Background: Shared decision-making facilitates collaboration between patients and health care providers for informed health decisions. Our review identified interventions to support Indigenous Peoples making health decisions. The objectives were to synthesize evidence and identify factors that impact the use of shared decision making interventions.Methods: An Inuit and non-Inuit team of service providers and academic researchers used an integrated knowledge translation approach with framework synthesis to coproduce a systematic review. We developed a conceptual framework to organize and describe the shared decision making processes and guide identification of studies that describe interventions to support Indigenous Peoples making health decisions. We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases from September 2012 to March 2022, with a grey literature search. Two independent team members screened and quality appraised included studies for strengths and relevance of studies’ contributions to shared decision making and Indigenous self-determination. Findings were analyzed descriptively in relation to the conceptual framework and reported using guidelines to ensure transparency and completeness in reporting and for equity-oriented systematic reviews.Results: Of 5068 citations screened, nine studies reported in ten publications were eligible for inclusion. We categorized the studies into clusters identified as: those inclusive of Indigenous knowledges and governance (“Indigenous-oriented”)(n = 6); and those based on Western academic knowledge and governance (“Western-oriented”)(n = 3). The studies were found to be of variable quality for contributions to shared decision making and self-determination, with Indigenous-oriented studies of higher quality overall than Western-oriented studies. Four themes are reflected in an updated conceptual framework: 1) where shared decision making takes place impacts decision making opportunities, 2) little is known about the characteristics of health care providers who engage in shared decision making processes, 3) community is a partner in shared decision making, 4) the shared decision making process involves trust-building.Conclusions: There are few studies that report on and evaluate shared decision making interventions with Indigenous Peoples. Overall, Indigenous-oriented studies sought to make health care systems more amenable to shared decision making for Indigenous Peoples, while Western-oriented studies distanced shared decision making from the health care settings. Further studies that are solutions-focused and support Indigenous self-determination are needed.

Since first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, COVID-19 caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Corona virus2 (SARS CoV-2) quickly spread to become a pandemic that has caused significant morbidity and mortality. The rapidity of the spread of the virus and the high mortality at the outset threatened to overwhelm health systems worldwide, and, indeed, this significantly impacted maternal health, especially since there was minimal experience to draw from. Experience with Covid 19 has grown exponentially as the unique needs of pregnant and labouring women with COVID-19 infection have become more evident. Managing COVID-19 parturients requires a multidisciplinary team consisting of anaesthesiologists, obstetricians, neonatologists, nursing staff, critical care staff, infectious disease and infection control experts. There should be a clear policy on triaging patients depending on the severity of their condition and the stage of labour. Those at high risk of respiratory failure should be managed in a tertiary referral centre with facilities for intensive care and assisted respiration. Staff and patients in delivery suites and operating rooms should be protected by enforcing infection protection principles such as offering dedicated rooms and theatres to SARS CoV-2 positive patients and using personal protective equipment. All hospital staff must be trained in infection control measures which should be updated regularly. Breastfeeding and care of the new-born must be part of the healthcare package offered to COVID-19 parturient mothers.

Background: Interprofessional rehabilitation programs have demonstrated effectiveness at improving health-related quality of life, function, work abilities, and reducing pain, for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the characteristics of interprofessional rehabilitation programs vary widely across studies. Therefore, clarifying and describing key characteristics of interprofessional rehabilitation programs for patients with CLBP will be valuable for future intervention design and implementation. This scoping review aims to identify and describe the key characteristics of interprofessional rehabilitation programs for patients with CLBP. Methods: Our scoping review will follow the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, further enhanced by Levac et al. and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, will be searched to identify relevant published studies. Our scoping review will consider all primary source peer-reviewed published articles that evaluated interprofessional rehabilitation programs for adults with CLBP from all countries and any therapeutic settings. The Covidence software will be used to remove duplicates, article screening, record the step-by-step selection process, and data extraction. The analysis will involve a descriptive numerical summary and narrative analysis. Data will be presented in graphical and tabular format based on the nature of the data. Discussion: This scoping review is expected to provide a source of evidence for developing and implementing interprofessional rehabilitation programs in new settings or contexts. As such, this review will guide future research and provide key information to health professionals, researchers and policymakers interested in designing and implementing evidence and theory-informed interprofessional rehabilitation programs for patients with CLBP. Trial registration: https://osf.io/rquxv.

Background: Vulvar cancer is a rare gynecologic malignancy comprising 1–3% of all cases. No established standard exists for advanced disease, and treatment is often extrapolated from cervical cancer. Although HER2 overexpression is well defined in breast cancer and recognized across multiple solid tumors, its prevalence and significance in vulvar cancer remain unclear. Recent activity of HER2-directed antibody–drug conjugate Trastuzumab deruxtecan in solid tumors with an objective response rate (ORR) of around 37% highlights the need to better characterize HER2 expression in vulvar cancer. Methods: We performed a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2025. Eligible studies included ≥10 vulvar cancer cases, predominantly vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC), excluding vulvar Paget’s disease, with available HER2 assessment by immunohistochemistry and/or in situ hybridization. Two reviewers independently screened the studies. A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled HER2 positivity. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane’s Q and Higgins’s I². Results: Of 506 records, nine retrospective studies including 769 patients with predominantly squamous cell carcinoma histology (98%, n = 752) met inclusion criteria. A total of 50 HER2-positive cases were observed. Median age at diagnosis of vulvar cancer was between 55 and 78, reported in three studies. Molecular profiling was limited. Among three studies with known TP53 status (n = 206), 59% of the tumors expressed TP53 (n = 122), and among two studies with known human papilloma virus (HPV) status (n = 128), 21% (n = 27) were HPV-positive. Six studies used American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) HER2 testing guidelines in breast cancer. Pooled HER2-positive expression across ASCO/CAP-based studies was 2% (95% CI: 1%, 3%) and for non-ASCO/CAP-based studies was 21% (95% CI: 2%, 52%). Exploratory pooled estimated proportion of HER2-positive expression was 5% (95% CI: 0.4%, 14%). There was substantial heterogeneity across studies, I² value of 91.1% [95% CI: 85.4%; 94.6%], and no significant publication bias was observed (Egger’s test p = 0.364). This study could not assess prognostic value of HER2 overexpression in VSCC. Conclusions: HER2 positivity in VSCC appears uncommon but it remains to be fully explored. Standardized assessment using contemporary ASCO/CAP breast, endometrial-specific and/or gastric criteria are needed to clarify the prevalence of HER2-positive versus HER2-low/ultralow disease to inform potential use of HER2-targeted therapy.