Preservation of brain health is an urgent priority for the world’s ageing population. The evidence base for brain health optimisation strategies is rapidly expanding, but clear recommendations have been limited by heterogeneity in measurement of brain health outcomes. We performed a scoping review to systematically evaluate brain health measurement in the scientific literature to date, informing development of a core outcome set.

Scoping review.

Medline, APA PsycArticles and Embase were searched through until 25 January 2023.

Studies were included if they described brain health evaluation methods in sufficient detail in human adults and were in English language.

Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion and extracted data using Covidence software.

From 6987 articles identified by the search, 727 studies met inclusion criteria. Study publication increased by 22 times in the last decade. Cohort study was the most common study design (n=609, 84%). 479 unique methods of measuring brain health were identified, comprising imaging, cognitive, mental health, biological and clinical categories. Seven of the top 10 most frequently used brain health measurement methods were imaging based, including structural imaging of grey matter and hippocampal volumes and white matter hyperintensities. Cognitive tests such as the trail making test accounted for 286 (59.7%) of all brain health measurement methods.

The scientific literature surrounding brain health has increased exponentially, yet measurement methods are highly heterogeneous across studies which may explain the lack of clinical translation. Future studies should aim to develop a selected group of measures that should be included in all brain health studies to aid interstudy comparison (core outcome set), and broaden from the current focus on neuroimaging outcomes to include a range of outcomes.

The study aimed to assess private general physicians’(GPs) healthcare practices, identifying perceived malpractices, the support they receive, and barriers they experience in providing healthcare services.

Qualitative exploratory study.

Rural district, Thatta in Province of Sindh, Pakistan.

15 GPs.

Our results include increased motivation among GPs for continued professional development, the high influence of pharmaceutical companies on providers’ prescribing practices, perceived malpractices by GPs, and the prevalence of quackery and ineffective regulatory mechanisms for private GPs in a rural district.

Our findings have implications for the capacity building of GPs by academic institutions, enforcement of regulatory measures by the authorities, and the introduction of measures to curb practices by unqualified practitioners. Finally, more research will be needed to further understand the perceptions of GPs, their needs and the service delivery interventions that will enhance the quality of care they provide.

Digital health is now routinely being applied in clinical care, and with a variety of clinician-facing systems available, healthcare organisations are increasingly required to make decisions about technology implementation and evaluation. However, few studies have examined how digital health research is prioritised, particularly research focused on clinician-facing decision support systems. This study aimed to identify criteria for prioritising digital health research, examine how these differ from criteria for prioritising traditional health research and determine priority decision support use cases for a collaborative implementation research programme.

Drawing on an interpretive listening model for priority setting and a stakeholder-driven approach, our prioritisation process involved stakeholder identification, eliciting decision support use case priorities from stakeholders, generating initial use case priorities and finalising preferred use cases based on consultations. In this qualitative study, online focus group session(s) were held with stakeholders, audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Fifteen participants attended the online priority setting sessions. Criteria for prioritising digital health research fell into three themes, namely: public health benefit, health system-level factors and research process and feasibility. We identified criteria unique to digital health research as the availability of suitable governance frameworks, candidate technology’s alignment with other technologies in use,and the possibility of data-driven insights from health technology data. The final selected use cases were remote monitoring of patients with pulmonary conditions, sepsis detection and automated breast screening.

The criteria for determining digital health research priority areas are more nuanced than that of traditional health condition focused research and can neither be viewed solely through a clinical lens nor technological lens. As digital health research relies heavily on health technology implementation, digital health prioritisation criteria comprised enablers of successful technology implementation. Our prioritisation process could be applied to other settings and collaborative projects where research institutions partner with healthcare delivery organisations.