replicating the original Best Evidence Medical Education 56 review strategy. Original research/innovation reports describing intervention(s) for medical learners with academic difficulties were included. Data extraction used Michie's Behaviour Change Techniques (BCT) Taxonomy and program evaluation models from Stufflebeam and Kirkpatrick. Quality appraised used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Authors synthesized extracted evidence by adapting GRADE approach to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria, primarily addressing knowledge (66.7%), skills (66.7%), attitudinal problems (50%) and learner's personal challenges (27.8%). Feedback and monitoring was the most frequently employed BCT. Study quality varied (MMAT 0-100%). We identified nineteen interventions (UG: n = 9, PG: n = 12), introducing twelve new thematic content. Newly thematic content addressed contemporary learning challenges such as academic procrastination, and use of technology-enhanced learning resources. Combined with previous interventions, the review offers a total dataset of 121 interventions. CONCLUSION: This review offers additional evidence-based interventions for learners with academic difficulties, supporting teaching, learning, faculty development, and research efforts.

Indicators of home-based hospitalization model and strategies for its implementation: a systematic review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Home-based hospitalization (HBH) offers an alternative delivery model to hospital care. There has been a remarkable increase in pilot initiatives and deployment of this model to optimize services offered to a population with a variety of progressive and chronic diseases. Our objectives were to systematically summarize the indicators of HBH as well as the factors associated with the successful implementation and use of this model. METHODS: We used a two-stage process. First, five databases were consulted, with no date delimitation. We included systematic reviews of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed studies published in English, French, Spanish, or Portuguese. We followed guidance from PRISMA and the Cochrane Collaboration. Second, we used the Nursing Care Performance Framework to categorize the indicators, a comprehensive grid of barriers and facilitators to map the factors affecting HBH implementation, and a thematic synthesis of the qualitative and quantitative findings. RESULTS: Fifteen reviews were selected. We identified 26 indicators related to nursing care that are impacted by the use of HBH models and 13 factors related to their implementation. The most frequently documented indicators of HBH were cost of resources, problem and symptom management, comfort and quality of life, cognitive and psychosocial functional capacity, patient and caregiver satisfaction, hospital mortality, readmissions, and length of stay. Our review also highlighted new indicators, namely use of hospital beds, new emergency consultations, and use of healthcare services as indicators of resources of cost, and bowel complications, caregiver satisfaction, and survival time as indicators of change in the patient's condition. The main facilitators for HBH implementation were related to internal organizational factors (multidisciplinary collaboration and skill mix of professionals) whereas barriers were linked to the characteristics of the HBH, specifically eligibility criteria (complexity and social situation of the patient). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review that synthesizes both the types of indicators associated with HBH and the factors that influence its implementation. Considering both the processes and outcomes of HBH will help to identify strategies that could facilitate the implementation and evaluation of this innovative model of care delivery. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018103380.

Interventions for undergraduate and postgraduate medical learners with academic difficulties: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 56.

Background: Clinical teachers often struggle to report unsatisfactory trainee performance, partly because of a lack of evidence-based remediation options. Objectives: To identify interventions for undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) medical learners experiencing academic difficulties, link them to a theory-based framework and provide literature-based recommendations around their use. Methods: This systematic review searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, Education Source and PsycINFO (1990-2016) combining these concepts: medical education, professional competence/difficulty and educational support. Original research/innovation reports describing intervention(s) for UG/PG medical learners with academic difficulties were included. Data extraction employed Michie's Behavior Change Techniques (BCT) Taxonomy and program evaluation models from Stufflebeam and Kirkpatrick. Quality appraisal used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The authors synthesized extracted evidence by adapting the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations. Results: Sixty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria, most commonly addressing knowledge (66.2%), skills (53.9%) and attitudinal problems (26.2%), or learner personal issues (41.5%). The most common BCTs were Shaping knowledge, Feedback/monitoring, and Repetition/substitution. Quality appraisal was variable (MMAT 0-100%). A thematic content analysis identified 109 interventions (UG: n = 84, PG: n = 58), providing 24 strong, 48 moderate, 26 weak and 11 very weak recommendations. Conclusion: This review provides a repertoire of literature-based interventions for teaching/learning, faculty development, and research purposes.