Aligning organisational priorities and implementation science for cancer research.

BACKGROUND: The challenge of implementing evidence into routine clinical practice is well recognised and implementation science offers theories, models and frameworks to promote investigation into delivery of evidence-based care. Embedding implementation researchers into health systems is a novel approach to ensuring research is situated in day-to-day practice dilemmas. To optimise the value of embedded implementation researchers and resources, the aim of this study was to investigate stakeholders' views on opportunities for implementation science research in a cancer setting that holds potential to impact on care. The research objectives were to: 1) Establish stakeholder and theory informed organisation-level implementation science priorities and 2) Identify and prioritise a test case pilot implementation research project. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Participants held either a formal leadership role, were research active or a consumer advocate and affiliated with either a specialist cancer hospital or a cancer alliance of ten hospitals. Interview data were summarised and shared with participants prior to undertaking both thematic analysis, to identify priority areas for implementation research, and content analysis, to identify potential pilot implementation research projects. The selected pilot Implementation research project was prioritised using a synthesis of an organisational and implementation prioritisation framework - the organisational priority setting framework and APEASE framework. RESULTS: Thirty-one people participated between August 2022 and February 2023. Four themes were identified: 1) Integration of services to address organisational priorities e.g., tackling fragmented services; 2) Application of digital health interventions e.g., identifying the potential benefits of digital health interventions; 3) Identification of potential for implementation research, including deimplementation i.e., discontinuing ineffective or low value care and; 4) Focusing on direct patient engagement e.g., wider consumer awareness of the challenges in delivering cancer care. Six potential pilot implementation research projects were identified and the EMBED project, to support clinicians to refer appropriate patients with cancer for genetic testing, was selected using the synthesised prioritisation framework. CONCLUSIONS: Using a theory informed and structured approach the alignment between strategic organisational priorities and implementation research priorities can be identified. As a result, the implementation research focus can be placed on activities with the highest potential impact.

Dose, Content, and Context of Usual Care in Stroke Upper Limb Motor Interventions: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic review were to describe the current dose and content of usual care upper limb motor intervention for inpatients following stroke and examine if context factors alter dose and content. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search (EMBASE, MEDLINE) was completed from January 2015 to February 2023 (PROSPERO CRD42021281986). METHODS: Studies were eligible if they reported non-protocolised usual care upper limb motor intervention dose data for stroke inpatients. Studies were rated using the Johanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Data were descriptively reported for dose dimensions of time (on task or, in therapy) and intensity (repetitions, repetition/minute), content (intervention type/mode), and context (e.g., severity strata). RESULTS: Eight studies were included from four countries, largely reflecting inpatient rehabilitation. Time in therapy ranged from 23 to 121 min/day. Time on task ranged from 8 to 44 min/day. Repetitions ranged from 36 to 57/session, and 15 to 282/day. Time on task was lowest in the stratum of people with severe upper limb impairment (8 min/day), the upper limit for this stratum was 41.5 min/day. There was minimal reporting of usual care content across all studies. CONCLUSION: Upper limb motor intervention dose appears to be increasing in usual care compared to prior reports (e.g., average 21 min/day and 23 to 32 repetitions/session). Context variability suggests that doses are lowest in the stratum of patients with a severely impaired upper limb. Consistent reporting of the multiple dimensions of dose and content is necessary to better understand usual care offered during inpatient rehabilitation.

Technology-assisted assessment of spasticity: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Spasticity is defined as "a motor disorder characterised by a velocity dependent increase in tonic stretch reflexes (muscle tone) with exaggerated tendon jerks". It is a highly prevalent condition following stroke and other neurological conditions. Clinical assessment of spasticity relies predominantly on manual, non-instrumented, clinical scales. Technology based solutions have been developed in the last decades to offer more specific, sensitive and accurate alternatives but no consensus exists on these different approaches. METHOD: A systematic review of literature of technology-based methods aiming at the assessment of spasticity was performed. The approaches taken in the studies were classified based on the method used as well as their outcome measures. The psychometric properties and usability of the methods and outcome measures reported were evaluated. RESULTS: 124 studies were included in the analysis. 78 different outcome measures were identified, among which seven were used in more than 10 different studies each. The different methods rely on a wide range of different equipment (from robotic systems to simple goniometers) affecting their cost and usability. Studies equivalently applied to the lower and upper limbs (48% and 52%, respectively). A majority of studies applied to a stroke population (N = 79). More than half the papers did not report thoroughly the psychometric properties of the measures. Analysis identified that only 54 studies used measures specific to spasticity. Repeatability and discriminant validity were found to be of good quality in respectively 25 and 42 studies but were most often not evaluated (N = 95 and N = 78). Clinical validity was commonly assessed only against clinical scales (N = 33). Sensitivity of the measure was assessed in only three studies. CONCLUSION: The development of a large diversity of assessment approaches appears to be done at the expense of their careful evaluation. Still, among the well validated approaches, the ones based on manual stretching and measuring a muscle activity reaction and the ones leveraging controlled stretches while isolating the stretch-reflex torque component appear as the two promising practical alternatives to clinical scales. These methods should be further evaluated, including on their sensitivity, to fully inform on their potential.

Targeted sensorimotor retraining in the clinical setting: Improving patient outcomes following distal upper extremity injury.

BACKGROUND: Existing theoretical evidence indicates sensorimotor retraining is beneficial following wrist injury. However, there are no large cohort studies applying the knowledge in a clinical setting. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To Determine the clinical benefits of sensorimotor rehabilitation following distal upper extremity injury. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: A sensorimotor rehabilitation program was evaluated following distal upper extremity injury. A battery of clinical and patient-rated outcome measures (PROM) were taken before and after group completion. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients, 49 males (53%) and 44 females (47%), completed the program. There were statistically significant improvements in 12 clinical measures. However, improvements in 11 of the clinical measures only had a small effect size (<0.5). Joint position sense had the greatest clinical change with a median improvement of 4° on the left and 3.9° on the right, and these had moderate effect sizes of 0.5 and 0.7, respectively. There were statistically significant improvements in all PROMs. PRWE had a median improvement of 21 (ES = 1.2). UEFI showed median improvements of 19.7 (ES = 1.4) and NRS (pain) median improved 2.5 (ES = 1.2). All PROM improvements had mean change greater than associated MCIDs. DISCUSSION: These results indicate the benefits of sensorimotor group rehabilitation and supports existing literature regarding the importance of sensorimotor control for JPS accuracy and function. Group based sensorimotor programs present an efficient and low-cost opportunity to provide intervention to patients following upper extremity injury. CONCLUSION: A sensorimotor group rehabilitation program may improve patient outcomes following distal upper extremity injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2b prospective cohort.

Is there a relationship between intensity of occupational therapy and functional outcomes in hospitalised older patients? A prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Delivering high-intensity occupational therapy can improve functional outcomes for patients and reduce length of stay. However, there is little published evidence of this in the aged rehabilitation setting. This study aims to explore the association between intensity of occupational therapy interventions and functional outcomes in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted with adult inpatients admitted to a geriatric rehabilitation program. The intervention was the intensity of occupational therapy measured as high (≥30 minutes per day) versus low (<30 minutes per day). The primary outcome measured was change in functional performance, defined as a minimum of half a point improvement in the Katz Index of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and/or the Lawton and Brody Scale of Instrumental ADL (IADL) at admission to rehabilitation, discharge and 3months post-discharge. RESULTS: A total of 693 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 82.2 years (standard deviation [SD] = 7.9), 57% were females, and 64% had cognitive impairment. Patients (n = 210) who received greater than or equal to 30 minutes of occupational therapy daily were more likely to have clinically relevant functional improvements.; for both ADL (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24-2.83) and IADL (OR = 3.00, 95% CI: 1.96-4.61), after adjusting for age, sex, severity of function (ADL ≤ 2) at admission, frailty and cognitive impairment. Improvements in ADL and IADL were maintained for at least 3 months following discharge. CONCLUSION: This study found that geriatric rehabilitation inpatients who received higher intensity of occupational therapy interventions were more likely to functionally improve than those who received lower intensity. Further research is required to determine if other factors, such as therapy type, influence functional outcomes.

Robotic task specific training for upper limb neurorehabilitation: a mixed methods feasibility trial reporting achievable dose.

PURPOSE: Robotic devices for upper-limb neurorehabilitation allow an increase in intensity of practice, often relying on video game-based training strategies with limited capacity to individualise training and integrate functional training. This study shows the development of a robotic Task Specific Training (TST) protocol and evaluate the achieved dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mixed-method study. A 3D robotic device for the upper limb, was made available to therapists for use during neurorehabilitation sessions. A first phase allowed clinicians to define a dedicated session protocol for TST. In a second phase the protocol was applied and the achieved dose was measured. RESULTS: First phase (N = 5): a specific protocol, using deweighting for assessment, followed by customised passive movements and then active movement practice was developed. Second phase: the protocol was successfully applied with all participants (N = 10). Intervention duration: 4.5 ± 0.8 weeks, session frequency: 1.4 ± 0.2sessions/week, session length: 42 ± 9mins, session density: 39 ± 13%, intensity: 214 ± 84 movements/session, difficulty: dn = 0.77 ± 0.1 (normalised reaching distance) and Ɵ = 6.3 ± 23° (transverse reaching angle). Sessions' density and intensity were consistent across participants but clear differences of difficulty were observed. No changes in metrics were observed over the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic systems can support TST with high therapy intensity by modulating the practice difficulty to participants' needs and capabilities.

Few robotics devices allow for Task Specific Training (TST) of the upper-limb post stroke.Robotic TST was shown to be feasible in a clinicians supervised setting.In supervised robotic TST sessions, clinicians can modulate task difficulty while preserving similar sessions' density and intensity to adjust to the patient impairment.Robotic TST might be used for upper-limb neurorehabilitation without compromising the training intensity.

Developing a shared language: a proposed guide to frame early implementation science collaboration discussions.

Miscommunication between health care practitioners and implementation researchers can lead to a mismatch of expectations and understandings, resulting in wasted research and frustration. Conversely, combining the expertise and knowledge of those working in health care practice and implementation research can deliver context informed research questions and appropriate study designs. Achieving this ambition requires a shared language. We sought to develop a guide to identify a common language to constructively explore nascent implementation research concepts. We set up a working group, comprising of implementation researchers, health care practitioners and operational managers, to work through ideas generation, debate and a consensus process to generate and refine a discussion guide. The resultant guide steps health care practitioners and implementation researchers through a three-phase enquiry - Question 1: What is the implementation question? Question 2: What is the proposed implementation solution? And Question 3: How can the investigation of this idea be resourced? At each step, the health care practitioner and implementation researcher collaborate to include theory and practice and rigorously work through the question to build implementation on evidence and to promote diverse stakeholder engagement. The next steps for this study will be operationalising the discussion guide, as an interactive tool. Future evaluation, to test effectiveness, acceptability and feasibility will be designed with health care practitioners and implementation researchers.

Bringing together a wide range of clinical and research experts is vital for meeting the challenges of implementing of complex health interventions. However, language and jargon can often get in the way. This mismatch can lead to missed opportunities and contribute to wasted research that fails to meet consumers' needs. We need a shared language to maximize the expertise of healthcare practitioners and implementation researchers, thereby improving care. We propose a three-phase discussion guide to assist healthcare practitioners and implementation researchers through the process of starting an implementation study. We guide them through three questions: What is the implementation question? What is the proposed implementation solution? How can this study be resourced? At each step, healthcare practitioners and implementation researchers collaborate to incorporate theory and practice, rigorously addressing the question to build implementation based on evidence and promote diverse stakeholder engagement.

Characterisation of young stroke presentations, pathways of care, and support for 'invisible' difficulties: a retrospective clinical audit study.

Background Young stroke survivors are likely to be discharged home from acute hospital care without rehabilitation more quickly than older survivors, but it is not clear why. File-audit studies capturing real-world clinical practice are lacking for this cohort. We aimed to compare characteristics and care pathways of young and older survivors and describe stroke presentations and predictors of pathways of care in young survivors (≤45years), including a focus on care received for 'invisible' (cognitive, psychological) difficulties. Methods A retrospective audit of 847 medical records (67 young stroke survivors, mean age=36years; 780 older patients, mean age=70years) was completed for stroke survivors admitted to an Australian tertiary hospital. Stroke characteristics and presence of cognitive difficulties (identified through clinician opinion or cognitive screening) were used to predict length of stay and discharge destination in young stroke survivors. Results There were no differences in length of stay between young and older survivors, however, young stroke survivors were more likely to be discharged home without rehabilitation (though this may be due to milder strokes observed in young stroke survivors). For young stroke survivors, stroke severity and age predicted discharge destination, while cognitive difficulties predicted longer length of stay. While almost all young survivors were offered occupational therapy and physiotherapy, none received psychological input (clinical, health or neuropsychology). Conclusions Cognitive and psychological needs of young stroke survivors may remain largely unmet by a service model designed for older people. Findings can inform service development or models of care, such as the new Australian Young Stroke Service designed to better meet the needs of young survivors.

Interventions in adult patients with multimorbidity in low-income and middle-income countries: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity, the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions in the same individual, is a major public health problem in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The use of single-disease guidelines contributes to polypharmacy, fragmented care and increased treatment burden. Health systems in LMICs are very different from those in high-income countries, and adapting interventions from one to the other may not be feasible. This review aims to systematically present the current evidence for interventions for multimorbidity in the LMIC setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this mixed-methods systematic review, we will include all studies of interventions for the care of adults (>18 years of age) with multimorbidity (defined as the presence of two or more chronic illnesses in an individual) in any healthcare organisation (primary, secondary or tertiary care) in an LMIC (as defined by the World Bank), published between 2000 and March 2023. All primary study designs will be included. Studies reported in languages other than English and those describing interventions classified as 'financial' or 'governance arrangement' according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care classification will be excluded. MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, TRIP, SCOPUS and the 3ie databases will be searched. The titles will be screened by one author, and two authors will independently screen all included abstracts and full texts. A third author will resolve conflicts at every stage. Studies will be reviewed for quality of evidence using appropriate tools. Epidemiological, intervention and outcome data will be extracted and summarised. Outcomes of interest for LMICs defined by the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases research group will be analysed. Subgroup analysis according to study types and study settings will be done. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this systematic review. Results will be disseminated through publication in an open-access journal and presentation at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023391897.

Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework.

BACKGROUND: Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts. METHODS: A multifaceted, iterative approach, including three steps, was undertaken to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The systematic overview of reviews included relevant papers published between 2000 and 2022. OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched for papers that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. Extracted data was inductively analysed and evaluation themes were identified. Review findings were presented to a stakeholder panel, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers, to interpret and critique. A consensus meeting, including a nominal group technique, was applied to agree upon the Co-design Evaluation Framework. RESULTS: A total of 51 reviews were included in the systematic overview of reviews. Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and grouped into the following seven clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. If evaluation methods were mentioned, they mainly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers' reflections. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework used a tree metaphor to represent the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground), underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree. CONCLUSIONS: The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has been collaboratively developed with various stakeholders to be used prospectively (planning for evaluation), concurrently (making adjustments during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future activities).