Identifying barriers and enablers to rigorous conduct and reporting of preclinical laboratory studies.

Use of rigorous study design methods and transparent reporting in publications are 2 key strategies proposed to improve the reproducibility of preclinical research. Despite promotion of these practices by funders and journals, assessments suggest uptake is low in preclinical research. Thirty preclinical scientists were interviewed to better understand barriers and enablers to rigorous design and reporting. The interview guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, which is a framework used to understand determinants of current and desired behavior. Four global themes were identified; 2 reflecting enablers and 2 reflecting barriers. We found that basic scientists are highly motivated to apply the methods of rigorous design and reporting and perceive a number of benefits to their adoption (e.g., improved quality and reliability). However, there was varied awareness of the guidelines and in implementation of these practices. Researchers also noted that these guidelines can result in disadvantages, such as increased sample sizes, expenses, time, and can require several personnel to operationalize. Most researchers expressed additional resources such as personnel and education/training would better enable the application of some methods. Using existing guidance (Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW); Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project implementation strategies), we mapped and coded our interview findings to identify potential interventions, policies, and implementation strategies to improve routine use of the guidelines by preclinical scientists. These findings will help inform specific strategies that may guide the development of programs and resources to improve experimental design and transparent reporting in preclinical research.

Describing the content of trial recruitment interventions using the TIDieR reporting checklist: a systematic methodology review.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to clinical trials is an ongoing challenge, and relatively little is known about what recruitment strategies lead to better recruitment. Recruitment interventions can be considered complex interventions, often involving multiple components, targeting a variety of groups, and tailoring to different groups. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting checklist (which comprises 12 items recommended for reporting complex interventions) to guide the assessment of how recruitment interventions are described. We aimed to (1) examine to what extent we could identify information about each TIDieR item within recruitment intervention studies, and (2) observe additional detail for each item to describe useful variation among these studies. METHODS: We identified randomized, nested recruitment intervention studies providing recruitment or willingness to participate rates from two sources: a Cochrane review of trials evaluating strategies to improve recruitment to randomized trials, and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls database. First, we assessed to what extent authors reported information about each TIDieR item. Second, we developed descriptive categorical variables for 7 TIDieR items and extracting relevant quotes for the other 5 items. RESULTS: We assessed 122 recruitment intervention studies. We were able to extract information relevant to most TIDieR items (e.g., brief rationale, materials, procedure) with the exception of a few items that were only rarely reported (e.g., tailoring, modifications, planned/actual fidelity). The descriptive variables provided a useful overview of study characteristics, with most studies using various forms of informational interventions (55%) delivered at a single time point (90%), often by a member of the research team (59%) in a clinical care setting (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Our TIDieR-based variables provide a useful description of the core elements of complex trial recruitment interventions. Recruitment intervention studies report core elements of complex interventions variably; some process elements (e.g., mode of delivery, location) are almost always described, while others (e.g., duration, fidelity) are reported infrequently, with little indication of a reason for their absence. Future research should explore whether these TIDieR-based variables can form the basis of an approach to better reporting of elements of successful recruitment interventions.

Choosing which in-hospital laboratory tests to target for intervention: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Some laboratory testing practices may be of low value, leading to wasted resources and potential patient harm. Our scoping review investigated factors and processes that developers report using to inform decisions about what tests to target for practice improvement. METHODS: We searched Medline on May 30th, 2019 and June 28th, 2021 and included guidelines, recommendation statements, or empirical studies related to test ordering practices. Studies were included if they were conducted in a tertiary care setting, reported making a choice about a specific test requiring intervention, and reported at least one factor informing that choice. We extracted descriptive details, tests chosen, processes used to make the choice, and factors guiding test choice. RESULTS: From 114 eligible studies, we identified 30 factors related to test choice including clinical value, cost, prevalence of test, quality of test, and actionability of test results. We identified nine different processes used to inform decisions regarding where to spend intervention resources. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention developers face difficult choices when deciding where to put scarce resources intended to improve test utilization. Factors and processes identified here can be used to inform a framework to help intervention developers make choices relevant to improving testing practices.

Informing the research agenda for optimizing audit and feedback interventions: results of a prioritization exercise.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions are one of the most common approaches for implementing evidence-based practices. A key barrier to more effective A&F interventions is the lack of a theory-guided approach to the accumulation of evidence. Recent interviews with theory experts identified 313 theory-informed hypotheses, spread across 30 themes, about how to create more effective A&F interventions. In the current survey, we sought to elicit from stakeholders which hypotheses were most likely to advance the field if studied further. METHODS: From the list of 313, three members of the research team identified 216 that were clear and distinguishable enough for prioritization. A web-based survey was then sent to 211 A&F intervention stakeholders asking them to choose up to 50 'priority' hypotheses following the header "A&F interventions will be more effective if…". Analyses included frequencies of endorsement of the individual hypotheses and themes into which they were grouped. RESULTS: 68 of the 211 invited participants responded to the survey. Seven hypotheses were chosen by > 50% of respondents, including A&F interventions will be more effective… "if feedback is provided by a trusted source"; "if recipients are involved in the design/development of the feedback intervention"; "if recommendations related to the feedback are based on good quality evidence"; "if the behaviour is under the control of the recipient"; "if it addresses barriers and facilitators (drivers) to behaviour change"; "if it suggests clear action plans"; and "if target/goal/optimal rates are clear and explicit". The most endorsed theme was Recipient Priorities (four hypotheses were chosen 92 times as a 'priority' hypotheses). CONCLUSIONS: This work determined a set of hypotheses thought by respondents to be to be most likely to advance the field through future A&F intervention research. This work can inform a coordinated research agenda that may more efficiently lead to more effective A&F interventions.

Informed consent in pragmatic trials: results from a survey of trials published 2014-2019.

OBJECTIVES: To describe reporting of informed consent in pragmatic trials, justifications for waivers of consent and reporting of alternative approaches to standard written consent. To identify factors associated with (1) not reporting and (2) not obtaining consent. METHODS: Survey of primary trial reports, published 2014-2019, identified using an electronic search filter for pragmatic trials implemented in MEDLINE, and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. RESULTS: Among 1988 trials, 132 (6.6%) did not include a statement about participant consent, 1691 (85.0%) reported consent had been obtained, 139 (7.0%) reported a waiver and 26 (1.3%) reported consent for one aspect (eg, data collection) but a waiver for another (eg, intervention). Of the 165 trials reporting a waiver, 76 (46.1%) provided a justification. Few (53, 2.9%) explicitly reported use of alternative approaches to consent. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, lower journal impact factor (p=0.001) and cluster randomisation (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with not reporting on consent, while trial recency, cluster randomisation, higher-income country settings, health services research and explicit labelling as pragmatic were significantly associated with not obtaining consent (all p<0.0001). DISCUSSION: Not obtaining consent seems to be increasing and is associated with the use of cluster randomisation and pragmatic aims, but neither cluster randomisation nor pragmatism are currently accepted justifications for waivers of consent. Rather than considering either standard written informed consent or waivers of consent, researchers and research ethics committees could consider alternative consent approaches that may facilitate the conduct of pragmatic trials while preserving patient autonomy and the public's trust in research.

When piloting health services interventions, what predicts real world behaviours? A systematic concept mapping review.

BACKGROUND: Modeling studies to inform the design of complex health services interventions often involves elements that differ from the intervention's ultimate real-world use. These "hypothetical" elements include pilot participants, materials, and settings. Understanding the conditions under which studies with "hypothetical" elements can yield valid results would greatly help advance health services research. Our objectives are: 1) to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify factors affecting the relationship between hypothetical decisions and real-world behaviours, and 2) to summarise and organize these factors into a preliminary framework. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search using PsycINFO and Medline on November 30th, 2015, updated March 7th, 2019. We also conducted a supplemental snowball search on December 9th 2015 and a reverse citation search using Scopus and Web of Science. Studies were eligible to be included in this review if they clearly addressed the consistency between some type of hypothetical decision and a corresponding real decision or behaviour. Two reviewers extracted data using a standardized data collection form developed through an iterative consensus-based process. We extracted basic study information and data about each study's research area, design, and research question. Quotations from the articles were extracted and summarized into standardized factor statements. RESULTS: Of the 2444 articles that were screened, 68 articles were included in the review. The articles identified 27 factors that we grouped into 4 categories: decision maker factors, cognitive factors, task factors, and matching factors. CONCLUSIONS: We have summarized a large number of factors that may be relevant when considering whether hypothetical health services pilot work can be expected to yield results that are consistent with real-world behaviours. Our descriptive framework can serve as the basis for organizing future work exploring which factors are most relevant when seeking to develop complex health services interventions.

Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials.

BACKGROUND: Novel rationales for randomizing clusters rather than individuals appear to be emerging from the push for more pragmatic trials, for example, to facilitate trial recruitment, reduce the costs of research, and improve external validity. Such rationales may be driven by a mistaken perception that choosing cluster randomization lessens the need for informed consent. We reviewed a random sample of published cluster randomized trials involving only individual-level health care interventions to determine (a) the prevalence of reporting a rationale for the choice of cluster randomization; (b) the types of explicit, or if absent, apparent rationales for the use of cluster randomization; (c) the prevalence of reporting patient informed consent for study interventions; and (d) the types of justifications provided for waivers of consent. We considered cluster randomized trials for evaluating exclusively the individual-level health care interventions to focus on clinical trials where individual randomization is only theoretically possible and where there is a general expectation of informed consent. METHODS: A random sample of 40 cluster randomized trials were identified by implementing a validated electronic search filter in two electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE and Embase), with two reviewers independently extracting information from each trial. Inclusion criteria were the following: primary report of a cluster randomized trial, evaluating exclusively an individual-level health care intervention, published between 2007 and 2016, and conducted in Canada, the United States, European Union, Australia, or low- and middle-income country settings. RESULTS: Twenty-five trials (62.5%, 95% confidence interval = 47.5%-77.5%) reported an explicit rationale for the use of cluster randomization. The most commonly reported rationales were those with logistical or administrative convenience (15 trials, 60%) and those that need to avoid contamination (13 trials, 52%); five trials (20%) were cited rationales related to the push for more pragmatic trials. Twenty-one trials (52.5%, 95% confidence interval = 37%-68%) reported written informed consent for the intervention, two (5%) reported verbal consent, and eight (20%) reported waivers of consent, while in nine trials (22.5%) consent was unclear or not mentioned. Reported justifications for waivers of consent included that study interventions were already used in clinical practice, patients were not randomized individually, and the need to facilitate the pragmatic nature of the trial. Only one trial reported an explicit and appropriate justification for waiver of consent based on minimum criteria in international research ethics guidelines, namely, infeasibility and minimal risk. CONCLUSION: Rationales for adopting cluster over individual randomization and for adopting consent waivers are emerging, related to the need to facilitate pragmatic trials. Greater attention to clear reporting of study design rationales, informed consent procedures, as well as justification for waivers is needed to ensure that such trials meet appropriate ethical standards.

Changes in Caregiver Health in the Years Surrounding the Birth of a Child With Health Problems: Administrative Data From British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers of children with health problems (CHPs; usually mothers) experience more physical and psychological health problems than those of children without health problems (non-CHPs). Primarily cross-sectional and survey-driven, this literature has not yet explored whether these health differences existed before the birth of the CHPs, or are exacerbated postbirth. METHODS: Using linked administrative health data on all mother-child dyads for children born in the year 2000 in British Columbia, Canada, we examined maternal health before, during, and after the birth of CHPs, and compared it between mothers of CHPs and non-CHPs with piecewise growth curve modeling. RESULTS: Compared with mothers of non-CHPs, mothers of CHPs had more physician visits (8.09 vs. 11.07), more medication types (1.81 vs. 2.60), and were more likely to be diagnosed with selected health conditions (30.9% vs. 42.5%) 4 years before the birth of the child. Over the 7-year postbirth period, the health of the 2 groups of mothers further diverged: while mothers of CHPs showed increases on physician visits and types of medication, mothers of non-CHPs did not experience any changes in physician visits and had less steep increases for types of medication. CONCLUSIONS: Health issues associated with having a child with a health problem may begin well before the birth of the child, but also appear to be exacerbated postbirth. The health challenges of caregivers of CHPs may be multifactorial, involving both preexisting conditions and the stresses associated with caring for a child with health problems.

Informed Consent Documents Used in Critical Care Trials Often Do Not Implement Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: Informed consent documents are often poorly understood by research participants. In critical care, issues such as time pressure, patient capacity, and surrogate decision making complicate the consent process further. Recommendations exist for addressing critical care-specific consent issues; we examined how well existing practice implements these recommendations. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic search of the literature for recommendations specific to critical care informed consent and rated existing informed consent documents on their implementation of 1) 18 of these critical care recommendations and 2) 36 previously developed general informed consent recommendations. Four hundred twelve registered critical care trials were identified and a request sent to the principal investigators for an example of the informed consent document associated with the trial. Each consent document was rated on both set of recommendations. SETTING: We evaluated informed consent documents for trials conducted in English or French registered with clinicaltrials.gov. PATIENTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Independent coders rated implementation of each recommendation on a four-point scale. Of 412 requests, 137 informed consent documents were returned, for a response rate of 34.1%. Of these, 86 met inclusion criteria and were assessed. Overall agreement between raters was 90.6% (weighted κ = 0.79; 0.77-0.81). Implementation of the 18 critical care recommendations was highly variable, ranging between 2% and 96.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care studies often do not provide the information recommended for those providing consent for research. These clear recommendations provide testable hypotheses about how to improve the consent process for patients and family members considering trial participation in the critical care setting.

Ethical issues in pragmatic randomized controlled trials: a review of the recent literature identifies gaps in ethical argumentation.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are designed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in real-world clinical conditions. However, these studies raise ethical issues for researchers and regulators. Our objective is to identify a list of key ethical issues in pragmatic RCTs and highlight gaps in the ethics literature. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of articles addressing ethical aspects of pragmatic RCTs. After applying the search strategy and eligibility criteria, 36 articles were included and reviewed using content analysis. RESULTS: Our review identified four major themes: 1) the research-practice distinction; 2) the need for consent; 3) elements that must be disclosed in the consent process; and 4) appropriate oversight by research ethics committees. 1) Most authors reject the need for a research-practice distinction in pragmatic RCTs. They argue that the distinction rests on the presumptions that research participation offers patients less benefit and greater risk than clinical practice, but neither is true in the case of pragmatic RCTs. 2) Most authors further conclude that pragmatic RCTs may proceed without informed consent or with simplified consent procedures when risks are low and consent is infeasible. 3) Authors who endorse the need for consent assert that information need only be disclosed when research participation poses incremental risks compared to clinical practice. Authors disagree as to whether randomization must be disclosed. 4) Finally, all authors view regulatory oversight as burdensome and a practical impediment to the conduct of pragmatic RCTs, and argue that oversight procedures ought to be streamlined when risks to participants are low. CONCLUSION: The current ethical discussion is framed by the assumption that the function of research oversight is to protect participants from risk. As pragmatic RCTs commonly involve usual care interventions, the risks may be minimal. This leads many to reject the research-practice distinction and question the need for informed consent. But the function of oversight should be understood broadly as protecting the liberty and welfare interest of participants and promoting public trust in research. This understanding, we suggest, will focus discussion on questions about appropriate ethical review for pragmatic RCTs.

Evaluating the potential for pharmacists to prescribe oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC) to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF)-related strokes remains poorly used. Alternate strategies, such as community pharmacist prescribing of OAC, should be explored. METHODS: Approximately 400 pharmacists, half with additional prescribing authority (APA), randomly selected from the Alberta College of Pharmacists, were invited to participate in an online survey over a 6-week period. The survey consisted of demographics, case scenarios assessing appropriateness of OAC (based on the 2014 Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF guidelines) and perceived barriers to prescribing. Regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of knowledge. RESULTS: A total of 35% (139/397) of pharmacists responded to the survey, and 57% of these had APA. Depending on the case scenario, 55% to 92% of pharmacists correctly identified patients eligible for stroke prevention therapy, but only about a half selected the appropriate antithrombotic agent; there was no difference in the knowledge according to APA status. In multivariable analysis, predictors significantly associated with guideline-concordant prescribing were having the pharmacist interact as part of an interprofessional team (p = 0.04) and direct OAC (DOAC) self-efficacy (confidence in ability to extend, adapt, initiate or alter prescriptions; p = 0.02). Barriers to prescribing OAC for APA pharmacists included a lack of AF and DOAC knowledge and preference for consulting the physician first, but these same pharmacists also identified difficulty in contacting the physician as a major barrier. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists can identify patients who would benefit from stroke prevention therapy in AF. However, physician collaboration and further training on AF and guidelines for prescribing OAC are needed.

Children with neurodevelopmental disorders and disabilities: a population-based study of healthcare service utilization using administrative data.

AIM: The aim of this study was to identify children with neurodevelopmental disorders and disabilities (NDD/D) and compare their healthcare service utilization to children without NDD/D using provincial linked administrative data. METHOD: The sample included children aged 6 to 10 years (n=183 041), who were registered with the British Columbia Medical Services Plan. Diagnostic information was used for the identification and classification of NDD/D in six functional domains. Healthcare service utilization included outcomes based on physician claims, prescription medication use, and hospitalization. RESULTS: Overall, 8.3% of children were identified with NDD/D. Children with NDD/D had higher healthcare service utilization rates than those without NDD/D. Effect sizes were: very large for the number of days a prescription medication was dispensed; large for the number of prescriptions; medium for the number of physician visits, different specialists visited, number of different prescription medications, and ever hospitalized; and small for the number of laboratory visits, X-ray visits, and number of days hospitalized. INTERPRETATION: The findings have policy implications for service and resource planning. Given the high use of psychostimulants, specialized services for both NDD/D and psychiatric conditions may be the most needed services for children with NDD/D. Future studies may examine patterns of physician behaviours and costs attributable to healthcare service utilization for children with NDD/D. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Children with neurodevelopmental disorders and disabilities (NDD/D) have higher healthcare service utilization than those without. Based on provincial population-based linked administrative health data, a sizeable number of children are living with NDD/D. Given the high use of psychostimulants, specialized services for children with both NDD/D and psychiatric conditions may be the most needed services for children with NDD/D.

Factors that influence effective perioperative temperature management by anesthesiologists: a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

PURPOSE: Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (IPH) is associated with a range of adverse outcomes. Safe and effective warming techniques exist to prevent IPH; however, IPH remains common. This study aimed to identify factors that anesthesiologists perceive may influence temperature management during the perioperative period. METHODS: After Research Ethics Board approval, semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff anesthesiologists at a Canadian academic hospital. An interview guide based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to capture 14 theoretical domains that may influence temperature management. The interview transcripts were coded using direct content analysis to generate specific beliefs and to identify relevant TDF domains perceived to influence temperature management behaviour. RESULTS: Data saturation was achieved after 15 interviews. The following nine theoretical domains were identified as relevant to designing an intervention for practices in perioperative temperature management: knowledge, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, reinforcement, memory/attention/decision-making, environmental context and resources, social/professional role/identity, social influences, and behavioural regulation. Potential target areas to improve temperature management practices include interventions that address information needs about individual temperature management behaviour as well as patient outcome (feedback), increasing awareness of possible temperature management strategies and guidelines, and a range of equipment and surgical team dynamics that influence temperature management. CONCLUSION: This study identified several potential target areas for future interventions from nine of the TDF behavioural domains that anesthesiologists perceive to drive their temperature management practices. Future interventions that aim to close the evidence-practice gap in perioperative temperature management may include these targets.

Practice Feedback Interventions: 15 Suggestions for Optimizing Effectiveness.

Electronic practice data are increasingly being used to provide feedback to encourage practice improvement. However, evidence suggests that despite decades of experience, the effects of such interventions vary greatly and are not improving over time. Guidance on providing more effective feedback does exist, but it is distributed across a wide range of disciplines and theoretical perspectives. Through expert interviews; systematic reviews; and experience with providing, evaluating, and receiving practice feedback, 15 suggestions that are believed to be associated with effective feedback interventions have been identified. These suggestions are intended to provide practical guidance to quality improvement professionals, information technology developers, educators, administrators, and practitioners who receive such interventions. Designing interventions with these suggestions in mind should improve their effect, and studying the mechanisms underlying these suggestions will advance a stagnant literature.

Decision aids for people considering taking part in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Several interventions have been developed to promote informed consent for participants in clinical trials. However, many of these interventions focus on the content and structure of information (e.g. enhanced information or changes to the presentation format) rather than the process of decision making. Patient decision aids support a decision making process about medical options. Decision aids support the decision process by providing information about available options and their associated outcomes, alongside information that enables patients to consider what value they place on particular outcomes, and provide structured guidance on steps of decision making. They have been shown to be effective for treatment and screening decisions but evidence on their effectiveness in the context of informed consent for clinical trials has not been synthesised. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of decision aids for clinical trial informed consent compared to no intervention, standard information (i.e. usual practice) or an alternative intervention on the decision making process. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases and to March 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (from 1950); EMBASE (OvidSP) (from 1980); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (from 1806); ASSIA (ProQuest) (from 1987); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/); ClinicalTrials.gov; ISRCTN Register (http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/). We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We contacted study authors and other experts. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing decision aids in the informed consent process for clinical trials alone, or in conjunction with standard information (such as written or verbal) or alongside alternative interventions (e.g. paper-based versus web-based decision aids). Included trials involved potential trial participants, or their guardians, being asked to consider participating in a real or hypothetical clinical trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted reported data and assessed risk of bias. Findings were pooled where appropriate. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one study (290 randomised participants) that investigated the effectiveness of decision aids compared to standard information in the informed consent process for clinical trials. This study reported two separate decision aid randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The decision aid trials were nested within two different parent trials focusing on breast cancer in postmenopausal women. One trial focused on informed consent for treatment in women who had previously had surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the other on informed consent for prevention in women at high risk for breast cancer. Two different decision aids were used in these RCTs, and were compared with standard information.The pooled findings highlight the uncertainty surrounding most reported outcomes, including knowledge, decisional conflict, anxiety, trial participation and attrition. There was very low quality evidence that decision aids lower levels of decisional regret to a small degree (MD -5.53, 95% CI -10.29 to -0.76). No data were identified on several prespecified primary outcomes, including accurate risk perception, values-based decision, or whether potential participants recognised that a decision needed to be made, were able to identify features of options that matter most to individuals, or were involved in the decision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether decision aids to support the informed consent process for clinical trials are more effective than standard information. Additional well designed, adequately powered clinical trials in more diverse clinical and social populations are needed to strengthen the results of this review. More generally, future research on which outcomes are most relevant for assessment in this context would be helpful.

Developing a non-categorical measure of child health using administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the potential of linked administrative data for research on child health. This analysis describes the application of a non-categorical survey-based tool, the Children with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCN) Screener, to administrative data. DATA AND METHODS: Five Screener items were applied to linked administrative health data from Population Data British Columbia. Hospital admissions and demographic and community characteristics for a cohort of children aged 6 to 10 in 2006 were examined to validate the use of these items. RESULTS: Overall, 17.5% of children were identified as CSHCN. An estimated 14% of children used more medical care and 5.2% had more functional limitations than is usual for children of the same age; 3.3% were prescribed long-term medication; 1.9% needed/received treatment or counselling; and 0.1% needed/received special therapy. Boys were more likely than girls to be identified as CSHCN. INTERPRETATION: With some limitations, the CSHCN Screener can be applied to Canadian administrative health data.

Understanding context in knowledge translation: a concept analysis study protocol.

AIM: To conduct a concept analysis of clinical practice contexts (work environments) that facilitate or militate against the uptake of research evidence by healthcare professionals in clinical practice. This will involve developing a clear definition of context by describing its features, domains and defining characteristics. BACKGROUND: The context where clinical care is delivered influences that care. While research shows that context is important to knowledge translation (implementation), we lack conceptual clarity on what is context, which contextual factors probably modify the effect of knowledge translation interventions (and hence should be considered when designing interventions) and which contextual factors themselves could be targeted as part of a knowledge translation intervention (context modification). DESIGN: Concept analysis. METHODS: The Walker and Avant concept analysis method, comprised of eight systematic steps, will be used: (1) concept selection; (2) determination of aims; (3) identification of uses of context; (4) determination of defining attributes of context; (5) identification/construction of a model case of context; (6) identification/construction of additional cases of context; (7) identification/construction of antecedents and consequences of context; and (8) definition of empirical referents of context. This study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (January 2014). DISCUSSION: This study will result in a much needed framework of context for knowledge translation, which identifies specific elements that, if assessed and used to tailor knowledge translation activities, will result in increased research use by nurses and other healthcare professionals in clinical practice, ultimately leading to better patient care.

Impact of stated barriers on proposed warfarin prescription for atrial fibrillation: a survey of Canadian physicians.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia, and leading cause of ischemic stroke. Despite proven effectiveness, warfarin remains an under-used treatment in atrial fibrillation patients. We sought to study, across three physician specialties, a range of factors that have been argued to have a disproportionate effect on treatment decisions. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of Canadian Family Doctors (FD: n = 500), Geriatricians (G: n = 149), and Internal Medicine specialists (IMS: n = 500). Of these, 1032 physicians were contactable, and 335 completed and usable responses were received. Survey questions and clinical vignettes asked about the frequency with which they see patients with atrial fibrillation, treatment practices, and barriers to the prescription of anticoagulants. RESULTS: Stated prescribing practices did not significantly differ between physician groups. Falls risk, bleeding risk and poor patient adherence were all highly cited barriers to prescribing warfarin. Fewer geriatricians indicated that history of patient falls would be a reason for not treating with warfarin (G: 47%; FD: 71%; IMS: 72%), and significantly fewer changed reported practice in the presence of falls risk (χ (2) (6) = 45.446, p < 0.01). Experience of a patient having a stroke whilst not on warfarin had a significant impact on vignette decisions; physicians who had had patients who experienced a stroke were more likely to prescribe warfarin (χ (2) (3) =10.7, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to treatment of atrial fibrillation with warfarin affect physician specialties to different extents. Prior experience of a patient suffering a stroke when not prescribed warfarin is positively associated with intention to prescribe warfarin, even in the presence of falls risk.

Survey of consent practices in cluster randomized trials: improvements are needed in ethical conduct and reporting.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent procedures in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are considerably more complicated than in individually randomized trials. In a CRT, the units of randomization, intervention, and observation may differ in a single trial; there can be multiple levels of participants (individual and cluster level); consent may be required separately for intervention and data collection; and there may be practical constraints to seeking informed consent, for example, due to cluster-level interventions or the sheer size of clusters. PURPOSE: We aimed to document consent practices at individual and cluster levels, assess the adequacy of reporting consent in trial publications, and assess associations with two trial characteristics that may influence consent requirements in CRTs: presence or absence of study interventions and presence or absence of data collection procedures at individual and cluster levels. METHODS: We reviewed a random sample of 300 CRTs published during 2000-2008. We sent survey questionnaires to 285 unique authors of these trials to gather detailed information about consent procedures used in each trial. RESULTS: In all, 182 authors (64%) responded. Overall, 93% (95% confidence interval (CI): 88.8%-96.6%) indicated that participant consent had been sought for some aspects of the study. Consent was less frequently sought for a study intervention (70% of respondents) than for data collection (88%). More than half of the respondents (52%) indicated that consent had been sought at both cluster and individual levels. There was strong evidence for under-reporting of consent in trial publications: only 63% of all trial publications reported that informed consent had been sought for some aspect of the study. The odds ratios (ORs) summarizing the association of the two trial characteristics with cluster-level participant consent were weak (OR = 1.17, p = 0.70 for presence of cluster-level study intervention and OR = 1.54, p = 0.29 for data collection); on the other hand, the ORs summarizing the associations with individual-level consent were strong (OR = 6.2, p < 0.0001 for presence of individual-level intervention and OR = 14.7, p < 0.0001 for data collection). LIMITATIONS: In all, 36% of authors did not respond to the survey; to the extent that consent practices in their trials were different than in respondents' trials, our results may be biased. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improvements in research practices in CRTs as well as their reporting. There may be a lack of clarity about consent requirements at the cluster level in particular. With the publication of the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, researchers and research ethics committees now have access to comprehensive ethics guidelines specific to CRTs.

Barriers and facilitators to CPR knowledge transfer in an older population most likely to witness cardiac arrest: a theory-informed interview approach.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training and performing CPR among people above the age of 55 years. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of independent-living individuals aged 55 years and older from urban and rural settings. We developed an interview guide based on the constructs of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which elicits salient attitudes, social influences and control beliefs potentially influencing CPR training and performance. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed until achieving data saturation. Two independent reviewers performed inductive analyses to identify emerging themes, and ranked them by way of consensus. RESULTS: Demographics for the 24 interviewees: mean age 71.4 years, women 58.3%, urban location 75.0%, single dwelling 58.3%, CPR training 79.2% and prior CPR on real victim 8.3%. Facilitators of CPR training included: (1) classes in a convenient location; (2) more advertisements; and (3) having a spouse. Barriers to taking CPR training included: (1) perception of physical limitations; (2) time commitment; and (3) cost. Facilitators of providing CPR included: (1) 9-1-1 CPR instructions; (2) reminders/pocket cards; and (3) frequent but brief updates. Barriers to providing CPR included: (1) physical limitations; (2) lack of confidence; and (3) ambivalence of duty to act in a large group. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key facilitators and barriers for CPR training and performance in a purposive sample of individuals aged 55 years and older.