Background: People with chronic diseases can benefit from wearable devices in managing their health and encouraging healthy lifestyle habits. Wearables such as activity trackers or blood glucose monitoring devices can lead to positive health impacts, including improved physical activity adherence or better management of type 2 diabetes. Few literature reviews have focused on the intersection of various chronic diseases, the wearable devices used, and the outcomes evaluated in intervention studies, particularly in the context of primary health care. Objective: This study aims to identify and describe (1) the chronic diseases represented in intervention studies, (2) the types or combinations of wearables used, and (3) the health or health care outcomes assessed and measured. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, searching the MEDLINE and Web of Science databases for studies published between 2012 and 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, applied the selection criteria, and performed full-text screening. We included interventions using wearables that automatically collected and transmitted data to adult populations with at least one chronic disease. We excluded studies with participants with only a predisposition to develop a chronic disease, hospitalized patients, patients with acute diseases, patients with active cancer, and cancer survivors. We included randomized controlled trials and cohort, pretest-posttest, observational, mixed methods, and qualitative studies. Results: After the removal of 1987 duplicates, we screened 4540 titles and abstracts. Of the remaining 304 articles after exclusions, we excluded 215 (70.7%) full texts and included 89 (29.3%). Of these 89 texts, 10 (11%) were related to the same interventions as those in the included studies, resulting in 79 studies being included. We structured the results according to chronic disease clusters: (1) diabetes, (2) heart failure, (3) other cardiovascular conditions, (4) hypertension, (5) multimorbidity and other combinations of chronic conditions, (6) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, (7) chronic pain, (8) musculoskeletal conditions, and (9) asthma. Diabetes was the most frequent health condition (18/79, 23% of the studies), and wearable activity trackers were the most used (42/79, 53% of the studies). In the 79 included studies, 74 clinical, 73 behavioral, 36 patient technology experience, 28 health care system, and 25 holistic or biopsychosocial outcomes were reported. Conclusions: This scoping review provides an overview of the wearable devices used in chronic disease self-management intervention studies, revealing disparities in both the range of chronic diseases studied and the variety of wearable devices used. These findings offer researchers valuable insights to further explore health care outcomes, validate the impact of concomitant device use, and expand their use to other chronic diseases. Trial Registration: Open Science Framework Registries (OSF) s4wfm; https://osf.io/s4wfm

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.

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

Addressing underperformance among medical learners is a crucial aspect of medical education, as a significant proportion (10%–15%) of learners encounter difficulties during their training (Shearer ...

Background: Digital health portals are online platforms allowing individuals to access their personal information and communicate with health care providers. While digital health portals have been associated with improved health outcomes and more streamlined health care processes, their impact on individuals living with or beyond cancer remains underexplored. Objective: This scoping review aimed to (1) identify the portal functionalities reported in studies involving individuals living with or beyond cancer, as well as the outcomes assessed, and (2) explore the diversity of participant characteristics and potential factors associated with portal use. Methods: We conducted a scoping review in accordance with the JBI methodology (formerly the Joanna Briggs Institute) and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We included primary research studies published between 2014 and 2024 that involved participants living with or beyond cancer, had access to personal health information, and assessed at least one outcome related to health or the health care system. We searched the Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid), and CINAHL Plus with Full Text databases. Five reviewers independently screened all titles, abstracts, and full texts in duplicate using Covidence. We extracted data on study design, participant characteristics, portal functionalities, outcomes assessed, and PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence; race, ethnicity, culture, or language; occupation; gender or sex; religion; education; socioeconomic status; and social capital–Plus) equity factors. Results: We included 44 studies; most were conducted in the United States (n=30, 68%) and used quantitative (n=23, 52%), mixed methods (n=11, 25%), or qualitative (n=10, 23%) designs. The most common portal features were access to test results (28/44, 64%) and secure messaging (30/44, 68%). Frequently reported services included appointment-related functions (19/44, 43%), educational resources (13/44, 30%), and prescription management features (11/44, 25%). Behavioral and technology-related outcomes were the most frequently assessed (37/44, 84%), followed by system-level (19/44, 43%), psychosocial (16/44, 36%), and clinical outcomes (5/44, 11%). Overall, 43% (19/44) of the studies addressed PROGRESS-Plus factors. Age was the most frequently reported (13/19, 68%), followed by socioeconomic status (10/19, 53%), race or ethnicity (7/19, 37%), and gender or sex (7/19, 37%). Social capital (2/19, 11%), occupation (1/19, 5%), and disability (1/19, 5%) were rarely considered, and religion was not reported in any study. Conclusions: While digital health portals enhance patient engagement, their clinical impact and equity implications remain insufficiently evaluated. We found disparities in functionalities, outcomes, and PROGRESS-Plus representation. To promote equitable benefits, future studies should adopt inclusive designs and evaluation strategies that address diverse outcomes and integrate social determinants of health.

Introduction: There is significant and pervasive weight bias, weight stigma, and weight-based discrimination everywhere today, even in healthcare settings. Studies have shown that health care professionals (HCPs) hold negative perceptions toward people living with obesity (PLO), which results in heightened health risks for patients. Nurses play a central role in health promotion and the health management of PLO. Thus, identifying nurses' and nursing students' perceptions toward PLO within healthcare practice or educational contexts is paramount to consider further exploratory and intervention studies. Objective: We aim to review and map nurses' and nursing students' perceptions toward PLO from available literature. Method: A search of MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), and PsycINFO (OVID) will be conducted to identify relevant studies in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian on nurses' and nursing students' weight bias. The period covered will be from January 1, 2005, onward, including those available up until our scheduled search in January 2024. Two independent reviewers will conduct screening, study selection, and data extraction. Data will be charted according to the study design, the research setting, years and regions of publication, concepts, and use of theoretical models. The results will be summarized and reported, identifying implications for nursing research and practice. Discussion and Research Spin-offs: This scoping review will inform nursing research and facilitate the development of educational and clinical tools aimed at preventing and reducing weight bias among nurses to promote nursing and interdisciplinary care that upholds principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion.