BACKGROUND: Testing for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is an important consideration regarding treatment for malaria. G6PD deficiency may lead to haemolytic anaemia during malaria treatment and, therefore, determining G6PD deficiency in malaria treatment strategies is extremely important.
METHODS: This report presents the results of a scoping review and evidence and gap map for consideration by the Guideline Development Group for G6PD near patient tests to support radical cure of Plasmodium vivax. This scoping review has investigated common diagnostic tests for G6PD deficiency and important contextual and additional factors for decision-making. These factors include six of the considerations recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) handbook for guideline development as important to determining the direction and strength of a recommendation, and included \'acceptability\', \'feasibility,\' \'equity,\' \'valuation of outcomes,\' \'gender\' and \'human rights\'. The aim of this scoping review is to inform the direction of future systematic reviews and evidence syntheses, which can then better inform the development of WHO recommendations regarding the use of G6PD deficiency testing as part of malaria treatment strategies.
RESULTS: A comprehensive search was performed, including published, peer-reviewed literature for any article, of any study design and methodology that investigated G6PD diagnostic tests and the factors of \'acceptability\', \'feasibility,\' \'equity,\' \'valuation of outcomes,\' \'gender\' and \'human rights\'. There were 1152 studies identified from the search, of which 14 were determined to be eligible for inclusion into this review. The studies contained data from over 21 unique countries that had considered G6PD diagnostic testing as part of a malaria treatment strategy. The relationship between contextual and additional factors, diagnostic tests for G6PD deficiency and study methodology is presented in an overall evidence and gap, which showed that majority of the evidence was for the contextual factors for diagnostic tests, and the \'Standard G6PD (SD Biosensor)\' test.
CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review has produced a dynamic evidence and gap map that is reactive to emerging evidence within the field of G6PD diagnostic testing. The evidence and gap map has provided a comprehensive depiction of all the available literature that address the contextual and additional factors important for decision-making, regarding specific G6PD diagnostic tests. The majority of data available investigating the contextual factors of interest relates to quantitative G6PD diagnostic tests. While a formal qualitative synthesis of this data as part of a systematic review is possible, the data may be too heterogenous for this to be appropriate. These results can now be used to inform future direction of WHO Guideline Development Groups for G6PD near patient tests to support radical cure of P. vivax malaria.

Background: People with intellectual disabilities (ID) experience many health and social inequalities. Increasing physical activity is a proven intervention to address such inequalities, yet the physical activity rates of this population are substantially lower than the general population. Aim: Research has been growing to understand why this is and how to intervene to increase the physical activity levels of people with ID. Method: Using a behavioural epidemiological framework, the research in this area from barriers and facilitators of physical activity to translational research testing interventions within natural settings is reviewed. Findings from a total of 14 reviews and eight empirical studies and protocols were included. Results: Whilst there are multiple investigations into what promotes or enhances physical activity for people with ID, findings from intervention studies show few successful outcomes. Gaps within the existing research are identified and recommendations about how intervention efficacy might be improved are provided to inform future research and practice. Conclusion: Findings from previous research on barriers and facilitators can be further capitalised on and intervention studies should be underpinned by better links to theory and more systemic approaches.

Best, is to be \'of the highest quality, or being the most suitable, pleasing, or effective type of thing or person\'. Within medical education, \'best-ness\' is evident within best practice guides and recommendations, and within research, where best evidence influences design and conduct. Yet, much of the evidence of best-ness fails to consider best for who and where, what, and when. Thinking needs reframing, given that \"best-ness\" and medical education are such good bedfellows, but it is critical that we recognise the impact and influence of context - that practice can be good, but cannot be universally and unflinchingly best.

UNASSIGNED: Arts and health practice and research has expanded rapidly since the turn of the millennium. A World Health Organization scoping review of a large body of evidence claims positive health benefits from arts participation and makes recommendations for policy and implementation of arts for health initiatives. A more recent scoping review (CultureForHealth) also claims that current evidence is sufficient to form recommendations for policy and practice. However, scoping reviews of arts and health research-without critical appraisal of included studies-do not provide a sound basis for recommendations on the wider implantation of healthcare interventions.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a detailed assessment of 18 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) on arts-based interventions included in Section 1 of the CultureForHealth report using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for RCTs (2023).
UNASSIGNED: The 18 RCTs included demonstrated considerable risks of bias regarding internal and statistical conclusion validity. Moreover, the trials are substantially heterogeneous with respect to settings, health-issues, interventions, and outcomes, which limits their external validity, reliability, and generalisability.
UNASSIGNED: The absence of a critical appraisal of studies included in the CultureForHealth report leads to an overinterpretation and overstatement of the health outcomes of arts-based interventions. As such, the CultureForHealth review is not a suitable foundation for policy recommendations, nor for formulating guidance on implementation of arts-based interventions for health.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the results of the \'Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH) Trial\' were published in The Lancet. This demonstrated the superiority of small bite laparotomy closure over mass closure for the reduction of incisional hernias; despite this most surgeons have not changed their practice. Previous research has shown the time taken for the implementation of evidenced based practise within medicine takes an average of 17 years. This study aims to understand the reasons why surgeons have and have not changed their practice with regards to closure of midline laparotomy.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were completed with surgical consultants and registrars at a single institution in South West England. The interview topic guide was informed by a review of the published literature, which identified barriers to adopting evidence into surgical practice. Interview transcripts underwent thematic analysis with themes identified following discussions within the research team, exploring views on published data and clinical practise.
RESULTS: Nine interviews with general surgical and urological consultants as well as registrars in training were performed. Three themes were identified; \'Trusting the Evidence & Critical Appraisal\', \'Surgical Attitude to Risk\' and \'Adopting Evidence in Practise\', that reflected barriers to the introduction of evidenced based practise to clinical work.
CONCLUSIONS: Identification of the themes highlights possible areas for intervention to decrease the adoption time for evidence, for example from randomised controlled trials. The continued updating of clinical practise allows clinicians to provide best evidenced based care for patients and improve their outcomes.

This rapid review delves into the realm of social prescribing as a novel approach to suicide prevention by addressing the social determinants of health. Through an exploration of various databases including MEDLINE, PsychInfo, WILEY, and Sage, a total of 3,063 articles were initially identified as potentially relevant to the research. Following a meticulous screening process, 13 articles were included in the final review, shedding light on the potential effectiveness and impact of social prescribing interventions on suicide prevention. Key findings indicate the need for additional monitoring and support for individuals at risk of suicide, emphasising warm referrals and sustained connections after referral to enhance the efficacy of social prescribing models. The review also highlights the importance of social capital and trust among vulnerable populations, underscoring the significance of community-based referrals in suicide prevention initiatives. Overall, this review identifies the potential of social prescribing as a valuable tool in mitigating suicide risk factors and promoting mental health and wellbeing in diverse populations.

BACKGROUND: Growing numbers of randomized clinical trials-based systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) have been conducted to examine the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). An overview of SRs/MAs will be conducted with the aim of systematically compiling, evaluating, and synthesizing the evidence regarding acupuncture for GERD.
METHODS: SRs/MAs of acupuncture on GERD will be searched in eight databases. Two independent reviewers will conduct the literature search, data extraction, and review quality assessment. Utilizing the AMSTAR-2 tool, PRISMA checklists, and GRADE system, respectively, the methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality will be evaluated. In relation to the subject and the overview\'s objects, the results will be given. This study will aid in identifying gaps between evidence and its clinical application and serve as a roadmap for further high-quality research.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the overview will aid in closing the gap between clinical evidence and its use in clinical practice. This study will identify significant faults in the use of evidence, point out areas where methodology needs to be improved, and provide guidance for future high-quality research.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42022371850.
BACKGROUND: Ethics approval is not necessary because no personal information about individuals is collected. A peer-reviewed journal or pertinent conferences will publish the results, whichever comes first.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a global epidemic, affecting more than half of the people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The relationship between NAFLD and T2D is bidirectional and the presence of one perpetuates the other, which significantly increases the hepatic as well as extrahepatic complications. Until recently, there was no approved pharmacological treatment for NAFLD/ nonalcoholic steatohepatitits (NASH). However, there is evidence that drugs used for diabetes may have beneficial effects on NAFLD. Insulin sensitizers acting through peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) modulation act on multiple levels of NAFLD pathogenesis. Pioglitazone (PPARγ agonist) and saroglitazar (PPARα/γ agonist) are particularly beneficial and recommended by several authoritative bodies for treating NAFLD in T2D, although data on biopsy-proven NASH are lacking with the latter. Initial data on elafibanor (PPAR α/δ agonist) and Lanifibranor (pan PPAR agonist) are promising. On the other hand, incretin therapies based on glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and dual- and triple-hormone receptor co-agonists reported impressive weight loss and may have anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties. GLP-1 RAs have shown beneficial effects on NAFLD/NASH and more studies on potential direct effects on liver function by dual- and triple-agonists are required. Furthermore, the long-term safety of these therapies in NAFLD needs to be established. Collaborative efforts among healthcare providers such as primary care doctors, hepatologists, and endocrinologists are warranted for selecting patients for the best possible management of NAFLD in T2D.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) affects millions of women with substantial health and quality-of-life impacts. Supervised pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is the recommended first-line treatment. However, multiple individual and institutional barriers impede women\'s access to skilled care. Evidence suggests that digital health solutions are acceptable and may be effective in delivering first-line incontinence treatment, although these technologies have not yet been leveraged at scale.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to describe the effectiveness and safety of a prescribed digital health treatment program to guide PFMT for UI treatment among real-world users. The secondary objectives are to evaluate patient engagement following an updated user platform and identify the factors predictive of success.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of women who initiated device use between January 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, included users aged ≥18 years old with a diagnosis of stress, urgency, or mixed incontinence or a score of >33.3 points on the Urogenital Distress Inventory Short Form (UDI-6). Users are prescribed a 2.5-minute, twice-daily, training program guided by an intravaginal, motion-based device that pairs with a smartphone app. Data collected by the device or app include patient-reported demographics and outcomes, adherence to the twice-daily regimen, and pelvic floor muscle performance parameters, including angle change and hold time. Symptom improvement was assessed by the UDI-6 score change from baseline to the most recent score using paired 2-tailed t tests. Factors associated with meeting the UDI-6 minimum clinically important difference were evaluated by regression analysis.
RESULTS: Of 1419 users, 947 met inclusion criteria and provided data for analysis. The mean baseline UDI-6 score was 46.8 (SD 19.3), and the mean UDI-6 score change was 11.3 (SD 19.9; P<.001). Improvement was reported by 74% (697/947) and was similar across age, BMI, and incontinence subtype. Mean adherence was 89% (mean 12.5, SD 2.1 of 14 possible weekly uses) over 12 weeks. Those who used the device ≥10 times per week were more likely to achieve symptom improvement. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, baseline incontinence symptom severity and maximum angle change during pelvic floor muscle contraction were significantly associated with meeting the UDI-6 minimum clinically important difference. Age, BMI, and UI subtype were not associated.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of a prescribed digital health treatment program for female UI. A digital PFMT program completed with visual guidance from a motion-based device yields significant results when executed ≥10 times per week over a period of 12 weeks. The program demonstrates high user engagement, with 92.9% (880/947) of users adhering to the prescribed training regimen. First-line incontinence treatment, when implemented using this digital program, leads to statistically and clinically substantial symptom improvements across age and BMI categories and incontinence subtypes.

UNASSIGNED: Evidence-based practice (EBP) involves making clinical decisions based on three sources of information: evidence, clinical experience and patient preferences. Despite popularization of EBP, research has shown that there are many barriers to achieving the goals of the EBP model. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has been proposed as a means to improve clinical decision-making. The aim of this paper was to pinpoint key challenges pertaining to the three pillars of EBP and to investigate the potential of AI in surmounting these challenges and contributing to a more evidence-based healthcare practice. We conducted a selective review of the literature on EBP and the integration of AI in healthcare to achieve this.
UNASSIGNED: Clinical decision-making in line with the EBP model presents several challenges. The availability and existence of robust evidence sometimes pose limitations due to slow generation and dissemination processes, as well as the scarcity of high-quality evidence. Direct application of evidence is not always viable because studies often involve patient groups distinct from those encountered in routine healthcare. Clinicians need to rely on their clinical experience to interpret the relevance of evidence and contextualize it within the unique needs of their patients. Moreover, clinical decision-making might be influenced by cognitive and implicit biases. Achieving patient involvement and shared decision-making between clinicians and patients remains challenging in routine healthcare practice due to factors such as low levels of health literacy among patients and their reluctance to actively participate, barriers rooted in clinicians\' attitudes, scepticism towards patient knowledge and ineffective communication strategies, busy healthcare environments and limited resources.
UNASSIGNED: AI presents a promising solution to address several challenges inherent in the research process, from conducting studies, generating evidence, synthesizing findings, and disseminating crucial information to clinicians to implementing these findings into routine practice. AI systems have a distinct advantage over human clinicians in processing specific types of data and information. The use of AI has shown great promise in areas such as image analysis. AI presents promising avenues to enhance patient engagement by saving time for clinicians and has the potential to increase patient autonomy although there is a lack of research on this issue.
UNASSIGNED: This review underscores AI\'s potential to augment evidence-based healthcare practices, potentially marking the emergence of EBP 2.0. However, there are also uncertainties regarding how AI will contribute to a more evidence-based healthcare. Hence, empirical research is essential to validate and substantiate various aspects of AI use in healthcare.