Lateropulsion is a post-stroke phenomenon marked by an active push of the body across the midline towards the more affected side and/or a resistance of the weight shift towards the less affected side. Within the mechanisms of treatment, feedback systems have been shown to be effective. The aim of the present study was to create a body of knowledge by performing a literature review on the use of feedback mechanisms in the treatment of lateropulsion and to report two cases of lateropulsion patients who had undergone feedback-based treatment.
METHODS: The review was performed across five different databases (Embase, Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PEDro) up to February 2024, and haptic feedback intervention was incorporated into the case series (with lateropulsion and ambulation capacity as the main variables).
RESULTS: In total, 211 records were identified and 6 studies were included after the review of the literature. The most used feedback modality was visual feedback. In the case series, positive results were observed from the intervention, particularly in the recovery of lateropulsion and balance, as well as in the improvement of gait for one patient. Patients demonstrated good adherence to the intervention protocol without adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Visual feedback is the most commonly used feedback modality in lateropulsion patients but other mechanisms such as haptic feedback also are feasible and should be taken into account. Larger sample sizes, extended follow-up periods, and the isolation of feedback mechanisms must be established to clarify evidence.

BACKGROUND: Consumer contribution to occupational therapy student learning is mandated for Australian educational programs. However, there is limited research about how consumers contribute to student learning during practice placements. A scoping review was completed to explore the concepts of existing feedback systems for consumers to authentically contribute to student learning during practice placements.
METHODS: Five databases were searched for all articles up to and including July 2023. All publications were included if they described and investigated authentic contribution to student learning during a practice placement experience. Data from the results and discussion sections of the papers were transformed into qualitative data and thematically analysed to develop a conceptual understanding of consumer feedback systems.
RESULTS: Forty-six papers met the eligibility criteria. Most articles originated from Medicine (30%) and Nursing (45%) education. Feedback systems were primarily designed to critique student communication and professional behaviours using a variety of standardised and non-standardised methods. Five interconnected themes were created that addressed the concepts of consumer feedback systems. The themes were (1) creating value specific for each stakeholder is essential, (2) preparation is required and nuanced; (3) consumers do engage and provide critical feedback when the system is supportive of all stakeholders; (4) gathering approaches need to be responsive to the diversity of practice and learning; (5) processing feedback with a trusted mentor is critical for learning.
CONCLUSIONS: Consumers, academics, practice educators, and students recognised that consumers have an important role in contributing to student learning during practice placements. Future consumer feedback systems need to be co-produced to create an optimal mode for consumers to authentically contribute to student learning constructively and safely.
UNASSIGNED: A consumer consultant was a member of the advisory panel for the larger research project that this review is part of and provided advice to the research team at all stages of the project.
CONCLUSIONS: In Australia, occupational therapy training programs require input from consumers to help students learn. However, there is not much research on how consumers help occupational therapy students during their practical training. We did a review to see how existing feedback systems let consumers genuinely help students during their training. We searched five databases for research up to July 2023. We included research that talked about how consumers help all health students learn during practical training. We found 46 articles, mostly from Medicine and Nursing education. We analysed them to understand how consumer feedback systems work and found five main themes: (1) making sure everyone involved gets value out of it, (2) being prepared is important, (3) consumers give useful feedback when the system supports everyone involved, (4) different approaches are needed because practices and learning vary, and (5) discussing feedback with other people helps students learn. Current feedback systems mostly focused on how students communicate and behave professionally. Consumers, educators, and students all agree that consumers play a vital role in helping students learn during practical training. In the future, we need to work together to make feedback systems that let consumers help students in the best way possible, making sure it is constructive and safe for everyone.

BACKGROUND: The reporting of adverse events (AEs) relating to medical devices is a long-standing area of concern, with suboptimal reporting due to a range of factors including a failure to recognize the association of AEs with medical devices, lack of knowledge of how to report AEs, and a general culture of nonreporting. The introduction of artificial intelligence as a medical device (AIaMD) requires a robust safety monitoring environment that recognizes both generic risks of a medical device and some of the increasingly recognized risks of AIaMD (such as algorithmic bias). There is an urgent need to understand the limitations of current AE reporting systems and explore potential mechanisms for how AEs could be detected, attributed, and reported with a view to improving the early detection of safety signals.
OBJECTIVE: The systematic review outlined in this protocol aims to yield insights into the frequency and severity of AEs while characterizing the events using existing regulatory guidance.
METHODS: Publicly accessible AE databases will be searched to identify AE reports for AIaMD. Scoping searches have identified 3 regulatory territories for which public access to AE reports is provided: the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. AEs will be included for analysis if an artificial intelligence (AI) medical device is involved. Software as a medical device without AI is not within the scope of this review. Data extraction will be conducted using a data extraction tool designed for this review and will be done independently by AUK and a second reviewer. Descriptive analysis will be conducted to identify the types of AEs being reported, and their frequency, for different types of AIaMD. AEs will be analyzed and characterized according to existing regulatory guidance.
RESULTS: Scoping searches are being conducted with screening to begin in April 2024. Data extraction and synthesis will commence in May 2024, with planned completion by August 2024. The review will highlight the types of AEs being reported for different types of AI medical devices and where the gaps are. It is anticipated that there will be particularly low rates of reporting for indirect harms associated with AIaMD.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review of 3 different regulatory sources reporting AEs associated with AIaMD. The review will focus on real-world evidence, which brings certain limitations, compounded by the opacity of regulatory databases generally. The review will outline the characteristics and frequency of AEs reported for AIaMD and help regulators and policy makers to continue developing robust safety monitoring processes.
UNASSIGNED: PRR1-10.2196/48156.

BACKGROUND: Amidst the escalating prevalence of glucose-related chronic diseases, the advancements, potential uses, and growing accessibility of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) have piqued the interest of healthcare providers, consumers, and health behaviour researchers. Yet, there is a paucity of literature characterising the use of CGM in behavioural intervention research. This scoping review aims to describe targeted populations, health behaviours, health-related outcomes, and CGM protocols in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that employed CGM to support health behaviour change.
METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCOhost PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global from inception to January 2024 for RCTs of behavioural interventions conducted in adults that incorporated CGM-based biological feedback. Citation searching was also performed. The review protocol was registered ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SJREA ).
RESULTS: Collectively, 5389 citations were obtained from databases and citation searching, 3995 articles were screened, and 31 were deemed eligible and included in the review. Most studies (n = 20/31, 65%) included adults with type 2 diabetes and reported HbA1c as an outcome (n = 29/31, 94%). CGM was most commonly used in interventions to target changes in diet (n = 27/31, 87%) and/or physical activity (n = 16/31, 52%). 42% (n = 13/31) of studies provided prospective CGM-based guidance on diet or activity, while 61% (n = 19/31) included retrospective CGM-based guidance. CGM data was typically unblinded (n = 24/31, 77%) and CGM-based biological feedback was most often provided through the CGM and two-way communication (n = 12/31, 39%). Communication typically occurred in-person (n = 13/31, 42%) once per CGM wear (n = 13/31; 42%).
CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review reveals a predominant focus on diabetes in CGM-based interventions, pointing out a research gap in its wider application for behaviour change. Future research should expand the evidence base to support the use of CGM as a behaviour change tool and establish best practices for its implementation.
BACKGROUND: doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SJREA.

Near Real-Time Feedback (NRTF) on the patient\'s experience with care, coupled with data relay to providers, can inform quality-of-care improvements, including at the point of care. The objective is to systematically review contemporary literature on the impact of the use of NRTF and data relay to providers on standardized patient experience measures. Six scientific databases and five specialty journals were searched supplemented by snowballing search strategies, according to the registered study protocol. Eligibility included studies in English (2015-2023) assessing the impact of NRTF and data relay on standardized patient-reported experience measures as a primary outcome. Eligibility and quality appraisals were performed by two independent reviewers. An expert former patient (Patient and Family Advisory Council and communication sciences background) helped interpret the results. Eight papers met review eligibility criteria, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized study. Three of these studies involved in-person NRTF prior to data relay (patient-level data for immediate corrective action or aggregated and peer-compared) and led to significantly better results in all or some of the experience measures. In turn, a kiosk-based NRTF achieved no better experience results. The remaining studies were pre-post designs with mixed or neutral results and greater risks of bias. In-person NRTF on the patient experience followed by rapid data relay to their providers, either patient-level or provider-level as peer-compared, can improve the patient experience of care. Reviewed kiosk-based or self-reported approaches combined with data relay were not effective. Further research should determine which approach (e.g. who conducts the in-person NRTF) will provide better, more efficient improvements and under which circumstances.

A teacher in a medical college is like a compass who has the responsibility and the power to guide budding medical students in their educational journey to become effective and efficient members of the healthcare team. The purpose of the current review is to justify the significance of curriculum evaluation, explore the role of teacher in the capacity of curriculum evaluator, enlist various methods and tools to perform curriculum evaluation, and identify the challenges and suggest potential solutions to overcome them. An extensive search of all materials related to the topic was carried out on the PubMed and Google Scholar search engines and a total of 16 articles were selected based upon their suitability with the current review objectives and analyzed. Keywords used in the search include curriculum evaluation in the title alone only (viz. curriculum [ti] AND medical [ti]; curriculum evaluation [ti] AND methods [ti]; curriculum evaluation [ti] AND approaches [ti]; curriculum evaluation [ti]). A number of strategies can be employed to perform the evaluation of the medical curriculum, ranging from obtaining feedback from medical students at the end of each professional phase to assessing content, teaching methods, assessment, and attainment of learning outcomes. The process of evaluation of medical curriculum by teachers is a complex and challenging one and needs careful planning and execution of different aspects. These identified challenges clearly provide evidence that teachers have to be given the necessary training, resources, and institutional support to enable them to conduct effective medical curriculum evaluation. In conclusion, teachers in their capacity as curriculum evaluators remain the most important stakeholder in ensuring continuous improvement in the quality of education delivered to students. Owing to their in-depth awareness of classroom dynamics, the learning process, and the awareness about unique needs of students, their involvement in curriculum evaluation can ensure alignment between the delivered curriculum and the needs of the society.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of diagnostic imaging (DI) tests may be unnecessary, leading to increased healthcare costs and the possibility of patient harm. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the effect of audit and feedback (AF) interventions directed at healthcare providers on reducing image ordering. The secondary objective was to examine the effect of AF on the appropriateness of DI ordering.
METHODS: Studies were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov registry on December 22nd, 2022. Studies were included if they were randomized control trials (RCTs), targeted healthcare professionals, and studied AF as the sole intervention or as the core component of a multi-faceted intervention. Risk of bias for each study was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses were completed using RevMan software and results were displayed in forest plots.
RESULTS: Eleven RCTs enrolling 4311 clinicians or practices were included. AF interventions resulted in 1.5 fewer image test orders per 1000 patients seen than control interventions (95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference -2.6 to -0.4, p-value = 0.009). The effect of AF on appropriateness was not statistically significant, with a 3.2% (95% CI -1.5 to 7.7%, p-value = 0.18) greater likelihood of test orders being considered appropriate with AF vs control interventions. The strength of evidence was rated as moderate for the primary objective but was very low for the appropriateness outcome because of risk of bias, inconsistency in findings, indirectness, and imprecision.
CONCLUSIONS: AF interventions are associated with a modest reduction in total DI ordering with moderate certainty, suggesting some benefit of AF. Individual studies document effects of AF on image order appropriateness ranging from a non-significant trend toward worsening to a highly significant improvement, but the weighted average effect size from the meta-analysis is not statistically significant with very low certainty.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers and researchers recommend supporting the capabilities of feedback recipients to increase the quality of care. There are different ways to support capabilities. We aimed to describe the content and delivery of feedback facilitation interventions delivered alongside audit and feedback within randomised controlled trials.
METHODS: We included papers describing feedback facilitation identified by the latest Cochrane review of audit and feedback. The piloted extraction proforma was based upon a framework to describe intervention content, with additional prompts relating to the identification of influences, selection of improvement actions and consideration of priorities and implications. We describe the content and delivery graphically, statistically and narratively.
RESULTS: We reviewed 146 papers describing 104 feedback facilitation interventions. Across included studies, feedback facilitation contained 26 different implementation strategies. There was a median of three implementation strategies per intervention and evidence that the number of strategies per intervention is increasing. Theory was used in 35 trials, although the precise role of theory was poorly described. Ten studies provided a logic model and six of these described their mechanisms of action. Both the exploration of influences and the selection of improvement actions were described in 46 of the feedback facilitation interventions; we describe who undertook this tailoring work. Exploring dose, there was large variation in duration (15-1800 min), frequency (1 to 42 times) and number of recipients per site (1 to 135). There were important gaps in reporting, but some evidence that reporting is improving over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in the design of feedback facilitation needs to be considered when assessing the intervention\'s effectiveness. We describe explicit feedback facilitation choices for future intervention developers based upon choices made to date. We found the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to be valuable when describing intervention components, with the potential for some minor clarifications in terms and for greater specificity by intervention providers. Reporting demonstrated extensive gaps which hinder both replication and learning. Feedback facilitation providers are recommended to close reporting gaps that hinder replication. Future work should seek to address the \'opportunity\' for improvement activity, defined as factors that lie outside the individual that make care or improvement behaviour possible.
BACKGROUND: The study protocol was published at: https://www.protocols.io/private/4DA5DE33B68E11ED9EF70A58A9FEAC02 .

(1) Background: This scoping review aims to explore the literature on feedback for pharmacy students during experiential learning, with a focus on identifying the modes of delivery of feedback and the perceived impact of feedback on student learning outcomes. (2) Methods: The scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, ERIC, and ProQuest Central were searched electronically from their inception until the end of February 2023 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms related to feedback, pharmacy education, and student learning outcomes. Data were synthesized narratively. (3) Results: This review included 13 studies published between 2008 and 2022. Almost half of the included studies were conducted in the USA (n = 6, 46%) and reported the perspective of undergraduate pharmacy students (n = 6, 46%). Verbal feedback was the most common mode of feedback delivery (n = 6, 46%). The enablers of effective feedback included timely feedback (n = 6, 46%), feedback provided in a goal-oriented and objective manner (n = 5, 40%), and student-specific feedback (n = 4, 30%). On the other hand, the most common impediments to feedback efficacy were providing extremely positive feedback and lack of constructive criticism. (4) Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of feedback model implementation in pharmacy education and preceptor training programs to ensure effective and quality feedback to pharmacy students.

BACKGROUND: Feedback processes are crucial for learning, guiding improvement, and enhancing performance. In workplace-based learning settings, diverse teaching and assessment activities are advocated to be designed and implemented, generating feedback that students use, with proper guidance, to close the gap between current and desired performance levels. Since productive feedback processes rely on observed information regarding a student\'s performance, it is imperative to establish structured feedback activities within undergraduate workplace-based learning settings. However, these settings are characterized by their unpredictable nature, which can either promote learning or present challenges in offering structured learning opportunities for students. This scoping review maps literature on how feedback processes are organised in undergraduate clinical workplace-based learning settings, providing insight into the design and use of feedback.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted. Studies were identified from seven databases and ten relevant journals in medical education. The screening process was performed independently in duplicate with the support of the StArt program. Data were organized in a data chart and analyzed using thematic analysis. The feedback loop with a sociocultural perspective was used as a theoretical framework.
RESULTS: The search yielded 4,877 papers, and 61 were included in the review. Two themes were identified in the qualitative analysis: (1) The organization of the feedback processes in workplace-based learning settings, and (2) Sociocultural factors influencing the organization of feedback processes. The literature describes multiple teaching and assessment activities that generate feedback information. Most papers described experiences and perceptions of diverse teaching and assessment feedback activities. Few studies described how feedback processes improve performance. Sociocultural factors such as establishing a feedback culture, enabling stable and trustworthy relationships, and enhancing student feedback agency are crucial for productive feedback processes.
CONCLUSIONS: This review identified concrete ideas regarding how feedback could be organized within the clinical workplace to promote feedback processes. The feedback encounter should be organized to allow follow-up of the feedback, i.e., working on required learning and performance goals at the next occasion. The educational programs should design feedback processes by appropriately planning subsequent tasks and activities. More insight is needed in designing a full-loop feedback process, in which specific attention is needed in effective feedforward practices.