A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to "train and educate stakeholders" (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to "develop stakeholder interrelationships" (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.

Production and use of rapid responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec (Canada): perspectives from evidence synthesis producers and decision makers.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has required evidence to be made available more rapidly than usual, in order to meet the needs of decision makers in a timely manner. These exceptional circumstances have caused significant challenges for organizations and teams responsible for evidence synthesis. They had to adapt to provide rapid responses to support decision-making. This study aimed to document (1) the challenges and adaptations made to produce rapid responses during the pandemic, (2) their perceived usefulness, reported use and factors influencing their use and (3) the methodological adaptations made to produce rapid responses. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in 2021 with eight organizations in the health and social services system in Quebec (Canada), including three institutes with a provincial mandate. Data collection included focus groups (n = 9 groups in 8 organizations with 64 participants), interviews with decision makers (n = 12), and a document analysis of COVID-19 rapid responses (n = 128). A thematic analysis of qualitative data (objectives 1 and 2) and a descriptive analysis of documents (objective 3) were conducted. RESULTS: The results highlight the teams and organizations' agility to deal with the many challenges encountered during the pandemic (e.g., increased their workloads, adoption of new technological tools or work processes, improved collaboration, development of scientific monitoring, adaptation of evidence synthesis methodologies and products). The challenge of balancing rigor and speed was reported by teams and organizations. When available at the right time, rapid responses have been reported as a useful tool for informing or justifying decisions in a context of uncertainty. Several factors that may influence their use were identified (e.g., clearly identify needs, interactions with producers, perceived rigor and credibility, precise and feasible recommendations). Certain trends in the methodological approaches used to speed up the evidence synthesis process were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study documented rapid responses producers' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec, and decision makers who requested, consulted, or used these products. Potential areas of improvements are identified such as reinforce coordination, improve communication loops, clarify guidelines or methodological benchmarks, and enhance utility of rapid response products for decision makers.

Work Disability and Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Teleworkers: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: This project aimed to examine the existing evidence on work disability or musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among teleworkers. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted in eight bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, ABI/Inform Global, EBM Reviews, Web of Science, Dissertations & Theses Global) from inception to June 2022. RESULTS: Out of 9192 records identified, a total of 79 selected articles representing 77 studies were retained. Most studies were published after 2019, aligning with the COVID-19 pandemic's telework surge. Among the included papers, 51 addressed MSDs among teleworkers, 17 were on work disability, and 11 addressed both concepts. The studies were predominantly cross-sectional. Some trends are emerging, although study results are contradictory. Several papers reported increased musculoskeletal discomfort among teleworkers. Factors associated with MSDs among teleworkers include poor workstation setup, extended workdays, sedentary lifestyle, excessive devices use, and psychological factors. Regarding work disability, studies found that telework is associated with reduced absenteeism but increased presenteeism, with employees more likely to work while unwell from home than when on-site. Mixed results were found regarding teleworkers' work ability and functioning. CONCLUSION: This paper provides an overview of the literature on work disability and MSDs among teleworkers. It identifies literature gaps, underlining the need for ergonomic improvements, long-term impact studies, a better conceptualization of presenteeism in the context of telework, and tailored interventions to enhance the telework experience.

Economic evaluations of ergonomic interventions preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of organizational-level interventions.

BACKGROUND: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) represent a major public health problem and economic burden to employers, workers and health insurance systems. This systematic review had two objectives: (1) to analyze the cost-benefit results of organizational-level ergonomic workplace-based interventions aimed at preventing WMSD, (2) to explore factors related to the implementation process of these interventions (obstacles and facilitating factors) in order to identify whether economic results may be due to a successful or unsuccessful implementation. METHODS: Systematic review. Studies were searched in eight electronic databases and in reference lists of included studies. Companion papers were identified through backward and forward citation tracking. A quality assessment tool was developed following guidelines available in the literature. An integration of quantitative economic results and qualitative implementation data was conducted following an explanatory sequential design. RESULTS: Out of 189 records, nine studies met selection criteria and were included in our review. Out of nine included studies, grouped into four types of interventions, seven yielded positive economic results, one produced a negative result and one mixed results (negative cost-effectiveness and positive net benefit). However, the level of evidence was limited for the four types of interventions given the quality and the limited number of studies identified. Our review shows that among the nine included studies, negative and mixed economic results were observed when the dose delivered and received by participants was low, when the support from top and/or middle management was limited either due to limited participation of supervisors in training sessions or a lack of financial resources and when adequacy of intervention to workers' needs was low. In studies where economic results were positive, implementation data showed strong support from supervisors and a high rate of employee participation. CONCLUSION: Studies investigating the determinants of financial outcomes of prevention related to implementation process are very seldom. We recommend that in future research economic evaluation should include information on the implementation process in order to permit the interpretation of economic results and enhance the generalizability of results. This is also necessary for knowledge transfer and utilization of research results for prevention-oriented decision-making in occupational health and safety.

Performance of a mixed filter to identify relevant studies for mixed studies reviews.

OBJECTIVE: Mixed studies reviews include empirical studies with diverse designs. Given that identifying relevant studies for such reviews is time consuming, a mixed filter was developed. METHODS: The filter was used for six journals from three disciplines. For each journal, database records were coded "empirical" (relevant) when they mentioned a research question or objective, data collection, analysis, and results. We measured precision (proportion of retrieved documents being relevant), sensitivity (proportion of relevant documents retrieved), and specificity (proportion of nonrelevant documents not retrieved). RESULTS: Records were coded with and without the filter, and descriptive statistics were performed, suggesting the mixed filter has high sensitivity.

Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews.

This article provides an overview of mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. These two approaches are used to combine the strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods and to compensate for their respective limitations. This article is structured in three main parts. First, the epistemological background for mixed methods will be presented. Afterward, we present the main types of mixed methods research designs and techniques as well as guidance for planning, conducting, and appraising mixed methods research. In the last part, we describe the main types of mixed studies reviews and provide a tool kit and examples. Future research needs to offer guidance for assessing mixed methods research and reporting mixed studies reviews, among other challenges.

Using qualitative comparative analysis as a mixed methods synthesis in systematic mixed studies reviews: Guidance and a worked example.

Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a hybrid method designed to bridge the gap between qualitative and quantitative research in a case-sensitive approach that considers each case holistically as a complex configuration of conditions and outcomes. QCA allows for multiple conjunctural causation, implying that it is often a combination of conditions that produces an outcome, that multiple pathways may lead to the same outcome, and that in different contexts, the same condition may have a different impact on the outcome. This approach to complexity allows QCA to provide a practical understanding for complex, real-world situations, and the context of implementing interventions. There are guides for conducting QCA in primary research and quantitative systematic reviews yet, to our knowledge, no guidance for conducting QCA in systematic mixed studies reviews (SMSRs). Thus, the specific objectives of this paper are to (1) describe a step-by-step approach for novice researchers for using QCA to integrate qualitative and quantitative evidence, including guidance on how to use software; (2) highlight specific challenges; (3) propose potential solutions from a worked example; and (4) provide recommendations for reporting.

How to use mixed methods in oral health research.

Wicked problems exist in the realm of oral health research. Due to their inherent complexity, using qualitative or quantitative methods alone may not be adequate for resolving them. Mixed methods approaches combine qualitative and quantitative methods, and thus, can provide a powerful tool for understanding and solving complex problems in dental public health. However, using mixed methods does not come without its challenges. This commentary outlines four main tips for researchers to consider when applying mixed methods to their research projects.

Teleworking to Support Accommodation, Inclusion, and Health of Aging Workers: Protocol for a Study to Design, Validate, and Test a Reflective Application Guide.

BACKGROUND: Aging workers constitute a growing population in many countries and form an indispensable and qualified resource, especially in the context of the labor shortage. Despite work's many benefits for individuals, organizations, and societies, it also presents several risks and challenges that may lead to occupational injuries. Thus, rehabilitation professionals and managers working with this emerging and unique clientele during their return to work after an absence often lack the tools and skills to support them, especially in the changing world of work that includes the rise of telework. Indeed, as an increasingly present work arrangement, telework has the potential to be used as an accommodation modality that can facilitate inclusion and healthy participation in the workplace. However, the implications of this topic for aging workers require study. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol of a study that aims to develop a reflective telework application guide to support the accommodation, inclusion, and health of aging workers after an absence from work. Specifically, this study will (1) explore the experience of aging workers, managers, and rehabilitation professionals regarding telework and its impact on accommodation, inclusion, and health; (2) use a validated logic model to design a reflective application guide; and (3) test and evaluate the guide. METHODS: Following a 3-phase developmental research design, individual interviews with aging teleworkers, managers, and rehabilitation professionals will enable the collection of qualitative data to be used in generating a logic model of levers and good practices, leading to the creation of a reflective application guide. Validation of this guide by workers and managers to measure its acceptability and applicability in daily life will precede its implementation. RESULTS: Data collection began in spring 2023 and initial results are expected in fall 2023. This study aims to generate a concrete tool-namely, the reflective telework application guide-that rehabilitation professionals could use to support managers and aging workers during their return to work through the healthy use of telework. All phases of the study include conducting dissemination activities to share the results of the project and increase its sustainability potential (ie, publication through social networks, podcasts, conferences, and scientific publications). CONCLUSIONS: As the first of its kind, this project aims to produce innovative impacts at several levels, including practical, scientific, and societal impacts. In addition, the results will provide healthy solutions to the labor shortage in a changing world of work, where digital and teleworking are becoming increasingly important. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46114.

Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to inform health decisions in health technology assessments (HTA) processes. This is particularly important to complex treatment decisions in oncology. AREAS COVERED: Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science and CRD's NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched for studies comparing health technologies in oncology, involving the concept MCDA. The ISPOR MCDA Good Practices Guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Fifteen studies were included. The main decision problem was related to health technology assessment of cancer treatments. Clinicians and public health experts were the most frequent stakeholders. The most frequently included criteria comprised therapeutic benefit, and socio-economic impact. Value measurement approach, direct rating techniques, and additive model for aggregation were used in most studies. Uncertainty analysis revealed the impact of posology and costs on the studies' results. All studies showed some level of overlapping decision criteria. EXPERT OPINION: There is considerable diversity of methods in MCDA for healthcare decision-making in oncology. The evidence presented can serve as a resource when considering which stakeholders, criteria, and techniques to include in future MCDA studies in oncology.

Mixed methods intervention studies in children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders: A methodological review.

BACKGROUND: Mixed methods intervention studies can improve the accuracy of interventional evaluations in the field of emotional and behavioral disorders by helping researchers gain a more nuanced understanding of how a particular intervention works. However, no studies to date have systematically examined the ways in which this type of studies have been carried out and reported. AIM: To examine the methodological features and reporting practices found in mixed methods intervention studies in children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. METHOD: Methodological review based on a systematic search from inception to July 2021 in Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS, and a hand search in seven journals. RESULTS: We found 30 studies, most of them published since 2019. These studies reported several patterns of mixed methods use which illustrated the unique insights that researchers can gain by using this approach. We identified several ways that authors could more clearly report the justification for using a mixed methods approach, the description of the design used, and the evidence of integration of the quantitative and qualitative components. CONCLUSION: We make recommendations for improving the reporting quality of mixed methods intervention studies in the field of emotional and behavioral disorders.

Using systems perspectives in evidence synthesis: A methodological mapping review.

Reviewing complex interventions is challenging because they include many elements that can interact dynamically in a nonlinear manner. A systems perspective offers a way of thinking to help understand complex issues, but its application in evidence synthesis is not established. The aim of this project was to understand how and why systems perspectives have been applied in evidence synthesis. A methodological mapping review was conducted to identify papers using a systems perspective in evidence synthesis. A search was conducted in seven bibliographic databases and three search engines. A total of 101 papers (representing 98 reviews) met the eligibility criteria. Two categories of reviews were identified: (1) reviews using a "systems lens" to frame the topic, generate hypotheses, select studies, and guide the analysis and interpretation of findings (n = 76) and (2) reviews using systems methods to develop a systems model (n = 22). Several methods (e.g., systems dynamic modeling, soft systems approach) were identified, and they were used to identify, rank and select elements, analyze interactions, develop models, and forecast needs. The main reasons for using a systems perspective were to address complexity, view the problem as a whole, and understand the interrelationships between the elements. Several challenges for capturing the true nature and complexity of a problem were raised when performing these methods. This review is a useful starting point when designing evidence synthesis of complex interventions. It identifies different opportunities for applying a systems perspective in evidence synthesis, and highlights both commonplace and less familiar methods.

Supervisors' perception of the factors influencing the return to work of workers with common mental disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last decade, common mental disorders have become an area of major concern in the field of work disability prevention due to the rising number of claims, costs, and impacts on quality of life. It has been shown that supervisory behavior influences return-to-work outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the perception held by supervisors involved in work disability management, of the factors facilitating or hindering the return to work of workers with common mental disorders. METHODS: This project consisted of an exploratory qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted of supervisors. All subjects had experience with the return to work of at least one worker who had been off work due to a common mental disorder (i.e., anxiety, mood or adjustment disorder). Content analysis of the transcripts was performed. RESULTS: A total of 11 supervisors from large and medium-sized companies participated in the project. Twenty-four factors that could hinder or facilitate the return-to-work process were found and classified into three main categories: factors related to the worker, work context, and return-to-work process. CONCLUSIONS: This study brought to light several factors influencing the return to work of workers with common mental disorders. Most of the supervisors interviewed were very open to finding ways to facilitate the return to work of these workers, but felt that the interventions used should take both their perspective and the constraints they face in the workplace into account. Subsequent studies on return to work should therefore focus equally on the individual and the workplace to ensure that the actions taken can be appropriately implemented and well received by all stakeholders, including supervisors, who are continually involved in front-line interventions.

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly used but diversely implemented in primary care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of IPC in primary care settings. METHODS: An overview (review of systematic reviews) was carried out. We searched nine databases and employed a double selection and data extraction method. Patient-related outcomes were categorized, and results coded as improvement (+), worsening (-), mixed results (?) or no change (0). RESULTS: 34 reviews were included. Six types of IPC were identified: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 8), physician-nurse in primary care (n = 1), primary care physician (PCP)-specialty care provider (n = 5), PCP-pharmacist (n = 3), PCP-mental healthcare provider (n = 15), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 2). In general, IPC in primary care was beneficial for patients with variation between types of IPC. Whereas reviews about IPC in primary care (large scope) showed better processes of care and higher patient satisfaction, other types of IPC reported mixed results for clinical outcomes, healthcare use and patient-reported outcomes. Also, reviews focusing on interventions based on pre-existing and well-defined models, such as collaborative care, overall reported more benefits. However, heterogeneity between the included primary studies hindered comparison and often led to the report of mixed results. Finally, professional- and organizational-related outcomes were under-reported, and cost-related outcomes showed some promising results for IPC based on pre-existing models; results were lacking for other types. CONCLUSIONS: This overview suggests that interprofessional collaboration can be effective in primary care. Better understanding of the characteristics of IPC processes, their implementation, and the identification of effective elements, merits further attention.

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Barriers and Facilitators.

INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is becoming more widespread in primary care due to the increasing complex needs of patients. However, its implementation can be challenging. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of IPC in primary care settings. METHODS: An overview of reviews was carried out. Nine databases were searched, and two independent reviewers took part in review selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A thematic synthesis was carried out to highlight the main barriers and facilitators, according to the type of IPC and their level of intervention (system, organizational, inter-individual and individual). RESULTS: Twenty-nine reviews were included, classified according to six types of IPC: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 11), primary care physician (PCP)-nurse in primary care (n = 2), PCP-specialty care provider (n = 3), PCP-pharmacist (n = 2), PCP-mental health care provider (n = 6), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 5). Most barriers and facilitators were reported at the organizational and inter-individual levels. Main barriers referred to lack of time and training, lack of clear roles, fears relating to professional identity and poor communication. Principal facilitators included tools to improve communication, co-location and recognition of other professionals' skills and contribution. CONCLUSIONS: The range of barriers and facilitators highlighted in this overview goes beyond specific local contexts and can prove useful for the development of tools or guidelines for successful implementation of IPC in primary care.

Taking a critical stance towards mixed methods research: A cross-disciplinary qualitative secondary analysis of researchers' views.

Recent growth and institutionalization in the field of mixed methods research has provided fertile ground for a wide range of thoughtful criticism of how this research approach has been developed and conceptualized by some members of the mixed methods community. This criticism reflects the increasing maturity of the field as well as the different theoretical perspectives and methodological practices of researchers in different disciplines. While debates addressing these criticisms are likely to lead to valuable insights, no empirical studies have been carried out to date that have investigated researchers' critical views on the development and conceptualization of mixed methods research. This study examines the criticisms of the mixed methods field raised by a cross-national sample of researchers in education, nursing, psychology, and sociology. We carried out a secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews with 42 researchers and identified 11 different criticisms, which we classified in four domains: essence of mixed methods, philosophy, procedures, and politics. The criticisms related to the procedures domain were equally distributed among the four disciplines, while those related to the essence, philosophy and politics domains were more common among sociologists. Based on our findings, we argue that the divergence of views on foundational issues in this field reflects researchers' affiliation to different communities of practice, each having its own principles, values, and interests. We suggest that a greater awareness of this divergence of perspectives could help researchers establish effective collaboration and anticipate potential challenges when working with researchers having different methodological approaches.

Effectiveness and experiences of the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) Model in developing competencies among healthcare professionals: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) Model of continuing tele-education is an innovative guided-practice model aiming at amplifying healthcare professionals' competencies in the management of chronic and complex health conditions. While data on the impact of the ECHO model is increasingly available in the literature, what influences the model effectiveness remains unclear. Therefore, the overarching aim of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and synthesize the available quantitative (QUAN) and qualitative (QUAL) evidence regarding the ECHO Model effectiveness and the experiences/views of ECHO's participants about what influences the development of competencies in healthcare professionals. METHODS: The proposed systematic review was inspired by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews (MMSR) and will follow a convergent segregated approach. A systematic search will be undertaken using QUAN, QUAL and mixed methods (MM) studies of ECHO-affiliated programs identified in six databases. A publication date filter will be applied to find the articles published from 2003 onwards. Sources of unpublished studies and gray literature will be searched as well. Retrieved citations will independently be screened by two reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion until a consensus is reached or by including a third reviewer. Studies meeting the predefined inclusion criteria will be assessed on methodological quality and the data will be extracted using standardized data extraction forms. Separate QUAN and QUAL synthesis will be performed, and findings will be integrated using a matrix approach for the purpose of comparison and complementarity. DISCUSSION: This MMSR will fulfill important gaps in the current literature on the ECHO Model as the first to provide estimates on its effectiveness and consider simultaneously the experiences/views of ECHO's participants. As each replication of the ECHO Model greatly varies depending on the context, topic, and targeted professionals, a better understanding of what influences the model effectiveness in developing healthcare professionals' competencies is crucial to inform future implementation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020197579.

HIV-sensitive social protection for vulnerable young women in East and Southern Africa: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Social protection programmes are considered HIV-sensitive when addressing risk, vulnerability or impact of HIV infection. Socio-economic interventions, like livelihood and employability programmes, address HIV vulnerabilities like poverty and gender inequality. We explored the HIV-sensitivity of socio-economic interventions for unemployed and out-of-school young women aged 15 to 30 years, in East and Southern Africa, a key population for HIV infection. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using a narrative synthesis method and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality appraisal. Interventions of interest were work skills training, microfinance, and employment support. Outcomes of interest were socio-economic outcomes (income, assets, savings, skills, (self-) employment) and HIV-related outcomes (behavioural and biological). We searched published and grey literature (January 2005 to November 2019; English/French) in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and websites of relevant international organizations. RESULTS: We screened 3870 titles and abstracts and 188 full-text papers to retain 18 papers, representing 12 projects. Projects offered different combinations of HIV-sensitive social protection programmes, complemented with mentors, safe space and training (HIV, reproductive health and gender training). All 12 projects offered work skills training to improve life and business skills. Six offered formal (n = 2) or informal (n = 5) livelihood training. Eleven projects offered microfinance, including microgrants (n = 7), microcredit (n = 6) and savings (n = 4). One project offered employment support in the form of apprenticeships. In general, microgrants, savings, business and life skills contributed improved socio-economic and HIV-related outcomes. Most livelihood training contributed positive socio-economic outcomes, but only two projects showed improved HIV-related outcomes. Microcredit contributed little to either outcome. Programmes were effective when (i) sensitive to beneficiaries' age, needs, interests and economic vulnerability; (ii) adapted to local implementation contexts; and (iii) included life skills. Programme delivery through mentorship and safe space increased social capital and may be critical to improve the HIV-sensitivity of socio-economic programmes. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variety of livelihood and employability programmes were leveraged to achieve improved socio-economic and HIV-related outcomes among unemployed and out-of-school young women. To be HIV-sensitive, programmes should be designed around their interests, needs and vulnerability, adapted to local implementation contexts, and include life skills. Employment support received little attention in this literature.

Development and validation of competencies for return to work coordinators.

INTRODUCTION: Return to work (RTW) coordinators are a key element in programs that facilitate RTW of injured or ill workers, yet little research documents the competencies required for success in this role. METHODS: Competencies were defined as knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors. Eight focus groups were conducted with 75 experienced RTW coordinators to identify 904 individual competencies. These were subsequently reduced to 234 unique items through affinity mapping, and sorted into eight groups: administration, individual personal attributes, information gathering, communication, professional credibility, evaluation, problem-solving, and conflict management. A subset of 100 items, including 88 items most often cited, were incorporated in an Internet-based survey that sampled a broad range of RTW coordinators from three countries. RESULTS: Eighty-three of the questionnaire items were rated 4 or 5 (very important or essential) by over half of the 148 respondents. There were no differences in affinity group mean ratings by country, employer, profession, or type of clients. The highest-rated items reflect general personal characteristics, or specific skills related to coordinating among all involved with the RTW process. RTW coordinators with nursing backgrounds provided slightly higher ratings for items related to medical knowledge, but otherwise their ratings were similar to non-nurses. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate a consensus across a wide range of RTW coordinators, and results can be applied to improve coordinator selection, training, and development. Certain key competencies may be well-established individual attributes, and others may be best developed through mentorship. Most of these competencies are probably best evaluated by direct observation.