Jennifer A Boyko

Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making.

Models that describe the key features and intended effects of specific knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) interventions are much less prominent than models that provide a more general understanding of KTE. Our aim was to develop a model in order to describe the key features and intended effects of deliberative dialogues used as a KTE strategy and to understand how deliberative dialogues can support evidence-informed policymaking. By using critical interpretive synthesis, we identified 17 papers representing four fields of enquiry and integrated our findings into a model. The key features described in the model are: 1) an appropriate (i.e., conducive to the particular dialogue) meeting environment; 2) an appropriate mix of participants; and, 3) an appropriate use of research evidence. These features combine to create three types of intended effects: 1) short-term individual-level; 3) medium-term community/organizational-level; and, 3) long-term system-level. The concept of capacity building helps to explain the relationship between features and effects. The model is a useful contribution to the KTE field because it is a practical tool that could be used to guide the development and evaluation of deliberative dialogues in order to understand more about achieving particular outcomes in relation to specific issues or contexts.

Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review

BackgroundIntegrated knowledge translation (IKT) refers to collaboration between researchers and decision-makers. While advocated as an approach for enhancing the relevance and use of research, IKT is challenging and inconsistently applied. This study sought to inform future IKT practice and research by synthesizing studies that empirically evaluated IKT and identifying knowledge gaps.MethodsWe performed a scoping review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 2005 to 2014 for English language studies that evaluated IKT interventions involving researchers and organizational or policy-level decision-makers. Data were extracted on study characteristics, IKT intervention (theory, content, mode, duration, frequency, personnel, participants, timing from initiation, initiator, source of funding, decision-maker involvement), and enablers, barriers, and outcomes reported by studies. We performed content analysis and reported summary statistics.ResultsThirteen studies were eligible after screening 14,754 titles and reviewing 106 full-text studies. Details about IKT activities were poorly reported, and none were formally based on theory. Studies varied in the number and type of interactions between researchers and decision-makers; meetings were the most common format. All studies reported barriers and facilitators. Studies reported a range of positive and sub-optimal outcomes. Outcomes did not appear to be associated with initiator of the partnership, dedicated funding, partnership maturity, nature of decision-maker involvement, presence or absence of enablers or barriers, or the number of different IKT activities.ConclusionsThe IKT strategies that achieve beneficial outcomes remain unknown. We generated a summary of IKT approaches, enablers, barriers, conditions, and outcomes that can serve as the basis for a future review or for planning ongoing primary research. Future research can contribute to three identified knowledge gaps by examining (1) how different IKT strategies influence outcomes, (2) the relationship between the logic or theory underlying IKT interventions and beneficial outcomes, and (3) when and how decision-makers should be involved in the research process. Future IKT initiatives should more systematically plan and document their design and implementation, and evaluations should report the findings with sufficient detail to reveal how IKT was associated with outcomes.

Developing and refining the methods for a ‘one-stop shop’ for research evidence about health systems

BackgroundPolicymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results.MethodsTo address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a ‘one-stop shop’ for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing ‘added value’ to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages.ResultsThe taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The ‘one-stop shop’, called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.ConclusionsPolicymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists: what is the quality of the evidence?

Background. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles. Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization). Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012. Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (n = 11), NP-transition (n = 5), NP-inpatient (n = 2), CNS-outpatient (n = 11), CNS-transition (n = 13), and CNS-inpatient (n = 1). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity. Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.

Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy

BackgroundDeliberative dialogues have recently captured attention in the public health policy arena because they have the potential to address several key factors that influence the use of research evidence in policymaking. We conducted an evaluation of three deliberative dialogues convened in Canada by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy in order to learn more about deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy.MethodsThe evaluation included a formative assessment of participants’ views about and experiences with ten key design features of the dialogues, and a summative assessment of participants’ intention to use research evidence of the type that was discussed at the dialogue. We surveyed participants immediately after each dialogue was completed and again six months later. We analyzed the ratings using descriptive statistics and the written comments by conducting a thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 31 individuals participated in the three deliberative dialogues that we evaluated. The response rate was 94% (N = 29; policymakers (n = 9), stakeholders (n = 18), researchers (n = 2)) for the initial survey and 56% (n = 14) for the follow-up. All 10 of the design features that we examined as part of the formative evaluation were rated favourably by all participant groups. The findings of the summative evaluation demonstrated a mean behavioural intention score of 5.8 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).ConclusionOur findings reinforce the promise of deliberative dialogues as a strategy for supporting evidence-informed public health policies. Additional work is needed to understand more about which design elements work in which situations and for different issues, and whether intention to use research evidence is a suitable substitute for measuring actual behaviour change.

Communities of practice for supporting health systems change: a missed opportunity

BackgroundCommunities of practice (CoPs) have been used in the health sector to support professional practice change. However, little is known about how CoPs might be used to influence a system that requires change at and across various levels (i.e. front line care, organizational, governmental). In this paper we examine the experience of a CoP in the Canadian province of Ontario as it engages in improving the care of seniors. Our aim is to shed light on using CoPs to facilitate systems change.MethodsThis paper draws on year one findings of a larger multiple case study that is aiming to increase understanding of knowledge translation processes mobilized through CoPs. In this paper we strategically report on one case to illustrate a critical example of a CoP trying to effect systems change. Primary data included semi-structured interviews with CoP members (n = 8), field notes from five planning meetings, and relevant background documents. Data analysis included deductive coding (i.e. pre-determined codes aligned with the larger project) and inductive coding which allowed codes and themes to emerge. A thorough description of the case was prepared using all the coded data.ResultsThe CoP recognized a need to support health professionals (nurses, dentists) and related paraprofessionals with knowledge, experience, and resources to appropriately address their clients’ oral health care needs. Accordingly, the CoP led a knowledge-to-action initiative that involved a seven-part webinar series meant to transfer step-by-step, skill-based knowledge through live and archived webinars. Although the core planning team functioned effectively to develop the webinars, the CoP was challenged by organizational and long-term care sector cultures, as well as governmental structures within the broader health context.ConclusionThe provincial CoP functioned as an incubator that brought together best practices, research, experiences, a reflective learning cycle, and passionate champions. Nevertheless, the CoP’s efforts to stimulate practice changes were met with broader resistance. Research about how to use CoPs to influence health systems change is needed given that CoPs are being tasked with this goal.

Assessing the Spread and Uptake of a Framework for Introducing and Evaluating Advanced Practice Nursing Roles

BACKGROUND Health system researchers must ensure that the products of their work meet the needs of various stakeholder groups (e.g., patients, practitioners, and policy makers). Evidence-based frameworks can support the uptake and spread of research evidence; however, their existence as knowledge translation tools does not ensure their uptake and it is difficult to ascertain their spread into research, practice, and policy using existing methods. PURPOSE The purpose of this article is to report results of a study on the spread and uptake of an evidence-based framework (i.e., the participatory, evidence-based, patient-focused process for advanced practice nursing [PEPPA] framework) into research, practice, and policies relevant to the introduction and evaluation of advanced practice nursing roles. We also reflect on the utility of using a modified citation methodology to evaluate knowledge translation efforts. METHODS We searched four databases for literature published between 2004 and 2014 citing the original paper in which the PEPPA framework was published, and carried out an Internet search for grey literature using keywords. Relevant data were extracted from sources and organized using NVivo software. We analysed results descriptively. RESULTS Our search yielded 164 unique sources of which 69.5% were from published literature and the majority (83.4%) of these were published in nursing journals. Most frequently (71.5%), the framework was used by researchers and students in research studies. A smaller number of citations (11.3%) reflected use of the PEPPA framework in practice settings with a focus on role development, implementation, evaluation, or a combination of these. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION This study demonstrates that the PEPPA framework has been used to varying degrees as intended, and provides guidance on how to evaluate the spread and uptake of research outputs (e.g., theoretical frameworks). Further research is needed about ways to determine whether evidence-informed research tools such as frameworks have been taken up successfully into practice and policy contexts.

Moving knowledge about family violence into public health policy and practice: a mixed method study of a deliberative dialogue

BackgroundThere is a need to understand scientific evidence in light of the context within which it will be used. Deliberative dialogues are a promising strategy that can be used to meet this evidence interpretation challenge.MethodsWe evaluated a deliberative dialogue held by a transnational violence prevention network. The deliberative dialogue included researchers and knowledge user partners of the Preventing Violence Across the Lifespan (PreVAiL) Research Network and was incorporated into a biennial full-team meeting. The dialogue included pre- and post-meeting activities, as well as deliberations embedded within the meeting agenda. The deliberations included a preparatory plenary session, small group sessions and a synthesizing plenary. The challenge addressed through the process was how to mobilize research to orient health and social service systems to prevent family violence and its consequences. The deliberations focused on the challenge, potential solutions for addressing it and implementation factors. Using a mixed-methods approach, data were collected via questionnaires, meeting minutes, dialogue documents and follow-up telephone interviews.ResultsForty-four individuals (all known to each other and from diverse professional roles, settings and countries) participated in the deliberative dialogue. Ten of the 12 features of the deliberative dialogue were rated favourably by all respondents. The mean behavioural intention score was 5.7 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), suggesting that many participants intended to use what they learned in their future decision-making. Interviews provided further insight into what might be done to facilitate the use of research in the violence prevention arena.ConclusionFindings suggest that participants will use dialogue learnings to influence practice and policy change. Deliberative dialogues may be a viable strategy for collaborative sensemaking of research related to family violence prevention, and other public health topics.

Evidence‐Informed Health Policymaking in Canada: Past, Present and Future

Evidence‐informed health policy making (EIHP) is becoming a necessary means to achieving health system reform. Although Canada has a rich and well documented history in the field of evidence‐based medicine, a concerted effort to capture Canadas efforts to support EIHP in particular has yet to be realized. This paper reports on the development of EIHP in Canada, including promising approaches being used to support the use of evidence in policy making about complex health systems issues. In light of Canadas contributions, this paper suggests that scholars in Canada will continue engaging in the field of EIHP through further study of interventions underway, as well as by sharing knowledge within and beyond Canadas borders about approaches that support EIHP.

Evidence-informed health policy making in Canada: past, present, and future.

Evidence‐informed health policy making (EIHP) is becoming a necessary means to achieving health system reform. Although Canada has a rich and well documented history in the field of evidence‐based medicine, a concerted effort to capture Canadas efforts to support EIHP in particular has yet to be realized. This paper reports on the development of EIHP in Canada, including promising approaches being used to support the use of evidence in policy making about complex health systems issues. In light of Canadas contributions, this paper suggests that scholars in Canada will continue engaging in the field of EIHP through further study of interventions underway, as well as by sharing knowledge within and beyond Canadas borders about approaches that support EIHP.