Background Evidence-based health system guidelines are pivotal tools to help outline the important financial, policy and service components recommended to achieve a sustainable and resilient health system. However, not all guidelines are readily translatable into practice and/or policy without effective and tailored implementation and adaptation techniques. This scoping review mapped the evidence related to the adaptation and implementation of health system guidelines in low- and middle-income countries. Methods We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A search strategy was implemented in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, LILACS (VHL Regional Portal), and Web of Science databases in late August 2020. We also searched sources of grey literature and reference lists of potentially relevant reviews. All findings were reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Results A total of 41 studies were included in the final set of papers. Common strategies were identified for adapting and implementing health system guidelines, related barriers and enablers, and indicators of success. The most common types of implementation strategies included education, clinical supervision, training and the formation of advisory groups. A paucity of reported information was also identified related to adaptation initiatives. Barriers to and enablers of implementation and adaptation were reported across studies, including the need for financial sustainability. Common approaches to evaluation were identified and included outcomes of interest at both the patient and health system level. Conclusions The findings from this review suggest several themes in the literature and identify a need for future research to strengthen the evidence base for improving the implementation and adaptation of health system guidelines in low- and middle-income countries. The findings can serve as a future resource for researchers seeking to evaluate implementation and adaptation of health system guidelines. Our findings also suggest that more effort may be required across research, policy and practice sectors to support the adaptation and implementation of health system guidelines to local contexts and health system arrangements in low- and middle-income countries.

IntroductionPeople who use alcohol and/or drugs (PWUAD) are at high risk of medical complications, frequent hospitalisation and drug-related death following discharge from inpatient settings and emergency departments (EDs). Harm reduction strategies implemented in these settings may mitigate negative health outcomes for PWUAD. However, the scope of harm reduction strategies used globally within inpatient settings and EDs is unknown. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise reported harm reduction strategies that have been implemented across inpatient settings and EDs for PWUAD.Methods and analysisThis review will include studies from any country and health service reporting on harm reduction strategies implemented in inpatient settings or EDs. The population of interest includes people of any race, gender and age identifying as PWUAD, or individuals who provided care to PWUAD. Studies which describe implementation strategies and barriers and enablers to implementation will be included. Studies published in English, or those available for English translation will be included. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE All (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier Embase.com), CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) and SCOPUS (Elsevier Scopus.com). A grey literature search will be conducted. There will be no date restrictions on the search. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened in duplicate. Data will be extracted using a standardised form. The results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews.Ethics and disseminationScoping reviews do not require ethical approval. Patient partners with lived experience and relevant knowledge users will be engaged as research team members throughout all phases of the research process. A report detailing context, methodology and findings from this review will be disseminated to knowledge users and relevant community stakeholders. This review will be submitted for publication to a relevant peer-reviewed journal.

Objectives: The objective of this review was to describe and map the evidence on COVID-19 and H1N1 vaccine hesitancy or refusal by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists in North America, the United Kingdom and the European Union, and Australia. Introduction: Since 2009, we have experienced two pandemics: H1N1 “swine flu” and COVID-19. While severity and transmissibility of these viruses varied, vaccination has been a critical component of bringing both pandemics under control. However, uptake of these vaccines has been affected by vaccine hesitancy and refusal. The vaccination behaviors of health care providers, including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, are of particular interest as they have been priority populations to receive both H1N1 and COVID-19 vaccinations. Their vaccination views could affect the vaccination decisions of their patients. Inclusion criteria: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they identified reasons for COVID-19 or H1N1 vaccine hesitancy or refusal among physicians, nurses, or pharmacists from the included countries. Published and unpublished literature were eligible for inclusion. Previous reviews were excluded; however, the reference lists of relevant reviews were searched to identify additional studies for inclusion. Methods: A search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Premier databases was conducted April 28, 2021, to identify English-language literature published from 2009 to 2021. Gray literature and citation screening were also conducted to identify additional relevant literature. Titles, abstracts, and eligible full-text articles were reviewed in duplicate by 2 trained reviewers. Data were extracted in duplicate using a structured extraction tool developed for the review. Conflicts were resolved through discussion or with a third team member. Data were synthesized using narrative and tabular summaries. Results: In total, 83 articles were included in the review. Studies were conducted primarily across the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The majority of articles (n=70) used cross-sectional designs to examine knowledge, attitudes, and uptake of H1N1 (n=61) or COVID-19 (n=22) vaccines. Physicians, medical students, nurses, and nursing students were common participants in the studies; however, only 8 studies included pharmacists in their sample. Across health care settings, most studies were conducted in urban, academic teaching hospitals, with 1 study conducted in a rural hospital setting. Concerns about vaccine safety, vaccine side effects, and perceived low risk of contracting H1N1 or COVID-19 were the most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy or refusal across both vaccines. Conclusions: With increased interest and attention on vaccines in recent years, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, more research that examines vaccine hesitancy or refusal across different health care settings and health care providers is warranted. Future work should aim to utilize more qualitative and mixed methods research designs to capture the personal pers...

Introduction Engaging children and young people (CYP) with and without their parents in health research has the potential to improve the development and implementation of health interventions. However, to our knowledge, the scope of engagement activities used with this population and barriers to their engagement is unknown. The objective of this review was to identify and describe CYP engagement with and without their parents in the development and/or implementation of health interventions. Methods This scoping review included any primary research studies reporting on engaging CYP, with or without parents, in the design and/or implementation of health interventions. Healthcare professionals had to be involved over the course of the study and the study had to take place in either community, primary or tertiary care settings. The following databases were searched in May 2017, May 2020 and June 2021: Medline (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Embase (Elsevier). Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full‐text articles and used a previously piloted extraction form to extract and summarize information from the included articles. Results Twenty‐eight articles discussing twenty‐four studies were included. CYP engagement throughout the research cycle was limited. There were no observed differences in the reported presence of engagement, types of interventions or outcomes of engagement between studies engaging CYP or CYP and parents. Studies engaging CYP and parents contained limited information on how these relationships affected outcomes of engagement. Engagement was enabled primarily by the maintenance of resources and relationships among stakeholders. Conclusions Although CYP engagement often influenced health intervention and implementation design, they are inconsistently engaged across the research cycle. It is unclear whether parental involvement enhances CYP engagement. Future research should consider reporting guidelines to clarify the level of CYP and/or parent engagement, and enhance CYP engagement by fostering synergistic and sustainable partnerships with key stakeholders. Patient or Public Contribution A parent partner with codesign experience contributed to the creation of the research questions, screened titles, abstracts and full texts, helped with data extraction and provided feedback on the manuscript.