Search

Background: Interest in applying a complex systems approach to understanding socioeconomic inequalities in health is growing, but an overview of existing research on this topic is lacking. In this systematic scoping review, we summarize the current state of the literature, identify shared drivers of multiple health and health behavior outcomes, and highlight areas ripe for future research. Methods: SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed databases were searched in April 2023 for peer-reviewed, English-language studies in high-income OECD countries containing a conceptual systems model or simulation model of socioeconomic inequalities in health or health behavior in the adult general population. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts. Data on study aim, type of model, all model elements, and all relationships were extracted. Model elements were categorized based on the Commission on Social Determinants of Health framework, and relationships between grouped elements were visualized in a summary conceptual systems map. Results: A total of 42 publications were included; 18 only contained a simulation model, 20 only contained a conceptual model, and 4 contained both types of models. General health outcomes (e.g., health status, well-being) were modeled more often than specific outcomes like obesity. Dietary behavior and physical activity were by far the most commonly modeled health behaviors. Intermediary determinants of health (e.g., material circumstances, social cohesion) were included in nearly all models, whereas structural determinants (e.g., policies, societal values) were included in about a third of models. Using the summary conceptual systems map, we identified 15 shared drivers of socioeconomic inequalities in multiple health and health behavior outcomes. Conclusions: The interconnectedness of socioeconomic position, multiple health and health behavior outcomes, and determinants of socioeconomic inequalities in health is clear from this revi

BACKGROUND: Interest in applying a complex systems approach to understanding socioeconomic inequalities in health is growing, but an overview of existing research on this topic is lacking. In this systematic scoping review, we summarize the current state of the literature, identify shared drivers of multiple health and health behavior outcomes, and highlight areas ripe for future research. METHODS: SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed databases were searched in April 2023 for peer-reviewed, English-language studies in high-income OECD countries containing a conceptual systems model or simulation model of socioeconomic inequalities in health or health behavior in the adult general population. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts. Data on study aim, type of model, all model elements, and all relationships were extracted. Model elements were categorized based on the Commission on Social Determinants of Health framework, and relationships between grouped elements were visualized in a summary conceptual systems map. RESULTS: A total of 42 publications were included; 18 only contained a simulation model, 20 only contained a conceptual model, and 4 contained both types of models. General health outcomes (e.g., health status, well-being) were modeled more often than specific outcomes like obesity. Dietary behavior and physical activity were by far the most commonly modeled health behaviors. Intermediary determinants of health (e.g., material circumstances, social cohesion) were included in nearly all models, whereas structural determinants (e.g., policies, societal values) were included in about a third of models. Using the summary conceptual systems map, we identified 15 shared drivers of socioeconomic inequalities in multiple health and health behavior outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The interconnectedness of socioeconomic position, multiple health and health behavior outcomes, and determinants of socioeconomic inequalities in health is clear from this review.

Background: De-implementation of low-value care can increase health care sustainability. We evaluated the reporting of direct costs of de-implementation and subsequent change (increase or decrease) in health care costs in randomized trials of de-implementation research. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Scopus databases without any language restrictions up to May 2021. We conducted study screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate. We extracted information related to study characteristics, types and characteristics of interventions, de-implementation costs, and impacts on health care costs. We assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Results: We screened 10,733 articles, with 227 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 50 included information on direct cost of de-implementation or impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Studies were mostly conducted in North America (36%) or Europe (32%) and in the primary care context (70%). The most common practice of interest was reduction in the use of antibiotics or other medications (74%). Most studies used education strategies (meetings, materials) (64%). Studies used either a single strategy (52%) or were multifaceted (48%). Of the 227 eligible studies, 18 (8%) reported on direct costs of the used de-implementation strategy; of which, 13 reported total costs, and 12 reported per unit costs (7 reported both). The costs of de-implementation strategies varied considerably. Of the 227 eligible studies, 43 (19%) reported on impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Health care costs decreased in 27 studies (63%), increased in 2 (5%), and were unchanged in 14 (33%). Conclusion: De-implementation randomized controlled trials typically did not report direct costs of the de-implementation strategies (92%) or the impacts of de-implementation on health care costs (81%). Lack of cost information may limit the value of de-implementation trials to decision-maker

Understanding how dietary fat is perceived by the senses is crucial in developing public health strategies aimed at curbing excessive fat intakes. Olfaction is one of several sensory modalities contributing to fat perception in foods, yet the nature and extent of its involvement is relatively unclear. A systematic scoping literature review was conducted to identify and summarise relevant evidence on the contribution of olfaction to dietary fat perception in humans and rodents and highlight relevant knowledge gaps. The review was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA methodology, using combinations of olfaction-, fat- and perception-related search terms. Following searches in Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed databases, 42 articles were ultimately included. Overall, findings are consistent with the notion that olfaction plays a role in the perception of dietary fat in rodents and humans. Rodents can perceive dietary fat via olfactory cues, and this ability may affect their preference for fat-containing feed. Humans can detect, discriminate, and identify fat and its constituents solely by olfaction, even when embedded within a complex food matrix. Food fat content can modulate the perception of various fat- and non-fat olfactory qualities, depending on the food matrix and odorant physio-chemical properties. On the other hand, the presence of fat-related odours can modify the perception of olfactory and non-olfactory sensory qualities (e.g., mouthfeel). Several knowledge gaps were identified, namely, the role of fat-related odours in eating behaviour, the nature of chemical signals underlying olfactory fat perception and factors governing sensitivity to fat-related odours.

Digital gaming has broad appeal globally, with a reported 2.7 billion gamers worldwide. There is significant interest in using games to enhance learning, with ‘serious games’ being included in classrooms to engage adolescents’ learning across a range of domains. A systematic scoping review of serious games used for health promotion with adolescents was conducted to identify serious games, review the methods used to evaluate these games, and outline evidence available to support the efficacy of these games in improving knowledge, beliefs/attitudes and behaviours in the target groups. Player engagement/enjoyment was reported if assessed. A total of 21 studies were found to have met the inclusion criteria domains: ‘healthy lifestyle’ ‘sexual health’ and ‘substance use’. A heterogenous approach across studies to game design and development, duration of game play, use of a control group and measurement of outcome(s) was observed. Game efficacy was difficult to assess due to broad generalisations and lack of consistent evaluation methods. Several studies demonstrate serious games can be engaging and pedagogically effective as a learning device and behaviour-change agent. Several studies, however, had less rigorous evaluation and lacked longer-term follow up. The ability for developers to demonstrate positive short- and long-term impacts of serious games with high-quality evidence is essential to the ongoing acceptance and use of these serious games as part of the school curriculum.

Objectives: This study aimed to explore how the concepts of co-production and co-design have been defined and applied in the context of health and social care and to identify the temporal adoption of the terms. Methods: A systematic scoping review of CINAHL with Full Text, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify studies exploring co-production or co-design in health and social care. Data regarding date and conceptual definitions were extracted. From the 2933 studies retrieved, 979 articles were included in this review. Results: A network map of the sixty most common definitions and—through exploration of citations—eight definition clusters and a visual representation of how they interconnect and have informed each other over time are presented. Additional findings were as follows: (i) an increase in research exploring co-production and co-design in health and social care contexts; (ii) an increase in the number of new definitions during the last decade, despite just over a third of included articles providing no definition or explanation for their chosen concept; and (iii) an increase in the number of publications using the terms co-production or co-design while not involving citizens/patients/service users. Conclusions: Co-production and co-design are conceptualized in a wide range of ways. Rather than seeking universal definitions of these terms, future applied research should focus on articulating the underlying principles and values that need to be translated and explored in practice. Patient and Public Contribution: The search strategy and pilot results were presented at a workshop in May 2019 with patient and public contributors and researchers. Discussion here informed our next steps. During the analysis phase of the review, informal discussions were held once a month with a patient who has experience in patient and public involvement. As this involvement was conducted towards the end of t, CC BY 4.0Correspondence: Daniel Masterson, Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping 553 18, Sweden. Email: daniel.masterson@ju.seFunding information: Region Jönköpings läns, Grant/Award Number: Centre for Co‐production at Jönköping Academy; Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd, Grant/Award Number: 2018‐01431

Objectives: This study aimed to explore how the concepts of co-production and co-design have been defined and applied in the context of health and social care and to identify the temporal adoption of the terms. Methods: A systematic scoping review of CINAHL with Full Text, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify studies exploring co-production or co-design in health and social care. Data regarding date and conceptual definitions were extracted. From the 2933 studies retrieved, 979 articles were included in this review. Results: A network map of the sixty most common definitions and—through exploration of citations—eight definition clusters and a visual representation of how they interconnect and have informed each other over time are presented. Additional findings were as follows: (i) an increase in research exploring co-production and co-design in health and social care contexts; (ii) an increase in the number of new definitions during the last decade, despite just over a third of included articles providing no definition or explanation for their chosen concept; and (iii) an increase in the number of publications using the terms co-production or co-design while not involving citizens/patients/service users. Conclusions: Co-production and co-design are conceptualized in a wide range of ways. Rather than seeking universal definitions of these terms, future applied research should focus on articulating the underlying principles and values that need to be translated and explored in practice. Patient and Public Contribution: The search strategy and pilot results were presented at a workshop in May 2019 with patient and public contributors and researchers. Discussion here informed our next steps. During the analysis phase of the review, informal discussions were held once a month with a patient who has experience in patient and public involvement. As this involvement was conducted towards the end of t, CC BY 4.0Correspondence: Daniel Masterson, Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping 553 18, Sweden. Email: daniel.masterson@ju.seFunding information: Region Jönköpings läns, Grant/Award Number: Centre for Co‐production at Jönköping Academy; Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd, Grant/Award Number: 2018‐01431

Objectives: This study aimed to explore how the concepts of co-production and co-design have been defined and applied in the context of health and social care and to identify the temporal adoption of the terms. Methods: A systematic scoping review of CINAHL with Full Text, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify studies exploring co-production or co-design in health and social care. Data regarding date and conceptual definitions were extracted. From the 2933 studies retrieved, 979 articles were included in this review. Results: A network map of the sixty most common definitions and—through exploration of citations—eight definition clusters and a visual representation of how they interconnect and have informed each other over time are presented. Additional findings were as follows: (i) an increase in research exploring co-production and co-design in health and social care contexts; (ii) an increase in the number of new definitions during the last decade, despite just over a third of included articles providing no definition or explanation for their chosen concept; and (iii) an increase in the number of publications using the terms co-production or co-design while not involving citizens/patients/service users. Conclusions: Co-production and co-design are conceptualized in a wide range of ways. Rather than seeking universal definitions of these terms, future applied research should focus on articulating the underlying principles and values that need to be translated and explored in practice. Patient and Public Contribution: The search strategy and pilot results were presented at a workshop in May 2019 with patient and public contributors and researchers. Discussion here informed our next steps. During the analysis phase of the review, informal discussions were held once a month with a patient who has experience in patient and public involvement. As this involvement was conducted towards the end of t, CC BY 4.0Correspondence: Daniel Masterson, Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping 553 18, Sweden. Email: daniel.masterson@ju.seFunding information: Region Jönköpings läns, Grant/Award Number: Centre for Co‐production at Jönköping Academy; Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd, Grant/Award Number: 2018‐01431

Objectives: This study aimed to explore how the concepts of co-production and co-design have been defined and applied in the context of health and social care and to identify the temporal adoption of the terms. Methods: A systematic scoping review of CINAHL with Full Text, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify studies exploring co-production or co-design in health and social care. Data regarding date and conceptual definitions were extracted. From the 2933 studies retrieved, 979 articles were included in this review. Results: A network map of the sixty most common definitions and—through exploration of citations—eight definition clusters and a visual representation of how they interconnect and have informed each other over time are presented. Additional findings were as follows: (i) an increase in research exploring co-production and co-design in health and social care contexts; (ii) an increase in the number of new definitions during the last decade, despite just over a third of included articles providing no definition or explanation for their chosen concept; and (iii) an increase in the number of publications using the terms co-production or co-design while not involving citizens/patients/service users. Conclusions: Co-production and co-design are conceptualized in a wide range of ways. Rather than seeking universal definitions of these terms, future applied research should focus on articulating the underlying principles and values that need to be translated and explored in practice. Patient and Public Contribution: The search strategy and pilot results were presented at a workshop in May 2019 with patient and public contributors and researchers. Discussion here informed our next steps. During the analysis phase of the review, informal discussions were held once a month with a patient who has experience in patient and public involvement. As this involvement was conducted towards the end of t, CC BY 4.0Correspondence: Daniel Masterson, Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping 553 18, Sweden. Email: daniel.masterson@ju.seFunding information: Region Jönköpings läns, Grant/Award Number: Centre for Co‐production at Jönköping Academy; Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd, Grant/Award Number: 2018‐01431

Objectives: This study aimed to explore how the concepts of co-production and co-design have been defined and applied in the context of health and social care and to identify the temporal adoption of the terms. Methods: A systematic scoping review of CINAHL with Full Text, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify studies exploring co-production or co-design in health and social care. Data regarding date and conceptual definitions were extracted. From the 2933 studies retrieved, 979 articles were included in this review. Results: A network map of the sixty most common definitions and—through exploration of citations—eight definition clusters and a visual representation of how they interconnect and have informed each other over time are presented. Additional findings were as follows: (i) an increase in research exploring co-production and co-design in health and social care contexts; (ii) an increase in the number of new definitions during the last decade, despite just over a third of included articles providing no definition or explanation for their chosen concept; and (iii) an increase in the number of publications using the terms co-production or co-design while not involving citizens/patients/service users. Conclusions: Co-production and co-design are conceptualized in a wide range of ways. Rather than seeking universal definitions of these terms, future applied research should focus on articulating the underlying principles and values that need to be translated and explored in practice. Patient and Public Contribution: The search strategy and pilot results were presented at a workshop in May 2019 with patient and public contributors and researchers. Discussion here informed our next steps. During the analysis phase of the review, informal discussions were held once a month with a patient who has experience in patient and public involvement. As this involvement was conducted towards the end of t, CC BY 4.0Correspondence: Daniel Masterson, Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping 553 18, Sweden. Email: daniel.masterson@ju.seFunding information: Region Jönköpings läns, Grant/Award Number: Centre for Co‐production at Jönköping Academy; Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd, Grant/Award Number: 2018‐01431

Purpose The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the necessity of practicing Evidence-based Management (EBMgt) as an approach to decision-making in hospital settings. The literature, however, provides limited insight into the process of EBMgt and its contextual nuances. Such insight is critical for better leveraging EBMgt in practice. Therefore, the authors' aim was to integrate the literature on the process of EBMgt in hospital settings, identify the gaps in knowledge and delineate areas for future research. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a systematic scoping review using an innovative methodology that involved two systematic searches. First using EBMgt terminology and second using terminology associated with the EBMgt concept, which the authors derived from the first search. Findings The authors identified 218 relevant articles, which using content analysis, they mapped onto the grounded model of the EBMgt process; a novel model of the EBMgt process developed by Sahakian and colleagues. The authors found that the English language literature provides limited insight into the role of managers' perceptions and motives in EBMgt, the practice of EBMgt in Global South countries, and the outcomes of EBMgt. Overall, this study’s findings indicated that aspects of the decision-maker, context and outcomes have been neglected in EBMgt. Originality/value The authors contributed to the EBMgt literature by identifying these gaps and proposing future research areas and to the systematic review literature by developing a novel scoping review method.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore how the concepts of co-production and co-design have been defined and applied in the context of health and social care and to identify the temporal adoption of the terms. METHODS: A systematic scoping review of CINAHL with Full Text, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify studies exploring co-production or co-design in health and social care. Data regarding date and conceptual definitions were extracted. From the 2933 studies retrieved, 979 articles were included in this review. RESULTS: A network map of the sixty most common definitions and-through exploration of citations-eight definition clusters and a visual representation of how they interconnect and have informed each other over time are presented. Additional findings were as follows: (i) an increase in research exploring co-production and co-design in health and social care contexts; (ii) an increase in the number of new definitions during the last decade, despite just over a third of included articles providing no definition or explanation for their chosen concept; and (iii) an increase in the number of publications using the terms co-production or co-design while not involving citizens/patients/service users. CONCLUSIONS: Co-production and co-design are conceptualized in a wide range of ways. Rather than seeking universal definitions of these terms, future applied research should focus on articulating the underlying principles and values that need to be translated and explored in practice. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The search strategy and pilot results were presented at a workshop in May 2019 with patient and public contributors and researchers. Discussion here informed our next steps. During the analysis phase of the review, informal discussions were held once a month with a patient who has experience in patient and public involvement. As this involvement was conducted towards the end of t

Background Early childhood caries disproportionately affects vulnerable groups and remains a leading cause of preventable hospital admissions for Western Australian children. The Western Australia State Oral Health Plan seeks to improve child oral health through universal and targeted health promotion initiatives with primary caregivers. These initiatives require evidence of primary caregiver oral health knowledge and behaviours and baseline data on early childhood caries. The objective of this systematic scoping review was to understand current oral health knowledge and practices of primary caregivers of children aged 0–4 years, identify influential socioecological determinants, and identify data on early childhood caries in the Western Australian context. Methods A systematic scoping review framework identified articles published between 2010 and 2021, using Scopus, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, selected article reference lists, and oral health websites. The lack of Western Australian specific literature prompted the inclusion of Australia-wide articles. Articles were screened via author consensus, with eight selected. Results Western Australia and nation-wide data on early childhood caries are limited and mostly dated. WA data from children aged 2–3 years, collected in 2006, suggests the prevalence is 2.9% in this state, with national data of children from 0 to 3 years, collected from 2006 and 2008, suggesting an early childhood caries prevalence of 3.4–8% of children aged 18 months, rising sharply by 36 months of age. Nationally, fewer than half the primary caregivers reported following evidence-based oral health recommendations for their young children. Perceptions of the role of dental services for young children tends to be focussed on treatment, rather than surveillance and prevention. Knowledge of dietary and oral hygiene practices is inconsistent and awareness of the Child Dental Benefit Schedule low. Young children’s oral health status is clearly ass

Background Early childhood caries disproportionately affects vulnerable groups and remains a leading cause of preventable hospital admissions for Western Australian children. The Western Australia State Oral Health Plan seeks to improve child oral health through universal and targeted health promotion initiatives with primary caregivers. These initiatives require evidence of primary caregiver oral health knowledge and behaviours and baseline data on early childhood caries. The objective of this systematic scoping review was to understand current oral health knowledge and practices of primary caregivers of children aged 0–4 years, identify influential socioecological determinants, and identify data on early childhood caries in the Western Australian context. Methods A systematic scoping review framework identified articles published between 2010 and 2021, using Scopus, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, selected article reference lists, and oral health websites. The lack of Western Australian specific literature prompted the inclusion of Australia-wide articles. Articles were screened via author consensus, with eight selected. Results Western Australia and nation-wide data on early childhood caries are limited and mostly dated. WA data from children aged 2–3 years, collected in 2006, suggests the prevalence is 2.9% in this state, with national data of children from 0 to 3 years, collected from 2006 and 2008, suggesting an early childhood caries prevalence of 3.4–8% of children aged 18 months, rising sharply by 36 months of age. Nationally, fewer than half the primary caregivers reported following evidence-based oral health recommendations for their young children. Perceptions of the role of dental services for young children tends to be focussed on treatment, rather than surveillance and prevention. Knowledge of dietary and oral hygiene practices is inconsistent and awareness of the Child Dental Benefit Schedule low. Young children’s oral health status is clearly ass

Background Early childhood caries disproportionately affects vulnerable groups and remains a leading cause of preventable hospital admissions for Western Australian children. The Western Australia State Oral Health Plan seeks to improve child oral health through universal and targeted health promotion initiatives with primary caregivers. These initiatives require evidence of primary caregiver oral health knowledge and behaviours and baseline data on early childhood caries. The objective of this systematic scoping review was to understand current oral health knowledge and practices of primary caregivers of children aged 0–4 years, identify influential socioecological determinants, and identify data on early childhood caries in the Western Australian context. Methods A systematic scoping review framework identified articles published between 2010 and 2021, using Scopus, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, selected article reference lists, and oral health websites. The lack of Western Australian specific literature prompted the inclusion of Australia-wide articles. Articles were screened via author consensus, with eight selected. Results Western Australia and nation-wide data on early childhood caries are limited and mostly dated. WA data from children aged 2–3 years, collected in 2006, suggests the prevalence is 2.9% in this state, with national data of children from 0 to 3 years, collected from 2006 and 2008, suggesting an early childhood caries prevalence of 3.4–8% of children aged 18 months, rising sharply by 36 months of age. Nationally, fewer than half the primary caregivers reported following evidence-based oral health recommendations for their young children. Perceptions of the role of dental services for young children tends to be focussed on treatment, rather than surveillance and prevention. Knowledge of dietary and oral hygiene practices is inconsistent and awareness of the Child Dental Benefit Schedule low. Young children’s oral health status is clearly ass

Background Early childhood caries disproportionately affects vulnerable groups and remains a leading cause of preventable hospital admissions for Western Australian children. The Western Australia State Oral Health Plan seeks to improve child oral health through universal and targeted health promotion initiatives with primary caregivers. These initiatives require evidence of primary caregiver oral health knowledge and behaviours and baseline data on early childhood caries. The objective of this systematic scoping review was to understand current oral health knowledge and practices of primary caregivers of children aged 0–4 years, identify influential socioecological determinants, and identify data on early childhood caries in the Western Australian context. Methods A systematic scoping review framework identified articles published between 2010 and 2021, using Scopus, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, selected article reference lists, and oral health websites. The lack of Western Australian specific literature prompted the inclusion of Australia-wide articles. Articles were screened via author consensus, with eight selected. Results Western Australia and nation-wide data on early childhood caries are limited and mostly dated. WA data from children aged 2–3 years, collected in 2006, suggests the prevalence is 2.9% in this state, with national data of children from 0 to 3 years, collected from 2006 and 2008, suggesting an early childhood caries prevalence of 3.4–8% of children aged 18 months, rising sharply by 36 months of age. Nationally, fewer than half the primary caregivers reported following evidence-based oral health recommendations for their young children. Perceptions of the role of dental services for young children tends to be focussed on treatment, rather than surveillance and prevention. Knowledge of dietary and oral hygiene practices is inconsistent and awareness of the Child Dental Benefit Schedule low. Young children’s oral health status is clearly ass

The goal of this doctoral research is to automatically predict difficult words in a text for non-native speakers. This prediction is crucial because good text comprehension is strongly determined by vocabulary. If a text contains too high a percentage of unknown words, the reader is likely to struggle to understand it. In order to provide good support to the non-native reader, we must first be able to predict the number of difficult words. Usually, we do this manually based on expertise or prior vocabulary tests. However, such methods are not practical when we are reading in a computer-based environment such as a tablet or an online learning platform. In these cases, we need to properly automate the predictions. The thesis is divided into three parts. The first part contains a systematic review of the relevant scientific literature. The synthesis includes 50 years of research and 140 peer-reviewed publications on the statistical prediction of lexical competence in non-native readers. Among other things, the analyses show that the scientific scope is divided into two fields of research that have little connection with each other. On the one hand, there is a long tradition of experimental research in foreign language acquisition (SLA) and computer-assisted language learning (CALL). These experimental studies mainly test the effect of certain factors (e.g., repeating difficult words or adding electronic glosses) on learning unrecognized words during reading. On the other hand, recent studies in natural language processing (NLP) rely on artificial intelligence to automatically predict difficult words. Moreover, the literature review points out some limitations that were further studied in this doctoral research. The first limitation is the lack of contextualized measures and predictions. Although we know from research that the context in which a word occurs is an important factor, predictions are often made based on isolated vocabulary tests, among other things. The sec, L'objectif de cette recherche doctorale est la prédiction automatique des mots difficiles dans un texte pour les locuteurs non natifs. Cette prédiction est cruciale car une bonne compréhension d'un texte est fortement déterminée par le vocabulaire. Si un texte contient un pourcentage élevé de mots inconnus, le lecteur aura probablement des difficultés à comprendre le texte. Afin de fournir un bon soutien au lecteur de langue étrangère, nous devons d'abord être en mesure de prédire le nombre de mots difficiles. En général, nous le faisons manuellement en nous basant sur notre expertise ou sur des tests de vocabulaire antérieurs. Cependant, ces méthodes ne sont pas pratiques lorsque nous lisons dans un environnement informatique tel qu'une tablette ou une plateforme d'apprentissage en ligne. Dans ces cas, nous devons automatiser correctement les prédictions. La thèse est divisée en trois parties. La première partie contient un examen systématique de la littérature scientifique pertinente. La synthèse comprend 50 ans de recherche et 140 publications évaluées par des pairs sur la prédiction statistique de la compétence lexicale chez les lecteurs non natifs. Les analyses montrent, entre autres, que le champ scientifique est divisé en deux domaines de recherche peu connectés. D'une part, il existe une longue tradition de recherche expérimentale en matière d'acquisition de langues étrangères (SLA) et d'apprentissage des langues assisté par ordinateur (CALL). Ces études expérimentales testent principalement l'effet de certains facteurs (par exemple, la répétition de mots difficiles ou l'ajout de glosses électroniques) sur l'apprentissage de mots non familiers pendant la lecture. D'autre part, des études récentes sur le traitement du langage naturel (NLP) s'appuient sur l'intelligence artificielle pour prédire automatiquement les mots difficiles. En outre, l'étude de la littérature met en évidence certaines limites qui ont été approfondies dans le cadre de cette recherche do, (LALE - Langues et lettres) -- UCL, 2021

Background Early childhood caries disproportionately affects vulnerable groups and remains a leading cause of preventable hospital admissions for Western Australian children. The Western Australia State Oral Health Plan seeks to improve child oral health through universal and targeted health promotion initiatives with primary caregivers. These initiatives require evidence of primary caregiver oral health knowledge and behaviours and baseline data on early childhood caries. The objective of this systematic scoping review was to understand current oral health knowledge and practices of primary caregivers of children aged 0–4 years, identify influential socioecological determinants, and identify data on early childhood caries in the Western Australian context. Methods A systematic scoping review framework identified articles published between 2010 and 2021, using Scopus, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, selected article reference lists, and oral health websites. The lack of Western Australian specific literature prompted the inclusion of Australia-wide articles. Articles were screened via author consensus, with eight selected. Results Western Australia and nation-wide data on early childhood caries are limited and mostly dated. WA data from children aged 2–3 years, collected in 2006, suggests the prevalence is 2.9% in this state, with national data of children from 0 to 3 years, collected from 2006 and 2008, suggesting an early childhood caries prevalence of 3.4–8% of children aged 18 months, rising sharply by 36 months of age. Nationally, fewer than half the primary caregivers reported following evidence-based oral health recommendations for their young children. Perceptions of the role of dental services for young children tends to be focussed on treatment, rather than surveillance and prevention. Knowledge of dietary and oral hygiene practices is inconsistent and awareness of the Child Dental Benefit Schedule low. Young children’s oral health status is clearly ass

Background Early childhood caries disproportionately affects vulnerable groups and remains a leading cause of preventable hospital admissions for Western Australian children. The Western Australia State Oral Health Plan seeks to improve child oral health through universal and targeted health promotion initiatives with primary caregivers. These initiatives require evidence of primary caregiver oral health knowledge and behaviours and baseline data on early childhood caries. The objective of this systematic scoping review was to understand current oral health knowledge and practices of primary caregivers of children aged 0–4 years, identify influential socioecological determinants, and identify data on early childhood caries in the Western Australian context. Methods A systematic scoping review framework identified articles published between 2010 and 2021, using Scopus, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, selected article reference lists, and oral health websites. The lack of Western Australian specific literature prompted the inclusion of Australia-wide articles. Articles were screened via author consensus, with eight selected. Results Western Australia and nation-wide data on early childhood caries are limited and mostly dated. WA data from children aged 2–3 years, collected in 2006, suggests the prevalence is 2.9% in this state, with national data of children from 0 to 3 years, collected from 2006 and 2008, suggesting an early childhood caries prevalence of 3.4–8% of children aged 18 months, rising sharply by 36 months of age. Nationally, fewer than half the primary caregivers reported following evidence-based oral health recommendations for their young children. Perceptions of the role of dental services for young children tends to be focussed on treatment, rather than surveillance and prevention. Knowledge of dietary and oral hygiene practices is inconsistent and awareness of the Child Dental Benefit Schedule low. Young children’s oral health status is clearly ass

Background Early childhood caries disproportionately affects vulnerable groups and remains a leading cause of preventable hospital admissions for Western Australian children. The Western Australia State Oral Health Plan seeks to improve child oral health through universal and targeted health promotion initiatives with primary caregivers. These initiatives require evidence of primary caregiver oral health knowledge and behaviours and baseline data on early childhood caries. The objective of this systematic scoping review was to understand current oral health knowledge and practices of primary caregivers of children aged 0–4 years, identify influential socioecological determinants, and identify data on early childhood caries in the Western Australian context. Methods A systematic scoping review framework identified articles published between 2010 and 2021, using Scopus, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, selected article reference lists, and oral health websites. The lack of Western Australian specific literature prompted the inclusion of Australia-wide articles. Articles were screened via author consensus, with eight selected. Results Western Australia and nation-wide data on early childhood caries are limited and mostly dated. WA data from children aged 2–3 years, collected in 2006, suggests the prevalence is 2.9% in this state, with national data of children from 0 to 3 years, collected from 2006 and 2008, suggesting an early childhood caries prevalence of 3.4–8% of children aged 18 months, rising sharply by 36 months of age. Nationally, fewer than half the primary caregivers reported following evidence-based oral health recommendations for their young children. Perceptions of the role of dental services for young children tends to be focussed on treatment, rather than surveillance and prevention. Knowledge of dietary and oral hygiene practices is inconsistent and awareness of the Child Dental Benefit Schedule low. Young children’s oral health status is clearly ass

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed to generate the most reliable medical knowledge. However, RCTs are not always scientifically necessary and therefore not always ethical. Unfortunately, it is not clear when an RCT is not necessary or how this should be established. This study seeks to systematically catalogue justifications offered throughout the medical and ethics literature for performing randomisation within clinical trials.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search electronic databases of the medical literature including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov; databases of philosophical literature including Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE, National Reference Centre for Bioethics; the library catalogue at the University of Ottawa; bibliographies of retrieved papers; and the grey literature. We will also pursue suggestions from experts in the fields of medical ethics, philosophy and clinical trial methodology. Article screening, selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted to resolve any discrepancies. We will then extract the reasons given to justify randomisation using methodology established to extract data in a defensible, systematic manner. We will track the reasons given, their frequency of use and changes over time. Finally, using grounded theory, we will combine the reasons into broader themes. These themes will form the foundation of our subsequent analysis from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. This review will map existing arguments that clinicians, ethicists and philosophers use to ethically justify randomisation in clinical trials.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics board approval is necessary because we are not examining patient-le

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed to generate the most reliable medical knowledge. However, RCTs are not always scientifically necessary and therefore not always ethical. Unfortunately, it is not clear when an RCT is not necessary or how this should be established. This study seeks to systematically catalogue justifications offered throughout the medical and ethics literature for performing randomisation within clinical trials.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search electronic databases of the medical literature including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov; databases of philosophical literature including Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE, National Reference Centre for Bioethics; the library catalogue at the University of Ottawa; bibliographies of retrieved papers; and the grey literature. We will also pursue suggestions from experts in the fields of medical ethics, philosophy and clinical trial methodology. Article screening, selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted to resolve any discrepancies. We will then extract the reasons given to justify randomisation using methodology established to extract data in a defensible, systematic manner. We will track the reasons given, their frequency of use and changes over time. Finally, using grounded theory, we will combine the reasons into broader themes. These themes will form the foundation of our subsequent analysis from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. This review will map existing arguments that clinicians, ethicists and philosophers use to ethically justify randomisation in clinical trials.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics board approval is necessary because we are not examining patient-le

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed to generate the most reliable medical knowledge. However, RCTs are not always scientifically necessary and therefore not always ethical. Unfortunately, it is not clear when an RCT is not necessary or how this should be established. This study seeks to systematically catalogue justifications offered throughout the medical and ethics literature for performing randomisation within clinical trials.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search electronic databases of the medical literature including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov; databases of philosophical literature including Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE, National Reference Centre for Bioethics; the library catalogue at the University of Ottawa; bibliographies of retrieved papers; and the grey literature. We will also pursue suggestions from experts in the fields of medical ethics, philosophy and clinical trial methodology. Article screening, selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted to resolve any discrepancies. We will then extract the reasons given to justify randomisation using methodology established to extract data in a defensible, systematic manner. We will track the reasons given, their frequency of use and changes over time. Finally, using grounded theory, we will combine the reasons into broader themes. These themes will form the foundation of our subsequent analysis from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. This review will map existing arguments that clinicians, ethicists and philosophers use to ethically justify randomisation in clinical trials.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics board approval is necessary because we are not examining patient-le

Realist review has emerged as a specific literature review approach that is concerned with explaining the outcomes of complex intervention programs. We undertook a systematic scoping review to examine the current practice of realist review. A systematic scoping review is a process of mapping the existing evidence base on a particular topic. We identified a growing body of literature using the realist review approach. We selected 54 reviews for our study. These reviews covered a range of topics, including health care, education, management, and public safety. We found that the initial process of exploratory scoping of the literature was described in only 58 per cent of the reviews. The approaches regarding appraisal, analysis, and synthesis of the selected studies were poorly described in most reviews. Overall, there was little uniformity and transparency regarding many methodological issues. Specific methodological guidance may need to be developed if realist reviews are to have a more uniform and transparent approach.

Andrew, L., Wallace, R., Wickens, N., & Patel, J. (2021). Early childhood caries, primary caregiver oral health knowledge and behaviours and associated sociological factors in Australia: A systematic scoping review. BMC Oral Health, 21, article 521. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01887-4

Andrew, L., Wallace, R., Wickens, N., & Patel, J. (2021). Early childhood caries, primary caregiver oral health knowledge and behaviours and associated sociological factors in Australia: A systematic scoping review. BMC Oral Health, 21, article 521. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01887-4