BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, the production and consumption of organic food (OF) have received increasing interest. Scientific studies have shown better quality of organic fruit and vegetables (FV) in terms of nutrients and pesticide contents, but it appears difficult to conclude if there are potentially greater health benefits of these products compared with conventional food (CF).
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the current scientific literature demonstrates that a diet rich in organic FV is healthier than 1 based on conventional produce.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using the PubMed and Web of Science databases for articles published between January 2003 and December 2022. Articles were analyzed uniformly by 2 reviewer, using a specific template summary sheet, and scored from 1 to 5. The level of evidence and the quality of studies in humans were assessed using the Jadad score and the French National Authority for Health method.
RESULTS: A total of 12 human studies were included. Studies often reported contradictory or even opposite results, with methodological limitations. Only 6 of the 12 studies found significant associations between OF and the health outcomes evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS: The current data do not enable a firm conclusion about a greater health benefit for a diet rich in FV based on products grown organically compared with conventional farming. There is a paucity of available data and considerable heterogeneity in study designs (participants, exposures, durations, health outcomes, and residual confounding factors). Well-designed interventional studies are required.

BACKGROUND: Patient and staff experience is a vital factor to consider in the evaluation of remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions. However, no comprehensive overview of available RPM patient and staff experience-measuring methods and tools exists.
OBJECTIVE: This review aimed at obtaining a comprehensive set of experience constructs and corresponding measuring instruments used in contemporary RPM research and at proposing an initial set of guidelines for improving methodological standardization in this domain.
METHODS: Full-text papers reporting on instances of patient or staff experience measuring in RPM interventions, written in English, and published after January 1, 2011, were considered for eligibility. By \"RPM interventions,\" we referred to interventions including sensor-based patient monitoring used for clinical decision-making; papers reporting on other kinds of interventions were therefore excluded. Papers describing primary care interventions, involving participants under 18 years of age, or focusing on attitudes or technologies rather than specific interventions were also excluded. We searched 2 electronic databases, Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE, on February 12, 2021.We explored and structured the obtained corpus of data through correspondence analysis, a multivariate statistical technique.
RESULTS: In total, 158 papers were included, covering RPM interventions in a variety of domains. From these studies, we reported 546 experience-measuring instances in RPM, covering the use of 160 unique experience-measuring instruments to measure 120 unique experience constructs. We found that the research landscape has seen a sizeable growth in the past decade, that it is affected by a relative lack of focus on the experience of staff, and that the overall corpus of collected experience measures can be organized in 4 main categories (service system related, care related, usage and adherence related, and health outcome related). In the light of the collected findings, we provided a set of 6 actionable recommendations to RPM patient and staff experience evaluators, in terms of both what to measure and how to measure it. Overall, we suggested that RPM researchers and practitioners include experience measuring as part of integrated, interdisciplinary data strategies for continuous RPM evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is a lack of consensus and standardization in the methods used to measure patient and staff experience in RPM, leading to a critical knowledge gap in our understanding of the impact of RPM interventions. This review offers targeted support for RPM experience evaluators by providing a structured, comprehensive overview of contemporary patient and staff experience measures and a set of practical guidelines for improving research quality and standardization in this domain.

UNASSIGNED: This study aims to investigate the potential benefits of integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine clinical practice for patients undergoing active anticancer treatment.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials involving cancer patients undergoing active anticancer treatment, spanning various cancer types and stages. The review covered four electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) up to September 2022. Key inclusion criteria focused on the incorporation of PROs as a routine intervention. Bias assessment followed the Cochrane collaboration\'s criteria, while the synthesis of results utilized effect size measurements (Cohen\'s d). The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: Out of 1549 initially screened records, 16 published randomized controlled trials encompassing 5300 patients met the inclusion criteria. The interventions involved 18 different PROs measurements, with prominent tools being EORTC QLQ-C30 (utilized in four trials) and PRO-CTCAE (utilized in four trials). Measured endpoints included overall quality of life (12 trials), physical health (11 trials), mental health (7 trials), and social health (5 trials). Overall, the study revealed a limited number of statistically significant findings, with predominantly small to moderate effect sizes associated with the interventions.
UNASSIGNED: The findings suggest that the routine integration of PROs into clinical practice does not yield definitive advantages in terms of PROs. It is apparent that further efforts are necessary to ascertain the impact of these interventions on patient health.
UNASSIGNED: The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022365456).

Identify and categorise different models of community-based fruit and vegetable prescription programs, to determine variation in terms of methodology, target population characteristics, and outcomes measured. Applying the scoping review methodology, ten electronic databases were utilised to identify community-based fruit and vegetable incentive programs. Results were evaluated by two independent reviewers, using Covidence software. All full-text reviews were completed and documented using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Search results were stored and reviewed within the Covidence software. Thirty full-text articles were utilised from the 40 206 identified in the search. Target populations were predominantly female, non-white, and low-income. Considerable heterogeneity was found in both study design and quality. Fruit and vegetable vouchers were utilised in 63 % (n 19) of the studies. Prescriptions were primarily provided by community health centres (47 %; n 14) or NGOs (307 %; n 9) and could be redeemed at farmers\' markets (40 %; n 12) or grocery stores (27 %; n 8). When measured, diet quality significantly improved in 94 % (n 16), health outcomes significantly improved in 83 % (n 10), and food security status improved in 82 % (n 10) of studies. Providing financial incentives to offset the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables can increase consumption, improve health outcomes, and improve food security status. The majority of studies showed significant improvements in at least one outcome, demonstrating the effectiveness of community-based fruit and vegetable prescription programs. However, the diversity of measurement techniques and heterogeneity of design, dosage, and duration impeded meaningful comparisons. Further well-designed studies are warranted to compare the magnitude of effects among different program methodologies.

BACKGROUND: Nurses comprise over half of the global health care workforce, and the nursing care they provide is critical for the global population\'s health. High patient volumes and increased medical complexity have increased the workload and stress of nurses. As a result, the health of nurses is often negatively impacted. Wearables are used within the health care setting to assess patient outcomes; however, efforts to synthesize the use of wearable devices focusing on nurses\' health are limited.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of our integrative review is to synthesize available data concerning the utility of wearable devices for evaluating or improving (or both) the health of nurses.
METHODS: We are conducting an integrative review synthesizing data specific to wearable devices and nurses\' health. The research question for this review aims to answer how wearable devices are used to evaluate health outcomes among nurses. We searched the following electronic databases from inception until July 2022: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, IEEE Explore, and AS&T. Titles and abstracts were imported into Covidence software, where citations were screened and duplicates removed. Title and abstract screening has been completed; however, full-text screening has not been started. Further screening is being conducted independently and in duplicate by 2 teams of 2 reviewers each. These reviewers will extract data independently.
RESULTS: Search strategies have been developed, and data were extracted from 6 databases. After the removal of duplicates, we collected 8603 studies for title and abstract screening. Two independent reviewers conducted the title and abstract review, and after resolving conflicts, 277 full-text articles are available for review to determine whether they meet the inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: This integrative review will provide synthesized data to inform nurses and other stakeholders about the extent of wearable device-related work done with nurses and provide direction for future research.
UNASSIGNED: DERR1-10.2196/48178.

A total of 75% of people with mental health disorders have an onset of illness between the ages of 12 and 24 years. Many in this age group report substantial obstacles to receiving quality youth-centered mental health care services. With the rapid development of technology and the recent COVID-19 pandemic, mobile health (mHealth) has presented new opportunities for youth mental health research, practice, and policy.
The research objectives were to (1) synthesize the current evidence supporting mHealth interventions for youths who experience mental health challenges and (2) identify current gaps in the mHealth field related to youth\'s access to mental health services and health outcomes.
Guided by the methods of Arksey and O\'Malley, we conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies that used mHealth tools to improve youth mental health (January 2016-February 2022). We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase databases using the following key terms: (1) mHealth; (2) youth and young adults; and (3) mental health. The current gaps were analyzed using content analysis.
The search produced 4270 records, of which 151 met inclusion criteria. Included articles highlight the comprehensive aspects of youth mHealth intervention resource allocation for targeted conditions, mHealth delivery methods, measurement tools, evaluation of mHealth intervention, and youth engagement. The median age for participants in all studies is 17 (IQR 14-21) years. Only 3 (2%) studies involved participants who reported their sex or gender outside of the binary option. Many studies (68/151, 45%) were published after the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak. Study types and designs varied, with 60 (40%) identified as randomized controlled trials. Notably, 143 out of 151 (95%) studies came from developed countries, suggesting an evidence shortfall on the feasibility of implementing mHealth services in lower-resourced settings. Additionally, the results highlight concerns related to inadequate resources devoted to self-harm and substance uses, weak study design, expert engagement, and the variety of outcome measures selected to capture impact or changes over time. There is also a lack of standardized regulations and guidelines for researching mHealth technologies for youths and the use of non-youth-centered approaches to implementing results.
This study may be used to inform future work as well as the development of youth-centered mHealth tools that can be implemented and sustained over time for diverse types of youths. Implementation science research that prioritizes youths\' engagement is needed to advance the current understanding of mHealth implementation. Moreover, core outcome sets may support a youth-centered measurement strategy to capture outcomes in a systematic way that prioritizes equity, diversity, inclusion, and robust measurement science. Finally, this study suggests that future practice and policy research are needed to ensure the risk of mHealth is minimized and that this innovative health care service is meeting the emerging needs of youths over time.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-a high-burden chronic disease-requires lifetime active management involving the use of different tools and health care resources to improve patient health outcomes. Recent studies have demonstrated promising results regarding the impact of the use of virtual care technology on the treatment of chronic diseases, such as diabetes. However, it is unclear whether the use of technologies, such as secure messaging, improves the quality of care and reduces diabetes-related costs to the health care system.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our scoping review is to explore what is known about the use of secure messaging in the treatment of diabetes within the primary care setting and how its impact has been assessed from the patient and health system perspectives. Our review aims to understand to what extent secure messaging improves the quality of diabetes care.
METHODS: Our scoping review will follow the 6-step Arksey and O\'Malley methodological framework, as well as the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and their recommended tools. The tools to guide the development and reporting of the review in a structured way will include the Population, Concept, and Context framework and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines and checklist. The search strategy was developed iteratively in collaboration with a professional information specialist. Furthermore, a peer review of electronic search strategies was also conducted by an independent, third-party, professional information specialist. A systematic literature search will be conducted against databases, including Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Library on Wiley, CINAHL on EBSCO, and PubMed. Grey literature sources will also be searched for relevant literature. Literature on the use of secure messaging in the treatment of diabetes (types 1 and 2) within a primary care setting will be included. Two reviewers will review the literature based on the inclusion criteria in the following two steps: (1) title and abstract review and (2) full-text review. Discrepancies will be discussed to reach consensus where possible; otherwise, a third reviewer will resolve the dispute.
RESULTS: The results and a final report are expected to be completed and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal in 6 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The review will examine existing literature to identify the impact of secure messaging in diabetes treatment within primary care settings. Research gaps will also be identified to determine if there is a need for further studies.
UNASSIGNED: DERR1-10.2196/42339.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth refers to the use of technology to deliver health care remotely. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an increase in telehealth services.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review satisfaction with pediatric care in studies that had at least one group of pediatric patients and their caregivers receiving telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic and at least one comparison group of those receiving nontelehealth services.
METHODS: We searched for peer-reviewed studies published in the English language that compared the satisfaction with pediatric care between pediatric patients and their caregivers receiving telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic and those receiving nontelehealth services. Owing to stay-at-home orders, studies with comparison groups for nontelehealth services that took place either before or during the pandemic were eligible. We searched the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases on January 5, 2023. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 2 reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts before reviewing the full text of the remaining articles. The following information was extracted from each eligible study: country, participant characteristics by comparison group, study design, telehealth approach, measurement tools to assess satisfaction, and findings by comparison group.
RESULTS: All 14 eligible studies assessed satisfaction among caregivers and pediatric patients participating in video or telephone visits during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with those having in-person appointments either before or during the pandemic. In 5 of the 14 studies, a comparison of nontelehealth services took place before the pandemic, and in the remaining 9 investigations, nontelehealth services took place during the pandemic. A total of 13 studies were observational investigations with different designs, and 1 study was a quasi-experimental intervention with 3 comparison groups for video, in-person, and hybrid visits. In 9 of the 14 studies, satisfaction with telehealth services was higher than during in-person visits. Caregivers were satisfied with video visits for the ease of use and reduced need for transportation. Reasons caregivers were not satisfied with remote care included limited personal interaction with the provider, technological challenges, and a lack of physical examination. Those participating in nontelehealth services expressed that in-person interactions promoted treatment adherence. Only 1 study assessed satisfaction where adolescent patients completed their own surveys; a higher percentage of adolescents using telehealth services reported effective communication with the provider compared with patients using in-person visits.
CONCLUSIONS: In most studies, telehealth services received more favorable or comparable satisfaction ratings than in-person visits. Needed improvements in telehealth services included strategies to address technological challenges and develop better rapport among the patient, caregiver, and medical provider. Interventions may investigate the influence of telehealth services on access to and quality of care.

Community health workers (CHWs) have become essential to the promotion of healthy behaviors, yet their work is complicated by challenges both within and beyond their control. These challenges include resistance to the change of existing behaviors, disbelief of health messages, limited community health literacy, insufficient CHW communication skills and knowledge, lack of community interest and respect for CHWs, and CHWs\' lack of adequate supplies. The rising penetration of \"smart\" technology (eg, smartphones and tablets) in low- and middle-income countries facilitates the use of portable electronic devices in the field.
This scoping review examines to what extent mobile health in the form of smart devices may enhance the delivery of public health messages in CHW-client interactions, thereby addressing the aforementioned challenges and inducing client behavior change.
We conducted a structured search of the PubMed and LILACS databases using subject heading terms in 4 categories: technology user, technology device, use of technology, and outcome. Eligibility criteria included publication since January 2007, CHWs delivering a health message aided by a smart device, and face-to-face communication between CHWs and clients. Eligible studies were analyzed qualitatively using a modified version of the Partners in Health conceptual framework.
We identified 12 eligible studies, 10 (83%) of which used qualitative or mixed methods approaches. We found that smart devices mitigate challenges encountered by CHWs by improving their knowledge, motivation, and creativity (eg, through self-made videos); their status within the community; and the credibility of their health messages. The technology stimulated interest in both CHWs and clients-and sometimes even in bystanders and neighbors. Media content produced locally or reflecting local customs was strongly embraced. Yet, the effect of smart devices on the quality of CHW-client interactions was inconclusive. Interactions suffered as CHWs were tempted to replace educational conversations with clients by passively watching video content. Furthermore, a series of technical difficulties experienced especially by older and less educated CHWs compromised some of the advantages brought about by mobile devices. Adequate CHW training ameliorated these difficulties. Only 1 study (8%) considered client health behavior change as an end point, thus revealing a major research gap.
Smart mobile devices may augment CHWs\' field performance and enhance face-to-face interactions with clients, yet they also generate new challenges. The available evidence is scarce, mostly qualitative, and focused on a limited range of health outcomes. Future research should include larger-scale interventions across a wide range of health outcomes and feature client health behavior change as an end point.

Chronic pain (CP) is 1 of the leading causes of disability worldwide and represents a significant burden on individual, social, and economic aspects. Potential tools, such as mobile health (mHealth) systems, are emerging for the self-management of patients with CP.
A systematic review was conducted to analyze the effects of mHealth interventions on CP management, based on pain intensity, quality of life (QoL), and functional disability assessment, compared to conventional treatment or nonintervention.
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines were followed to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) databases from February to March 2022. No filters were used. The eligibility criteria were RCTs of adults (≥18 years old) with CP, intervened with mHealth systems based on mobile apps for monitoring pain and health-related outcomes, for pain and behavioral self-management, and for performing therapeutic approaches, compared to conventional treatments (physical, occupational, and psychological therapies; usual medical care; and education) or nonintervention, reporting pain intensity, QoL, and functional disability. The methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) were assessed using the Checklist for Measuring Quality, the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence, and the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.
In total, 22 RCTs, involving 2641 patients with different CP conditions listed in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11), including chronic low back pain (CLBP), chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP), chronic neck pain (CNP), unspecified CP, chronic pelvic pain (CPP), fibromyalgia (FM), interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and osteoarthritis (OA). A total of 23 mHealth systems were used to conduct a variety of CP self-management strategies, among which monitoring pain and symptoms and home-based exercise programs were the most used. Beneficial effects of the use of mHealth systems in reducing pain intensity (CNP, FM, IC/BPS, and OA), QoL (CLBP, CNP, IBS, and OA), and functional disability (CLBP, CMSP, CNP, and OA) were found. Most of the included studies (18/22, 82%) reported medium methodological quality and were considered as highly recommendable; in addition, 7/22 (32%) studies had a low RoB, 10/22 (45%) had some concerns, and 5/22 (23%) had a high RoB.
The use of mHealth systems indicated positive effects for pain intensity in CNP, FM, IC/BPS, and OA; for QoL in CLBP, CNP, IBS, and OA; and for functional disability in CLBP, CMSP, CNP, and OA. Thus, mHealth seems to be an alternative to improving pain-related outcomes and QoL and could be part of multimodal strategies for CP self-management. High-quality studies are needed to merge the evidence and recommendations of the use of mHealth systems for CP management.
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022315808; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=315808.