BACKGROUND: Women with previous pregnancy-related cardiovascular risk indicators, including gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), have an increased risk of future cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although CVD screening and preventive care beginning in the early postpartum period are recommended, certain barriers limit access to such services. We plan to conduct a scoping review of the literature to explore and summarise evidence on the barriers and facilitators of postpartum CVD preventive services in women with a history of GDM and HDP.
METHODS: This scoping review will be conducted in line with the Arksey and O\'Malley\'s (2005) methodological framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for conducting a systematic scoping review and will follow the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and the Coordinating Centre at the Institute of Education guidelines. The review results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We will search the following databases: Medline, Embase and CINAHL. We will conduct grey literature searches for registered dissertations and theses. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be kept broad. Qualitative and quantitative studies published in English or French that investigated and reported percieved barriers or facilitators to postpartum CVD screening and preventive care among women with previous GDM and HDP will be included. Individual, interpersonal, organizational, and system level factors will be reported. Qualitative findings will be summarised narratively, and quantitative findings will be absorbed within the themes using the multisource synthesis method.
BACKGROUND: This review represents one objective of a larger project that was reviewed by the Ottawa Health Sciences Network Research Ethics Board (QI-184). We will disseminate knowledge emanating from this review through open-access publication, presentation/public forums on women\'s cardiovascular health, women\'s CVD prevention forums and social media. We will also present the findings of this review at the annual meeting of the Canadian Women\'s Heart Health Alliance.

BACKGROUND: The original \'BETTER\' (Building on Existing Tools To Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) approach consisted of a prevention-focused visit between participants aged 40-65 years and a \"Prevention Practitioner\" (PP), who empowered the participant to set achievable prevention and screening goals for cancers and chronic diseases. BETTER was successfully adapted for economically deprived communities (BETTER HEALTH) in Canada. Our objective was to conduct a review of guidelines in preparation for adapting the \'BETTER HEALTH\' approach for younger adults aged 18-39 years living with lower income, a group known to have earlier mortality due to a higher prevalence of preventable chronic diseases than their peers with higher income.
METHODS: We searched multiple electronic databases and grey literature for clinical practice guidelines on prevention/screening and included those that met the following criteria: published in English from 2008-2020 in Canada or any of the following countries (Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, United States and England); and addressed prevention or screening. We assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and extracted data (publication details, recommendations, and Quality/Level of evidence as reported by authors) from sources with overall scores of 5 or higher. Final recommendations were compiled after harmonization with input from diverse stakeholders (co-investigators, PPs, and the Community Advisory Committee).
RESULTS: We included a total of 85 guidelines, and developed a final list of 42 recommendations for 18-39 year-olds across 21 topics. Specific recommendations fell under the following topics: cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, lifestyle (alcohol; healthy nutrition/physical activity); healthy relationships and healthy sexuality, immunization, oral health, social determinants of health, and substance use.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified evidence-based guidelines on individual-level prevention/screening actions for adults 18-39 years old and relevant for those living with lower income which will directly inform development and implementation of the BETTER LIFE intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and enablers that influence engagement in and acceptability of diabetes prevention programmes for people with pre-diabetes. The results will provide insights for developing strategies and recommendations to improve design and delivery of diabetes prevention programmes with enhanced engagement and acceptability for people with pre-diabetes.
METHODS: This review used a critical realist approach to examine context and mechanisms of diabetes prevention programmes. Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cinahl, Web of Science, Scopus and Pre-Medline were searched for English language studies published between 2000 and 2023. A quality assessment was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools.
RESULTS: A total of 90 papers met inclusion criteria. The included studies used a variety of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Data extracted focused on barriers and enablers to engagement in and acceptability of diabetes prevention programmes, with seven key mechanisms identified. These included financial, environmental, personal, healthcare, social and cultural, demographic and programme mechanisms. Findings highlighted diverse factors that influenced engagement in preventive programmes and the importance of considering these factors when planning, developing and implementing future diabetes prevention programmes.
CONCLUSIONS: Mechanisms identified in this review can inform design and development of diabetes prevention programmes for people with pre-diabetes and provide guidance for healthcare professionals and policymakers. This will facilitate increased participation and engagement in preventive programmes, potentially reducing progression and/or incidence of pre-diabetes to type 2 diabetes and improving health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a consequence of the relative importance people place on the expected or experienced health outcomes it incurs. These findings can then be considered as patient input when balancing effect estimates on benefits and harms reported by empirical evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening programs. This systematic review update examined the relative importance placed by patients on the potential benefits and harms of mammography-based breast cancer screening to inform an update to the 2018 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care\'s guideline on screening.
METHODS: We screened all articles from our previous review (search December 2017) and updated our searches to June 19, 2023 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also screened grey literature, submissions by stakeholders, and reference lists. The target population was cisgender women and other adults assigned female at birth (including transgender men and nonbinary persons) aged ≥ 35 years and at average or moderately increased risk for breast cancer. Studies of patients with breast cancer were eligible for health-state utility data for relevant outcomes. We sought three types of data, directly through (i) disutilities of screening and curative treatment health states (measuring the impact of the outcome on one\'s health-related quality of life; utilities measured on a scale of 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), and (ii) other preference-based data, such as outcome trade-offs, and indirectly through (iii) the relative importance of benefits versus harms inferred from attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards screening among patients provided with estimates of the magnitudes of benefit(s) and harms(s). For screening, we used machine learning as one of the reviewers after at least 50% of studies had been reviewed in duplicate by humans; full-text selection used independent review by two humans. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments used a single reviewer with verification. Our main analysis for utilities used data from utility-based health-related quality of life tools (e.g., EQ-5D) in patients; a disutility value of about 0.04 can be considered a minimally important value for the Canadian public. When suitable, we pooled utilities and explored heterogeneity. Disutilities were calculated for screening health states and between different treatment states. Non-utility data were grouped into categories, based on outcomes compared (e.g. for trade-off data), participant age, and our judgements of the net benefit of screening portrayed by the studies. Thereafter, we compared and contrasted findings while considering sample sizes, risk of bias, subgroup findings and data on knowledge scores, and created summary statements for each data set. Certainty assessments followed GRADE guidance for patient preferences and used consensus among at least two reviewers.
RESULTS: Eighty-two studies (38 on utilities) were included. The estimated disutilities were 0.07 for a positive screening result (moderate certainty), 0.03-0.04 for a false positive (FP; \"additional testing\" resolved as negative for cancer) (low certainty), and 0.08 for untreated screen-detected cancer (moderate certainty) or (low certainty) an interval cancer. At ≤12 months, disutilities of mastectomy (vs. breast-conserving therapy), chemotherapy (vs. none) (low certainty), and radiation therapy (vs. none) (moderate certainty) were 0.02-0.03, 0.02-0.04, and little-to-none, respectively, though in each case findings were somewhat limited in their applicability. Over the longer term, there was moderate certainty for little-to-no disutility from mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery/lumpectomy with radiation and from radiation. There was moderate certainty that a majority (>50%) and possibly a large majority (>75%) of women probably accept up to six cases of overdiagnosis to prevent one breast-cancer death; there was some uncertainty because of an indication that overdiagnosis was not fully understood by participants in some cases. Low certainty evidence suggested that a large majority may accept that screening may reduce breast-cancer but not all-cause mortality, at least when presented with relatively high rates of breast-cancer mortality reductions (n = 2; 2 and 5 fewer per 1000 screened), and at least a majority accept that to prevent one breast-cancer death at least a few hundred patients will receive a FP result and 10-15 will have a FP resolved through biopsy. An upper limit for an acceptable number of FPs was not evaluated. When using data from studies assessing attitudes, intentions, and screening behaviors, across all age groups but most evident for women in their 40s, preferences reduced as the net benefit presented by study authors decreased in magnitude. In a relatively low net-benefit scenario, a majority of patients in their 40s may not weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening whereas for women in their 50s a large majority may prefer screening (low certainty evidence for both ages). There was moderate certainty that a large majority of women 50 years of age and 50 to 69 years of age, who have usually experienced screening, weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening in a high net-benefit scenario. A large majority of patients aged 70-71 years who have recently screened probably think the benefits outweigh the harms of continuing to screen. A majority of women in their mid-70s to early 80s may prefer to continue screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence across a range of data sources on how informed patients value the potential outcomes from breast-cancer screening will be useful during decision-making for recommendations. The evidence suggests that all of the outcomes examined have importance to women of any age, that there is at least some and possibly substantial (among those in their 40s) variability across and within age groups about the acceptable magnitude of effects across outcomes, and that provision of easily understandable information on the likelihood of the outcomes may be necessary to enable informed decision making. Although studies came from a wide range of countries, there were limited data from Canada and about whether findings applied well across an ethnographically and socioeconomically diverse population.
BACKGROUND: Protocol available at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xngsu/ .

OBJECTIVE: To describe implementation strategies for preventive health measures in SMEs and the effectiveness of the strategies on implementation outcomes.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in multiple electronic databases. Studies published between 2000 and 2021 that evaluated the implementation of preventive health measures in SMEs were included. Classification of implementation strategies was based on two complementary classification systems.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies, of which 5 RCTs were included. Eighteen distinct implementation strategies were reported. All studies applied a combination of implementation strategies, and nearly all reported a positive effect on one or more implementation outcomes: sustainability, acceptability, feasibility, penetration, fidelity, adoption, and appropriateness.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a positive effect of combined implementation strategies on the implementation outcome(s) was found. The \'distribution of educational materials\' and \'provide ongoing consultation\' combined show positive effects on sustainability.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of preventive, non-disease-specific primary care trials for older people often report effects according to what is thought to be the intervention\'s active ingredient.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of preventive primary care interventions for older people and to identify common components that contribute to intervention success.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 22 publications from 2009 to 2019.
METHODS: A search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were: sample mainly aged ≥65 years; delivered in primary care; and non-disease-specific interventions. Exclusion criteria were: non-RCTs; primarily pharmacological or psychological interventions; and where outcomes of interest were not reported. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool. Outcomes examined were healthcare use including admissions to hospital and aged residential care (ARC), and patient-reported outcomes including activities of daily living (ADLs) and self-rated health (SRH).
RESULTS: Many studies had a mix of patient-, provider-, and practice-focused intervention components (13 of 18 studies). Studies included in the review had low-to-moderate risk of bias. Interventions had no overall benefit to healthcare use (including admissions to hospital and ARC) but higher basic ADL scores were observed (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.40) and higher odds of reporting positive SRH (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.37). When intervention effects were examined by components, better patient-reported outcomes were observed in studies that changed the care setting (SMD for basic ADLs 0.21, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.40; OR for positive SRH 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.37), included educational components for health professionals (SMD for basic ADLs 0.21, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.40; OR for positive SRH 1.27, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.55), and provided patient education (SMD for basic ADLs 0.28, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.48). Additionally, admissions to hospital in intervention participants were fewer by 23% in studies that changed the care setting (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.95) and by 26% in studies that provided patient education (IRR 0.74, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.97).
CONCLUSIONS: Preventive primary care interventions are beneficial to older people\'s functional ability and SRH but not other outcomes. To improve primary care for older people, future programmes should consider delivering care in alternative settings, for example, home visits and phone contacts, and providing education to patients and health professionals as these may contribute to positive outcomes.

Children with speech and language difficulties are at risk for learning and behavioral problems.
To review the evidence on screening for speech and language delay or disorders in children 5 years or younger to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.
PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, ERIC, Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts (ProQuest), and trial registries through January 17, 2023; surveillance through November 24, 2023.
English-language studies of screening test accuracy, trials or cohort studies comparing screening vs no screening; randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of interventions.
Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and data extraction; results were narratively summarized.
Screening test accuracy, speech and language outcomes, school performance, function, quality of life, and harms.
Thirty-eight studies in 41 articles were included (N = 9006). No study evaluated the direct benefits of screening vs no screening. Twenty-one studies (n = 7489) assessed the accuracy of 23 different screening tools that varied with regard to whether they were designed to be completed by parents vs trained examiners, and to screen for global (any) language problems vs specific skills (eg, expressive language). Three studies assessing parent-reported tools for expressive language skills found consistently high sensitivity (range, 88%-93%) and specificity (range, 88%-85%). The accuracy of other screening tools varied widely. Seventeen RCTs (n = 1517) evaluated interventions for speech and language delay or disorders, although none enrolled children identified by routine screening in primary care. Two RCTs evaluating relatively intensive parental group training interventions (11 sessions) found benefit for different measures of expressive language skills, and 1 evaluating a less intensive intervention (6 sessions) found no difference between groups for any outcome. Two RCTs (n = 76) evaluating the Lidcombe Program of Early Stuttering Intervention delivered by speech-language pathologists featuring parent training found a 2.3% to 3.0% lower proportion of syllables stuttered at 9 months compared with the control group when delivered in clinic and via telehealth, respectively. Evidence on other interventions was limited. No RCTs reported on the harms of interventions.
No studies directly assessed the benefits and harms of screening. Some parent-reported screening tools for expressive language skills had reasonable accuracy for detecting expressive language delay. Group parent training programs for speech delay that provided at least 11 parental training sessions improved expressive language skills, and a stuttering intervention delivered by speech-language pathologists reduced stuttering frequency.

BACKGROUND: Weight-screening children in schools is an ingrained part of preventive health programmes worldwide. Even though there is no evidence that weight monitoring in the context of preventive health work prevents weight gain, evidence indicates that a focus on weight among children may negatively impact mental health. We aimed to review the existing literature on potential psychosocial consequences of routine weighing and weight feedback in school-aged children.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts and CINAHL) and included all original studies investigating psychological or social consequences of routine weighing or weight feedback in school-aged children. Data extracted from all included studies were coded thematically and summarised considering the nature of the effect on psychosocial outcomes.
RESULTS: Six studies were included in this review. They were heterogeneous regarding aim and study design. Negative consequences included decreased weight satisfaction, increased weight focus and frequency of peer weight talk, over sensitisation about weight and emotional distress and discomfort.
CONCLUSIONS: The literature in the field was sparse and heterogeneous. Even so, the literature indicated that routine weighing and weight feedback resulted in harmful psychosocial consequences for some children. Unfavourable effects primarily seemed to affect children with a high BMI, whereas children categorised as normal weight seemed to have mainly positive or neutral experiences.

Prostate cancer screening guidelines have changed as new evidence showing an equivocal mortality benefit led many organizations to relax recommendations for this screening and instead suggest shared decision making. Presently, it is unknown how successfully these conversations happen. Our objective was to understand men\'s communication preferences when they discuss prostate cancer screening.
In this scoping review, we searched 4 electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) and the gray literature. Additional studies were obtained from reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles. We included qualitative studies reporting patient perspectives relevant to the research question and published in English. Two independent researchers screened titles and abstracts based on these criteria, conducted a full-text review for final inclusion, evaluated the remaining articles for validity, extracted data, and used thematic analysis to build a thematic framework. A subgroup analysis was performed for Black men as many studies elicited their perspectives.
Analyses were based on 29 studies. We identified 4 main themes that men described as critical for successful prostate cancer screening risk discussions with their primary care clinician: using everyday language, receiving a sufficient quantity of information, spending enough time, and having a trusting and respectful relationship. Three additional themes emerged that prohibited men from having any discussions at all: having already decided to pursue prostate cancer screening, being passive in medical encounters, and perceiving threat to one\'s well-being. Black men faced racism, which impacted medical interactions.
Our findings point to strategies to support men\'s communication preferences and address preconceptions surrounding prostate cancer screening. More studies are needed in certain underrepresented populations given the propensity for disparity in health outcomes.

Skin cancer risk increases with age and prolonged exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR), particularly in rural geographical locations and for individuals with light skin complexions. However, the impact of UVR-induced skin cancer risk and sun-protective behaviors in rural older populations working outdoors has yet to be explored. A scoping review was conducted to fill this gap, with 12 articles meeting the inclusion criteria of aged 50 years and older among rural outdoor workers. Skin cancer risk factors, prevention strategies, and barriers to sun-protective behaviors were summarized for each study. The scoping review addressed some key differences in age-related effects of UVR among rural older outdoor workers compared to studies among adults in general. Findings have policy and research implications that highlight the need to design feasible preventive strategies to reduce rural disparities in cancer care and enhance access to preventive services for this high-risk population.