Background Mobile health (mHealth) apps have great potential to support the management of chronic conditions. Despite widespread acceptance of mHealth apps by the public, health care providers (HCPs) are reluctant to prescribe or recommend such apps to their patients. Objective This study aimed to classify and evaluate interventions aimed at encouraging HCPs to prescribe mHealth apps. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies published from January 1, 2008, to August 5, 2022, using 4 electronic databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We included studies that evaluated interventions encouraging HCPs to prescribe mHealth apps. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the studies. The “National Institute of Health’s quality assessment tool for before-and-after (pretest-posttest design) studies with no control group” and “the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT)” were used to assess the methodological quality. Owing to high levels of heterogeneity between interventions, measures of practice change, specialties of HCPs, and modes of delivery, we conducted a qualitative analysis. We adopted the behavior change wheel as a framework for classifying the included interventions according to intervention functions. Results In total, 11 studies were included in this review. Most of the studies reported positive findings, with improvements in a number of outcomes, including increased knowledge of mHealth apps among clinicians, improved self-efficacy or confidence in prescribing, and an increased number of mHealth app prescriptions. On the basis of the behavior change wheel, 9 studies reported elements of environmental restructuring such as providing HCPs with lists of apps, technological systems, time, and resources. Furthermore, 9 studies included elements of education, particularly workshops, class lectures, individual sessions with HCPs, videos, or toolkits. Furthermore, training was incorporated in 8 studies using case studies or scenarios or app appraisal tools. Coercion and restriction were not reported in any of the interventions included. The quality of the studies was high in relation to the clarity of aims, interventions, and outcomes but weaker in terms of sample size, power calculations, and duration of follow-up. Conclusions This study identified interventions to encourage app prescriptions by HCPs. Recommendations for future research should consider previously unexplored intervention functions such as restrictions and coercion. The findings of this review can help inform mHealth providers and policy makers regarding the key intervention strategies impacting mHealth prescriptions and assist them in making informed decisions to encourage this adoption.

Background Knowledge management plays a significant role in health care institutions. It consists of 4 processes: knowledge creation, knowledge capture, knowledge sharing, and knowledge application. The success of health care institutions relies on effective knowledge sharing among health care professionals, so the facilitators and barriers to knowledge sharing must be identified and understood. Medical imaging departments play a key role in cancer centers. Therefore, an understanding of the factors that affect knowledge sharing in medical imaging departments should be sought to increase patient outcomes and reduce medical errors. Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the facilitators and barriers that affect knowledge-sharing behaviors in medical imaging departments and identify the differences between medical imaging departments in general hospitals and cancer centers. Methods We performed a systematic search in PubMed Central, EBSCOhost (CINAHL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Elsevier (Scopus), ProQuest, and Clarivate (Web of Science) in December 2021. Relevant articles were identified by examining the titles and abstracts. In total, 2 reviewers independently screened the full texts of relevant papers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that investigated the facilitators and barriers that affect knowledge sharing. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the included articles and narrative synthesis to report the results. Results A total of 49 articles were selected for the full in-depth analysis, and 38 (78%) studies were included in the final review, with 1 article added from other selected databases. There were 31 facilitators and 10 barriers identified that affected knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments. These facilitators were divided according to their characteristics into 3 categories: individual, departmental, and technological facilitators. The barriers that hindered knowledge sharing were divided into 4 categories: financial, administrative, technological, and geographical barriers. Conclusions This review highlighted the factors that influenced knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments in cancer centers and general hospitals. In terms of the facilitators and barriers to knowledge sharing, this study shows that these are the same in medical imaging departments, whether in general hospitals or cancer centers. Our findings can be used as guidelines for medical imaging departments to support knowledge-sharing frameworks and enhance knowledge sharing by understanding the facilitators and barriers.

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) apps have great potential to support the management of chronic conditions. Despite widespread acceptance of mHealth apps by the public, healthcare providers (HCPs) are reluctant to prescribe or recommend such apps to their patients. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to classify and evaluate interventions aimed at encouraging mHealth app prescription among HCPs. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies published from January 2008 to August 2022 using four electronic databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycInfo. We included studies that evaluated interventions encouraging HCPs to prescribe mHealth apps. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the studies. The studies were assessed for risk of bias. Due to high levels of heterogeneity between interventions, measures of practice change, specialties of HCPs and modes of delivery, we conducted a qualitative analysis. We adopted the behaviour change wheel (BCW) as a framework for classifying the included interventions according to intervention functions. RESULTS Eleven studies were included in this review. Most of the studies reported positive findings, with improvements in a number of outcomes, including increased knowledge of mHealth apps among clinicians, improved self-efficacy or confidence in prescribing and changes in current practices. Based on the BCW, environmental restructuring was the most frequently used intervention function in the included studies, followed by education and then training. Coercion and restriction were not reported in any of the interventions included. The quality of the studies was high in relation to the clarity of aims, interventions and outcomes, but weaker in terms of sample sizes, power calculations and duration of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS This study identified interventions to increase HCPs app prescriptions. The findings of this review can help inform mHealth providers and policymakers regarding the key intervention strategies impacting mHealth prescriptions and assist them in making informed decisions to encourage this adoption.

BACKGROUND Knowledge management has a significant role in healthcare institutions. It consists of four process: knowledge creation, knowledge capture, knowledge sharing, and knowledge application. Knowledge sharing is an important process in the knowledge management cycle. The success of healthcare relies on knowledge sharing among employees. Although, knowledge sharing has a vital role in improving patient outcomes and reducing medical errors, it has several facilitators and barriers that control knowledge sharing behaviours. Medical imaging departments are essential in the healthcare sector. Therefore, it requires understanding of the factors that affect knowledge sharing in the medical imaging department in order to increase patient outcomes and reduce medical errors. OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic review was to identify the facilitators and barriers that affect knowledge sharing behaviours in medical imaging departments. METHODS This review followed PRISMA (2020) guidelines. We conducted a systematic search of the literature on the topic using six databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Searches were performed up to a maximum of 20 years. Relevant articles were identified by examining the titles and abstracts. There were two reviewers who screened the full text of relevant papers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and case studies with the aim of investigating the facilitators and barriers that affect knowledge sharing among employees in the medical imaging departments were included in this review. RESULTS A total of 52 articles were selected for the full in-depth analysis, and 42 studies were included in the final review with one article being added other selected databases. There were 31 facilitators and 10 barriers that affected knowledge sharing practices in medical imaging department. These facilitators were divided according to their characteristics into three categorises such as: individual, departmental, and technological facilitators. The barriers that affect knowledge sharing were divided into four categorises: financial, administrative, technological, and geographical barriers. CONCLUSIONS This study identified the factors that influenced the knowledge sharing practices in the medical imaging departments. Our findings can be used as guidelines in the medical imaging department to support the knowledge sharing framework and boost knowledge sharing behaviours in the medical imaging department. Moreover, these findings can be used to enhance knowledge sharing practices in the medical imaging departments by understanding the facilitators and barriers.