Surgical site infections (SSIs) pose a significant clinical challenge, with heightened risks and severe consequences for diabetic patients undergoing surgical procedures. This systematic review aims to synthesize the current evidence on effective prevention strategies for mitigating SSI risk in this vulnerable population. From inception to March 2024, we comprehensively searched multiple electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL) to identify relevant studies evaluating SSI prevention strategies in diabetic surgical patients. Our search strategy followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, utilizing a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to diabetes, surgical site infections, prevention strategies, and surgical procedures. Inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses published in English. The search yielded three studies meeting the eligibility criteria, subject to data extraction and qualitative synthesis. Key findings highlighted the efficacy of interventions such as optimized perioperative glycemic control, timely prophylactic antibiotic administration, and meticulous preoperative skin antisepsis in reducing SSI rates among diabetic surgical patients. The potential for personalized prevention approaches based on individual patient factors, such as diabetes type and surgical complexity, was explored. This systematic review underscores the importance of a multifaceted, evidence-based approach to SSI prevention in diabetic surgical patients, integrating strategies like glycemic control, antibiotic prophylaxis, and preoperative skin antisepsis. Furthermore, our findings suggest the potential benefits of personalized care pathways tailored to individual patient characteristics. Implementing these interventions requires interdisciplinary collaboration, adaptation to diverse healthcare settings, and patient engagement through culturally sensitive education initiatives. This comprehensive analysis informs clinical practice, fosters patient safety, and contributes to the global efforts to enhance surgical outcomes for this high-risk population.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care in low- or middle-income country (LMIC) humanitarian settings is a new area, experiencing a degree of increased momentum over recent years. The review contributes to this growing body of knowledge, in addition to identifying gaps for future research. The overall aim is to systematically explore the evidence on palliative care needs of patients and/or their families in LMIC humanitarian settings.
METHODS: Arksey and O\'Malley\'s (Int J Soc Res Methodol. 8:19-32, 2005) scoping review framework forms the basis of the study design, following further guidance from Levac et al. (Implement Sci 5:1-9, 2010), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Peters et al. (JBI Reviewer\'s Manual JBI: 406-452, 2020), and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) from Tricco et al. (Ann Intern Med 169:467-73, 2018). This incorporates a five-step approach and the population, concept, and context (PCC) framework. Using already identified key words/terms, searches for both published research and gray literature from January 2012 to October 2022 will be undertaken using databases (likely to include Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), Web of Science, Policy Commons, JSTOR, Library Network International Monetary Fund and World Bank, Google Advanced Search, and Google Scholar) in addition to selected pre-print sites and websites. Data selection will be undertaken based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and will be reviewed at each stage by two reviewers, with a third to resolve any differences. Extracted data will be charted in a table. Ethical approval is not required for this review.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings will be presented in tables and diagrams/charts, followed by a narrative description. The review will run from late October 2022 to early 2023. This is the first systematic scoping review specifically exploring the palliative care needs of patients and/or their family, in LMIC humanitarian settings. The paper from the review findings will be submitted for publication in 2023.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) can be used to treat several neurological and psychiatric conditions such as Parkinson\'s disease, epilepsy and obsessive-compulsive disorder; however, limited work has been done to assess the disparities in DBS access and implementation. The goal of this scoping review is to identify sources of disparity in the clinical provision of DBS.
METHODS: A scoping review will be conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-extension for Scoping Reviews methodology. Relevant studies will be identified from databases including MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science, as well as reference lists from retained articles. Initial search dates were in January 2023, with the study still ongoing. An initial screening of the titles and abstracts of potentially eligible studies will be completed, with relevant studies collected for full-text review. The principal investigators and coauthors will then independently review all full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Data will be extracted and collected in table format. Finally, results will be synthesised in a table and narrative report.
BACKGROUND: No institutional board review or approval is necessary for the proposed scoping review. The findings will be submitted for publication to relevant peer-reviewed journals and conferences.
UNASSIGNED: This protocol has been registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/cxvhu).

OBJECTIVE: Large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI\'s ChatGPT are powerful generative systems that rapidly synthesize natural language responses. Research on LLMs has revealed their potential and pitfalls, especially in clinical settings. However, the evolving landscape of LLM research in medicine has left several gaps regarding their evaluation, application, and evidence base.
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to (1) summarize current research evidence on the accuracy and efficacy of LLMs in medical applications, (2) discuss the ethical, legal, logistical, and socioeconomic implications of LLM use in clinical settings, (3) explore barriers and facilitators to LLM implementation in healthcare, (4) propose a standardized evaluation framework for assessing LLMs\' clinical utility, and (5) identify evidence gaps and propose future research directions for LLMs in clinical applications.
METHODS: We screened 4,036 records from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv from January 2023 (inception of the search) to June 26, 2023 for English-language papers and analyzed findings from 55 worldwide studies. Quality of evidence was reported based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine recommendations.
RESULTS: Our results demonstrate that LLMs show promise in compiling patient notes, assisting patients in navigating the healthcare system, and to some extent, supporting clinical decision-making when combined with human oversight. However, their utilization is limited by biases in training data that may harm patients, the generation of inaccurate but convincing information, and ethical, legal, socioeconomic, and privacy concerns. We also identified a lack of standardized methods for evaluating LLMs\' effectiveness and feasibility.
CONCLUSIONS: This review thus highlights potential future directions and questions to address these limitations and to further explore LLMs\' potential in enhancing healthcare delivery.
CONCLUSIONS: Question What is the current state of Large Language Models’ (LLMs) application in clinical settings, and what are the primary challenges and opportunities associated with their integration? Findings This scoping review, analyzing 55 studies, indicates that while LLMs, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, show potential in compiling patient notes, aiding in healthcare navigation, and supporting clinical decision-making, their use is constrained by data biases, the generation of plausible but incorrect information, and various ethical and privacy concerns. A significant variability in the rigor of studies, especially in evaluating LLM responses, calls for standardized evaluation methods, including established metrics like ROUGE, METEOR, G-Eval, and MultiMedQA. Meaning The findings suggest a need for enhanced methodologies in LLM research, stressing the importance of integrating real patient data and considering social determinants of health, to improve the applicability and safety of LLMs in clinical environments.

BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative research approach that equally engages researchers and community stakeholders throughout all steps of the research process to facilitate social change and increase research relevance. Community advisory boards (CABs) are a CBPR tool in which individuals with lived experience and community organisations are integrated into the research process and ensure the work aligns with community priorities. We seek to (1) explore the best practices for the recruitment and engagement of people with lived experiences on CABs and (2) identify the scope of literature on minimising power dynamics between organisations and community members with lived experience who work on CABs together.
METHODS: This scoping review will follow the Arksey and O\'Malley methodological framework, informed by Levac et al, and will be reported using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram. Detailed and robust search strategies have been developed for Embase, Medline and PsychINFO. Grey literature references and reference lists of included articles published between 1 January 1990 and 30 March 2023 will be considered. Two reviewers will independently screen references in two successive stages of title/abstract and full-text screening. Conflicts will be decided by consensus or a third reviewer. Thematic analysis will be applied in three phases: open coding, axial coding and abstraction. Extracted data will be recorded and presented in a tabular format and/or graphical summaries, with a descriptive overview discussing how the research findings relate to the research questions. At this time, a preliminary search of peer-reviewed and grey literature has been conducted. Search results for peer-reviewed literature have been uploaded to Covidence for review and appraisal for relevance.
BACKGROUND: Formal ethics approval is not required for this review. Review findings will inform ongoing and future CBPR community advisory board dynamics.
BACKGROUND: The protocol has been registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QF5D3).

In nursing education, bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical skills is crucial for developing competence in clinical practice. Nursing students encounter challenges in acquiring these essential skills, making self-efficacy a critical component in their professional development. Self-efficacy pertains to individual\'s belief in their ability to perform tasks and overcome challenges, with significant implications for clinical skills acquisition and academic success. Previous research has underscored the strong link between nursing students\' self-efficacy and their clinical competence. Technology has emerged as a promising tool to enhance self-efficacy by enabling personalized learning experiences and in-depth discussions. However, there is a need for a comprehensive literature review to assess the existing body of knowledge and identify research gaps.
The aim of this study is to systematically map and identify gaps in published studies on the use of technology-supported guidance models to stimulate nursing students\' self-efficacy in clinical practice.
This scoping review followed the framework of Arksey and O\'Malley and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A systematic, comprehensive literature search was conducted in ERIC, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies published between January 2011 and April 2023. The reference lists of the included papers were manually searched to identify additional studies. Pairs of authors screened the papers, assessed eligibility, and extracted the data. The data were thematically organized.
A total of 8 studies were included and four thematic groups were identified: (1) technological solutions for learning support, (2) learning focus in clinical practice, (3) teaching strategies and theoretical approaches for self-efficacy, and (4) assessment of self-efficacy and complementary outcomes.
Various technological solutions were adopted in the guidance models to stimulate the self-efficacy of nursing students in clinical practice, leading to positive findings. A total of 7 out of 8 studies presented results that were not statistically significant, highlighting the need for further refinement of the applied interventions. Nurse educators play a pivotal role in applying learning strategies and theoretical approaches to enhance nursing students\' self-efficacy, but the contributions of nurse preceptors and peers should not be overlooked. Future studies should consider involving users in the intervention process and using validated instruments tailored to the studies\' intervention objectives, ensuring relevance and enabling comparisons across studies.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, several machine learning (ML) algorithms have been investigated to assess their efficacy in detecting voice disorders. Literature indicates that ML algorithms can detect voice disorders with high accuracy. This suggests that ML has the potential to assist clinicians in the analysis and treatment outcome evaluation of voice disorders. However, despite numerous research studies, none of the algorithms have been sufficiently reliable to be used in clinical settings. Through this review, we aim to identify critical issues that have inhibited the use of ML algorithms in clinical settings by identifying standard audio tasks, acoustic features, processing algorithms and environmental factors that affect the efficacy of those algorithms.
METHODS: We will search the following databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Compendex, CINAHL, Medline, IEEE Explore and Embase. Our search strategy has been developed with the assistance of the university library staff to accommodate the different syntactical requirements. The literature search will include the period between 2013 and 2023, and will be confined to articles published in English. We will exclude editorials, ongoing studies and working papers. The selection, extraction and analysis of the search data will be conducted using the \'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews\' system. The same system will also be used for the synthesis of the results.
BACKGROUND: This scoping review does not require ethics approval as the review solely consists of peer-reviewed publications. The findings will be presented in peer-reviewed publications related to voice pathology.

BACKGROUND: Increasing attention is being given to the analysis of large health datasets to derive new clinical decision support systems (CDSS). However, few data-driven CDSS are being adopted into clinical practice. Trust in these tools is believed to be fundamental for acceptance and uptake but to date little attention has been given to defining or evaluating trust in clinical settings.
OBJECTIVE: A scoping review was conducted to explore how and where acceptability and trustworthiness of data-driven CDSS have been assessed from the health professional\'s perspective.
METHODS: Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, ACM Digital, IEEE Xplore and Google Scholar were searched in March 2022 using terms expanded from: \"data-driven\" AND \"clinical decision support\" AND \"acceptability\". Included studies focused on healthcare practitioner-facing data-driven CDSS, relating directly to clinical care. They included trust or a proxy as an outcome, or in the discussion. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) is followed in the reporting of this review.
RESULTS: 3291 papers were screened, with 85 primary research studies eligible for inclusion. Studies covered a diverse range of clinical specialisms and intended contexts, but hypothetical systems (24) outnumbered those in clinical use (18). Twenty-five studies measured trust, via a wide variety of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. A further 24 discussed themes of trust without it being explicitly evaluated, and from these, themes of transparency, explainability, and supporting evidence were identified as factors influencing healthcare practitioner trust in data-driven CDSS.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing body of research on data-driven CDSS, but few studies have explored stakeholder perceptions in depth, with limited focused research on trustworthiness. Further research on healthcare practitioner acceptance, including requirements for transparency and explainability, should inform clinical implementation.

Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has the potential to transform medical practice within the medical imaging industry and materially improve productivity and patient outcomes. However, low acceptability of AI as a digital healthcare intervention among medical professionals threatens to undermine user uptake levels, hinder meaningful and optimal value-added engagement, and ultimately prevent these promising benefits from being realised. Understanding the factors underpinning AI acceptability will be vital for medical institutions to pinpoint areas of deficiency and improvement within their AI implementation strategies. This scoping review aims to survey the literature to provide a comprehensive summary of the key factors influencing AI acceptability among healthcare professionals in medical imaging domains and the different approaches which have been taken to investigate them.
A systematic literature search was performed across five academic databases including Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Compendex, and Scopus from January 2013 to September 2023. This was done in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Overall, 31 articles were deemed appropriate for inclusion in the scoping review.
The literature has converged towards three overarching categories of factors underpinning AI acceptability including: user factors involving trust, system understanding, AI literacy, and technology receptiveness; system usage factors entailing value proposition, self-efficacy, burden, and workflow integration; and socio-organisational-cultural factors encompassing social influence, organisational readiness, ethicality, and perceived threat to professional identity. Yet, numerous studies have overlooked a meaningful subset of these factors that are integral to the use of medical AI systems such as the impact on clinical workflow practices, trust based on perceived risk and safety, and compatibility with the norms of medical professions. This is attributable to reliance on theoretical frameworks or ad-hoc approaches which do not explicitly account for healthcare-specific factors, the novelties of AI as software as a medical device (SaMD), and the nuances of human-AI interaction from the perspective of medical professionals rather than lay consumer or business end users.
This is the first scoping review to survey the health informatics literature around the key factors influencing the acceptability of AI as a digital healthcare intervention in medical imaging contexts. The factors identified in this review suggest that existing theoretical frameworks used to study AI acceptability need to be modified to better capture the nuances of AI deployment in healthcare contexts where the user is a healthcare professional influenced by expert knowledge and disciplinary norms. Increasing AI acceptability among medical professionals will critically require designing human-centred AI systems which go beyond high algorithmic performance to consider accessibility to users with varying degrees of AI literacy, clinical workflow practices, the institutional and deployment context, and the cultural, ethical, and safety norms of healthcare professions. As investment into AI for healthcare increases, it would be valuable to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the causal contribution of these factors to achieving high levels of AI acceptability among medical professionals.

Public policymakers are increasingly engaged in participatory model building processes, such as group model building. Understanding the impacts of policymaker participation in these processes on policymakers is important given that their decisions often have significant influence on the dynamics of complex systems that affect health. Little is known about the extent to which the impacts of participatory model building on public policymakers have been evaluated or the methods and measures used to evaluate these impacts.
A scoping review protocol was developed with the objectives of: (1) scoping studies that have evaluated the impacts of facilitated participatory model building processes on public policymakers who participated in these processes; and (2) describing methods and measures used to evaluate impacts and the main findings of these evaluations. The Joanna Briggs Institute\'s Population, Concept, Context framework was used to formulate the article identification process. Seven electronic databases-MEDLINE (Ovid), ProQuest Health and Medical, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Complete and PsycInfo-will be searched. Identified articles will be screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist for scoping reviews will be used and reported. A data extraction tool will collect information across three domains: study characteristics, methods and measures, and findings. The review will be conducted using Covidence, a systematic review data management platform.
The scoping review produced will generate an overview of how public policymaker engagement in participatory model building processes has been evaluated. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and to communities of practice that convene policymakers in participatory model building processes. This review will not require ethics approval because it is not human subject research.