Volume 6 - Issue 1 by ian graham
Background
The current literature proposing criteria and guidelines for collaborative health sys... more Background
The current literature proposing criteria and guidelines for collaborative health system research often fails to differentiate between: (a) various types of partnerships, (b) collaborations formed for the specific purpose of developing a research proposal and those based on long-standing relationships, (c) researcher vs. decision-maker initiatives, and (d) the underlying drivers for the collaboration.
Methods
Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 decision-makers and researchers who partnered on a Canadian major peer-reviewed grant proposal in 2013. Objectives of this exploration of participants’ experiences with health system research collaboration were to: (a) explore perspectives and experience with research collaboration in general; (b) identify characteristics and strategies associated with effective partnerships; and (c) provide guidance for development of effective research partnerships. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed: transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using a general inductive approach.
Results
Findings suggest that the common “two cultures” approach to research/decision-maker collaboration provides an inadequate framework for understanding the complexity of research partnerships. Many commonlyidentified challenges to researcher/knowledge user (KU) collaboration are experienced as manageable by experienced research teams. Additional challenges (past experience with research and researchers; issues arising from previous collaboration; and health system dynamics) may be experienced in partnerships based on existing collaborations, and interact with partnership demands of time and communication. Current research practice may discourage KUs from engaging in collaborative research, in spite of strong beliefs in its potential benefits. Practical suggestions for supporting collaborations designed to respond to real-time health system challenges were identified.
Conclusion
Participants’ experience with previous research activities, factors related to the established collaboration, and interpersonal, intra- and inter-organizational dynamics may present additional challenges to research partnerships built on existing collaboration. Differences between researchers and KUs may pose no greater challenges than differences among KUs (at various levels, and representing diverse perspectives and organizations) themselves. Effective “relationship brokering” is essential for meaningful collaboration.
Papers by ian graham
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Background Achilles tendon ruptures are common injuries in an otherwise healthy, active populatio... more Background Achilles tendon ruptures are common injuries in an otherwise healthy, active population. Several treatment options exist, with both surgical and non-surgical options. Each treatment option has a unique set of risks and harms, which may present patients with decisional conflict. The aim of the proposed study is to develop, alpha test and field test a patient decision aid for patients presenting with acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Methods This is a three-stage study protocol. First, we will assemble a multi-disciplinary steering group including patients, clinicians, educators, and researchers to develop the patient decision aid prototype using the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Second, we will perform a mixed-methods alpha test of the decision aid prototype with patients and clinicians experienced in acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Outcomes measured will include acceptability and usability of the patient decision aid measured using validated outcome scales and semi-str...
Knowledge Translation in Nursing and Healthcare, 2021
Health Research Policy and Systems, 2020
BackgroundConducting research in partnership with stakeholders (e.g. policy-makers, practitioners... more BackgroundConducting research in partnership with stakeholders (e.g. policy-makers, practitioners, organisations, patients) is a promising and popular approach to improving the implementation of research findings in policy and practice. This study aimed to identify the principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts reported in different types of reviews of research partnerships in order to obtain a better understanding of the scope of the research partnership literature.MethodsThis review of reviews is part of a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach to synthesise the research partnership literature with five conceptually linked literature reviews. The main research question was ‘What principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts are reported in different types of research partnership approaches?’. We included articles describing a literature review of research partnerships using a systematic search strategy. We used an adapted version of the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Re...
Health Research Policy and Systems, 2020
Background Research funders in Canada and abroad have made substantial investments in supporting ... more Background Research funders in Canada and abroad have made substantial investments in supporting collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge as it is believed to increase knowledge use. Canadian health research funders have advocated for the use of integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health research, however, there is limited research around how IKT compares to other collaborative research approaches. Our objective was to better understand how IKT compares with engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production and participatory research by identifying the differences and similarities among them in order to provide conceptual clarity and reduce researcher and knowledge user confusion about these common approaches. Methods We employed a qualitative descriptive method using interview data to better understand experts’ perspectives and experiences on collaborative research approaches. Participants’ responses were analysed through thematic analysis t...
Health Research Policy and Systems, 2019
Background Integrated knowledge translation describes the process of partnered research between d... more Background Integrated knowledge translation describes the process of partnered research between different stakeholders with the goal of producing research that ultimately achieves a greater impact when put into practice. A better understanding of research partnerships and integrated knowledge translation has implications for future partnerships and collaborative initiatives in practice. Our research describes and expands upon previous work done to identify barriers and attitudes toward collaboration in the context of research funding opportunities that required researcher–knowledge-user partnerships. Methods A survey was sent out to researchers funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and knowledge-users who worked collaboratively on their research projects. There were two mirror versions of the survey, one for researchers and one for knowledge-users. Descriptive statistics, χ2 analysis and Mann–Whitney U analysis were used to understand the processes, barriers, perceive...
Background: A new tool, the AGREE-REX, was recently developed to support the development, reporti... more Background: A new tool, the AGREE-REX, was recently developed to support the development, reporting, and assessment of clinical practice guidelines’ (CPGs) recommendations, and to complement the AGREE II tool. We assessed the credibility and implementability of 161 CPGs recommendations using the AGREE-REX draft tool. Methods: Cross sectional study. CPGs were assessed by two independent appraisers using the AGREE-REX draft tool. The CPGs were rated with the tool’s 7-point response scale for each item. Differences between CPGs according to country, year and type of organization (government-supported/professional society) were evaluated. One-way ANOVA tests were used to examine differences in the score. Results: Recommendations from 161 CPGs from 70 organizations were appraised by 322 participants from 51 countries, using the AGREE-REX draft tool. The total overall average score of the recommendations was 4.23 (standard deviation(SD)=1.14). AGREE-REX items that scored the highest were ...
JAMA Network Open, 2020
IMPORTANCE Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may lack rigor and suitability to the setting in w... more IMPORTANCE Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may lack rigor and suitability to the setting in which they are to be applied. Methods to yield clinical practice guideline recommendations that are credible and implementable remain to be determined. To describe the development of AGREE-REX (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence), a tool designed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guideline recommendations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A cross-sectional study of 322 international stakeholders representing CPG developers, users, and researchers was conducted between December 2015 and March 2019. Advertisements to participate were distributed through professional organizations as well as through the AGREE Enterprise social media accounts and their registered users. EXPOSURES Between 2015 and 2017, participants appraised 1 of 161 CPGs using the Draft AGREE-REX tool and completed the AGREE-REX Usability Survey. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Usability and measurement properties of the tool were assessed with 7-point scales (1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement). Internal consistency of items was assessed with the Cronbach α, and the Spearman-Brown reliability adjustment was used to calculate reliability for 2 to 5 raters. RESULTS A total of 322 participants (202 female participants [62.7%]; 83 aged 40-49 years [25.8%]) rated the survey items (on a 7-point scale). All 11 items were rated as easy to understand (with a mean [SD] ranging from 5.2 [1.38] for the alignment of values item to 6.3 [0.87] for the evidence item) and easy to apply (with a mean [SD] ranging from 4.8 [1.49] for the alignment of values item to 6.1 [1.07] for the evidence item). Participants provided favorable feedback on the tool's instructions, which were considered clear (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.06]), helpful (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.00]), and complete (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.11]). Participants considered the tool easy to use (mean [SD], 5.4 [1.32]) and thought that it added value to the guideline enterprise (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.13]). Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach α = 0.94). Positive correlations were found between the overall AGREE-REX score and the implementability score (r = 0.81) and the clinical credibility score (r = 0.76). This cross-sectional study found that the AGREE-REX tool can be useful in evaluating CPG recommendations, differentiating among them, and identifying those that are clinically credible and implementable for practicing health professionals and decision makers who use recommendations to inform clinical policy.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2020
Engaging knowledge users (KUs) as research team members throughout the research process helps gen... more Engaging knowledge users (KUs) as research team members throughout the research process helps generate relevant knowledge and may improve uptake of research results. The purpose of this article is to describe how an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach was embedded within a master’s thesis project comprising a mixed-methods systematic review. KUs were engaged in four distinct phases of the systematic review process, including (1) proposal development; (2) development of the research question and approach; (3) creation of an advisory panel; and (4) an end of study meeting to interpret findings and plan dissemination of findings. The extent of each KU’s engagement on the research team fluctuated during the study. Challenges included maintaining the same KUs throughout the project and maintaining the scope of the project to align with a master’s thesis. Our suggestions for optimizing graduate student iKT projects include having regular team meetings and periodically checking...
BMC Health Services Research, 2020
Background Guidelines based on patient preferences differ from those developed solely by clinicia... more Background Guidelines based on patient preferences differ from those developed solely by clinicians and may promote patient adherence to guideline recommendations. There is scant evidence on how to develop patient-informed guidelines. This study aimed to describe how guideline developers identify, incorporate and report patient preferences. Methods We employed a descriptive cross-sectional survey design. Eligible organizations were non-profit agencies who developed at least one guideline in the past five years and had considered patient preferences in guideline development. We identified developers through the Guidelines International Network and publicly-available guideline repositories, administered the survey online, and used summary statistics to report results. Results The response rate was 18.3% (52/284). Respondents included professional societies, and government, academic, charitable and healthcare delivery organizations from 18 countries with at least 1 to ≥6 years of exper...
Current Oncology, 2019
Background: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) continue to rise internationally... more Background: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) continue to rise internationally despite evidence-based guidance strongly discouraging its use in most women with unilateral breast cancer. The purpose of the present study was to develop and assess the feasibility of a knowledge translation tool [a patient decision aid (DA)] designed to enhance evidence-informed shared decision-making about CPM. Methods: A consultation DA was developed using the Ottawa Patient Decision Aid Development eTraining in consultation with clinicians and knowledge translation experts. The final DA was then assessed for feasibility with health care professionals and patients across Canada. The assessment involved a survey completed online (health care professionals) or by telephone (patients). Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for closed-ended questions and qualitative content analysis for open-ended questions. Results: The 51 participants who completed the survey included...
Systematic Reviews, 2020
Background Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guidelin... more Background Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. Methods This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engage...
Implementation Science, 2019
Background There is growing recognition among healthcare professionals that the sustainability of... more Background There is growing recognition among healthcare professionals that the sustainability of evidence-based practices (EBPs) within different settings is variable and suboptimal. Understanding why a particular EBP might be sustained in one setting and not another remains unclear. Recent reviews illustrate the need to identify and analyze existing frameworks/models/theories (F/M/Ts) that focus solely on the sustainability of EBPs in specific healthcare settings, such as acute care, to illuminate key determinants and facilitate appropriate selection to guide practice and research. Methods We conducted a systematic review to extract sustainability frameworks. This involved using two available syntheses of the literature and a systematic search of four databases from January 2015 to July 2018: CINHAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ProQuest. We included studies published in English, and if they included sustainability F/M/Ts recommended for use in acute care or an unspecified healthcare orga...
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2019
BackgroundEngaging those who influence, administer and/or who are active users (“knowledge users”... more BackgroundEngaging those who influence, administer and/or who are active users (“knowledge users”) of health care systems, as co-producers of health research, can help to ensure that research products will better address real world needs. Our aim was to identify and review frameworks of knowledge user engagement in health research in a systematic manner, and to describe the concepts comprising these frameworks.MethodsAn international team sharing a common interest in knowledge user engagement in health research used a consensus-building process to: 1) agree upon criteria to identify articles, 2) screen articles to identify existing frameworks, 3) extract, analyze data, and 4) synthesize and report the concepts of knowledge user engagement described in health research frameworks. We utilized the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer (PCORI Explorer) as a source of articles related to engagement in health research. The search in...
International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2019
Background: Emerging evidence that meaningful relationships with knowledge users are a key predic... more Background: Emerging evidence that meaningful relationships with knowledge users are a key predictor of research use has led to promotion of partnership approaches to health research. However, little is known about health system experiences of collaborations with university-based researchers, particularly with research partnerships in the area of health system design and health service organization. The purpose of the study was to explore the experience and perspectives of senior health managers in health service organizations, with health organization-university research partnerships. Methods: In-depth, semi-structured interviews (n = 25) were conducted with senior health personnel across Canada to explore their perspectives on health system research; experiences with health organization-university research partnerships; challenges to partnership research; and suggested actions for improving engagement with knowledge users and promoting research utilization. Participants, recruited...
BMJ Open, 2019
ObjectiveWe describe the use of an integrated knowledge translation (KT) approach in the developm... more ObjectiveWe describe the use of an integrated knowledge translation (KT) approach in the development of the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials extension for equity (‘CONSORT-Equity 2017’), and advisory board-research team members’ (‘the team’) perceptions of the integrated KT process.DesignThis is an observational study to describe team processes and experience with a structured integrated KT approach to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017. Participant observation to describe team processes and a survey were used with the 38 team members.SettingUse of the CONSORT health research reporting guideline contributes to an evidence base for health systems decision-making, and CONSORT-Equity 2017 may improve reporting about health equity-relevant evidence. An integrated KT research approach engages knowledge users (those for whom the research is meant to be useful) with researchers to co-develop research evidence and is more likely to produce findings that are applied in practice or policy....
Health Research Policy and Systems, 2019
Background: Partnerships between academic researchers and health system leadership are often prom... more Background: Partnerships between academic researchers and health system leadership are often promoted by health research funding agencies as an important strategy in helping ensure that funded research is relevant and the results used. While potential benefits of such partnerships have been identified, there is limited guidance in the scientific literature for either healthcare organisations or researchers on how to select, build and manage effective research partnerships. Our main research objective was to explore the health system perspective on partnerships with researchers with a focus on issues related to the design and organisation of the health system and services. Two structured web reviews were conducted as one component of this larger study. Methods: Two separate structured web reviews were conducted using structured data extraction tools. The first review focused on sites of health research bodies and those providing information on health system management and knowledge translation (n = 38) to identify what guidance to support partnerships might be available on websites commonly accessed by health leaders and researchers. The second reviewed sites from all health 'regions' in Canada (n = 64) to determine what criteria and standards were currently used in guiding decisions to engage in research partnerships; phone follow-up ensured all relevant information was collected. Results: Absence of guidance on partnerships between research institutions and health system leaders was found. In the first review, absence of guidance on research partnerships and knowledge coproduction was striking and in contrast with coverage of other forms of collaboration such as patient/community engagement. In the second review, little evidence of criteria and standards regarding research partnerships was found. Difficulties in finding appropriate contact information for those responsible for research and obtaining a response were commonly experienced. Conclusion: Guidance related to health system partnerships with academic researchers is lacking on websites that should promote and support such collaborations. Health region websites provide little evidence of partnership criteria and often do not make contact information to research leaders within health systems readily available; this may hinder partnership development between health systems and academia.
Current Oncology, 2019
Background: In relation to the general Canadian population, Inuit face increased cancer risks and... more Background: In relation to the general Canadian population, Inuit face increased cancer risks and barriers to health services use. In shared decision-making (SDM), health care providers and patients make health care decisions together. Enhanced participation in cancer care decisions is a need for Inuit. Integrated knowledge translation (KT) supports the development of research evidence that is likely to be patient-centred and applied in practice. Objective: Using an integrated KT approach, we set out to promote the use of SDM by Inuit in cancer care. Methods: An integrated KT study involving researchers with a Steering Committee of cancer care system partners who support Inuit in cancer care (“the team”) consisted of 2 theory-driven phases: (1) using consensus-building methods to tailor a previously developed SDM strategy and developing training in the SDM strategy; and (2) training community support workers (CSWS) in the SDM strategy and testing the SDM strategy with community memb...
Research Involvement and Engagement, 2019
There have been many attempts to improve how healthcare services are developed and delivered. Des... more There have been many attempts to improve how healthcare services are developed and delivered. Despite this, we know that there are many gaps and differences in practice and that these can lead to poor patient outcomes. In addition, there are also concerns that research is being undertaken that does not reflects the realities or needs of those using healthcare services, and that the use of research findings in practice is slow. As such, shared approaches to research, such as integrated knowledge translation, are being used. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a research approach that brings together researchers, along with other stakeholders that have knowledge about a particular healthcare issue. Stakeholders may include healthcare providers and policy-makers. More recently, there has been a growing awareness of the need to include patients and members of the public within research processes. These collaborative and patient-oriented research approaches are seen as a way to develop research that tackles ongoing gaps in practice and reflect the insights, needs and priorities of those most affected by health research outcomes. Despite great support, little is known about how these major research approaches are connected, or how they may bring about improvements in the development and use of research evidence. In this paper, we examine how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked, as well as exploring where differences exist. Through this, we highlight opportunities for greater patient engagement in IKT research and to identify areas that need to be understood further.
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 2019
In this article, the authors discuss a multiphase approach for developing quality indicators base... more In this article, the authors discuss a multiphase approach for developing quality indicators based on pain practice guidelines, and the challenges associated with the process. The presentation is based on previously published reporting standards for guideline-based quality indicators. The following steps of the indicator development process were undertaken: topic selection; guideline selection; extraction of recommendations; quality indicator selection and practice test. Results: Eleven practice guidelines were reviewed for quality, and three high-quality guidelines were compared for pertinent recommendations. From these three guidelines, 12 recommendations were extracted and judged appropriate to examine the practice gap for nursing students and clinicians on an oncology and palliative care unit. Quality indicators were then identified by a consensus process, resulting in 24 discrete indicators that were included in the practice test. Quality indicators can be used to examine gaps in pain management practice, and to evaluate change after guideline implementation. However, their development can be challenging, and guideline developers could facilitate uptake of guidelines by including clear, relevant quality indicators as part of guideline creation and presentation.
Uploads
Volume 6 - Issue 1 by ian graham
The current literature proposing criteria and guidelines for collaborative health system research often fails to differentiate between: (a) various types of partnerships, (b) collaborations formed for the specific purpose of developing a research proposal and those based on long-standing relationships, (c) researcher vs. decision-maker initiatives, and (d) the underlying drivers for the collaboration.
Methods
Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 decision-makers and researchers who partnered on a Canadian major peer-reviewed grant proposal in 2013. Objectives of this exploration of participants’ experiences with health system research collaboration were to: (a) explore perspectives and experience with research collaboration in general; (b) identify characteristics and strategies associated with effective partnerships; and (c) provide guidance for development of effective research partnerships. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed: transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using a general inductive approach.
Results
Findings suggest that the common “two cultures” approach to research/decision-maker collaboration provides an inadequate framework for understanding the complexity of research partnerships. Many commonlyidentified challenges to researcher/knowledge user (KU) collaboration are experienced as manageable by experienced research teams. Additional challenges (past experience with research and researchers; issues arising from previous collaboration; and health system dynamics) may be experienced in partnerships based on existing collaborations, and interact with partnership demands of time and communication. Current research practice may discourage KUs from engaging in collaborative research, in spite of strong beliefs in its potential benefits. Practical suggestions for supporting collaborations designed to respond to real-time health system challenges were identified.
Conclusion
Participants’ experience with previous research activities, factors related to the established collaboration, and interpersonal, intra- and inter-organizational dynamics may present additional challenges to research partnerships built on existing collaboration. Differences between researchers and KUs may pose no greater challenges than differences among KUs (at various levels, and representing diverse perspectives and organizations) themselves. Effective “relationship brokering” is essential for meaningful collaboration.
Papers by ian graham
The current literature proposing criteria and guidelines for collaborative health system research often fails to differentiate between: (a) various types of partnerships, (b) collaborations formed for the specific purpose of developing a research proposal and those based on long-standing relationships, (c) researcher vs. decision-maker initiatives, and (d) the underlying drivers for the collaboration.
Methods
Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 decision-makers and researchers who partnered on a Canadian major peer-reviewed grant proposal in 2013. Objectives of this exploration of participants’ experiences with health system research collaboration were to: (a) explore perspectives and experience with research collaboration in general; (b) identify characteristics and strategies associated with effective partnerships; and (c) provide guidance for development of effective research partnerships. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed: transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using a general inductive approach.
Results
Findings suggest that the common “two cultures” approach to research/decision-maker collaboration provides an inadequate framework for understanding the complexity of research partnerships. Many commonlyidentified challenges to researcher/knowledge user (KU) collaboration are experienced as manageable by experienced research teams. Additional challenges (past experience with research and researchers; issues arising from previous collaboration; and health system dynamics) may be experienced in partnerships based on existing collaborations, and interact with partnership demands of time and communication. Current research practice may discourage KUs from engaging in collaborative research, in spite of strong beliefs in its potential benefits. Practical suggestions for supporting collaborations designed to respond to real-time health system challenges were identified.
Conclusion
Participants’ experience with previous research activities, factors related to the established collaboration, and interpersonal, intra- and inter-organizational dynamics may present additional challenges to research partnerships built on existing collaboration. Differences between researchers and KUs may pose no greater challenges than differences among KUs (at various levels, and representing diverse perspectives and organizations) themselves. Effective “relationship brokering” is essential for meaningful collaboration.