Mathieu Ouimet

New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies:

This article addresses three questions: What is the extent of instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use of university research in government agencies? Are there differences between the policy domains in regard to the extent of each type of use? What are the determinants of instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use of university research? Based on a survey of 833 government officials, the results suggest that (1) the three types of use of research simultaneously play a significant role in government agencies, (2) there are large differences between policy domains in regard to research utilization, and (3) a small number of determinants explain the increase of instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of research in a different way.

The Extent and Organizational Determinants of Research Utilization in Canadian Health Services Organizations

This article focuses on the use of research by managers and professionals in Canadian health service organizations (ministries, regional authorities, and hospitals). The results of the analysis of the 928 responses underlined the important role that the absorption, learning, culture, and linkage mechanism variables played in determining utilization. General linear regression and regression by organizational type confirmed the importance of the linkage mechanisms, research experience, unit size, and research relevance for the users. The emphasis could thus be put, according to the organization type, on research experience, linkage mechanisms, unit size, research culture, research relevance for the users, and research activities. The article also underscores the individual and organizational contextual factors’ high degree of significance by expressing these contextual factors as organizational variables and by adopting a more organizational perspective of knowledge utilization analysis.

What supports do health system organizations have in place to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making? a qualitative study

BackgroundDecisions regarding health systems are sometimes made without the input of timely and reliable evidence, leading to less than optimal health outcomes. Healthcare organizations can implement tools and infrastructures to support the use of research evidence to inform decision-making.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to profile the supports and instruments (i.e., programs, interventions, instruments or tools) that healthcare organizations currently have in place and which ones were perceived to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making.MethodsIn-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals in three different types of positions (i.e., a senior management team member, a library manager, and a ‘knowledge broker’) in three types of healthcare organizations (i.e., regional health authorities, hospitals and primary care practices) in two Canadian provinces (i.e., Ontario and Quebec). The interviews were taped, transcribed, and then analyzed thematically using NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software.ResultsA total of 57 interviews were conducted in 25 organizations in Ontario and Quebec. The main findings suggest that, for the healthcare organizations that participated in this study, the following supports facilitate evidence-informed decision-making: facilitating roles that actively promote research use within the organization; establishing ties to researchers and opinion leaders outside the organization; a technical infrastructure that provides access to research evidence, such as databases; and provision and participation in training programs to enhance staff’s capacity building.ConclusionsThis study identified the need for having a receptive climate, which laid the foundation for the implementation of other tangible initiatives and supported the use of research in decision-making. This study adds to the literature on organizational efforts that can increase the use of research evidence in decision-making. Some of the identified supports may increase the use of research evidence by decision-makers, which may then lead to more informed decisions, and hopefully to a strengthened health system and improved health.

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review

BackgroundWe completed a scoping review on the barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers, including consideration of format and content, to develop recommendations for systematic review authors and to inform research efforts to develop and test formats for systematic reviews that may optimise their uptake.MethodsWe used the Arksey and O’Malley approach for our scoping review. Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo) were searched from inception until September 2014. Any study that identified barriers or facilitators (including format and content features) to uptake of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers/analysts was eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the literature results and abstracted data from the relevant studies. The identified barriers and facilitators were charted using a barriers and facilitators taxonomy for implementing clinical practice guidelines by clinicians.ResultsWe identified useful information for authors of systematic reviews to inform their preparation of reviews including providing one-page summaries with key messages, tailored to the relevant audience. Moreover, partnerships between researchers and policy makers/managers to facilitate the conduct and use of systematic reviews should be considered to enhance relevance of reviews and thereby influence uptake.ConclusionsSystematic review authors can consider our results when publishing their systematic reviews. These strategies should be rigorously evaluated to determine impact on use of reviews in decision-making.

Barriers, facilitators and views about next steps to implementing supports for evidence-informed decision-making in health systems: a qualitative study

BackgroundMobilizing research evidence for daily decision-making is challenging for health system decision-makers. In a previous qualitative paper, we showed the current mix of supports that Canadian health-care organizations have in place and the ones that are perceived to be helpful to facilitate the use of research evidence in health system decision-making. Factors influencing the implementation of such supports remain poorly described in the literature. Identifying the barriers to and facilitators of different interventions is essential for implementation of effective, context-specific, supports for evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in health systems. The purpose of this study was to identify (a) barriers and facilitators to implementing supports for EIDM in Canadian health-care organizations, (b) views about emerging development of supports for EIDM, and (c) views about the priorities to bridge the gaps in the current mix of supports that these organizations have in place.MethodsThis qualitative study was conducted in three types of health-care organizations (regional health authorities, hospitals, and primary care practices) in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec). Fifty-seven in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with senior managers, library managers, and knowledge brokers from health-care organizations that have already undertaken strategic initiatives in knowledge translation. The interviews were taped, transcribed, and then analyzed thematically using NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software.ResultsLimited resources (i.e., money or staff), time constraints, and negative attitudes (or resistance) toward change were the most frequently identified barriers to implementing supports for EIDM. Genuine interest from health system decision-makers, notably their willingness to invest money and resources and to create a knowledge translation culture over time in health-care organizations, was the most frequently identified facilitator to implementing supports for EIDM. The most frequently cited views about emerging development of supports for EIDM were implementing accessible and efficient systems to support the use of research in decision-making (e.g., documentation and reporting tools, communication tools, and decision support tools) and developing and implementing an infrastructure or position where the accountability for encouraging knowledge use lies. The most frequently stated priorities for bridging the gaps in the current mix of supports that these organizations have in place were implementing technical infrastructures to support research use and to ensure access to research evidence and establishing formal or informal ties to researchers and knowledge brokers outside the organization who can assist in EIDM.ConclusionsThese results provide insights on the type of practical implementation imperatives involved in supporting EIDM.

Measuring organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care

BackgroundKnowledge translation (KT) is an imperative in order to implement research-based and contextualized practices that can answer the numerous challenges of complex health problems. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) provides a conceptual framework to guide the implementation process in chronic care. Yet, organizations aiming to improve chronic care require an adequate level of organizational readiness (OR) for KT. Available instruments on organizational readiness for change (ORC) have shown limited validity, and are not tailored or adapted to specific phases of the knowledge-to-action (KTA) process. We aim to develop an evidence-based, comprehensive, and valid instrument to measure OR for KT in healthcare. The OR for KT instrument will be based on core concepts retrieved from existing literature and validated by a Delphi study. We will specifically test the instrument in chronic care that is of an increasing importance for the health system.MethodsPhase one: We will conduct a systematic review of the theories and instruments assessing ORC in healthcare. The retained theoretical information will be synthesized in a conceptual map. A bibliography and database of ORC instruments will be prepared after appraisal of their psychometric properties according to the standards for educational and psychological testing. An online Delphi study will be carried out among decision makers and knowledge users across Canada to assess the importance of these concepts and measures at different steps in the KTA process in chronic care.Phase two: A final OR for KT instrument will be developed and validated both in French and in English and tested in chronic disease management to measure OR for KT regarding the adoption of comprehensive, patient-centered, and system-based CCMs.DiscussionThis study provides a comprehensive synthesis of current knowledge on explanatory models and instruments assessing OR for KT. Moreover, this project aims to create more consensus on the theoretical underpinnings and the instrumentation of OR for KT in chronic care. The final product--a comprehensive and valid OR for KT instrument--will provide the chronic care settings with an instrument to assess their readiness to implement evidence-based chronic care.

A systematic review of instruments to assess organizational readiness for knowledge translation in health care.

Background The translation of research into practices has been incomplete. Organizational readiness for change (ORC) is a potential facilitator of effective knowledge translation (KT). However we know little about the best way to assess ORC. Therefore, we sought to systematically review ORC measurement instruments. Methods We searched for published studies in bibliographic databases (Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, etc.) up to November 1st, 2012. We included publications that developed ORC measures and/or empirically assessed ORC using an instrument at the organizational level in the health care context. We excluded articles if they did not refer specifically to ORC, did not concern the health care domain or were limited to individual-level change readiness. We focused on identifying the psychometric properties of instruments that were developed to assess readiness in an organization prior to implementing KT interventions in health care. We used the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing to assess the psychometric properties of identified ORC measurement instruments. Findings We found 26 eligible instruments described in 39 publications. According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 18 (69%) of a total of 26 measurement instruments presented both validity and reliability criteria. The Texas Christian University –ORC (TCU-ORC) scale reported the highest instrument validity with a score of 4 out of 4. Only one instrument, namely the Modified Texas Christian University – Director version (TCU-ORC-D), reported a reliability score of 2 out of 3. No information was provided regarding the reliability and validity of five (19%) instruments. Conclusion Our findings indicate that there are few valid and reliable ORC measurement instruments that could be applied to KT in the health care sector. The TCU-ORC instrument presents the best evidence in terms of validity testing. Future studies using this instrument could provide more knowledge on its relevance to diverse clinical contexts.

Organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care: a review of theoretical components

BackgroundWith the persistent gaps between research and practice in healthcare systems, knowledge translation (KT) has gained significance and importance. Also, in most industrialized countries, there is an increasing emphasis on managing chronic health conditions with the best available evidence. Yet, organizations aiming to improve chronic care (CC) require an adequate level of organizational readiness (OR) for KT.Objectives: The purpose of this study is to review and synthesize the existing evidence on conceptual models/frameworks of Organizational Readiness for Change (ORC) in healthcare as the basis for the development of a comprehensive framework of OR for KT in the context of CC.Data sourcesWe conducted a systematic review of the literature on OR for KT in CC using Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Sciences (SCI and SSCI), and others. Search terms included readiness; commitment and change; preparedness; willing to change; organization and administration; and health and social services.Study selection: The search was limited to studies that had been published between the starting date of each bibliographic database (e.g., 1964 for PubMed) and November 1, 2012. Only papers that refer to a theory, a theoretical component from any framework or model on OR that were applicable to the healthcare domain were considered. We analyzed data using conceptual mapping.Data extraction: Pairs of authors independently screened the published literature by reviewing their titles and abstracts. Then, the two same reviewers appraised the full text of each study independently.ResultsOverall, we found and synthesized 10 theories, theoretical models and conceptual frameworks relevant to ORC in healthcare described in 38 publications. We identified five core concepts, namely organizational dynamics, change process, innovation readiness, institutional readiness, and personal readiness. We extracted 17 dimensions and 59 sub-dimensions related to these 5 concepts.ConclusionOur findings provide a useful overview for researchers interested in ORC and aims to create a consensus on the core theoretical components of ORC in general and of OR for KT in CC in particular. However, more work is needed to define and validate the core elements of a framework that could help to assess OR for KT in CC.

Multi-level analysis of electronic health record adoption by health care professionals: a study protocol.

BackgroundThe electronic health record (EHR) is an important application of information and communication technologies to the healthcare sector. EHR implementation is expected to produce benefits for patients, professionals, organisations, and the population as a whole. These benefits cannot be achieved without the adoption of EHR by healthcare professionals. Nevertheless, the influence of individual and organisational factors in determining EHR adoption is still unclear. This study aims to assess the unique contribution of individual and organisational factors on EHR adoption in healthcare settings, as well as possible interrelations between these factors.MethodsA prospective study will be conducted. A stratified random sampling method will be used to select 50 healthcare organisations in the Quebec City Health Region (Canada). At the individual level, a sample of 15 to 30 health professionals will be chosen within each organisation depending on its size. A semi-structured questionnaire will be administered to two key informants in each organisation to collect organisational data. A composite adoption score of EHR adoption will be developed based on a Delphi process and will be used as the outcome variable. Twelve to eighteen months after the first contact, depending on the pace of EHR implementation, key informants and clinicians will be contacted once again to monitor the evolution of EHR adoption. A multilevel regression model will be applied to identify the organisational and individual determinants of EHR adoption in clinical settings. Alternative analytical models would be applied if necessary.ResultsThe study will assess the contribution of organisational and individual factors, as well as their interactions, to the implementation of EHR in clinical settings.ConclusionsThese results will be very relevant for decision makers and managers who are facing the challenge of implementing EHR in the healthcare system. In addition, this research constitutes a major contribution to the field of knowledge transfer and implementation science.

Some but not all dyadic measures in shared decision making research have satisfactory psychometric properties

OBJECTIVE To assess the psychometric properties of dyadic measures for shared decision making (SDM) research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We conducted an observational cross-sectional study in 17 primary care clinics with physician-patient dyads. We used seven subscales to measure six elements of SDM: (1) defining the problem, presenting options, and discussing pros and cons; (2) clarifying the patients values and preferences; (3) discussing the patients self-efficacy; (4) drawing on the doctors knowledge; (5) verifying the patients understanding; and (6) assessing the patients uncertainty. We assessed the reliability and invariance of the factorial structure and considered a measure to be dyadic if the factorial structure of the patient version was similar to that of the physician version and if there was equality of loading (no significant chi-square). RESULTS We analyzed data for 264 physicians and 269 patients. All measures except one showed adequate reliability (Cronbach alpha, 0.70-0.93) and factorial validity (root mean square error of approximation, 0.000-0.06). However, we found only four measures to be dyadic (P>0.05): the values clarification subscale, perceived behavioral subscale, information-verifying subscale, and uncertainty subscale. CONCLUSION The subscales for values clarification, perceived behavioral control, information verifying, and uncertainty are appropriate dyadic measures for SDM research and can be used to derive dyadic indices.