BackgroundUptake of e-health, the use of information communication technologies (ICT) for health service delivery, in allied health appears to be lagging behind other health care areas, despite offering the potential to address problems with service access by rural and remote Australians. The aim of the study was to conduct a scoping review of studies into the application of or attitudes towards ehealth amongst allied health professionals conducted in Australia.MethodsStudies meeting inclusion criteria published from January 2004 to June 2015 were reviewed. Professions included were audiology, dietetics, exercise physiology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, podiatry, social work, and speech pathology. Terms for these professions and forms of ehealth were combined in databases of CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, PsycINFO (1806 – Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid) and AMED (Ovid).ResultsForty-four studies meeting inclusion criteria were summarised. They were either trials of aspects of ehealth service delivery, or clinician and/or client use of and attitudes towards ehealth. Trials of ehealth were largely from two research groups located at the Universities of Sydney and Queensland; most involved speech pathology and physiotherapy. Assessments through ehealth and intervention outcomes through ehealth were comparable with face-to-face delivery. Clinicians used ICT mostly for managing their work and for professional development, but were reticent about its use in service delivery, which contrasted with the more positive attitudes and experiences of clients.ConclusionThe potential of ehealth to address allied health needs of Australians living in rural and remote Australia appears unrealised. Clinicians may need to embrace ehealth as a means to radicalise practice, rather than replicate existing practices through a different mode of delivery.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1791-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective The objectives of this study were to: (i) review and provide a narrative synthesis of three-dimensional (3D) foot surface scanning methodological and statistical analysis protocols, and (ii) develop a set of recommendations for standardising the reporting of 3D foot scanning approaches. Methods A systematic search of the SCOPUS, ProQuest, and Web of Science databases were conducted to identify papers reporting 3D foot scanning protocols and analysis techniques. To be included, studies were required to be published in English, have more than ten participants, and involve the use of static 3D surface scans of the foot. Papers were excluded if they reported two-dimensional footprints only, 3D scans that did not include the medial arch, dynamic scans, or derived foot data from a full body scan. Results The search yielded 78 relevant studies from 17 different countries. The available evidence showed a large variation in scanning protocols. The subcategories displaying the most variation included scanner specifications (model, type, accuracy, resolution, capture duration), scanning conditions (markers, weightbearing, number of scans), foot measurements and definitions used, and statistical analysis approaches. A 16-item checklist was developed to improve the consistency of reporting of future 3D scanning studies. Conclusion 3D foot scanning methodological and statistical analysis protocol consistency and reporting has been lacking in the literature to date. Improved reporting of the included subcategories could assist in data pooling and facilitate collaboration between researchers. As a result, larger sample sizes and diversification of population groups could be obtained to vastly improve the quantification of foot shape and inform the development of orthotic and footwear interventions and products.

Background Mental health policy and service design is increasingly recognizing the importance of the lived experience voice and its inclusion in all aspects of work. Effective inclusion requires a deeper understanding of how best to support lived experience workforce and community members to meaningfully participate in the system. Objectives This scoping review aims to identify key features of organizational practice and governance that facilitate the safe inclusion of lived experience in decision-making and practice within mental health sector contexts. Specifically, the review focuses on mental health organizations devoted to lived experience advocacy or peer support or those in which lived experience membership (paid or voluntary) is central to advocacy and peer support operations. Methods This review protocol was prepared with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and registered with the Open Science Framework. The review will be guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology framework and is being conducted by a multidisciplinary team including lived experience research fellows. It will include published and grey literature, including government reports, organizational online documents, and theses. Included studies will be identified through comprehensive searches of five databases: PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), and ProQuest Central. Studies published in English from 2000 onwards will be included. Data extraction will be guided by pre-determined extraction instruments. Results will be presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews flow chart. Results will be presented in tabular form and narratively synthesized. The planned commencement and completion dates for this review were July 1, 2022 and April 1, 2023. Discussion It is anticipated that this scoping review will map the current evidence base underpinning organizational practices in which lived experience workers are involved, specifically in the mental health system. It will also inform future mental health policy and research. Trial registration Registration: Open Science Framework (registered: July 26, 2022; registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/NB3S5).