Facilitation in evidence implementation - experiences, challenges, and determinants of perceived effectiveness: a qualitative systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Facilitation is a key element of evidence implementation. Although quantitative systematic reviews have been undertaken to examine its components and effectiveness, no attempt has been made to synthesize qualitative evidence examining the experiences of facilitators on how facilitation is operationalized, the challenges associated with it, and the factors that can influence its perceived effectiveness. METHODS: A systematic review of qualitative studies was conducted using the JBI methodology. RESULTS: A total of 36 qualitative studies was included in the systematic review, with the majority being assessed as high quality following critical appraisal. The findings were extracted and further synthesized, highlighting that facilitation involves providing technical and non-technical support to health professionals, as well as high-intensity collaborations and relationship building. Determinants of perceived effectiveness of facilitation include facilitators' access to resources and learning support; their skills, traits/attitudes, and approach to facilitation; and the context of the organization where the implementation occurs. Work demands, emotional stress, and lack of clarity in roles and career development can pose challenges for facilitators. CONCLUSION: To maximize the outcomes of facilitation in evidence implementation, the team of facilitators should be carefully selected to ensure they have the right skills, traits/attitudes, and approach to facilitation. They should also be provided with dedicated time to conduct the facilitation and have access to resources, training, and mentoring support. Future research should aim to examine the perspectives of the "implementers" who received support from facilitators to gain a better understanding of which facilitation strategies have an impact on clinical practice behavior. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42023402496.

Culture-based prescribing to improve mental health: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to investigate what is known about culture-based prescribing to improve mental health and well-being. INTRODUCTION: Culture-based prescribing, where a person is referred by a clinical professional to an arts or cultural activity aimed at improving mental health and well-being, is increasingly used as a community-based source of support. Although culture-based prescribing seems promising, the field is heterogeneous with respect to definition, underlying hypotheses, and cultural activity. This hampers its further development and implementation. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We will consider publications that report on or explore culture-based prescribing to improve mental health and well-being for adults with symptoms related to mental health conditions who are seeking care from any clinical professional. METHODS: We will search 8 electronic literature databases for published or unpublished reports on culture-based prescribing, without date limits. We will also search for gray literature and screen reference lists of relevant reviews. No language restrictions will be applied during the screening process, but for data extraction, we will only extract studies in languages our team has proficiency in. The screening and data extraction will be performed by 2 reviewers, independently. Data analysis will be descriptive, with results tabulated separately for each subquestion. The results will be complemented with a narrative summary. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/ndbqj.

Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics. RESULTS: We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4nxpr ) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

Prevalence and incidence of chemotherapy-induced taste alterations in adult cancer patients: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This study will synthesize the available evidence on the prevalence and incidence of chemotherapy-induced taste alterations in adult cancer patients. INTRODUCTION: Taste and smell alterations in cancer patients due to chemotherapy affect patients' quality of life and can cause malnutrition. Recent knowledge about the incidence and prevalence of chemotherapy-induced taste alterations may enable tailored food interventions for this specific population. Describing variations in taste changes in subgroups of chemotherapy is important to inform taste steering interventions. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will consider studies that include adult cancer patients who are receiving or have received chemotherapy as a treatment for an oncologic issue. It will include studies that investigate the prevalence and incidence of chemotherapy-induced taste alterations that have been assessed objectively or subjectively by patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search will be performed of the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (Ovid), Embase, and OpenSIGLE. Analytical, observational, and cross-sectional studies will be considered. All studies will undergo critical appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis. Data will be extracted using the JBI standardized data extraction tool for prevalence and incidence. Type and frequency of treatment and cytostatic agent will be extracted. The population will be described by age and gender. In addition, study methods and proportions of interest to the review question will be extracted. Pooled prevalence estimates will be calculated using a random effects model. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: PROSPERO CRD42020136706.

A qualitative study about cancer outpatients' experiences with selective taste control of bread as a self-care intervention.

AIM: Alterations in taste are distressing side effects for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. The Center for Gastrology (Belgium) developed a self-care intervention based on taste control. This intervention contains an assessment of the individual taste and food hedonics. It provides recipes based on the individual assessed hedonics profile, so patients can self-prepare personalized meals. This study aims to describe the experiences of oncologic patients with the home baking of personalized bread. DESIGN: A qualitative, descriptive design with individual semi-structured interviews was used. METHODS: In August 2018, eleven face-to-face interviews were conducted until data saturation. RESULTS: The analysis of the interviews revealed five major themes: "Stepping out of your role," "Having something positive to do," "gaining insight," "receiving recognition" and "practical limitations."