After COVID-19, a global mental health crisis affects young people, with one in five youth experiencing mental health problems worldwide. Delivering mental health interventions via mobile devices is a promising strategy to address the treatment gap. Mental health apps are effective for adolescent and young adult samples, but face challenges such as low real-world reach and under-representation of minoritised youth. To increase digital health uptake, including among minoritised youth, there is a need for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) considerations in the development and evaluation of mental health apps. How well DEI is integrated into youth mental health apps has not been comprehensively assessed. This scoping review aims to examine to what extent DEI considerations are integrated into the design and evaluation of youth mental health apps and report on youth, caregiver and other stakeholder involvement.

We will identify studies published in English from 2009 to 29 September 2023 on apps for mental health in youth. We will use PubMed, Global Health, APA PsycINFO, SCOPUS, CINAHL PLUS and the Cochrane Database and will report according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review Extension guidelines. Papers eligible for inclusion must be peer-reviewed publications in English involving smartphone applications used by adolescents or young adults aged 10–25, with a focus on depression, anxiety or suicidal ideation. Two independent reviewers will review and extract articles using a template developed by the authors. We will analyse the data using narrative synthesis and descriptive statistics. This study will identify gaps in the literature and provide a roadmap for equitable and inclusive mental health apps for youth.

Ethics approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through academic, industry, community networks and scientific publications.

Clinical practice guideline (CPG) developers conduct systematic summaries of research evidence, providing them great capacity and ability to identify research priorities. We systematically analysed the reporting form and content of research priorities in CPGs related to knee osteoarthritis (KOA) to provide a valuable reference for guideline developers and clinicians.

A methodological literature analysis was done and the characteristics of the reporting form and the content of the research priorities identified in KOA CPGs were summarised.

Six databases (PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database) were searched for CPGs published from 1 January 2017 to 4 December 2022. The official websites of 40 authoritative orthopaedic societies, rheumatology societies and guideline development organisations were additionally searched.

We included all KOA CPGs published in English or Chinese from 1 January 2017 that included at least one recommendation for KOA. We excluded duplicate publications, older versions of CPGs as well as guidance documents for guideline development.

Reviewers worked in pairs and independently screened and extracted the data. Descriptive statistics were used, and absolute frequencies and proportions of related items were calculated.

187 research priorities reported in 41 KOA CPGs were identified. 24 CPGs reported research priorities, of which 17 (41.5%) presented overall research priorities for the entire guideline rather than for specific recommendations. 110 (58.8%) research priorities were put forward due to lack of evidence. Meanwhile, more than 70% of the research priorities reflected the P (population) and I (intervention) structural elements, with 135 (72.2%) and 146 (78.1%), respectively. More than half of the research priorities (118, 63.8%) revolved around evaluating the efficacy of interventions. Research priorities primarily focused on physical activity (32, 17.3%), physical therapy (30, 16.2%), surgical therapy (27, 14.6%) and pharmacological treatment (26, 14.1%).

Research priorities reported in KOA CPGs mainly focused on evaluating non-pharmacological interventions. There exists considerable room for improvement for a comprehensive and standardised generation and reporting of research priorities in KOA CPGs.

To ascertain the prevalence and associated factors of anxiety symptoms among middle and high school students in Zhejiang after 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A school-based cross-sectional study.

30 counties/districts in Zhejiang Province, China.

27 019 students attending middle and high schools.

Anxiety symptoms were assessed using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7). A total score of 10 or more is considered indicative of anxiety symptoms.

The overall prevalence (95% CI) of anxiety symptoms was 14.2% (13.4 to 15.0), higher among girls (18.6%, 95% CI: 17.5 to 19.7) than boys (10.2%, 95% CI: 9.5 to 10.9) (p

Anxiety symptoms prevailed among middle and high school students in China. A variety of factors, containing sociodemographic factors, lifestyle behaviours, mental health, academic performance and physical fight should be taken in consideration in addressing prevention and intervention of anxiety symptoms.

Long-term care needs for people with dementia are predicted to increase due to increased life expectancy and dementia diagnoses. Most published meta- syntheses of dementia care focus on hospitals or home settings. When focusing on long-term care facilities, most reviews about dementia care only focus on a single outcome, such as feeding, behavioural symptoms management, palliative care and others, which is limited. The present study aims to synthesise qualitative data and examine barriers and facilitators to caring for people with dementia in long-term care facilities.

This is the protocol for our systematic review and meta-synthesis, which describes the design of this study, and we plan to complete the study from October 2023 to November 2024. The systematic review and meta-synthesis will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. Nine databases (five English and four Chinese) were searched, including Embase, Web of Science, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Wan Fang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP and Chinese Biomedical Medicine, from inception to August 2023. Qualitative and mixed-approach research about barriers and facilitators to caring for people with dementia in long-term care facilities, which are reported in English or Chinese, will be included. Covidence software will help with study selection, assessment and data extraction. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research (2020) will be used for included studies’ quality assessment. Data extraction will be based on the JBI Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument Data Extraction Tool for Qualitative Research. The JBI aggregation approach will be used to synthesise data. We will use the JBI ConQual tool to assess the credibility and dependability of each synthesised finding to establish confidence in the synthesised findings. All review steps will be managed by two reviewers independently, and disparities will be discussed. If consensus cannot reach a resolution, a third reviewer will be consulted.

The present study is a secondary analysis of published qualitative data. So ethical approval is not required. The findings may be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference papers or elsewhere.

The protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) in May 2022, and the registration number is CRD42022326178.