BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness in the world. The need to diagnose glaucoma early in its natural history before extensive sight loss occurs cannot be overemphasised. However, glaucoma is largely asymptomatic in the early stages of the disease making it complex to diagnose clinically and requires the support of technology. The objective of this scoping review is to determine the nature and extent of the evidence for use of portable devices in the diagnosis of glaucoma.
METHODS: We will consider studies conducted in all healthcare settings using portable devices for the detection of all type of adult glaucoma. We will also include any systematic reviews or scoping reviews, which relate to this topic. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL on the Cochrane Library and Global Health databases, from their inception to the present. Reference lists from publications identified in the searches will also be reviewed. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts, followed by full-text screening to assess studies for inclusion. Any disagreements will be discussed and resolved with a third author. Tables accompanied by narrative descriptions will be employed to discuss results and show how it relates to review questions.
BACKGROUND: Ethical approval is not required in this review. Only published and publicly accessible data will be used. We will publish our findings in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and develop an accessible summary of results and recommendations.

The Arbaeen Pilgrimage, a momentous religious journey drawing millions of participants annually, presents a profound spiritual experience. However, amidst its significance lie various health challenges that pilgrims encounter along the way. Addressing these challenges is vital to ensure the well-being of participants and the success of this extraordinary event. In light of this, the aim of this study is to examine the health challenges of the Arbaeen Pilgrimage, identify facilitators for solving these challenges, and propose effective solutions to enhance the overall pilgrimage experience for all involved.
The scoping review was performed by searching databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar search engine with a focus on the keywords \"Arbaeen\", \"Arbaeen walk\" and \"Arbaeen pilgrimage\". The search was not constrained by a specific time limitation in the databases. Data from studies were extracted using a data extraction form consisting of 9 fields. The selection of articles and data extraction were carried out by two researchers, adhering to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any disagreements were resolved through consultation with a third researcher. The study was reported following the PRISMA checklist.
Out of 1619 retrieved articles, 9 were finally included in this study. All these studies were published since 2017 and conducted in Iraq and Iran. In total, 101 health challenges and facilitators were identified, comprising 61 challenges and 40 facilitators. The challenges with the highest frequency included \"infectious disease outbreaks\" (n = 7), \"Poor management of Iraq\'s health system in waste collection and disposal\" (n = 4), \"Rising incidence of walking injuries among pilgrims (e.g., burns, fractures, lacerations, wounds, and blisters)\" (n = 4), and \"Insufficient knowledge about personal and public health\"(n = 4). The most important facilitators to solving the challenges were: \"Customized pilgrim training and addressing their issues, with a focus on vital practices\" (n = 6), \"Coordinating mass gathering stakeholders, including health ministries and organizations\" (n = 4), and \"Implementing an agile syndromic system for rapid surveillance and identification of contagious illnesses\" (n = 4).
The article discusses health challenges faced during the Arbaeen Pilgrimage and proposes facilitative measures for participants\' well-being. It emphasizes the significance of addressing health risks in large gatherings and suggests incorporating measures for a safer and enjoyable pilgrimage experience. Overall, understanding and managing these health factors can lead to a successful execution of the Arbaeen Pilgrimage, benefiting the physical and spiritual well-being of all involved.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to map the available evidence on strategies that nurses can use to facilitate genomics-informed healthcare to address health disparities.
BACKGROUND: Advancements in genomics over the last two decades have led to an increase in the delivery of genomics-informed health care. Although the integration of genomics into health care services continues to enhance patient outcomes, access to genomic technologies is not equitable, exacerbating existing health disparities amongst certain populations. As the largest portion of the health workforce, nurses play a critical role in the delivery of equitable genomics-informed care. However, little is known about how nurses can help address health disparities within the context of genomics-informed health care. A review of the literature will provide the necessary foundation to identify promising practices, policy, and knowledge gaps for further areas of inquiry.
METHODS: We will include papers that explore strategies that nurses can undertake to facilitate genomics-informed care to address health disparities.
METHODS: This review will be conducted using JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will search electronic databases including MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, and CINAHL for quantitative and qualitative studies, systematic reviews and grey literature. Theses, books, and unavailable full-text papers will be excluded. The search will be limited to papers from 2013 and beyond. Two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts followed by full-text and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. We will use a data extraction tool using Microsoft Excel and analyse data using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Findings will be presented in the form of evidence tables and a narrative summary. We will report findings using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
CONCLUSIONS: Genomics will continue to transform all aspects of health care across the wellness continuum from prevention, assessment, diagnosis, management, treatment, and palliative care. The identification of nursing strategies to address health disparities will build the foundation for policy and practice to ensure that the integration of genomic technologies benefits everyone.

Limited research examines alcohol-related injury in the context of social determinants of health (SDoH) to guide effective intervention and prevention programmes. SDoH are non-medical factors that impact health such as income, housing and childhood environment. This scoping review aims to explore the role SDoH in childhood have in alcohol-related injury in young adults.
The scoping review process will be guided by the methodology framework of Arksey and O\'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews Guidelines (PRISMA-ScR). The PubMed and SCOPUS databases will be systematically searched. Studies of various designs and methodologies (published in English since 1 January 2000) that examine certain SDoH of interest in relation to alcohol-related injury in adults aged 18-25 years old will be considered for inclusion in this review. Two reviewers will screen all articles identified from the databases independently. Titles and abstracts will be reviewed based on the initial search and included if eligibility criteria are met. Duplicate articles will be removed and full texts will be examined to create a final list of included studies. Any disagreements on the inclusion of any articles will be resolved through discussion and consultation with a third reviewer if necessary.
As this research does not involve human subjects, ethics approval is not required. The results of this study will be summarised quantitatively through numerical counts and qualitatively through a narrative synthesis. The results from this review will address an important literature gap and inform the development of targeted prevention programmes for alcohol-related injury.
This protocol is registered with Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MYEXA).

Mathematics is often treated as different from other disciplines, since arguments in the field rely on deductive proof rather than empirical evidence as in the natural sciences. A mathematical paper can therefore, at least in principle, be replicated simply by reading it. While this distinction is sometimes taken as the basis to claim that the results in mathematics are therefore certain, mathematicians themselves know that the published literature contains many mistakes. Reading a proof is not easy, and checking whether an argument constitutes a proof is surprisingly difficult. This article uses peer review of submissions to mathematics journals as a site where referees are explicitly concerned with checking whether a paper is correct and therefore could be published. Drawing on 95 qualitative interviews with mathematics journal editors, as well as a collection of more than 100 referee reports and other correspondence from peer review processes, this article establishes that while mathematicians acknowledge that peer review does not guarantee correctness, they still value it. For mathematicians, peer review \'adds a bit of certainty\', especially in contrast to papers only submitted to preprint servers such as arXiv. Furthermore, during peer review there can be disagreements not just regarding the importance of a result, but also whether a particular argument constitutes a proof or not (in particular, whether there are substantial gaps in the proof). Finally, the mathematical community is seen as important when it comes to accepting arguments as proofs and assigning certainty to results. Publishing an argument in a peer-reviewed journal is often only the first step in having a result accepted. Results get accepted if they stand the test of time and are used by other mathematicians.

Despite evidence that dietary population health interventions are effective and widely accepted, they remain the topic of intense debate centring on the appropriate role of the state. This review sought to identify how the role of the state in intervening in individuals\' food practices is conceptualized across a wide range of literatures. We searched 10 databases and 4 journals for texts that debated dietary population health interventions designed to affect individuals\' health-affecting food practices. Two co-authors independently screened these texts for eligibility relative to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirty-five texts formed our final corpus. Through critical reflexive thematic analysis (TA), we generated 6 themes and 2 subthemes concerning choice, responsibility for health, balancing benefits and burdens of intervention, the use of evidence, fairness, and the legitimacy of the state\'s actions. Our analysis found that narratives that aim to prevent effective regulation are entrenched in academic literatures. Discourses that emphasized liberty and personal responsibility framed poor health as the result of \'lifestyle choices\'. Utilitarian, cost-benefit rationales pervaded arguments about how to best balance the benefits and burdens of state intervention. Claims about fairness and freedom were used to evoke powerful common meanings, and evidence was used politically to bolster interests, particularly those of the food industry. This review identifies and critically analyses key arguments for and against population dietary public health policies. Our findings should motivate public health researchers and practitioners to avoid unreflexively embracing framings that draw on the languages and logics of free market economics.

Barriers to accessing specialist services impart a significant burden on patient outcomes and experience as well as a cost and administrative burden on health systems due to healthcare wastage and inefficiencies. This paper outlines the planned protocol for a systematic review relating to how health systems perform with regard to patient access to specialist care, and the efficacy of interventions aimed at improving this.
Systematic review of the literature will be carried out on publications retrieved by searching the following electronic literature databases: EBSCOhost Megafile Ultimate (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Academic Search Ultimate, APA Psychological Abstracts (PsycINFO), HealthSource), PubMed (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE)), Elsevier Bibliographic Database (Scopus), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Articles published over a 10-year period (2012-2022) will be analysed to determine; current accessibility and availability problems faced by primary care services when referring patients to specialist care, and the effectiveness of interventions to improve primary care access to specialist services. Grey literature publications (ie, government reports, policy statements and issues papers, conference proceedings) will not be analysed in this review. Articles not published in English, Spanish or Portuguese will not be included. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial screening, disagreements will be resolved by a third independent reviewer, following which data extraction and selection of eligible sources will be carried out. Selected articles will be categorised on study design, setting and participants. Methodological quality and heterogeneity will subsequently be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A descriptive approach will be used to review and synthesise the findings.
This study does not require ethics committee review as it solely focuses on analysing published literature. Findings will be published and disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal.
CRD42022354890.

Despite accumulating evidence of the implications of trade policy for public health, trade and health sectors continue to operate largely in silos. Numerous barriers to advancing health have been identified, including the dominance of a neoliberal paradigm, powerful private sector interests, and constraints associated with policymaking processes. Scholars and policy actors have recommended improved governance practices for trade policy, including: greater transparency and accountability; intersectoral collaboration; the use of health impact assessments; South-South networking; and mechanisms for civil society participation. These policy prescriptions have been generated from specific cases, such as the World Trade Organization\'s Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health or specific instances of trade-related policymaking at the national level. There has not yet been a comprehensive analysis of what enables the elevation of health goals on trade policy agendas. This narrative review seeks to address this gap by collating and analysing known studies across different levels of policymaking and different health issues.
Sixty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Health issues that received attention on trade policy agendas included: access to medicines, food nutrition and food security, tobacco control, non-communicable diseases, access to knowledge, and asbestos harm. This has occurred in instances of domestic and regional policymaking, and in bilateral, regional and global trade negotiations, as well as in trade disputes and challenges. We identified four enabling conditions for elevation of health in trade-related policymaking: favourable media attention; leadership by trade and health ministers; public support; and political party support. We identified six strategies successfully used by advocates to influence these conditions: using and translating multiple forms of evidence, acting in coalitions, strategic framing, leveraging exogenous factors, legal strategy, and shifting forums.
The analysis demonstrates that while technical evidence is important, political strategy is necessary for elevating health on trade agendas. The analysis provides lessons that can be explored in the wider commercial determinants of health where economic and health interests often collide.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) provides an avenue for filing formal complaints regarding unethical behavior of members. These complaints are investigated by the ethics committee and referred to the judicial council if a violation may have occurred.
A review of complaints filed with the ASPS from 2013 through 2021 was performed. Data surrounding both complaints and complainant type were reviewed, as well as region of complaint origin. Categories of violations resulting in formal investigations and judicial council referrals were also reviewed.
A total of 584 complaints were filed with the ASPS ethics committee from 2013 through 2021, which was nearly 100 fewer than from a previous review of 2004 through 2008. Twenty-one percent of complaints were formally investigated by the ethics committee, and 26% of these were referred to the judicial council. The most common complaint investigated was related to advertising or misleading communications; the most common complaint referred to the judicial council was regarding expert testimony. Most complaints were filed by ASPS members.
The total number of complaints filed over time has decreased significantly, the reasons for which are unclear. Evolution of culture and thought likely had an impact, not only on specific behaviors but also on the likelihood of reporting those behaviors. It remains incumbent on plastic surgeons to use the self-regulating mechanisms available to maintain the autonomy plastic surgery enjoys as a profession.

Evolving US media and political systems, coupled with escalating misinformation campaigns, have left the public divided over objective facts featured in policy debates. The public also has lost much of its confidence in the institutions designed to adjudicate those epistemic debates. To counter this threat, civic entrepreneurs have devised institutional reforms to revitalize democratic policymaking. One promising intervention is the Citizens\' Initiative Review (CIR), which has been adopted into law in Oregon and tested in several other states, as well as Switzerland and Finland. Each CIR gathers a demographically stratified random sample of registered voters to form a deliberative panel, which hears from pro and con advocates and neutral experts while assessing the merits of a ballot measure. After four-to-five days of deliberation, each CIR writes an issue guide for voters that identifies key factual findings, along with the most important pro and con arguments. This study pools the results of survey experiments conducted on thirteen CIRs held from 2010 to 2018, resulting in a dataset that includes 67,120 knowledge scores collected from 10,872 registered voters exposed to 82 empirical claims. Analysis shows that reading the CIR guide had a positive effect on voters\' policy knowledge, with stronger effects for those holding greater faith in deliberation. We found little evidence of directional motivated reasoning but some evidence that reading the CIR statement can spark an accuracy motivation. Overall, the main results show how trust in peer deliberation provides one path out of the maze of misinformation shaping voter decisions during elections.