Patients often have difficulty comprehending or recalling information given to them by their healthcare providers. Use of ‘teach-back’ has been shown to improve patients’ knowledge and self-care abilities, however there is little guidance for healthcare services seeking to embed teach-back in their setting. This review aims to synthesize evidence about the translation of teach-back into practice including mode of delivery, use of implementation strategies and effectiveness. We searched Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Embase and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies reporting the use of teach-back as an educational intervention, published up to July 2019. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed methodologic quality. Implementation strategies were extracted into distinct categories established in the Implementation Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Overall, 20 studies of moderate quality were included in this review (four rated high, nine rated moderate, seven rated weak). Studies were heterogeneous in terms of setting, population and outcomes. In most studies (n = 15), teach-back was delivered as part of a simple and structured educational approach. Implementation strategies were infrequently reported (n = 10 studies). The most used implementation strategies were training and education of stakeholders (n = 8), support for clinicians (n = 6) and use of audits and provider feedback (n = 4). Use of teach-back proved effective in 19 of the 20 studies, ranging from learning-related outcomes (e.g. knowledge recall and retention) to objective health-related outcomes (e.g. hospital re-admissions, quality of life). Teach-back was found to be effective across a wide range of settings, populations and outcome measures. While its mode of delivery is well-defined, strategies to support its translation into practice are not often described. Use of implementation strategies such as training and education of stakeholders and supporting clinicians during implementation may improve the uptake and sustainability of teach-back and achieve positive outcomes.

Background: Health care systems have become increasingly more reliant on patients’ ability to navigate the digital world. However, little research has been conducted on why some communities are less able or less likely to successfully engage with digital health technologies (DHTs), particularly among culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) populations. Objective: This systematic review aimed to determine the barriers to and facilitators of interacting with DHTs from the perspectives of CaLD population groups, including racial or ethnic minority groups, immigrants and refugees, and Indigenous or First Nations people. Methods: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies was conducted. Peer-reviewed literature published between January 2011 and June 2022 was searched across 3 electronic databases. Terms for digital health were combined with terms for cultural or linguistic diversity, ethnic minority groups, or Indigenous and First Nations people and terms related to barriers to accessing digital technologies. A qualitative thematic synthesis was conducted to identify descriptive and analytical themes of barriers to and facilitators of interacting with DHTs. Quality appraisal was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results: Of the 1418 studies identified in the electronic search, a total of 34 (2.4%) were included in this review. Half of the included studies (17/34, 50%) were conducted in the United States. There was considerable variation in terms of the CaLD backgrounds of the participants. In total, 26% (9/34) of the studies focused on Indigenous or First Nations communities, 41% (14/34) were conducted among ethnic minority populations, 15% (5/34) of the studies were conducted among immigrants, and 18% (6/34) were conducted in refugee communities. Of the 34 studies, 21 (62%) described the development or evaluation of a digital health intervention, whereas 13 (38%) studies did not include an intervention but instead focused on elucidating participants’ views and behaviors in relation to digital health. From the 34 studies analyzed, 18 descriptive themes were identified, each describing barriers to and facilitators of interacting with DHTs, which were grouped into 7 overarching analytical themes: using technology, design components, language, culture, health and medical, trustworthiness, and interaction with others. Conclusions: This study identified several analytic and descriptive themes influencing access to and uptake of DHTs among CaLD populations, including Indigenous and First Nations groups. We found that cultural factors affected all identified themes to some degree and that cultural and linguistic perspectives should be considered in the design and delivery of DHTs, with this best served through the inclusion of the target communities at all stages of development. This may improve the potential of DHTs to be more acceptable, appropriate, and accessible to population groups currently at risk of not obtaining the full benefits of digital health.

Introduction: There is growing evidence to support the use of co‐design in developing interventions across many disciplines. This scoping review aims to examine how co‐design methodology has been used in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) secondary prevention interventions within health and community settings.Methods: We searched four academic databases for studies that used the co‐design approach to develop their intervention. Studies were included if consumers (adults with CVD) and key stakeholders (e.g. clinicians, service providers) were involved in the co‐design process. The review focused on methodology rather than traditional study outcomes; therefore, co‐design processes and activities were extracted and evaluated against a selected co‐design framework.Results: Twenty‐two studies were included in this review. Studies were implemented across various settings with consumers and stakeholder groups most frequently consisting of patients and healthcare professionals, respectively. Most studies specifically stated that they used a ‘co‐design’ approach (n = 10); others used terms such as participatory action research (n = 3), user‐centred design (n = 3) and community‐based participatory research (n = 2). Although there was variability in terminology, co‐design processes, and participants, all studies adhered to the key principles of consumer engagement. Predominant co‐design activities included semistructured interviews, focus groups, co‐design/development workshops and advisory group meetings. Intervention effectiveness was assessed in eight studies showing mixed results.Conclusions: This review provides an overview of how the co‐design approach has previously been used in the development of CVD secondary prevention interventions. These findings provide methodological considerations that can guide researchers and healthcare services when implementing co‐design to develop feasible and acceptable interventions that can improve outcomes for CVD populations.Patient or Public Contribution: No patients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experience or members of the public were involved in this scoping review. This review article was written by academics who have undertaken a significant amount of co‐design work with consumers and stakeholders.

Deficits in health literacy are common in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), and this is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In this scoping review, we sought to identify health literacy interventions that aimed to improve outcomes in patients with CAD, using a contemporary conceptual model that captures multiple aspects of health literacy. We searched electronic databases for studies published since 2010. Eligible were studies of interventions supporting patients with CAD to find, understand and use health information via one of the following: building social support for health; empowering people with lower health literacy; improving interaction between patients and the health system; improving health literacy capacities of clinicians or facilitating access to health services. Studies were assessed for methodological quality, and findings were analysed through qualitative synthesis. In total, 21 studies were included. Of these, 10 studies aimed to build social support for health; 6 of these were effective, including those involving partners or peers. Five studies targeted interaction between patients and the health system; four of these reported improved outcomes, including through use of teach-back. One study addressed health literacy capacities of clinicians through communication training, and two facilitated access to health services via structured follow-up—all reporting positive outcomes. Health literacy is a prerequisite for CAD patients to self-manage their health. Through use of a conceptual framework to describe health literacy interventions, we identified mechanisms by which patients can be supported to improve health outcomes. Our findings warrant integration of these interventions into routine clinical practice.

Emergency department (ED) overcrowding remains a persistent challenge in global public health, leading to detrimental outcomes for patients and healthcare professionals. Traditional approaches to improve this issue have been insufficient, prompting exploration of novel strategies such as virtual care interventions. Our team developed the first comprehensive statewide virtual ED in Australia, the Victorian Virtual Emergency Department, offering an alternative to in‐person care for non‐life‐threatening emergencies. Here, we present the development and ongoing refinement of this pioneering virtual care service, aiming to provide insights for hospital administrators and policymakers seeking to implement patient‐centric care solutions worldwide. By sharing our model of care, we hope to guide further work toward addressing the global problem of over crowded EDs.