Digital health technologies have been enhancing the capacity of healthcare providers and, thereby, the delivery of targeted health services. The Southeast Asia Region (SEAR) has invested in strengthening digital public health. Many digital health interventions have been implemented in public health settings but are rarely assessed using the holistic health technology assessment (HTA) approach.

A systematic literature review was performed to provide an overview of evaluations of digital public health interventions in the World Health Organization (WHO) SEAR. Searches were conducted on four electronic databases. Screening title abstracts and full texts was independently conducted by two reviewers, followed by data extraction. Dimensions of HTA were analyzed against the EUnetHTA Core Model 3.0. Quality assessment of included articles was conducted using the JBI Checklist for Economic Evaluation and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist to assess the reporting quality. The findings are presented using systematic evidence tables and bar charts.

Of the forty-three studies screened at the full-text stage, thirteen studies conducted across six countries were included in the analysis. Telemedicine and m-health interventions were assessed in ten studies. Nine studies conducted cost-effectiveness analysis, and five assessments were conducted from a societal perspective. Four studies utilized more than one perspective for the assessment. Health problem definition and current use of technology, description and technical characteristics of the technology, clinical effectiveness, costs, economic evaluation, and organizational aspects were assessed by all the studies, whereas legal aspects were least assessed.

The lack of HTAs on digital public health interventions in the region highlights the need for capacity-building efforts.

Imagery rescripting (IR) is an effective intervention for social anxiety disorder (SAD) that targets memories of distressing formative events linked to negative self-imagery (NSI). IR is thought to update unhelpful schema by addressing the needs of the younger self within the memory. An accumulating body of evidence indicates that by modifying NSI, IR can significantly affect distressing imagery, memory appraisal, and beliefs about the self.

This systematic review aims to critically evaluate and synthesise literature investigating the existing research on the effects IR has on NSI in SAD.

A systematic electronic search of Academic Search Complete, ProQuest, Medline, Scopus and PubMed was performed in February 2021 using pre-defined criteria. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for review.

Analysis of the reviewed articles’ findings identified three main themes: Changes to negative self-images, Memories linked to images and Encapsulated beliefs. IR was associated with significant decreases in image distress, image vividness, memory vividness, memory distress, and encapsulated beliefs. Although reductions were found with image frequency, they were non-significant. Interpretation of results is limited by the small number of studies.

IR appears to effectively alter images, memories and beliefs in SAD in as little as a single session. The findings indicate that IR could be utilised as a cost-effective intervention for SAD. However, additional studies and longer-term follow-ups are needed.

The intent of the review was to identify different methodological approaches used to calculate the planning target volume (PTV) margin for head and neck patients treated with volumetric arc therapy (VMAT), and whether the necessary factors to calculate the margin size with the selected formula were used.

A comprehensive, systematic search of related studies was done using the Hydi search engine and different databases: MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, ProQuest (Nursing and Allied Health), Scopus, ScienceDirect and tipsRO. The literature search included studies published between January 2007 and December 2020. Eligibility screening was performed by two reviewers.

A total of seven studies were found. All the reviewed studies used the Van Herk formula to measure the PTV margin. None of the studies incorporated the systematic errors of target volume delineation in the PTV equation. Inter-fraction translational errors were assessed in all the studies, whilst intra-fraction errors were only included in the margin equation for two studies. The studies showed great heterogeneity in the key characteristics, aims and methods.

Since systemic errors from target volume delineation were not considered and not all studies assess intra-fraction errors, PTV margins may be underestimated. The recommendations are that studies need to determine the effect of target volume variance on PTV margins. It is also recommended to compare PTV margin results using various formulas.

Coastal communities face environmental challenges that put food, energy, and water systems at risk. Although highly interdependent, it is unknown the extent to which coastal resilience research has considered interactions among food–energy–water systems. Twenty peer-reviewed articles were identified that focused on these systems and coastal resilience. Although a nexus approach was not employed universally, these studies most commonly addressed interactions among these systems related to acute hazards. They consistently acknowledged the influence of energy and transportation systems upon the others. As such, planners should incorporate linkages across all three systems during coastal resilience planning especially in relation to acute hazards.

Coastal communities strive for resilience in the face of an ever-growing suite of threats by planning and preparing for numerous uncertain futures. Food, energy, and water systems are highly interconnected and essential to the well-being of coastal communities. However, it is unknown the extent to which coastal resilience research has included food–energy–water nexus considerations. This study used a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed research articles and identified 20 studies that focused on food, energy, and water systems as related to coastal resilience. Results revealed four main findings: (1) the food–energy–water nexus approach was most commonly applied to coastal resilience in the study of US locations and in the context of acute hazards, (2) a direct food–energy–water or other nexus approach was directly employed by only half of the studies, however, all highlighted the relevance of systems interconnections in the context of coastal resilience, (3) the energy system was shown to impact every system to which it was connected, and (4) the transportation system was also shown to impact every system to which it was connected, which suggests that the food–energy–water nexus should be expanded to include transportation systems.

Coastal resilience and food–energy–water nexus literature synthesis finds interconnected systems considerations relevant to resilience.

Volunteers need considerable resiliency to cope with formidable challenges during their operations in disaster scenes. The present study was conducted to identify factors affecting the different aspects of resiliency among volunteers in disasters.

The databases of Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar, World Health Organization Library, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Library, PsycArticles, and SafetyLit were searched until September 29, 2018. The main search terms were resiliency, disaster, humanitarian aid worker, and volunteer.

A total of 548 documents were obtained and screened based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A number of 8 documents was selected for the final analysis. The main factors contributing to the resilience of volunteers at the 3 stages of pre-, during, and post-disasters were classified into 3 groups of individual, environmental, and organizational. Important factors affecting resilience of volunteers in disasters included previous disaster response experience and disaster-related training.

Resiliency should be deemed integral to relief operations. Considering the main factors affecting volunteers’ resiliency, it is highly suggested that organizations active in humanitarian endeavors explore the factors impacting on resilience among their volunteers via various research methods and seek to select those with higher degrees of resilience in order to avert untoward consequences in their missions.

Emerging evidence is guiding changes in prehospital management of potential spinal injuries. The majority of settings related to current recommendations are in resource-rich environments (RREs), whereas there is a lack of guidance on the provision of spinal motion restriction (SMR) in resource-scarce environments (RSEs), such as: mass-casualty incidents (MCIs); low-middle income countries; complex humanitarian emergencies; conflict zones; and prolonged transport times. The application of Translational Science (TS) in the Disaster Medicine (DM) context was used to develop this study, leading to statements that can be used in the creation of evidence-based clinical guidelines (CGs).

What is appropriate SMR in RSEs?

The first round of this modified Delphi (mD) study was a structured focus group conducted at the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM) Congress in Brisbane Australia on May 9, 2019. The result of the focus group discussion of open-ended questions produced ten statements that were added to ten statements derived from Fischer (2018) to create the second mD round questionnaire.

Academic researchers and educators, operational first responders, or first receivers of patients with suspected spinal injuries were identified to be mD experts. Experts rated their agreement with each statement on a seven-point linear numeric scale. Consensus amongst experts was defined as a standard deviation ≤1.0. Statements that were in agreement reaching consensus were included in the final report; those that were not in agreement but reached consensus were removed from further consideration. Those not reaching consensus advanced to the third mD round.

For subsequent rounds, experts were shown the mean response and their own response for each of the remaining statements and asked to reconsider their rating. As above, those that did not reach consensus advanced to the next round until consensus was reached for each statement.

Twenty-two experts agreed to participate with 19 completing the second mD round and 16 completing the third mD round. Eleven statements reached consensus. Nine statements did not reach consensus.

Experts reached consensus offering 11 statements to be incorporated into the creation of SMR CGs in RSEs. The nine statements that did not reach consensus can be further studied and potentially modified to determine if these can be considered in SMR CGs in RSEs.