Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This statement from the Australian Chronic Disease Prevention...

This review aimed to document the characteristics and appraise the quality of dementia applications (apps) to support persons living with dementia and their caregivers.Systematic searches of the Au...

Telehealth-delivered cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes can potentially increase participation rates while delivering equivalent outcomes to facility-based programmes. However, key components of these interventions that reduce cardiovascular risk factors are not yet distinguished. This study aims to identify features of telehealth-delivered CR that improve secondary prevention outcomes, exercise capacity, participation, and participant satisfaction and develop recommendations for future telehealth-delivered CR. The protocol for our review was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (#CRD42021236471). We systematically searched four databases (PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database) for randomized controlled trials comparing telehealth-delivered CR programmes to facility-based interventions or usual care. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts and then full texts. Using a qualitative review methodology (realist synthesis), included articles were evaluated to determine contextual factors and potential mechanisms that impacted cardiovascular risk factors, exercise capacity, participation in the intervention, and increased satisfaction. We included 37 reports describing 26 randomized controlled trials published from 2010 to 2022. Studies were primarily conducted in Europe and Australia/Asia. Identified contextual factors and mechanisms were synthesized into four theories required to enhance participant outcomes and participation. These theories are as follows: (i) early and regular engagement; (ii) personalized interventions and shared goals; (iii) usable, accessible, and supported interventions; and (iv) exercise that is measured and monitored. Providing a personalized approach with frequent opportunities for bi-directional interaction was a critical feature for success across telehealth-delivered CR trials. Real-world effectiveness studies are now needed to complement our findings.

Household food insecurity has significant negative implications across the lifespan. While routine screening is recommended, particularly in healthcare, guidelines are lacking on selection of screening tools and best-practice implementation across different contexts in non-stigmatizing ways. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize evidence on household food insecurity screening tools, including psychometrics, implementation in a range of settings, and experiences of carrying out screening or being screened. Four electronic databases were searched for studies in English published from 1990 until June 2023. A total of 58 papers were included, 21 of which focused on tool development and validation, and 37 papers described implementation and perceptions of screening. Most papers were from the USA and described screening in healthcare settings. There was a lack of evidence regarding screening in settings utilized by Indigenous people. The two-item Hunger Vital Sign emerged as the most used and most valid tool across settings. While there is minimal discomfort associated with screening, screening rates in practice are still low. Barriers and facilitators of screening were identified at the setting, system, provider, and recipient level and were mapped onto the COM-B model of behavior change. This review identifies practical strategies to optimize screening and disclosure.

Background: The advancements and abundance of mobile phones and portable health devices have created an opportunity to use mobile health (mHealth) for population health systems. There is increasing evidence for the feasibility and acceptance of mHealth with Indigenous populations. Providing a synthesis of qualitative findings of mHealth with Indigenous populations will gain insights into the strengths and challenges to mHealth use in Indigenous populations. Objective: This review aimed to identify and synthesize qualitative data pertaining to the experiences and perceptions of mHealth from the perspectives of end users (patients and service providers) living in the colonial settler democracies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the Pacific Islands, and the Sápmi region of northern Europe. Methods: In May 2021, systematic searches of peer-reviewed, scientific papers were conducted across the 5 databases of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Qualitative or mixed method studies were included where a mHealth intervention was the primary focus for responding to health challenges with Indigenous populations. Two authors independently screened papers for eligibility and assessed the risk of bias using a modified version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. A meta-aggregative approach was used to analyze the findings of included studies. Results: Seventeen papers met the eligibility criteria, 8 studies with patients, 7 studies with service providers, and 2 studies that included both patients and service providers. Studies were conducted in Australia (n=10), Canada (n=2), New Zealand (n=2), Papua New Guinea (n=1), the United States (n=1), and Samoa (n=1). Our interpretation of these qualitative findings shows commonalities between Indigenous patients’ and service providers’ perceptions of mHealth. We summarize our findings in six themes: (1) mHealth literacy, (2) mHealth as a facilitator for connection and support, (3) mHealth content needed to be culturally relevant, (4) mHealth security and confidentiality, (5) mHealth supporting rather than replacing service providers, and (6) workplace and organizational capacity. Conclusions: This research suggests that mHealth can meet the needs of both patients and service providers when the mHealth intervention is culturally relevant, accounts for digital and health literacy, incorporates interactive components, is supported by workplaces, fits into health provider workflows, and meets security and confidentiality standards. Future mHealth research with Indigenous populations should partner with key representatives (eg, patients, service providers, and executive leaders) in the mHealth design appropriate to the purpose, people, setting, and delivery.

Background: There is growing global evidence on the adoption and effectiveness of eHealth (including mobile health and telehealth) by First Nation peoples including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Although there are frameworks to guide eHealth development, implementation, and evaluation, it is unknown whether they adequately encapsulate the health, cultural, and community-related priorities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.Objective: The aim of this research program is to prepare a best practice framework that will guide the co-design, implementation, and evaluation of culturally safe eHealth interventions within existing models of health care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The framework will be a synthesis of evidence that represents best practices in eHealth, as determined by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.Methods: Research activities to develop the best practice framework will occur in stepped but overlapping qualitative research phases with governance from an existing multiagency research collaboration (the Collaboration). The research protocol has been informed by key research frameworks such as the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. The seven phases of research will include the following: systematic literature review, scoping review, theme development, theme consultation, Delphi processes for expert reviews, and dissemination.Results: Members of the Collaboration conceived this research program in August 2020, and a draft was produced in June 2021 with subsequent funding obtained in July 2021. The Collaboration approved the protocol in December 2021. Results for several research phases of the best practice framework development are expected by January 2023, commencing with the systematic literature review and the scoping review.Conclusions: The research program outlined in this protocol is a timely response to the growing number of eHealth interventions with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. A best practice framework is needed to guide the rigorous development and evaluation of eHealth innovations to promote genuine co-design and ensure cultural safety and clinical effectiveness for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34904