Background: Using evidence-based practice (EBP) improves the implementation of safe, high-quality healthcare for patients, reduces avoidable costs, and plays a crucial role in bridging knowledge–action gaps and reducing health inequities. EBP combines the best available evidence in the relevant literature with patient preferences and values and healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) expertise. Methods: Systematic searches of ten bibliographic databases, unpublished works, and the Grey Literature Report sought studies published up to 30 September 2022. Results: The 15 studies retained involved 2712 nurses. Three types of effective educational interventions were identified: (1) multifaceted educational strategies incorporating mentoring and tutoring; (2) single educational strategies, often delivered online; and (3) multifaceted educational strategies using the five steps of EBP. Eleven primary outcomes (EBP beliefs, EBP self-efficacy, perceived EBP implementation, EBP competencies, EBP knowledge, EBP skills, EBP attitudes, EBP behaviors, EBP desire, EBP practice, and perceptions of organizational culture and readiness) were assessed using 13 qualitative and quantitative instruments. Conclusions: Ensuring the successful implementation of EBP requires effective educational strategies. Computer-based learning seems the most cost-effective and efficient strategy, when considering caregivers’ characteristics, the clinical field, and educational interventions across the pre-, peri-, and post-implementation processes.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Background Numerous living labs have established a new approach for studying the health, independent living, and well-being of older adults with dementia. Living labs interact with a broad set of stakeholders, including students, academic institutions, private companies, health care organizations, and patient representative bodies and even with other living labs. Hence, it is crucial to identify the types of cocreations that should be attempted and how they can be facilitated through living labs. Objective This study aims to scope publications that examine all types of living lab activities, exploring the needs and expectations of older adults with dementia and seeking solutions, whether they live in the community or long-term health care facilities (LTHFs). Methods This scoping review was reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) recommendations for the extension of scoping reviews. We searched six bibliographic databases for publications up to March 2020, and a forward-backward citation chasing was performed. Additional searches were conducted using Google Scholar. The quality of the selected papers was assessed. Results Of the 5609 articles identified, we read 58 (1.03%) articles and retained 12 (0.21%) articles for inclusion and final analysis. All 12 articles presented an innovative product, developed in 4 main living labs, to assist older adults with cognitive disorders or dementia living in the community or LTHFs. The objectives of these studies were to optimize health, quality of life, independent living, home care, and safety of older adults with cognitive disorders or dementia, as well as to support professional and family caregivers or reduce their burdens. The overall methodological quality of the studies ranged from poor to moderate. Conclusions This scoping review identified several living labs playing a pivotal role in research aimed at older adults with dementia living in the community or LTHFs. However, it also revealed that living labs should conduct more better-quality interventional research to prove the effectiveness of their technological products or service solutions. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2147/SHTT.S233130

Background: Little documentation exists on relationships between long-term residential care facilities (LTRCFs), staff working conditions and residents’ quality of care (QoC). Supporting evidence is weak because most studies examining this employ cross-sectional designs. Methods: Systematic searches of twelve bibliographic databases sought experimental and longitudinal studies, published up to May 2021, focusing on LTRCF nursing staff’s working conditions and the QoC they provided to older adults. Results: Of the 3577 articles identified, 159 were read entirely, and 11 were retained for inclusion. Higher nursing staff hours worked per resident per day (HPRD) were associated with significant reductions in pressure sores and urinary tract infections. Overall staff qualification levels and numbers of RNs had significant positive influences on QoC. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review is the first to combine cohort studies with a quasi-experimental study to explore associations between LTRCF nursing staff’s working conditions and older adult residents’ QoC. Human factors (including HPRD, staff turnover, skill mix, staff ratios) and the specific working contribution of RNs had overwhelmingly significant influences on QoC. It seems essential that LTRCF supervisory and decision-making bodies should promote optimal working conditions for nursing staff because these have such a direct impact on residents’ QoC.