by Ashvene Sureshkumar, Robert Simpson, Mark Bayley, Monika Kastner, Jillian Scandiffio, Emilia Main, Claire Zhang, Harzaan Gnanakaran, Joshua Wijeratne, Alesha Saxena, Sarah Munce
ObjectiveThis paper aims to standardize a scoping review protocol for completion of a scoping review. The proposed scoping review aims to: 1) determine the extent of the literature on which implementation strategies have been used to develop, deliver, and sustain psychological interventions for people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) and 2) investigate how equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility considerations are embedded within these implementation strategies and psychological interventions more broadly.
IntroductionPeople with multiple sclerosis experience high levels of stress, anxiety and depression. Psychological interventions, such as mindfulness-based interventions have been shown to be effective in managing these symptoms, yet their implementation in clinical practice is underexplored. Investigating the implementation of psychological interventions can help contextualize the efficacy and impact of these programs for PwMS. This proposed review aims to fill this knowledge gap by determining which implementation strategies have been used to develop and deliver psychological interventions for PwMS.
MethodsThis scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR). The search will be conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsychInfo (Scopus). Two reviewers will independently conduct screening and data extraction in duplicate, with any disagreements resolved through discussion and involvement of a third reviewer. Data extraction will be guided by the JBI template. Quantitative data will be reported descriptively, and a conventional content analysis will be undertaken for qualitative data.
Inclusion criteriaThis scoping review will include studies globally published in peer-reviewed academic journals in English involving PwMS that report on implementation strategies for live, professional-led psychological interventions. Pharmacological studies or studies focusing only on effectiveness of psychological interventions will be excluded.
Our aim is to develop a Framework of Measurement for people living with Long COVID and their caregivers for use in Long COVID research and clinical practice. Specifically, we will characterise evidence pertaining to outcome measurement and identify implementation considerations for use of outcome measures among adults and children living with Long COVID and their caregivers.
We will conduct a scoping study involving: (1) an evidence review and (2) a two-phased consultation, using methodological steps outlined by the Arksey and O’Malley Framework and Joanna Briggs Institute. We will answer the following question: What is known about outcome measures used to describe, evaluate or predict health outcomes among adults and children living with Long COVID and their caregivers? Evidence review: we will review peer review published and grey literature to identify existing outcome measures and their reported measurement properties with people living with Long COVID and their caregivers. We will search databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus for articles published since 2020. Two authors will independently review titles and abstracts, followed by full text to select articles that discuss or use outcome measures for Long COVID health outcomes, pertain to adults or children living with Long COVID and/or their caregivers and are based in research or clinical settings. We will extract data including article characteristics, terminology and definition of Long COVID, health outcomes assessed, characteristics of outcome measures, measurement properties and implementation considerations. We will collate and summarise data to establish a preliminary Framework of Measurement. Consultation phase 1: we will conduct an environmental scan involving a cross-sectional web-based questionnaire among individuals with experience using or completing outcome measures for Long COVID, to identify outcome measures not found in the evidence review and explore implementation considerations for outcome measurement in the context of Long COVID. Consultation phase 2: we will conduct focus groups to review the preliminary Framework of Measurement and to highlight implementation considerations for outcome measurement in Long COVID. We will analyse questionnaire and focus group data using descriptive and content analytical approaches. We will refine the Framework of Measurement based on the focus group consultation using community-engaged approaches with the research team.
Protocol approved by the University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (protocol #46503) for the consultation phases of the study. Outcomes will include a Framework of Measurement, to enhance measurement of health outcomes in Long COVID research and clinical practice. Knowledge translation will also occur in the form of publications and presentations.
While group, task-oriented, community-based exercise programs (CBEPs) delivered in-person can increase exercise and social participation in people with mobility limitations, challenges with transportation, cost and human resources, threaten sustainability. A virtual delivery model may help overcome challenges with accessing and delivering in-person CBEPs. The study objective is to estimate the short-term effect of an 8-week, virtual, group, task-oriented CBEP called TIME™ (Together in Movement and Exercise) at Home compared with a waitlist control on improving everyday function in community-dwelling adults with mobility limitations.
A randomised controlled trial incorporating a type 1 effectiveness-implementation hybrid design is being conducted in four Canadian metropolitan centres. We aim to stratify 200 adults with self-reported mobility limitations by site, participation alone or with a partner, and functional mobility level, and randomise them using REDCap software to either TIME™ at Home or a waitlist control group. During TIME™ at Home classes (2 classes/week, 1.5 hours/class), two trained facilitators stream a 1-hour exercise video and facilitate social interaction prevideo and postvideo using Zoom. A registered healthcare professional at each site completes three e-visits to monitor and support implementation. Masked evaluators with physical therapy training evaluate participants and their caregivers at 0, 2 and 5 months using Zoom. The primary outcome is the change in everyday function from 0 to 2 months, measured using the physical scale of the Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome. The study is powered to detect an effect size of 0.4, given α=0.05, power=80% and a 15% attrition rate. Secondary outcomes are mobility, well-being, reliance on walking aids, caregiver assistance, caregiver mood, caregiver confidence in care-recipient balance and cost-effectiveness. A multimethod process evaluation is proposed to increase understanding of implementation fidelity, mechanisms of effect and contextual factors influencing the complex intervention. Qualitative data collection immediately postintervention involves interviewing approximately 16 participants and 4 caregivers from the experimental group, and 8 participants and 4 caregivers from the waitlist control group, and all healthcare professionals, and conducting focus groups with all facilitators to explore experiences during the intervention period. A directed content analysis will be undertaken to help explain the quantitative results.
TIME™ at Home has received ethics approval at all sites. Participants provide verbal informed consent. A data safety monitoring board is monitoring adverse events. We will disseminate findings through lay summaries, conference presentations, reports and journal articles.