Objective: Using different perspectives and methods to investigate the links between the urban phenomenon and health is critical in an urbanizing world. This review discusses qualitative methods in the context of urban health research. Methods: We conducted a narrative review following these steps: We identified the qualitative data collection, analysis and sampling methods that could be more relevant for the problems researched in the urban health field. We conducted searches for methodological articles and other documents about those methods. We included some influential materials and examples of empirical urban health studies using those methods. Results: We included 88 studies and identified several qualitative data gathering, analysis and sampling methods relevant for urban health researchers. We present those methods, focusing their strengths and limitations, and providing examples of their use in the field of urban health. These methods are flexible and allow in-depth analysis of small samples by collecting and analyzing rich and nuanced data. Conclusion: This article should contribute to a better understanding of how, and when, qualitative methods may improve our knowledge on urban health.

Although older adults are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, they seem to be overall less concerned about it, and less inclined to support climate policies. The study aims to identify the communication strategies that have been evaluated in promoting awareness and/or climate friendly behaviors in older adults.
We searched multiple electronic databases for studies that evaluated the effects of any interventions aimed at communicating climate change to older persons (over 65 years) and assessed the results as awareness and /or behavioral changes. We selected quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies, and we also included systematic reviews for cross-referencing. Risk of bias of included studies was evaluated using different tools according to the study design.
From a total of 5,486 articles, only 3 studies were included. One mixed-method study engaged older adults to assess the community vulnerability to climate change and to develop adaptation recommendations based on their perspectives; one qualitative study conducted focus groups to identify the more effective language, values and themes based on participants\' responses to narratives; one quantitative study utilized a 360-degree audio-visual platform allowing users to engage with immersive visualizations of sea-level rise scenarios.
Despite the paucity of literature, this review demonstrates the potential for different strategies to increase the awareness of older persons about climate change. The involvement of older adults in the communication process, the identification of their priorities, and the integration of technology in their daily lives are promising approaches but more research, including both quantitative and qualitative studies is recommended on this topic.
For further details about the protocol, this systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO on July 1, 2023 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023438256).

OBJECTIVE: to analyze continuing nursing education actions in the scientific literature in the face of homophobia.
METHODS: an integrative literature review with structured search in June 2022 in eight databases, using the descriptors Nursing Education, Homophobia, Sexual and Gender Minorities. Final sample consisted of six primary studies.
RESULTS: continuing nursing education actions are supported by strategies such as use of teaching materials, lectures, case studies and focus groups, addressing content such as gender identity issues and affective-sexual orientation, health disparities and their relationship with homophobia in healthcare settings.
CONCLUSIONS: carried out in various healthcare settings, continuing education actions proved to be successful in raising nurses\' awareness in facing homophobia in health services, however, their expansion is necessary to create health spaces that meet the specific needs of these people.

BACKGROUND: Co-design methodology seeks to actively engage end-users in developing interventions. It is increasingly used to design stroke interventions; however, limited guidance exists, particularly with/for individuals with stroke who have diverse cognitive, physical and functional abilities. Thus, we describe 1) the extent of existing research that has used co-design for stroke intervention development and 2) how co-design has been used to develop stroke interventions among studies that explicitly used co-design, including the rationale, types of co-designed stroke interventions, participants involved, research methodologies/approaches, methods of incorporating end-users in the research, co-design limitations, challenges and potential strategies reported by researchers.
METHODS: A scoping review informed by Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey & O\'Malley methodology was conducted by searching nine databases on December 21, 2022, to locate English-language literature that used co-design to develop a stroke intervention. Additional data sources were identified through a hand search. Data sources were de-duplicated, and two research team members reviewed their titles, abstracts and full text to ensure they met the inclusion criteria. Data relating to the research objectives were extracted, analyzed, and reported numerically and descriptively.
RESULTS: Data sources used co-design for stroke intervention development with (n = 89) and without (n = 139) explicitly using the term \'co-design.\' Among studies explicitly using co-design, it was commonly used to understand end-user needs and generate new ideas. Many co-designed interventions were technology-based (65%), and 48% were for physical rehabilitation or activity-based. Co-design was commonly conducted with multiple participants (82%; e.g., individuals with stroke, family members/caregivers and clinicians) and used various methods to engage end-users, including focus groups and workshops. Limitations, challenges and potential strategies for recruitment, participant-engagement, contextual and logistical and ethics of co-designed interventions were described.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the increasing popularity of co-design as a methodology for developing stroke interventions internationally, these findings can inform future co-designed studies.

BACKGROUND: The haphazard adoption of new surgical technologies into practice has the potential to cause patient harm and there are many misconceptions in the decision-making behind the adoption of new innovations. The aim of this study was to synthesize factors affecting a surgeon\'s decision to adopt a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to obtain all studies where surgeon views on the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice have been collected. The databases screened were MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews (last accessed October 2022). Innovations covered multiple specialties, including cardiac, general, urology, and orthopaedics. The quality of the papers was assessed using a 10-question Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative research.
RESULTS: A total of 26 studies (including 1112 participants, of which 694 were surgeons) from nine countries satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Types of study included semi-structured interviews and focus groups, for example. Themes and sub-themes that emerged after a thematic synthesis were categorized using five causal factors (structural, organizational, patient-level, provider-level, and innovation-based). These themes were further split into facilitators and barriers. Key facilitators to adoption of an innovation include improved clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and support from internal and external stakeholders. Barriers to adoption include lack of organizational support and views of senior surgeons.
CONCLUSIONS: There are multiple complex factors that dynamically interact, affecting the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice. There is a need to further investigate surgeon and other stakeholder views regarding the strength of clinical evidence required to support the widespread adoption of a surgical innovation into clinical practice.

There is limited evidence regarding the needs of older people, including those living with frailty, to inform research priority setting.
This systematic review aimed to identify the range of research priorities of community-dwelling older people living in their own home, including those living with frailty.
Included studies were from economically developed countries and designed to identify the priorities for research or unmet needs of community-dwelling older people. Studies were excluded if they described priorities relating to specific health conditions. Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched (January 2010-June 2022), alongside grey literature. Study quality was assessed, but studies were not excluded on the basis of quality. A bespoke data extraction form was used and content analysis undertaken to synthesise findings.
Seventy-five reports were included. Seven explicitly aimed to identify the priorities or unmet needs of frail older people; 68 did not specify frailty as a characteristic. Study designs varied, including priority setting exercises, surveys, interviews, focus groups and literature reviews. Identified priorities and unmet needs were organised into themes: prevention and management, improving health and care service provision, improving daily life, meeting carers\' needs and planning ahead.
Many priority areas were raised by older people, carers and health/care professionals, but few were identified explicitly by/for frail older people. An overarching need was identified for tailored, collaborative provision of care and support.
Review findings provide a valuable resource for researchers and health/care staff wishing to focus their research or service provision on areas of importance for older people.

Current research ethics frameworks were developed on the footprint of biomedical, experimental research and present several pitfalls when applied to non-experimental social sciences. This work explores how the normative principles underpinning policy and regulatory frameworks of research ethics and the related operational processes work in practice in the context of collaborative health and social care research. The work was organised in three phases. First, UK research ethics policy documents were analysed thematically, with themes further organised under the categories of \'Principles\' and \'Processes\'. Next, we conducted a scoping review of articles about research ethics in the context of collaborative health and social care research, published in English between 2010 and 2022. We then held an exploratory focus group with ten academic researchers with relevant experience to gather their views on how the research ethics system works in practice in England (UK). The thematic framework developed in the first phase supported the analysis of the articles included in the scoping review and of focus group data. The analysis of policy documents identified twelve themes. All were associated to both a principle and a related operational process. The scoping review identified 31 articles. Across these, some themes were barely acknowledged (e.g., Compliance with legislation). Other themes were extensively covered (e.g., The working of Research Ethics Committees), often to discuss issues and limitations in how, in practice, the research ethics system and its processes deal with collaborative research and to suggest options for improvement. Focus group data were largely consistent with the findings of the scoping review. This work provides evidence of the poor alignment between how the research ethics system is normatively expected to work and how it works in practice and offers options that could make research ethics more fit for purpose when addressing collaborative research in health and social care.

BACKGROUND: The ethnicity data gap hinders public health research from addressing ethnic health inequity in the UK, especially for under-served young, migrant populations. We aimed to review how ethnicity was captured, reported, analysed, and theorised within policy-relevant research.
METHODS: For this bibliographical review, we reviewed a selection of the 1% most highly cited population health papers reporting UK ethnicity data in MEDLINE and Web of Science databases between Jan 1, 1946, and July 31, 2022, and extracted how ethnicity was recorded and analysed. We included cross-sectional, longitudinal cohort studies, and randomised trials using only UK populations, which were peer-reviewed, were written in English, and reported ethnicity and any health-related outcomes. We held three focus groups with ten participants aged 18-25 years, from Nigeria, Turkistan, Syria, Yemen, and Iran to help us shape and interpret our findings, and asked \"How should ethnicity be asked inclusively, and better recorded?\" and \"Does ethnicity change over time or context? If so, why?\". We consolidated feedback from our focus groups into a co-created poster with recommendations for researchers studying ethnicity and health. Written informed consent was obtained for focus group participation.
RESULTS: Of 44 papers included in the review, 19 (43%) used self-reported ethnicity, but the number of ethnic categories provided varied. Of 27 papers that aggregated ethnicity, 13 (48%) provided justification. Only eight (18%) explicitly theorised how ethnicity related to health. The focus groups agreed that (1) ethnicity should not be prescribed by others (individuals could be asked to describe their ethnicity in free-text, which researchers could synthesise to extract relevant dimensions of ethnicity for their research) and (2) Ethnicity changes over time and context according to personal experience, social pressure, and nationality change. The lived experience of ethnicity of migrants and non-migrants is not fully interchangeable, even if they share the same ethnic category.
CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should communicate clearly how ethnicity is operationalised in their studies, with appropriate justification for clustering and analysis that is meaningfully theorised. Our study was limited by its non-systematic nature. Implementing the recommendation to capture ethnicity via free text remains challenging in administrative data systems.
BACKGROUND: UCL Engagement Beacon Bursary.

The ethnicity data gap pertains to 3 major challenges to address ethnic health inequality: 1) Under-representation of ethnic minorities in research; 2) Poor data quality on ethnicity; 3) Ethnicity data not being meaningfully analysed. These challenges are especially relevant for research involving under-served migrant populations in the UK. We aimed to review how ethnicity is captured, reported, analysed and theorised within policy-relevant research on ethnic health inequities.
We reviewed a selection of the 1% most highly cited population health papers that reported UK data on ethnicity, and extracted how ethnicity was recorded and analysed in relation to health outcomes. We focused on how ethnicity was obtained (i.e. self reported or not), how ethnic groups were categorised, whether justification was provided for any categorisation, and how ethnicity was theorised to be related to health. We held three 1-h-long guided focus groups with 10 young people from Nigeria, Turkistan, Syria, Yemen and Iran. This engagement helped us shape and interpret our findings, and reflect on. 1) How should ethnicity be asked inclusively, and better recorded? 2) Does self-defined ethnicity change over time or context? If so, why?
Of the 44 included papers, most (19; 43%) used self-reported ethnicity, categorised in a variety of ways. Of the 27 papers that aggregated ethnicity, 13 (48%) provided justification. Only 8 of 33 papers explicitly theorised how ethnicity related to health. The focus groups agreed that 1) Ethnicity should not be prescribed by others; individuals could be asked to describe their ethnicity in free-text which researchers could synthesise to extract relevant dimensions of ethnicity for their research; 2) Ethnicity changes over time and context according to personal experience, social pressure, and nationality change; 3) Migrants and non-migrants\' lived experience of ethnicity is not fully inter-changeable, even if they share the same ethnic category.
Ethnicity is a multi-dimensional construct, but this is not currently reflected in UK health research studies, where ethnicity is often aggregated and analysed without justification. Researchers should communicate clearly how ethnicity is operationalised for their study, with appropriate justification for clustering and analysis that is meaningfully theorised. We can only start to tackle ethnic health inequity by treating ethnicity as rigorously as any other variables in our research.

BACKGROUND: There are strong recommendations and high demand for the use of holistic admission review (HAR). However, there is no study exploring and identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing HAR in health care education programs.
METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study aimed to understand the key determinants influencing the integration of HAR in graduate advanced nursing programs. Two online focus groups with content analysis were used to identify barriers and facilitators.
RESULTS: The findings highlight 39 key determinants of HAR implementation in the graduate advanced nursing program; the determinants included four neutral influencing factors, 18 barriers, and 17 facilitators. These influencing factors aligned with all four domains in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and with 20 of the 39 CFIR constructs.
CONCLUSIONS: By taking into account the facilitators and barriers, graduate advanced nursing programs may use effective implementation strategies to integrate HAR changes and guide their evolving admissions processes. [J Nurs Educ. 2023;62(10):570-574.].