Search

Background: Information exchange regarding the scope and content of health studies is becoming increasingly important. Digital methods, including study websites, can facilitate such an exchange., Objective: This scoping review aimed to describe how digital information exchange occurs between the public and researchers in health studies., Methods: This scoping review was prospectively registered and adheres to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Eligibility was defined using the population (public and researchers), concept (digital information exchange), and context (health studies) framework. Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science), bibliographies of the included studies, and Google Scholar were searched up to February 2024. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals were screened for inclusion based on the title, abstract, and full text. Data items charted from studies included bibliographic and PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) characteristics. Data were processed into categories that inductively emerged from the data and were synthesized into main themes using descriptive statistics., Results: Overall, 4072 records were screened, and 18 studies published between 2010 and 2021 were included. All studies evaluated or assessed the preferences for digital information exchange. The target populations included the public (mainly adults with any or specific diseases), researchers, or both. The digital information exchange methods included websites, emails, forums, platforms, social media, and portals. Interactivity (ie, if digital information exchange is or should be active or passive) was addressed in half of the studies. Exchange content included health information or data with the aim to inform, recruit, link, or gather innovative research ideas from participants in health studies. We identified 7 facilitators and 9 barriers to digital information exchange. The main facilitators were the consideration of any stakeholder perspectives and needs to clarify expectations and responsibilities, the use of modern or low-cost communication technologies and public-oriented language, and continuous communication of the health study process. The main barriers were that information exchange was not planned or not feasible due to inadequate resources, highly complex technical language was used, and ethical concerns (eg, breach of anonymity if study participants are brought together) were raised. Evidence gaps indicate that new studies should assess the methods and the receiver (ie, public) preferences and needs that are required to deliver and facilitate interactive digital information exchange., Conclusions: Few studies addressing digital information exchange in health studies could be identified in this review. There was little focus on interactivity in such an exchange. Digital information exchange was associated with more barriers than facilitators, suggesting that more effort is required to improve such an exchange between the public and researchers. Future studies should investigate interactive digital methods and the receiver preferences and needs required for such an exchange., (©Nazli Soltani, Thilo Dietz, Doris Ochterbeck, Jens Dierkes, Katja Restel, Lara Christianson, Karina Karolina De Santis, Hajo Zeeb. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 28.01.2025.)

Background: Wearable technologies have the potential to support health promotion and disease prevention. However, it remains unclear how the role of social determinants of health (SDoH) and digital determinants of health (DDoH) plays in this context., Objective: This study investigates differences in sociodemographic factors and digital health literacy between wearable users and non-users, whether the association with wearable use varies across age groups and its potential mediator., Methods: A cross-sectional nationwide telephone survey was conducted in November 2022 in a panel of adult internet users in Germany. Assessments included self-reported wearable use, sociodemographic factors (sex, age, education, household size and income, and residence region), and digital health literacy (measured with the eHealth Literacy Scale, eHEALS). Associations between wearable use, sociodemographic factors and digital health literacy were analyzed using binomial logistic regression models in the total sample and with age group stratification, with a supplementary mediation analysis examining digital health literacy as a mediator in the relationship between age and wearable use., Results: Overall, 24% (223/932) of participants (52% male, mean age 55.6 years) reported using wearables for health. Wearable use was lower among participants aged 65 and above, with lower educational attainment, living in 1-2 person households, with below-average household income, and residing in smaller cities or former East Germany. Wearable use prevalence is substantially lower in older age groups (18-40: 36%; 41-64: 26%; 65+:14%). Wearable users reported higher levels of digital health literacy (mean: 30.7, SD = 5) than non-users (mean: 28.3, SD = 6). Stratified analyses indicate that the association between digital health literacy and wearable use varies by age group, with significant positive association observed in older age groups (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07 in age group 18-40; OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.12 in age group 41-64; OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.19 in age group 65+). Mediation analysis indicated that digital health literacy partially mediates the relationship between age and wearable use (indirect effect: coefficient = -0.0156, 95% CI: -0.0244 to -0.00791, p <.001)., Conclusions: This study indicates sociodemographic disparities in wearable use among the German population and differences in digital health literacy between wearable users and non-users. A generational divide in wearable use was identified, with older adults being less likely to embrace this technology. This was especially true for older adults with lower digital health literacy. Future public health initiatives employing health technologies should take SDoH and DDoH into consideration to ensure effective and equitable impacts., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of Interest: The authors have no competing interests to declare which are relevant to the content of this article. Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare which are relevant to the content of this article. Ethical Statement: The study adheres to the ethical guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained verbally from all participants prior to their interviews due to the nature of the study being conducted via telephone, which precluded the possibility of obtaining written consent. Participant anonymity was strictly maintained throughout the study. All data collected were anonymized, and no personally identifiable information was recorded. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. Additionally, the survey items were carefully designed to ensure that they did not pose any physical, psychological, or social risks to the participants. An ethical waiver was not sought for the study as the data were externally acquired from a market research company (Cerner Enviza GmbH, Germany, which now belongs to Cerner Oracle GmbH)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: Rapid digitisation of health occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. In October 2020, we conducted a survey on digital health technology use in Germany. This study aimed to conduct a second survey to investigate in more detail the internet use in health context and digital technology use for health promotion and disease prevention in Germany., Methods: A cross-sectional, nationwide telephone survey was conducted in November 2022. Anonymous data on internet and digital technology use, digital health literacy, and sociodemographic characteristics were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regressions., Results: The 1020 participants were aged 18-92 years, 53% were male, 62% completed primary or secondary education, 71% resided in large cities, and 45% reported a country-average net household income. Overall, 61% reported internet use in health context via 1-4 devices. Among those, more than 50% used the internet and apps to obtain general health information and less than 50% used digital technologies for physical activity promotion or cancer prevention. Overall, 34% were confident in using the internet for health decisions and 71% preferred to receive health information non-digitally (e.g. on paper). Internet, app, and digital technology use were associated with higher digital health literacy and income, and residence in larger cities. Digital technologies were used for physical activity promotion by younger and for cancer prevention by older participants., Conclusion: The internet and digital technologies were predominantly used to obtain health information, but less often for health promotion and disease prevention in 2022 in Germany. While health app and digital technology use for physical activity promotion increased, the confidence in using online information for health decisions decreased in 2022 relative to 2020. Factors that promote confidence in online health information and digital technology use for health promotion and disease prevention need to be investigated in future studies., Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with severe disruptions in healthcare worldwide. Cancer patients are at particular risk of adverse consequences from delays in diagnosis and treatment. To evaluate the available data on the impact of the pandemic on cancer diagnoses, oncological care and patient well-being in Germany, the German Society for Epidemiology (DGEpi) in collaboration with the Epidemiological Cancer Registry of Lower Saxony invited to a workshop on "COVID & Cancer" (held on 26-27 October 2023 in Hanover, Germany). This report provides a summary of the scientific presentations, highlights methodological challenges, and recognises essential evidence gaps., Methods: Twelve studies addressing various aspects in relation to cancer diagnoses, oncological care and patient well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany and two talks sharing experiences from the UK and the Netherlands were presented at the workshop., Results and Conclusions: Results from German cancer registries consistently showed lower number of incident cancer diagnoses among adults during the first months of the pandemic compared to the respective months of the years before the pandemic. Data from the cancer registries of Baden-Württemberg and Lower Saxony found especially for breast cancer a notable drop (by approximately one third) in the numbers of diagnoses during the first restriction period (April-May 2020), during which the nationwide mammography screening programme in Germany was temporarily suspended. Overall, the extent and ways, in which the pandemic had adversely affected cancer diagnoses, oncological care and created service backlogs, is still not adequately understood. The long-term consequences are yet to be determined., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Recommender systems, digital tools providing recommendations, and digital nudges increasingly affect our lives. The combination of digital nudges and recommender systems is very attractive for its application in preventing overweight and obesity. However, linking recommender systems with personalised digital nudges has a potential yet to be fully exploited. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a scoping review to identify which digital nudges or recommender systems or their combinations have been used in obesity prevention and to map these systems according to the target population, health behaviour, system classification (eg, mechanisms for developing recommendations, delivery channels, personalisation, interconnection, used combination), and system implementation., Methods and Analysis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guideline was used to inform protocol development. The eligibility criteria are based on the PCC framework (Population: any human; Concept: recommender systems or digital nudges; Context: obesity prevention). MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINHAL, Scopus, ACM Digital Library and IEEE Xplore were searched until September 2023. Primary studies with any design published in peer-reviewed academic journals and peer-reviewed conference papers will be included. Data will be extracted into a pre-developed extraction sheet. Results will be synthesised descriptively and narratively., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethical approval is required for the scoping review, as data will be obtained from publicly available sources. The results of this scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and used to inform the co-creation process and intervention adaptation in the context of a HealthyW8 project (www.healthyw8.eu)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: This cross-sectional study investigated the online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies., Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception up to May 2023. Cochrane reviews with any population (P), intervention or concept supported by any digital technology (I), any or no comparison (C), and any health outcome (O) were included. Data on review characteristics (bibliographic information, PICO, and evidence quality) and dissemination strategies were extracted and processed. Dissemination was assessed using review information on the Cochrane website and Altmetric data that trace the mentions of academic publications in nonacademic online channels. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression analysis., Results: Out of 170 records identified in the search, 100 Cochrane reviews, published between 2005 and 2023, were included. The reviews focused on consumers (e.g. patients, n = 86), people of any age (n = 44), and clinical populations (n = 68). All reviews addressed interventions or concepts supported by digital technologies with any devices (n = 73), mobile devices (n = 17), or computers (n = 10). The outcomes focused on disease treatment (n = 56), health promotion and disease prevention (n = 27), or management of care delivery (n = 17). All reviews included 1-132 studies, and half included 1-10 studies. Meta-analysis was performed in 69 reviews, and certainty of evidence was rated as high or moderate for at least one outcome in 46 reviews. In agreement with the Cochrane guidelines, all reviews had a plain language summary (PLS) that was available in 3-14 languages. The reviews were disseminated (i.e. mentioned online) predominantly via X/Twitter (n = 99) and Facebook (n = 69). Overall, 51 reviews were mentioned in up to 25% and 49 reviews in 5% of all research outputs traced by Altmetric data. Dissemination (i.e. higher Altmetric scores) was associated with bibliographic review characteristics (i.e. earlier publication year and PLS available in more languages), but not with evidence quality (i.e. certainty of evidence rating, number of studies, or meta-analysis performed in review)., Conclusions: Online attention towards Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies is high. Dissemination is higher for older reviews and reviews with more PLS translations. Measures are required to improve dissemination of Cochrane reviews based on evidence quality., Systematic Review Registration: The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/mpw8u/ )., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The Disaster Preparedness Evaluation Tool (DPET) with 47 items was developed to assess the disaster preparedness level among nurses in the USA. Aim: This study aimed (1) to adapt and validate the DPET for the nursing context in Germany and (2) to perform its psychometric evaluation. Methods: The DPET items were translated to German (DPET-GER). Adaptation was performed to identify irrelevant items and content validity was estimated using the scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) based on expert ratings. Psychometric evaluation was performed based on data from an online survey of 317 nurses. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and factor structure were assessed with an exploratory factor analysis. Results: Ten items were unanimously rated as irrelevant by four experts and removed. Based on ratings by further seven experts, the content validity of DPET-GER was low for all 37 items (S-CVI of 0.53) or moderate for 19 items rated as relevant (S-CVI of 0.74). The internal consistency of DPET-GER was high (Cronbach's alpha of 0.94) and 37 items were reduced to five factors that explain 55% of variance in all items. Conclusions: The DPET-GER has acceptable psychometric properties (internal consistency and factor structure). However, low content validity indicates that further adaptation of the DPET-GER is required before it could be used to assess disaster preparedness among nurses in Germany. More research is also needed to contextualize the construct of disaster preparedness.

Background: Combining non-specialists and digital technologies in mental health interventions could decrease the mental healthcare gap in resource scarce countries. This systematic review examined different combinations of non-specialists and digital technologies in mental health interventions and their effectiveness in reducing the mental healthcare gap in low-and middle-income countries., Methods: Literature searches were conducted in four databases (September 2023), three trial registries (January-February 2022), and using forward and backward citation searches (May-June 2022). The review included primary studies on mental health interventions combining non-specialists and digital technologies in low-and middle-income countries. The outcomes were: (1) the mental health of intervention receivers and (2) the competencies of non-specialists to deliver mental health interventions. Data were expressed as standardised effect sizes (Cohen's d) and narratively synthesised. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for individual and cluster randomised and non-randomised controlled trials., Results: Of the 28 included studies (n = 32 interventions), digital technology was mainly used in non-specialist primary-delivery treatment models for common mental disorders or subthreshold symptoms. The competencies of non-specialists were improved with digital training (d ≤ 0.8 in 4/7 outcomes, n = 4 studies, 398 participants). The mental health of receivers improved through non-specialist-delivered interventions, in which digital technologies were used to support the delivery of the intervention (d > 0.8 in 24/40 outcomes, n = 11, 2469) or to supervise the non-specialists' work (d = 0.2-0.8 in 10/17 outcomes, n = 3, 3096). Additionally, the mental health of service receivers improved through digitally delivered mental health services with non-specialist involvement (d = 0.2-0.8 in 12/27 outcomes, n = 8, 2335). However, the overall certainty of the evidence was poor., Conclusion: Incorporating digital technologies into non-specialist mental health interventions tended to enhance non-specialists' competencies and knowledge in intervention delivery, and had a positive influence on the severity of mental health problems, mental healthcare utilization, and psychosocial functioning outcomes of service recipients, primarily within primary-deliverer care models. More robust evidence is needed to compare the magnitude of effectiveness and identify the clinical relevance of specific digital functions. Future studies should also explore long-term and potential adverse effects and interventions targeting men and marginalised communities., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Several systematic reviews have addressed digital technology use for treatment and monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)., Objective: This study aimed to assess if systematic reviews considered the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of such systematic reviews. The objectives of this overview were to (1) describe the definitions of sex or gender used in reviews; (2) determine whether the consideration of sex, gender, or age was planned in reviews; (3) determine whether sex, gender, or age was reported in review results; (4) determine whether sex, gender, or age was incorporated in implications for clinical practice in reviews; and (5) create an evidence map for development of individualized clinical recommendations for COPD based on sex, gender, or age diversity., Methods: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, and the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews were searched to June 2022. Inclusion was based on the PICOS framework: (1) population (COPD), (2) intervention (any digital technology), (3) comparison (any), (4) outcome (any), and (5) study type (systematic review). Studies were independently selected by 2 authors based on title and abstract and full-text screening. Data were extracted by 1 author and checked by another author. Data items included systematic review characteristics; PICOS criteria; and variables related to sex, gender, or age. Systematic reviews were appraised using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics., Results: Of 1439 records, 30 systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2022 were included in this overview. The confidence in the results of 25 of the 30 (83%) reviews was critically low according to AMSTAR 2. The reviews focused on user outcomes that potentially depend on sex, gender, or age, such as efficacy or effectiveness (25/30, 83%) and acceptance, satisfaction, or adherence (3/30, 10%) to digital technologies for COPD. Reviews reported sex or gender (19/30 systematic reviews) or age (25/30 systematic reviews) among primary study characteristics. However, only 1 of 30 reviews included age in a subgroup analysis, and 3 of 30 reviews identified the effects of sex, gender, or age as evidence gaps., Conclusions: This overview shows that the effects of sex, gender, or age were rarely considered in 30 systematic reviews of digital technologies for COPD treatment and monitoring. Furthermore, systematic reviews did not incorporate sex, gender, nor age in their implications for clinical practice. We recommend that future systematic reviews should (1) evaluate the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD and (2) better adhere to reporting guidelines to improve the confidence in review results., Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display&#95;record.php?RecordID=322924., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/40538., (©Katja Matthias, Ivonne Honekamp, Monique Heinrich, Karina Karolina De Santis. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 29.11.2023.)

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic affected medical care for chronic diseases. This study aimed to systematically assess the pandemic impact on oncological care in Germany using a rapid review., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, study and preprint registries and study bibliographies were searched for studies published between 2020 and 2 November 2022. Inclusion was based on the PCC framework: population (cancer), concept (oncological care) and context (COVID-19 pandemic in Germany). Studies were selected after title/abstract and full-text screening by two authors. Extracted data were synthesized using descriptive statistics or narratively. Risk of bias was assessed and summarized using descriptive statistics., Results: Overall, 77 records (59 peer-reviewed studies and 18 reports) with administrative, cancer registry and survey data were included. Disruptions in oncological care were reported and varied according to pandemic-related factors (e.g., pandemic stage) and other (non-pandemic) factors (e.g., care details). During higher restriction periods fewer consultations and non-urgent surgeries, and delayed diagnosis and screening were consistently reported. Heterogeneous results were reported for treatment types other than surgery (e.g., psychosocial care) and aftercare, while ongoing care remained mostly unchanged. The risk of bias was on average moderate., Conclusions: Disruptions in oncological care were reported during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Such disruptions probably depended on factors that were insufficiently controlled for in statistical analyses and evidence quality was on average only moderate. Research focus on patient outcomes (e.g., longer term consequences of disruptions) and pandemic management by healthcare systems is potentially relevant for future pandemics or health emergencies., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: To facilitate the development of impactful research dissemination strategies, this study aimed to: (i) survey authors of trials included in a sample of Cochrane reviews to describe strategies to disseminate trial findings, and examine their association with academic and policy impacts and (ii) audit academic and policy impact of CPH reviews., Methods: Authors of 104 trials within identified Cochrane reviews completed survey items assessing the dissemination strategies. Field weighted citation (FWCI) data extracted from bibliographic databases served as a measure of academic impact of trials and CPH reviews. Policy and practice impacts of trials were assessed during the survey of trial authors using items based on the Payback Framework, and for CPH reviews using 'policy mention' data collected via Altmetric Explorer., Results: Among the included trials, univariate (but not multivariable) regression models revealed significant associations between the use of dissemination strategies (i.e. posts on social media; workshops with end-users; media-releases) and policy or practice impacts. No significant associations were reported between dissemination strategies and trial FWCI. The mean FWCI of CPH reviews suggest that they are cited 220% more than other reviews in their field., Conclusions: Comprehensive dissemination strategies are likely required to maximize the potential the potential impacts of public health research., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Appropriate dissemination of public health evidence is of high importance to ensure that scientific knowledge reaches potential stakeholders and relevant population groups. A wide distrust towards science and its findings indicates that communication thereof remains below its potential. Cochrane Public Health provides an important source of high-quality scientific evidence in the field of public health via reviews with systematic methodology. The aims of this study were to identify (1) dissemination strategies and (2) stakeholders of Cochrane Public Health reviews., Methods: This is a bibliographic study with a cross-sectional design. All 68 records (reviews or review protocols) listed on the Cochrane Public Health website ( https://ph.cochrane.org/cph-reviews-and-topics ) up to 8 March 2022 were included. Record characteristics, dissemination strategies, and potential stakeholder details were coded by one author, and 10% of records were checked by another author. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics or narratively into common themes., Results: The 68 records were published between 2010 and 2022 and included 15 review protocols and 53 reviews with systematic methodology (46 systematic, 6 rapid, and 1 scoping review). All 53 reviews were disseminated via open-access plain language summaries (PLS) in English with translations into 3-13 other languages. Other dissemination strategies included information on Cochrane websites (e.g., clinical answers or guidelines) available for 41/53 reviews and Cochrane news or blogs that mentioned 19/53 reviews. Overall, 23/68 records mentioned the actual stakeholder involvement in review production, protocol development, or formulation of dissemination plans. The potential stakeholders included several highly diverse groups, such as the general population or specific communities (e.g., racial minority groups), policy and decision makers, and researchers and professionals in various fields (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, education, or care)., Conclusions: This study shows that Cochrane Public Health reviews are disseminated predominantly via PLS in different languages and via review information on Cochrane websites. Planned dissemination strategies were rarely reported although actual stakeholders were involved in the planning and production of some reviews. The relevance of Cochrane Public Health reviews for non-academic stakeholders and the general population highlights the need for the dissemination of evidence from such reviews beyond academia., Systematic Review Registration: The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ga9pt/ )., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Our aim was to investigate if and how Cochrane nutrition reviews assess dietary adherence to a specific dietary regimen., Study Design and Setting: Cochrane nutrition reviews fulfilling the following criteria were included: systematic review of randomized controlled trials including adults and investigating the effect of caloric restriction, dietary pattern, foods, nutrients, supplements, or other nutrition-related-interventions. Extensive data extraction and descriptive statistics were conducted., Results: Overall, 226 Cochrane reviews were included. Most reviews mentioned dietary adherence in the main text (n = 174), predominantly in the Methods and Results. Dietary adherence was assessed in 76 reviews and defined in 19. It was included in the risk of bias (RoB) assessment in 20 reviews with nine using a newly created RoB domain for dietary adherence, and considered as outcome in 37 reviews. Seventy-five reviews addressed degree of adherence and five treatment effects considering the degree of adherence., Conclusion: Dietary adherence was reported in a heterogeneous manner in Cochrane nutrition reviews. Due to its high importance, we suggest that systematic reviews report the assessment and degree of dietary adherence measured in primary studies. Dietary adherence can further be examined as outcome, evaluated within the RoB (deviations from intended interventions) and included in sensitivity analyses., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Digital technologies have the potential to contribute to health promotion and disease prevention in the aging world., Objective: This study aims to identify digital technologies for health promotion and disease prevention that could be used independently by older people in nonclinical settings using a scoping review., Methods: Through database (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and SCOPUS; to March 3, 2022) and manual searches (to June 14, 2022), 90 primary studies and 8 systematic reviews were included in this scoping review. The eligibility was based on the PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) criteria: (1) people aged 50 years or older (population), (2) any digital (health) technology (eg, smartphone apps, websites, virtual reality; concept), and (3) health promotion and disease prevention in daily life in nonclinical and noninstitutional settings (context). Data items included study characteristics, PCC criteria, opportunities versus challenges, and evidence gaps. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics or narratively described by identifying common themes., Results: The studies were published in 2005-2022 and originated predominantly from North America and Europe. Most primary studies were nonrandomized, reported quantitative data, and investigated effectiveness or feasibility (eg, acceptance or usability) of digital technologies in older people. The participants were aged 50 years to 99 years, predominantly female, affluent (ie, with high income, education, and digital competence), and intended to use or used digital technologies for a median of 3 months independently at home or in community settings. The digital technologies included mobile or nonmobile technologies or virtual reality. The studies used "modern devices" (eg, smartphones, wearables, or gaming consoles) or modern and "older devices" (eg, computers or mobile phones). The users interacted with digital technologies via websites, emails, text messages, apps, or virtual reality. Health targets of digital technologies were mobility, mental health, nutrition, or cognition. The opportunities versus challenges of digital technologies were (1) potential health benefits versus unclear or no benefits for some outcomes, (2) monitoring of health versus ethical issues with data collection and management, (3) implications for functioning in daily life (ie, potential to prolong independent living) versus unclear application for clinical management or care, (4) tailoring of technical properties and content toward older users versus general use, (5) importance of human support for feasibility versus other factors required to improve feasibility, (6) reduction of social isolation versus access to digital technologies, and (7) improvement in digital competence versus digital divide., Conclusions: Various digital technologies were independently used by people aged 50 years or older for health promotion and disease prevention. Future studies should focus on (1) more diverse populations of older people, (2) new digital technologies, (3) other (clinical and care) settings, and (4) outcome evaluation to identify factors that could enhance any health benefits of digital technologies., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/37729., (©Karina Karolina De Santis, Lea Mergenthal, Lara Christianson, Annalena Busskamp, Claudia Vonstein, Hajo Zeeb. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 23.03.2023.)

Background: 'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2' (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary aims to describe the challenges with rating of the individual items and the application of AMSTAR 2 from the user perspective., Discussion: A group of six experienced users (methodologists working in different clinical fields for at least 10 years) identified and discussed the challenges in rating of each item and the general use of AMSTAR 2 to appraise SRs. A group discussion was used to develop recommendations on how users could deal with the identified challenges. We identified various challenges with the content of items 2-16 and with the derivation of the overall confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2. These challenges include the need (1) to provide additional definitions (e.g., what constitutes major deviations from SR protocol on item 2), (2) to choose a rating strategy for multiple conditions on single items (e.g., how to rate item 5 if studies were selected in duplicate, but consensus between two authors was not reported), and (3) to determine rules for deriving the confidence ratings (e.g., what items are critical for such ratings). Based on these challenges we formulated specific recommendations for items 2-16 that AMSTAR 2 users could consider before applying the tool. Our commentary adds to the existing literature by providing the first in-depth examination of the AMSTAR 2 tool from the user perspective. The identified challenges could be addressed by additional decision rules including definitions for ambiguous items and guidance for rating of complex items and derivation of confidence ratings. We recommend that a team consensus regarding such decision rules is required before appraisal procedure begins., Trial Registration: Not applicable., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

High-quality systematic reviews (SRs) can strengthen the evidence base for prevention and health promotion. A 16-item AMSTAR 2 tool allows the appraisal of SRs by deriving a confidence rating in their results. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to assess and compare two approaches to appraising 30 SRs of digital interventions for physical activity (PA) promotion using AMSTAR 2. Approach 1 (appraisals with 2/16 items) was used to identify SRs with critically low confidence ratings. Approach 2 (appraisals with all 16 items) was used (1) to derive the confidence ratings, (2) to identify SR strengths and weaknesses, and (3) to compare SR strengths among subgroups of SRs. The appraisal outcomes were summarized and compared using descriptive statistics. Approach 1 was quick (mean of 5 min/SR) at identifying SRs with critically low confidence ratings. Approach 2 was slower (mean of 20 min/SR), but allowed to identify SR strengths and weaknesses. Approach 2 showed that confidence ratings were low to critically low in 29/30 SRs. More strengths were identified in SRs with review protocols relative to SRs without review protocols and in newer SRs (published after AMSTAR 2 release) relative to older SRs. Only two items on AMSTAR 2 can quickly identify SRs with critical weaknesses. Although most SRs received low to critically low confidence ratings, SRs with review protocols and newer SRs tended to have more strengths. Future SRs require review protocols and better adherence to reporting guidelines to improve the confidence in their results.

Objectives: To investigate the reach and impact of "Infomails", email summaries of Cochrane reviews in German, regularly disseminated by Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE) to stakeholders in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Methods: We analysed email campaign reports from 15 Infomails delivered until November 2020. Furthermore, we invited all previous Infomail recipients to participate in an online survey on the impact and perceptions regarding our Infomails in November 2020. We analysed the results using descriptive statistics. Results: The Infomails' open rate ranged from 10.9% to 39.3% (median 26.0%), and the median click rate on the embedded links was 28.0% (range 8.6-53.8%), highest for nutrition and prevention topics. Out of 1259 recipients, 267 (21.2%) completed our survey. Infomails were most used in discussions, writing reports or statements, for policy or strategy development or programme or guideline development. Persons who remembered receiving Infomails rated them as useful, comprehensible or informative. Conclusion: Infomails summarising recent Cochrane reviews were considered useful for the daily work of public health stakeholders in German-speaking countries. Regular targeted messaging may increase the perceived usefulness., Competing Interests: The authors are all either current or previous members of Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE). UG is also a methods editor within Cochrane Public Health., (Copyright © 2022 Griebler, Kien, De Santis, Stratil, Borchard and Heise.)

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common chronic disease that can be treated and monitored with various digital technologies. Digital technologies offer unique opportunities for treating and monitoring people with chronic diseases, but little is known about whether the outcomes of such technologies depend on sex, gender, or age in people with COPD., Objective: The general objective of this study is to assess the possible influence of sex, gender, or age on outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of systematic reviews., Methods: The study is planned as an overview of systematic reviews. Study reporting is based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines because guidelines for overviews are not available as of this writing. The information sources for the overview will include 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and Web of Science) as well as the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews. The electronic search strategy will be developed and conducted in collaboration with an experienced database specialist. The search results will be presented in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The eligibility of studies is based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) criteria: (1) people with COPD (population), (2) digital technology intervention for treatment or monitoring (intervention), (3) any control group or no control group (comparison), (4) any outcome, and (5) systematic review of randomized controlled trials or non-randomized controlled trials with or without a meta-analysis (study design). Critical appraisal of the included systematic reviews will be performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data will be extracted using a standardized data extraction sheet., Results: The literature search is scheduled for June 2022. We expect to select the relevant systematic reviews, code the data, and appraise the systematic reviews by December 2022., Conclusions: There is a growing recognition that the influence of sex, gender, or age should be considered in research design and outcome reporting in the context of health care interventions. Our overview will identify systematic reviews of various digital technologies for treatment or monitoring of COPD. The most interesting aspect of the overview will be to investigate if any systematic reviews considered the influence of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of such digital technologies in COPD. Evidence from the overview could be used to guide more individualized (sex, gender, or age-based) recommendations for the use of digital technologies among people with COPD., Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display&#95;record.php?RecordID=322924., (©Katja Matthias, Ivonne Honekamp, Karina Karolina De Santis. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 12.10.2022.)

Purpose: This systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis aimed to investigate the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes for total knee arthroplasty (TKA)., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched up to February 2020 for randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that reported TKA performed in hospitals with at least two different volumes and any associated patient-relevant outcomes. The adjusted effect estimates (odds ratios, OR) were pooled using a random-effects, linear dose-response meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I 2 -statistic. ROBINS-I and the GRADE approach were used to assess the risk of bias and the confidence in the cumulative evidence, respectively., Results: A total of 68 cohort studies with data from 1985 to 2018 were included. The risk of bias for all outcomes ranged from moderate to critical. Higher hospital volume may be associated with a lower rate of early revision ≤ 12 months (narrative synthesis of k = 7 studies, n = 301,378 patients) and is likely associated with lower mortality ≤ 3 months (OR = 0.91 per additional 50 TKAs/year, 95% confidence interval [0.87-0.95], k = 9, n = 2,638,996, I 2  = 51%) and readmissions ≤ 3 months (OR = 0.98 [0.97-0.99], k = 3, n = 830,381, I 2  = 44%). Hospital volume may not be associated with the rates of deep infections within 1-4 years, late revision (1-10 years) or adverse events ≤ 3 months. The confidence in the cumulative evidence was moderate for mortality and readmission rates; low for early revision rates; and very low for deep infection, late revision and adverse event rates., Conclusion: An inverse volume-outcome relationship probably exists for some TKA outcomes, including mortality and readmissions, and may exist for early revisions. Small reductions in unfavourable outcomes may be clinically relevant at the population level, supporting centralisation of TKA to high-volume hospitals., Level of Evidence: III., Registration Number: The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42019131209 available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display&#95;record.php?RecordID=131209 )., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Digital technologies could contribute to health promotion and disease prevention. It is unclear if and how such digital technologies address the health needs of older people in nonclinical settings (ie, daily life)., Objective: This study aims to identify digital technologies for health promotion and disease prevention that target the needs of older people in nonclinical settings by performing a scoping review of the published literature. The scoping review is guided by the framework of Arksey and O'Malley., Methods: Our scoping review follows the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The information sources are bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and SCOPUS) and bibliographies of any included systematic reviews. Manual searches for additional studies will be performed in Google Scholar and most relevant journals. The electronic search strategy was developed in collaboration with a librarian who performed the search for studies on digital technologies for health promotion and disease prevention targeting the needs of older people. Study selection and data coding will be performed independently by 2 authors. Consensus will be reached by discussion. Eligibility is based on the PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) criteria as follows: (1) older people (population); (2) any digital (health) technology, such as websites, smartphone apps, or wearables (concept); and (3) health promotion and disease prevention in nonclinical (daily life, home, or community) settings (context). Primary studies with any design or reviews with a systematic methodology published in peer-reviewed academic journals will be included. Data items will address study designs, PCC criteria, benefits or barriers related to digital technology use by older people, and evidence gaps. Data will be synthesized using descriptive statistics or narratively described by identifying common themes. Quality appraisal will be performed for any included systematic reviews, using a validated instrument for this study type (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 [AMSTAR2])., Results: Following preliminary literature searches to test and calibrate the search syntax, the electronic literature search was performed in March 2022 and manual searches were completed in June 2022. Study selection based on titles and abstracts was completed in July 2022, and the full-text screen was initiated in July 2022., Conclusions: Our scoping review will identify the types of digital technologies, health targets in the context of health promotion and disease prevention, and health benefits or barriers associated with the use of such technologies for older people in nonclinical settings. This knowledge could guide further research on how digital technologies can support healthy aging., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): PRR1-10.2196/37729., (©Karina Karolina De Santis, Lea Mergenthal, Lara Christianson, Hajo Zeeb. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 21.07.2022.)

'A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, version 2' (AMSTAR2) is a 16-item tool to critically appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions. This study aimed to assess the methods and outcomes of AMSTAR2 appraisals in overviews of SRs of interventions for mental and behavioural disorders. The cross-sectional study was conducted using 32 overviews of SRs selected from three electronic databases in January 2021. Data items included overview and SR characteristics and AMSTAR2 appraisal methods and outcomes. Data were extracted by two authors independently and narratively synthesised using descriptive statistics (means ± SD and relative frequencies). SR characteristics were compared based on AMSTAR2 appraisal outcomes using chi-square tests. The 32 overviews appraised SRs of predominantly non-pharmacological interventions for mental disorders. AMSTAR2 appraisals were reported as confidence ratings in 25/32 overviews or individual item scores in 24/32 overviews. Most SRs/overview were non-Cochrane (mean = 94%), included RCTs only (mean = 77%) and were published before AMSTAR2 release (mean = 79%). The confidence ratings derived in 25 overviews for 349 SRs were predominantly critically low (68%). Confidence ratings were similar for SRs with RCTs only versus RCTs+non-RCTs or SRs published before versus after AMSTAR2 release, while Cochrane SRs received more high+moderate than low+critically low confidence ratings (p < 0.01). Confidence ratings derived based on AMSTAR2 do not differentiate among SRs of healthcare interventions except for Cochrane SRs that fulfil the criteria for high confidence ratings. AMSTAR2 items should be consulted to avoid common weaknesses in future SRs., (© 2021 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Digital interventions are interventions supported by digital tools or technologies, such as mobile apps, wearables, or web-based software. Digital interventions in the context of public health are specifically designed to promote and improve health. Recent reviews have shown that many digital interventions target physical activity promotion; however, it is unclear how such digital interventions are evaluated., Objective: We aimed to investigate evaluation strategies in the context of digital interventions for physical activity promotion using a scoping review of published reviews. We focused on the target (ie, user outcomes or tool performance), methods (ie, tool data or self-reported data), and theoretical frameworks of the evaluation strategies., Methods: A protocol for this study was preregistered and published. From among 300 reviews published up to March 19, 2021 in Medline, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases, 40 reviews (1 rapid, 9 scoping, and 30 systematic) were included in this scoping review. Two authors independently performed study selection and data coding. Consensus was reached by discussion. If applicable, data were coded quantitatively into predefined categories or qualitatively using definitions or author statements from the included reviews. Data were analyzed using either descriptive statistics, for quantitative data (relative frequencies out of all studies), or narrative synthesis focusing on common themes, for qualitative data., Results: Most reviews that were included in our scoping review were published in the period from 2019 to 2021 and originated from Europe or Australia. Most primary studies cited in the reviews included adult populations in clinical or nonclinical settings, and focused on mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion. The evaluation target was a user outcome (efficacy, acceptability, usability, feasibility, or engagement) in 38 of the 40 reviews or tool performance in 24 of the 40 reviews. Evaluation methods relied upon objective tool data (in 35/40 reviews) or other data from self-reports or assessments (in 28/40 reviews). Evaluation frameworks based on behavior change theory, including goal setting, self-monitoring, feedback on behavior, and educational or motivational content, were mentioned in 22 out of 40 reviews. Behavior change theory was included in the development phases of digital interventions according to the findings of 20 out of 22 reviews., Conclusions: The evaluation of digital interventions is a high priority according to the reviews included in this scoping review. Evaluations of digital interventions, including mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion, typically target user outcomes and rely upon objective tool data. Behavior change theory may provide useful guidance not only for development of digital interventions but also for the evaluation of user outcomes in the context of physical activity promotion. Future research should investigate factors that could improve the efficacy of digital interventions and the standardization of terminology and reporting in this field., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/35332., (©Karina Karolina De Santis, Tina Jahnel, Katja Matthias, Lea Mergenthal, Hatem Al Khayyal, Hajo Zeeb. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 23.05.2022.)

Background: Digital interventions (DIs) could support physical activity (PA) promotion, according to recent reviews. However, it remains unclear if and how DIs for PA promotion are evaluated; thus, it is unclear if they support behavior change in real-world settings. A mapping of evidence from published reviews is required to focus on the evaluation of DIs for PA promotion., Objective: The aim of our study is to investigate evaluation strategies for any outcome in the context of DIs for PA promotion by conducting a scoping review of published reviews., Methods: Our scoping review adheres to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The information sources include bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) and the bibliographies of the selected studies. The electronic search strategy was developed and conducted in collaboration with an experienced database specialist. The electronic search was conducted in English with no limits up to March 19, 2021, for sources with the terms digital intervention AND evaluation AND physical activity in titles or abstracts. After deduplication, 300 reviews selected from 4912 search results were assessed for eligibility by 2 authors working independently. The inclusion criteria were (1) healthy or clinical samples (population), (2) DIs for PA promotion (intervention), (3) comparisons to any other intervention or no intervention (comparison), (4) evaluation strategies (methods, results, or frameworks) for any outcome in the context of DIs for PA promotion (outcome), and (5) any published review (study type). According to the consensus reached during a discussion, 40 reviews met the inclusion criteria-36 from the electronic search and 4 from the manual search of the bibliographies of the 36 reviews. All reviews reported the evaluation strategies for any outcomes in the context of DIs for PA promotion in healthy or clinical samples. Data coding and the quality appraisal of systematic reviews are currently being performed independently by 2 authors., Results: Our scoping review includes data from 40 published reviews (1 rapid review, 9 scoping reviews, and 30 systematic reviews). The focus of data coding is on evaluation strategies in the context of DIs for PA promotion and on the critical appraisal of the included systematic reviews. The final consensus regarding all data is expected in early 2022., Conclusions: Interventions for PA promotion that are supported by digital technologies require evaluation to ensure their efficacy in real-world settings. Our scoping review is needed because it addresses novel objectives that focus on such evaluations and are not answered in the published reviews identified in our search. The evaluation strategies addressing DIs for PA promotion will be mapped to synthesize the results that have been reported in published reviews so far., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/35332., (©Karina Karolina De Santis, Tina Jahnel, Lea Mergenthal, Hajo Zeeb, Katja Matthias. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 03.03.2022.)