Implementation evaluation frameworks are essential tools in implementation science for assessing the quality and effectiveness of evidence-based interventions. This paper systematically reviews eight internationally representative evaluation frameworks, outlining their development backgrounds and structural features. It then compares their usability, applicability, and testability. Two case studies are presented to illustrate how evaluation frameworks can be integrated with process models and determinant frameworks to enhance the understanding and guidance of complex interventions. This paper aims to offer practical guidancefor selecting and applying evaluation frameworks, thereby supporting the advancement of implementation science in both local and global health contexts.

Objective: Circulation patterns of influenza and other respiratory viruses have been globally disrupted since the emergence of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the introduction of public health and social measures (PHSMs) aimed at reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. Methods: We reviewed respiratory virus laboratory data, Google mobility data and PHSMs in five geographically diverse regions in Australia and New Zealand. We also described respiratory virus activity from January 2017 to August 2021. Results: We observed a change in the prevalence of circulating respiratory viruses following the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020. Influenza activity levels were very low in all regions, lower than those recorded in 2017–2019, with less than 1% of laboratory samples testing positive for influenza virus. In contrast, rates of human rhinovirus infection were increased. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) activity was delayed; however, once it returned, most regions experienced activity levels well above those seen in 2017–2019. The timing of the resurgence in the circulation of both rhinovirus and RSV differed within and between the two countries. Discussion: The findings of this study suggest that as domestic and international borders are opened up and other COVID-19 PHSMs are lifted, clinicians and public health professionals should be prepared for resurgences in influenza and other respiratory viruses. Recent patterns in RSV activity suggest that these resurgences in non-COVID-19 viruses have the potential to occur out of season and with increased impact.

Background and Objectives: Otalgia can be primary/otogenic or secondary as a referred pain from another site, which can be difficult to establish owing to various causes and the complex innervation of the ear. In our center, we observed a large group of patients with unexplained otalgia that had a higher prevalence of migraine. We hypothesized that migraine may cause secondary otalgia. This study then aimed to determine the prevalence of migraine-associated otalgia and evaluate the efficacy of migraine treatment. Subjects and Methods: This 2-year retrospective study was conducted at a busy otology clinic. Patients were identified using diagnostic codes corresponding to otalgia. The prevalence of migraine-associated otalgia was determined, and the efficacy of migraine treatment was evaluated in these patients. The interventions included prophylactic and abortive migraine treatments. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare between the pre- and post-treatment symptoms. Results: A total of 208 patients with otalgia were identified. Sixty-four out of ninety patients with unexplained otalgia met the criteria for migraine; of them, 30 patients had an adequate follow-up and were thus included in the evaluation of treatment efficacy. Otalgia improved in 87% of the patients who received migraine treatment. After treatment, the mean pain score and headache frequency significantly decreased from 7 to 2 and from 27 to 9 days per month, respectively (p<0.001). Conclusions Migraine should be considered as a source of secondary otalgia, and patients should receive treatment as they often respond to migraine treatment.

PURPOSE: The biases that may influence objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) scoring are well understood, and recent research has attempted to establish the magnitude of their impact. However, the influence of examiner experience, clinical seniority, and occupation on communication and physical examination scores in OSCEs has not yet been clearly established. METHODS: We compared the mean scores awarded for generic and clinical communication and physical examination skills in 2 undergraduate medicine OSCEs in relation to examiner characteristics (gender, examining experience, occupation, seniority, and speciality). The statistical significance of the differences was calculated using the 2-tailed independent t-test and analysis of variance. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventeen students were examined by 237 examiners at the University of New South Wales in 2014 and 2016. Examiner gender, occupation (academic, clinician, or clinical tutor), and job type (specialist or generalist) did not significantly impact scores. Junior doctors gave consistently higher scores than senior doctors in all domains, and this difference was statistically significant for generic and clinical communication scores. Examiner experience was significantly inversely correlated with generic communication scores. CONCLUSION We suggest that the assessment of examination skills may be less susceptible to bias because this process is fairly prescriptive, affording greater scoring objectivity. We recommend training to define the marking criteria, teaching curriculum, and expected level of performance in communication skills to reduce bias in OSCE assessment.

PURPOSE: The biases that may influence objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) scoring are well understood, and recent research has attempted to establish the magnitude of their impact. However, the influence of examiner experience, clinical seniority, and occupation on communication and physical examination scores in OSCEs has not yet been clearly established. METHODS: We compared the mean scores awarded for generic and clinical communication and physical examination skills in 2 undergraduate medicine OSCEs in relation to examiner characteristics (gender, examining experience, occupation, seniority, and speciality). The statistical significance of the differences was calculated using the 2-tailed independent t-test and analysis of variance. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventeen students were examined by 237 examiners at the University of New South Wales in 2014 and 2016. Examiner gender, occupation (academic, clinician, or clinical tutor), and job type (specialist or generalist) did not significantly impact scores. Junior doctors gave consistently higher scores than senior doctors in all domains, and this difference was statistically significant for generic and clinical communication scores. Examiner experience was significantly inversely correlated with generic communication scores. CONCLUSION: We suggest that the assessment of examination skills may be less susceptible to bias because this process is fairly prescriptive, affording greater scoring objectivity. We recommend training to define the marking criteria, teaching curriculum, and expected level of performance in communication skills to reduce bias in OSCE assessment.
Australia ; Awards and Prizes ; Bias (Epidemiology) ; Curriculum ; Humans ; New South Wales ; Occupations ; Physical Examination

PURPOSE: The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is considered to be one of the most robust methods of clinical assessment. One of its strengths lies in its ability to minimise the effects of examiner bias due to the standardisation of items and tasks for each candidate. However, OSCE examiners' assessment scores are influenced by several factors that may jeopardise the assumed objectivity of OSCEs. To better understand this phenomenon, the current review aims to determine and describe important sources of examiner bias and the factors affecting examiners' assessments. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of the medical literature using Medline. All articles meeting the selection criteria were reviewed, with salient points extracted and synthesised into a clear and comprehensive summary of the knowledge in this area. RESULTS: OSCE examiners' assessment scores are influenced by factors belonging to 4 different domains: examination context, examinee characteristics, examinee-examiner interactions, and examiner characteristics. These domains are composed of several factors including halo, hawk/dove and OSCE contrast effects; the examiner's gender and ethnicity; training; lifetime experience in assessing; leadership and familiarity with students; station type; and site effects. CONCLUSION: Several factors may influence the presumed objectivity of examiners' assessments, and these factors need to be addressed to ensure the objectivity of OSCEs. We offer insights into directions for future research to better understand and address the phenomenon of examiner bias.
Bias (Epidemiology) ; Humans ; Leadership ; Patient Selection ; Problem Solving ; Recognition (Psychology)