Background: The burden of stroke is increasing in India; stroke is now the fourth leading cause of death and the fifth leading cause of disability. Previous research suggests that the incidence of stroke in India ranges between 105 and 152/100,000 people per year. However, there is a paucity of available data and a lack of uniform methods across published studies. Aim: To identify high-quality prospective studies reporting the epidemiology of stroke in India. Summary of review: A search strategy was modified from the Cochrane Stroke Strategy and adapted for a range of bibliographic databases from January 1997 to August 2020. From 7717 identified records, nine studies were selected for inclusion; three population-based registries, a further three population-based registries also using community-based ascertainment and three community-based door-to-door surveys. Studies represented the four cities of Mumbai, Trivandrum, Ludhiana, Kolkata, the state of Punjab, and 12 villages of Baruipur in the state of West Bengal. The total population denominator was 22,479,509 and 11,654 (mean 1294 SD 1710) people were identified with incident stroke. Crude incidence of stroke ranged from 108 to 172/100,000 people per year, crude prevalence from 26 to 757/100,000 people per year, and one-month case fatality rates from 18% to 42%. Conclusions: Further high-quality evidence is needed across India to guide stroke policy and inform the development and organization of stroke services. Future researchers should consider the World Health Organization STEPwise approach to Surveillance framework, including longitudinal data collection, the inclusion of census population data, and a combination of hospital-registry and comprehensive community ascertainment strategies to ensure complete stroke identification.

Objective: The primary aim of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of evidence‐based healthcare (EBHC) educational interventions on healthcare professionals' knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviour of EBHC, clinical process and care outcomes. A secondary aim of the review is to assess the effects of important pedagogical moderating factors for EBHC educational interventions. Method: This systematic review used a forward and backward citation search strategy on the Web of Science platform (date of inception to 28 April 2023). Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs which compared EBHC educational interventions for healthcare professionals were included. A random effects meta‐analysis was undertaken for EBHC compared with an active and nonactive control for all outcomes. Results: Sixty‐one RCTs were identified which included a total of 5208 healthcare professionals. There was a large effect for EBHC educational interventions compared with waiting list/no treatment/sham control on knowledge (SMD, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.26–4.14, GRADE Low), skills (SMD, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.25–1.73, Very Low Certainty), attitude (SMD, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.16–1.47, Very Low Certainty) and behaviour of EBHC (SMD, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.25–1.40, Very Low Certainty). Over time the effect of EBHC educational interventions substantially decreased with no evidence of effect at 6 months for any outcome except behaviour (SMD,1.72; 95% CI, 0.74–2.71, Low Certainty). There was some evidence that blended learning, active learning and consistency in the individual delivering the intervention may be important positive moderating factors. Conclusion: These findings suggest that EBHC educational interventions may have a large short‐term effect on improving healthcare professionals' knowledge, skills, attitude and behaviour of EBHC. These effects may be longer‐lasting regarding EBHC behaviour. In terms of pedagogy, blended learning, active learning, and consistency of the individual delivering the intervention may be important positive moderating factors.

Background: Digital health interventions (DHIs) can improve the provision of health care services. To fully account for their effects in economic evaluations, traditional methods based on measuring health-related quality of life may not be appropriate, as nonhealth and process outcomes are likely to be relevant too. Purpose: This systematic review identifies, assesses, and synthesizes the arguments on the analytical frameworks and outcome measures used in the economic evaluations of DHIs. The results informed recommendations for future economic evaluations. Data Sources: We ran searches on multiple databases, complemented by gray literature and backward and forward citation searches. Study Selection: We included records containing theoretical and empirical arguments associated with the use of analytical frameworks and outcome measures for economic evaluations of DHIs. Following title/abstract and full-text screening, our final analysis included 15 studies. Data Extraction: The arguments we extracted related to analytical frameworks (14 studies), generic outcome measures (5 studies), techniques used to elicit utility values (3 studies), and disease-specific outcome measures and instruments to collect health states data (both from 2 studies). Data Synthesis: Rather than assessing the quality of the studies, we critically assessed and synthesized the extracted arguments. Building on this synthesis, we developed a 3-stage set of recommendations in which we encourage the use of impact matrices and analyses of equity impacts to integrate traditional economic evaluation methods. Limitations: Our review and recommendations explored but not fully covered other potentially important aspects of economic evaluations that were outside our scope. Conclusions: This is the first systematic review that summarizes the arguments on how the effects of DHIs could be measured in economic evaluations. Our recommendations will help design future economic evaluations. Highlights: Using traditional outcome measures based on health-related quality of life (such as the quality-adjusted life-year) may not be appropriate in economic evaluations of digital health interventions, which are likely to trigger nonhealth and process outcomes. This is the first systematic review to investigate how the effects of digital health interventions could be measured in economic evaluations. We extracted and synthesized different arguments from the literature, outlining advantages and disadvantages associated with different methods used to measure the effects of digital health interventions. We propose a methodological set of recommendations in which 1) we suggest that researchers consider the use of impact matrices and cost-consequence analysis, 2) we discuss the suitability of analytical frameworks and outcome measures available in economic evaluations, and 3) we highlight the need for analyses of equity impacts.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends one ultrasound scan before 24 weeks gestation as part of routine antenatal care (WHO 2016). We explored influences on provision and uptake through views and experiences of pregnant women, partners, and health workers. Methods: We undertook a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021230926). We derived summaries of findings and overarching themes using metasynthesis methods. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SocIndex, LILACS, and AIM (Nov 25th 2020) for qualitative studies reporting views and experiences of routine ultrasound provision to 24 weeks gestation, with no language or date restriction. After quality assessment, data were logged and analysed in Excel. We assessed confidence in the findings using Grade-CERQual. Findings: From 7076 hits, we included 80 papers (1994–2020, 23 countries, 16 LICs/MICs, over 1500 participants). We identified 17 review findings, (moderate or high confidence: 14/17), and four themes: sociocultural influences and expectations; the power of visual technology; joy and devastation: consequences of ultrasound findings; the significance of relationship in the ultrasound encounter. Providing or receiving ultrasound was positive for most, reportedly increasing parental-fetal engagement. However, abnormal findings were often shocking. Some reported changing future reproductive decisions after equivocal results, even when the eventual diagnosis was positive. Attitudes and behaviours of sonographers influenced service user experience. Ultrasound providers expressed concern about making mistakes, recognising their need for education, training, and adequate time with women. Ultrasound sex determination influenced female feticide in some contexts, in others, termination was not socially acceptable. Overuse was noted to reduce clinical antenatal skills as well as the use and uptake of other forms of antenatal care. These factors influenced utility and equity of ultrasound in some settings. Conclusion: Though antenatal ultrasound was largely seen as positive, long-term adverse psychological and reproductive consequences were reported for some. Gender inequity may be reinforced by female feticide following ultrasound in some contexts. Provider attitudes and behaviours, time to engage fully with service users, social norms, access to follow up, and the potential for overuse all need to be considered.

Introduction. The term ‘diagnostic stewardship’ is relatively new, with a recent surge in its use within the literature. Despite its increasing popularity, a precise definition remains elusive. Various attempts have been made to define it, with some viewing it as an integral part of antimicrobial stewardship. The World Health Organization offers a broad definition, emphasizing the importance of timely, accurate diagnostics. However, inconsistencies in the use of this term still persist, necessitating further clarification. Gap Statement. There are currently inconsistencies in the definition of diagnostic stewardship used within the academic literature. Aim. This scoping review aims to categorize the use of diagnostic stewardship approaches and define this approach by identifying common characteristics and factors of its use within the literature. Methodology. This scoping review undertook a multi-database search from date of inception until October 2022. Any observational or experimental study where the authors define the intervention to be diagnostic stewardship from any clinical area was included. Screening of all papers was undertaken by a single reviewer with 10% verification by a second reviewer. Data extraction was undertaken by a single reviewer using a pre-piloted form. Given the wide variation in study design and intervention outcomes, a narrative synthesis approach was applied. Studies were clustered around common diagnostic stewardship interventions where appropriate. Results. After duplicate removal, a total of 1310 citations were identified, of which, after full-paper screening, 105 studies were included in this scoping review. The classification of an intervention as taking a diagnostic stewardship approach is a relatively recent development, with the first publication in this field dating back to 2017. The majority of research in this area has been conducted within the USA, with very few studies undertaken outside this region. Visual inspection of the citation map reveals that the current evidence base is interconnected, with frequent references to each other’s work. The interventions commonly adopt a restrictive approach, utilizing hard and soft stops within the pre-analytical phase to restrict access to testing. Upon closer examination of the outcomes, it becomes evident that there is a predominant focus on reducing the number of tests rather than enhancing the current test protocol. This is further reflected in the limited number of studies that report on test performance (including protocol improvements, specificity and sensitivity). Conclusion. Diagnostic stewardship seems to have deviated from its intended course, morphing into a rather rudimentary instrument wielded not to enhance but to constrict the scope of testing. Despite the World Health Organization’s advocacy for an ideology that promotes a more comprehensive approach to quality improvement, it may be more appropriate to consider alternative regional narratives when categorizing these types of quality improvement interventions.

Background: Mass outbreaks such as pandemics are associated with mental health problems requiring effective psychological interventions. Although several forms of psychological interventions may be advocated or used, some may lack strong evidence of efficacy and some may not have been evaluated in mass infectious disease outbreaks. This paper reports a systematic review of published studies (PROSPERO CRD:42020182094. Registered: 24.04.2020) examining the types and effectiveness of psychological support interventions for the general population and healthcare workers exposed to mass infectious disease outbreaks. Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) were identified through searches of electronic databases: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (EBSCO) and the Cochrane Library Database from inception to 06.05.2021 using an agreed search strategy. Studies were included if they assessed the effectiveness of interventions providing psychological support to the general population and / or healthcare workers exposed to mass infectious disease outbreaks. Studies were excluded if they focused on man-made or natural disasters or if they included armed forces, police, fire-fighters or coastguards. Results: Twenty-two RCTs were included after screening. Various psychological interventions have been used: therapist-guided therapy (n = 1); online counselling (n = 1); ‘Emotional Freedom Techniques’ (n = 1); mobile phone apps (n = 2); brief crisis intervention (n = 1); psychological-behavioural intervention (n = 1); Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (n = 3); progressive muscle relaxation (n = 2); emotional-based directed drawing (n = 1); psycho-educational debriefing (n = 1); guided imagery (n = 1); Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) (n = 1); expressive writing (n = 2); tailored intervention for patients with a chronic medical conditions (n = 1); community health workers (n = 1); self-guided psychological intervention (n = 1), and a digital behaviour change intervention (n = 1). Meta-analyses showed that psychological interventions had a statistically significant benefit in managing depression (Standardised Mean Difference [SMD]: -0.40; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: − 0.76 to − 0.03), and anxiety (SMD: -0.72; 95% CI: − 1.03 to − 0.40). The effect on stress was equivocal (SMD: 0.16; 95% CI: − 0.19 to 0.51). The heterogeneity of studies, studies’ high risk of bias, and the lack of available evidence means uncertainty remains. Conclusions: Further RCTs and intervention studies involving representative study populations are needed to inform the development of targeted and tailored psychological interventions for those exposed to mass infectious disease outbreaks.