Janet Jull

Cultural adaptation of a shared decision making tool with Aboriginal women: a qualitative study

BackgroundShared decision making (SDM) may narrow health equity gaps experienced by Aboriginal women. SDM tools such as patient decision aids can facilitate SDM between the client and health care providers; SDM tools for use in Western health care settings have not yet been developed for and with Aboriginal populations. This study describes the adaptation and usability testing of a SDM tool, the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide (OPDG), to support decision making by Aboriginal women.MethodsAn interpretive descriptive qualitative study was structured by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and used a postcolonial theoretical lens. An advisory group was established with representation from the Aboriginal community and used a mutually agreed-upon ethical framework. Eligible participants were Aboriginal women at Minwaashin Lodge. First, the OPDG was discussed in focus groups using a semi-structured interview guide. Then, individual usability interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide with decision coaching. Iterative adaptations to the OPDG were made during focus groups and usability interviews until saturation was reached. Transcripts were coded using thematic analysis and themes confirmed in collaboration with an advisory group.ResultsAboriginal women 20 to 60 years of age and self-identifying as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit participated in two focus groups (n = 13) or usability interviews (n = 6). Seven themes were developed that either reflected or affirmed OPDG adaptions: 1) “This paper makes it hard for me to show that I am capable of making decisions”; 2) “I am responsible for my decisions”; 3) “My past and current experiences affect the way I make decisions”; 4) “People need to talk with people”; 5) “I need to fully participate in making my decisions”; 6) “I need to explore my decision in a meaningful way”; 7) “I need respect for my traditional learning and communication style”.ConclusionsAdaptations resulted in a culturally adapted version of the OPDG that better met the needs of Aboriginal women participants and was more accessible with respect to health literacy assumptions. Decision coaching was identified as required to enhance engagement in the decision making process and using the adapted OPDG as a talking guide.

Lifestyle Interventions Targeting Body Weight Changes during the Menopause Transition: A Systematic Review

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of exercise and/or nutrition interventions and to address body weight changes during the menopause transition. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using electronic databases, grey literature, and hand searching. Two independent researchers screened for studies using experimental designs to evaluate the impact of exercise and/or nutrition interventions on body weight and/or central weight gain performed during the menopausal transition. Studies were quality appraised using Cochrane risk of bias. Included studies were analyzed descriptively. Results. Of 3,564 unique citations screened, 3 studies were eligible (2 randomized controlled trials, and 1 pre/post study). Study quality ranged from low to high risk of bias. One randomized controlled trial with lower risk of bias concluded that participation in an exercise program combined with dietary interventions might mitigate body adiposity increases, which is normally observed during the menopause transition. The other two studies with higher risk of bias suggested that exercise might attenuate weight loss or weight gain and change abdominal adiposity patterns. Conclusions. High quality studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions targeting body weight changes in women during their menopause transition are needed. Evidence from one higher quality study indicates an effective multifaceted intervention for women to minimize changes in body adiposity.

Protocol for the development of a CONSORT-equity guideline to improve reporting of health equity in randomized trials

BackgroundHealth equity concerns the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can provide evidence about the impact of an intervention on health equity for specific disadvantaged populations or in general populations; this is important for equity-focused decision-making. Previous work has identified a lack of adequate reporting guidelines for assessing health equity in RCTs. The objective of this study is to develop guidelines to improve the reporting of health equity considerations in RCTs, as an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT).Methods/designA six-phase study using integrated knowledge translation governed by a study executive and advisory board will assemble empirical evidence to inform the CONSORT-equity extension. To create the guideline, the following steps are proposed: (1) develop a conceptual framework for identifying “equity-relevant trials,” (2) assess empirical evidence regarding reporting of equity-relevant trials, (3) consult with global methods and content experts on how to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (4) collect broad feedback and prioritize items needed to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (5) establish consensus on the CONSORT-equity extension: the guideline for equity-relevant trials, and (6) broadly disseminate and implement the CONSORT-equity extension.DiscussionThis work will be relevant to a broad range of RCTs addressing questions of effectiveness for strategies to improve practice and policy in the areas of social determinants of health, clinical care, health systems, public health, and international development, where health and/or access to health care is a primary outcome. The outcomes include a reporting guideline (CONSORT-equity extension) for equity-relevant RCTs and a knowledge translation strategy to broadly encourage its uptake and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies.

Development of a Draft Core Set of Domains for Measuring Shared Decision Making in Osteoarthritis: An OMERACT Working Group on Shared Decision Making

Objective. Despite the importance of shared decision making for delivering patient-centered care in rheumatology, there is no consensus on how to measure its process and outcomes. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group is to determine the core set of domains for measuring shared decision making in intervention studies in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), from the perspectives of patients, health professionals, and researchers. Methods. We followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 method to develop a draft core domain set by (1) forming an OMERACT working group; (2) conducting a review of domains of shared decision making; and (3) obtaining opinions of all those involved using a modified nominal group process held at a session activity at the OMERACT 12 meeting. Results. In all, 26 people from Europe, North America, and Australia, including 5 patient research partners, participated in the session activity. Participants identified the following domains for measuring shared decision making to be included as part of the draft core set: (1) identifying the decision, (2) exchanging information, (3) clarifying views, (4) deliberating, (5) making the decision, (6) putting the decision into practice, and (7) assessing the effect of the decision. Contextual factors were also suggested. Conclusion. We proposed a draft core set of shared decision-making domains for OA intervention research studies. Next steps include a workshop at OMERACT 13 to reach consensus on these proposed domains in the wider OMERACT group, as well as to detail subdomains and assess instruments to develop a core outcome measurement set.

GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence

Objectives The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process. Study Design and Setting Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists. Results We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings. Conclusion The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society.

Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge

BackgroundBetter use of research evidence (one form of “knowledge”) in health systems requires partnerships between researchers and those who contend with the real-world needs and constraints of health systems. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and integrated knowledge translation (IKT) are research approaches that emphasize the importance of creating partnerships between researchers and the people for whom the research is ultimately meant to be of use (“knowledge users”). There exist poor understandings of the ways in which these approaches converge and diverge. Better understanding of the similarities and differences between CBPR and IKT will enable researchers to use these approaches appropriately and to leverage best practices and knowledge from each. The co-creation of knowledge conveys promise of significant social impacts, and further understandings of how to engage and involve knowledge users in research are needed.Main textWe examine the histories and traditions of CBPR and IKT, as well as their points of convergence and divergence. We critically evaluate the ways in which both have the potential to contribute to the development and integration of knowledge in health systems. As distinct research traditions, the underlying drivers and rationale for CBPR and IKT have similarities and differences across the areas of motivation, social location, and ethics; nevertheless, the practices of CBPR and IKT converge upon a common aim: the co-creation of knowledge that is the result of knowledge user and researcher expertise. We argue that while CBPR and IKT both have the potential to contribute evidence to implementation science and practices for collaborative research, clarity for the purpose of the research—social change or application—is a critical feature in the selection of an appropriate collaborative approach to build knowledge.ConclusionCBPR and IKT bring distinct strengths to a common aim: to foster democratic processes in the co-creation of knowledge. As research approaches, they create opportunities to challenge assumptions about for whom, how, and what is defined as knowledge, and to develop and integrate research findings into health systems. When used appropriately, CBPR and IKT both have the potential to contribute to and advance implementation science about the conduct of collaborative health systems research.

CONSORT-Equity 2017 extension and elaboration for better reporting of health equity in randomised trials

We outline CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting standards, an extension to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement that aims to improve the reporting of intervention effects in randomised trials where health equity is relevant. Health inequities are unfair differences in health that can be avoided by reasonable action. We defined a randomised trial where health equity is relevant as one that assesses effects on health equity by evaluating an intervention focused on people experiencing social disadvantage or by exploring the difference in the effect of the intervention between two groups (or as a gradient across more than two groups) experiencing different levels of social disadvantage, or both. We held a consensus meeting with diverse potential users from high, middle, and low income countries, including knowledge users such as patients and methodologists. We discussed evidence for each proposed extension item from empirical studies, reviews, key informant interviews, and an online survey, aiming to improve clarity of reporting without imposing undue burden on authors. The new guidance contains equity extensions to 16 items from CONSORT 2010 plus one new item on research ethics reporting, with examples of good practice and a brief explanation and elaboration for each. Widespread uptake of this guidance for the reporting of trials where health equity is relevant will make it easier for decision makers to find and use evidence from randomised trials to reduce unfair inequalities in health.

Toward Ensuring Health Equity: Readability and Cultural Equivalence of OMERACT Patient-reported Outcome Measures

Objective. The goal of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 (2014) equity working group was to determine whether and how comprehensibility of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) should be assessed, to ensure suitability for people with low literacy and differing cultures. Methods. The English, Dutch, French, and Turkish Health Assessment Questionnaires and English and French Osteoarthritis Knee and Hip Quality of Life questionnaires were evaluated by applying 3 readability formulas: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook; and a new tool, the Evaluative Linguistic Framework for Questionnaires, developed to assess text quality of questionnaires. We also considered a study assessing cross-cultural adaptation with/without back-translation and/or expert committee. The results of this preconference work were presented to the equity working group participants to gain their perspectives on the importance of comprehensibility and cross-cultural adaptation for PROM. Results. Thirty-one OMERACT delegates attended the equity session. Twenty-six participants agreed that PROM should be assessed for comprehensibility and for use of suitable methods (4 abstained, 1 no). Twenty-two participants agreed that cultural equivalency of PROM should be assessed and suitable methods used (7 abstained, 2 no). Special interest group participants identified challenges with cross-cultural adaptation including resources required, and suggested patient involvement for improving translation and adaptation. Conclusion. Future work will include consensus exercises on what methods are required to ensure PROM are appropriate for people with low literacy and different cultures.

Shared decision-making and health for First Nations, Métis and Inuit women: a study protocol

BackgroundLittle is known about shared decision-making (SDM) with Métis, First Nations and Inuit women (“Aboriginal women”). SDM is a collaborative process that engages health care professional(s) and the client in making health decisions and is fundamental for informed consent and patient-centred care. The objective of this study is to explore Aboriginal women’s health and social decision-making needs and to engage Aboriginal women in culturally adapting an SDM approach.MethodsUsing participatory research principles and guided by a postcolonial theoretical lens, the proposed mixed methods research will involve three phases. Phase I is an international systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions for Aboriginal peoples’ health decision-making. Developed following dialogue with key stakeholders, proposed methods are guided by the Cochrane handbook and include a comprehensive search, screening by two independent researchers, and synthesis of findings. Phases II and III will be conducted in collaboration with Minwaashin Lodge and engage an urban Aboriginal community of women in an interpretive descriptive qualitative study. In Phase II, 10 to 13 Aboriginal women will be interviewed to explore their health/social decision-making experiences. The interview guide is based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and previous decisional needs assessments, and as appropriate may be adapted to findings from the systematic review. Digitally-recorded interviews will be transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively to identify participant decision-making approaches and needs when making health/social decisions. In Phase III, there will be cultural adaptation of an SDM facilitation tool, the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide, by two focus groups consisting of five to seven Aboriginal women. The culturally adapted guide will undergo usability testing through individual interviews with five to six women who are about to make a health/social decision. Focus groups and individual interviews will be digitally-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed inductively to identify the adaptation required and usability of the adapted decision guide.DiscussionFindings from this research will produce a culturally sensitive intervention to facilitate SDM within a population of urban Aboriginal women, which can subsequently be evaluated to determine impacts on narrowing health/social decision-making inequities.

Toward the development of a core set of outcome domains to assess shared decision-making interventions in rheumatology : results from an OMERACT Delphi survey and consensus meeting

Objective. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Working Group was to determine the core set of outcome domains and subdomains for measuring the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in rheumatology clinical trials. Methods. Following the OMERACT Filter 2.0, and based on a previous literature review of SDM outcome domains and a nominal group process at OMERACT 2014, (1) an online Delphi survey was conducted to gather feedback on the draft core set and refine its domains and subdomains, and (2) a workshop was held at the OMERACT 2016 meeting to gain consensus on the draft core set. Results. A total of 170 participants completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, and 116 completed Round 2. Respondents came from 29 countries, with 49% being patients/caregivers. Results showed that 14 out of the 17 subdomains within the 7 domains exceeded the 70% criterion (endorsement ranged from 83% to 100% of respondents). At OMERACT 2016, only 8% of the 96 attendees were patients/caregivers. Despite initial votes of support in breakout groups, there was insufficient comfort about the conceptualization of these 7 domains and 17 subdomains for these to be endorsed at OMERACT 2016 (endorsement ranged from 17% to 68% of participants). Conclusion. Differences between the Delphi survey and consensus meeting may be explained by the manner in which the outcomes were presented, variations in participant characteristics, and the context of voting. Further efforts are needed to address the limited understanding of SDM and its outcomes among OMERACT participants.