Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews without PEM. Any objective measure of professional practice (e.g. prescriptions for a particular drug), or patient health outcomes (e.g. blood pressure) were included. Data collection and analysisTwo reviewers undertook data extraction independently. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. For analyses, we grouped the included studies according to study design, type of outcome and type of comparison. For controlled trials, we reported the median e ect size for each outcome within each study, the median e ect size across outcomes for each study and the median of these e ect sizes across studies. Where data were available, we re-analysed the ITS studies by converting all data to a monthly basis and estimating the e ect size from the change in the slope of the regression line between before and a er implementation of the PEM. We reported median changes in slope for each outcome, for each study, and then across studies. We standardised all changes in slopes by their standard error, allowing comparisons and combination of di erent outcomes. We categorised each PEM according to potential e ects modifiers related to the source of the PEMs, the channel used for their delivery, their content, and their format. We assessed the risks of bias of all the included studies. Main resultsWe included 84 studies: 32 RTs, two CBAs and 50 ITS studies. Of the 32 RTs, 19 were cluster RTs that used various units of randomisation, such as practices, health centres, towns, or areas.The majority of the included studies (82/84) compared the e ectiveness of PEMs to no intervention. Based on the RTs that provided moderate-certainty evidence, we found that PEMs distributed to healthcare professionals probably improve their practice, as measured with dichotomous variables, compared to no intervention (median absolute risk di erence (ARD): 0.04; interquartile range (IQR): 0.01 to 0.09; 3,963 healthcare professionals randomised within 3073 units). We could not confirm this finding using the evidence gathered from continuous variables (standardised mean di erence (SMD): 0.11; IQR: -0.16 to 0.52; 1631 healthcare professionals randomised within 1373 units ), from the ITS studies (standardised median change in slope = 0.69; 35 studies), or from the CBA study because the certainty of this evidence was very low. We also found, based on RTs that provided moderate-certainty evidence, that PEMs distributed to healthcare professionals probably make little or no di erence to patient health as measured using dichotomous variables, compared to no intervention (ARD: 0.02; IQR: -0.005 to 0.09; 935,015 patients randomised within 959 units). The evidence gathered from continuous variables (SMD: 0.05; IQR: -0.12 to 0.09; 6,737 patients randomised within 594 units) or from ITS study results (standardised median change in slope = 1.12; 8 studies) do not strengthen these findings because the certainty of this evidence was very low.Two studies (a randomised trial and a CBA) compared a paper-based version to a computerised ver...

Background: The role of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in increasing obesity is of great scientific, clinical, and public health interest. Many reviews have been published on this topic in recent years with very different conclusions. Objective: We sought to assess the scientific quality and other characteristics that may be associated with the conclusions of reviews regarding the causal relation between SSB consumption and body weight. Design: A systematic search of reviews in English languagepublished peer-reviewed journals in 2006-2013 was performed. Their methodologic quality was assessed by 2 judges using 2 scoring systems: the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews and the American Dietetic Association Quality Criteria Checklist. The conclusions were blindly assessed by 11 independent readers using a Likert scale ranging from a position score of 0 = no evidence of a causal relation to 5 = strong evidence of a causal relation. Results: Twenty reviews were identified: 5 meta-analyses, 3 qualitative systematic reviews, and 12 qualitative nonsystematic reviews. Four received funding from the food industry. Quality scores were neither correlated with the readers' perception of conclusions nor with the source of funding. However, industry-funded reviews were more likely to suggest that evidence supporting a causal relation between SSB consumption and weight gain was weak (mean position score = 1.78), whereas evidence was generally considered well-founded in other reviews (mean position score = 3.39; P # 0.01). Conclusions: For a complex and controversial scientific issue, it is important to minimize perceived or actual threats to scientific objectivity and methodologic quality. More refined tools are needed to better assess their scientific quality and to identify factors and mechanisms that may influence authors' conclusions.

Background The last decade has seen growing interest in scaling up of innovations to strengthen healthcare systems. However, the lack of appropriate methods for determining their potential for scale-up is an unfortunate global handicap. Thus, we aimed to review tools proposed for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. Methods We conducted a systematic review following the COSMIN methodology. We included any empirical research which aimed to investigate the creation, validation or interpretability of a scalability assessment tool in health. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and ERIC from their inception to 20 March 2019. We also searched relevant websites, screened the reference lists of relevant reports and consulted experts in the field. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports and assessed the methodological quality of tools. We summarized data using a narrative approach involving thematic syntheses and descriptive statistics. Results We identified 31 reports describing 21 tools. Types of tools included criteria (47.6%), scales (33.3%) and checklists (19.0%). Most tools were published from 2010 onwards (90.5%), in open-access sources (85.7%) and funded by governmental or nongovernmental organizations (76.2%). All tools were in English; four were translated into French or Spanish (19.0%). Tool creation involved single (23.8%) or multiple (19.0%) types of stakeholders, or stakeholder involvement was not reported (57.1%). No studies reported involving patients or the public, or reported the sex of tool creators. Tools were created for use in high-income countries (28.6%), low- or middle-income countries (19.0%), or both (9.5%), or for transferring innovations from low- or middle-income countries to high-income countries (4.8%). Healthcare levels included public or population health (47.6%), primary healthcare (33.3%) and home care (4.8%). Most tools provided limited information on content validity (85.7%), and none reported on other measurement properties. The methodological quality of tools was deemed inadequate (61.9%) or doubtful (38.1%). Conclusions We inventoried tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. Existing tools are as yet of limited utility for assessing scalability in health. More work needs to be done to establish key psychometric properties of these tools. Trial registration We registered this review with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019107095)

Background: Canadian health funding currently prioritizes scaling up for evidence-based primary care innovations, but not all teams prepare for scaling up. We explored scalability assessment among primary care innovators in the province of Quebec to evaluate their preparedness for scaling up. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional survey from Feb. 18 to Mar. 18, 2019. Eligible participants were 33 innovation teams selected for the 2019 Quebec College of Family Physicians' Symposium on Innovations. We conducted a Web-based survey in 2 sections: innovation characteristics and the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire. The latter includes 16 criteria (scalability components) grouped into 5 dimensions: theory (1 criterion), impact (6 criteria), coverage (4 criteria), setting (3 criteria) and cost (2 criteria). We classified innovation types using the International Classification of Health Interventions. We performed a descriptive analysis using frequency counts and percentages. Results: Out of 33 teams, 24 participated (72.7%), with 1 innovation each. The types of innovation were management (15/24), prevention (8/24) and therapeutic (1/24). Most management innovations focused on patient navigation (9/15). In order of frequency, teams had assessed theory (79.2%) and impact (79.2%) criteria, followed by cost (77.1%), setting (59.7%) and coverage (54.2%). Most innovations (16/24) had assessed 10 criteria or more, including 10 management innovations, 5 prevention innovations and 1 therapeutic innovation. Implementation fidelity was the least assessed criterion (6/24). Interpretation: The scalability assessments of a primary care innovation varied according to its type. Management innovations, which were the most prevalent and assessed the most scalability components, appear to be most prepared for primary care scale-up in Canada.

Background Family medicine is a branch of medicine that manages common and long-term illnesses in children and adults. Family physicians in particular play a major role and their scope of practice is expected to impact patient and population. However, little is known about its impact on physicians. We aimed to assess the effects of scope of practice on family physician outcomes. Methods We performed a systematic review that we reported using PRISMA guidelines. For the inclusion criteria, any study exploring an association between the scope of practice and physician outcomes was considered. Three bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, and ERIC were consulted through OVID interface from their respective inceptions to November, 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of studies using appropriate tools. We conducted data synthesis using a narrative form. GRADE was used for evaluating quality of cumulative evidence. Results In total, we included 12 studies with 38,732 participants from 6927 citations identified. Eleven of them were cross-sectional, and one was a cohort study with acceptable methodological quality. We found that: 1) family physicians with diverse clinical and nonclinical activities significantly improve their job satisfaction (p<0.05); 2) family physicians with a variety of clinical practices significantly improve their competences and health status (p<0.05); 3) family physicians who perform clinical procedures (mainly extended to gynecological procedures) significantly improve their psychosocial outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction) (p<0.05); and 4) some associations are not statistically significant (e.g., relation between variety of practice settings and outcomes). We observed that the evidence available has a very low level. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the scope of practice may be favorably associated with some family physician outcomes but with a very low level of evidence available. Based on these findings, healthcare system managers could monitor the scope of practice among family physicians and encourage future research in this field. Systematic review registration Our protocol was registered under the number CRD42019121990 in PROSPERO.