Background Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics. Results We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions. Conclusions Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact. Trial registration The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4nxpr) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

No abstract

No abstract

Mentorship provides an opportunity to support skill development, improve research ability, promote interest in research and offer career advice. The need for research mentorship in Africa is well-recognised. However, there is scarce literature on the development of such programmes and their potential impacts on students and young researchers in Africa (SYRIA). This study documents the development of the CORE Africa Research Mentorship Scheme (CARMS), and reports the outcomes and challenges experienced over a two-year period, from 2018 to 2020.41 mentors and mentees from Cameroon, Uganda and Nigeria participated in the programme. Mentors were based in Africa and the UK, while mentees were all based in Africa. Mentees gained knowledge and skills in various research areas including proposal writing, research methods, data analysis, report writing and research publication. Nine mentees gained their first research publication through the CARMS and three successfully completed their first grant proposal. Three mentees were supported by their mentor to develop PhD research proposals and five others gained skills that helped them secure paid research jobs. Eleven mentees have ‘graduated’ from the programme, seven of which are currently enrolled as trainee mentors. Mentees appreciated the opportunity to improve on their research skills and felt that the programme gave them a ‘safe’ environment to freely express their concerns.Main challenges encountered were: difficulty finding suitable mentors, communication barriers, poorly defined mentorship goals, dealing with mentee’s lack of knowledge/experience of ‘basic’ research concepts and funding limitations. This programme had several positive impacts on the knowledge and skills of mentees and demonstrates the importance of mentorship in research capacity strengthening. Sustaining such programmes requires investments in training and development, to ensure that mentees are continuously and adequately supported.