As heatwaves increase and intensify worldwide, so has the research aimed at outlining strategies to protect individuals from their impact. Interventions that promote adaptive measures to heatwaves are encouraged, but evidence on how to develop such interventions is still scarce. Although the Health Belief Model is one of the leading frameworks guiding behavioral change interventions, the evidence of its use in heatwave research is limited. This rapid review aims to identify and describe the main themes and key findings in the literature regarding the use of the Health Belief Model in heatwaves research. It also highlights important research gaps and future research priorities. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 10 articles were included, with a geographic distribution as follows: United States (n = 1), Australia (n = 1), Pakistan (n = 1), and China (n = 1), as well as Malaysia (n = 2), Germany (n = 1), and Austria (n = 1). Results showed a lack of research using the Health Belief Model to study heatwaves induced by climate change. Half of the studies assessed heatwave risk perception, with the 2 most frequently used constructs being Perceived Susceptibility and Perceived Severity. The Self-efficacy construct was instead used less often. Most of the research was conducted in urban communities. This review underscores the need for further research using the Health Belief Model.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the irrational use of drugs in the absence of clinical management guidelines. Access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials aids the evidence synthesis approaches. We undertook a rapid review to infer IPD sharing intentions based on data availability statements by the principal investigators (PIs) of drug and vaccine trials in the context of COVID-19.

Searches were conducted on PubMed (NCBI). We considered randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications from January 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021. IPD sharing intentions were inferred based on the data availability statements in the full-text manuscript publications. We included 180 articles. Of these, 81.7% (147/180) of the publications have arrived from the findings of the RCTs alone, 12.8% (23/180) of the publications were protocol publications alone, and 5.6% (10/180) of the RCTs had both published protocol and publication from the trial findings. We have reported IPD sharing intentions separately in RCT protocol publications (n = 23 + 10) and publications from RCT findings (n = 147 + 10). Among RCT protocol publications, one-third (11/33) of the PIs intended to share IPD. In fact, over half of the PIs (52.2%, 82/157) in their published RCT findings intended to share IPD. However, information to share about IPD was missing for 57.6% (19/33) of RCT protocols and 38.2% (60/157) of published RCT findings.

Stakeholders must work together to ensure that overarching factors, such as legislation that governs clinical trial practices, are streamlined to bolster IPD sharing mechanisms.

Most seniors in Canada live at home and consistently indicate that they prefer to stay there for as long as possible. Consequently, this desire places increasing pressure on supports such as informal caregivers and community services. The current rapid review set out to examine the psychosocial aspects of aging and dying in place that point to gaps in programs and services to support this preference. We searched PubMed, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed entries, and identified 42 articles for analysis, which we charted on a form we created and tested. Lack of attention to the whole person, lack of preparation for the journey ahead, and difficulties establishing collaborative and trusting relationships were, broadly, the challenges identified. A blend of initiatives in the community combined with an integrated palliative approach to care may mitigate some of the challenges that limit options for aging and dying in place.

Objectives: Rapid reviews can be conducted in a narrower time frame, as compared to systematic reviews, by featuring restrictions. To estimate the validity of the results, assessment of methodological quality is required. Our aim was to analyze the methodological restrictions of rapid reviews compared with systematic reviews using the AMSTAR checklist and assess its feasibility for rapid reviews.

Methods: A systematic search for literature on rapid reviews of surgical interventions was conducted in three databases: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library. Additionally, health technology assessment (HTA) databases were searched. We analyzed reviews using AMSTAR and additionally compared the results with those of an overview of reviews on the same topic.

Results: Items found more frequently in rapid reviews were search for gray literature (65 percent versus 33 percent), listing of excluded studies (59 percent versus 37 percent), and provision of study characteristics (77 percent versus 44 percent), whereas consideration of study quality in formulating conclusions, conduct of meta-analysis, and statement of conflicts of interest were less frequent. Median time between search and publication was 8 months, with a range between 1 and 27.

Conclusions: With some adjustments, AMSTAR can be used as a checklist for rapid reviews to describe methodological restrictions in comparison to systematic reviews and to roughly estimate the validity of the results. Strikingly, only 14.3 percent of rapid reviews were published within 3 months.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to obtain information on rapid health technology assessments (HTAs) prepared by members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA).

Methods: A questionnaire was prepared, drawing on earlier INAHTA documents for recording HTA impact. A request for responses was sent to member agencies, seeking information on rapid HTA reports prepared during 2006.

Results: Responses were provided on fifteen rapid HTAs, which covered both new and widely distributed technologies. The most common purpose for the HTAs (n = 8) was to inform coverage decisions, but other reasons included capital funding, formulary decisions, referral for treatment, program operation, guideline formulation, influence on routine practice, and indications for further research. All the rapid HTAs were considered by the agencies to have had some influence. The most common indications of influence were consideration by the decision maker, use of the HTA as reference material (both n = 10), and acceptance of recommendations or conclusions (n = 8).

Conclusions: Rapid HTAs are used for a broad range of technologies, to inform several types of decision, and are effective in informing the decision-making process. Supplementation of their findings by further assessments will be appropriate in some cases.