Effectiveness of Interventions to Improve Digital Health Literacy in Forced Migrant Populations: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital health literacy is considered a health determinant that can influence improved health and well-being, health equity, and the reduction of social health inequalities. Therefore, it serves as an asset for individuals to promote their health. However, low digital health literacy is a major problem among forced migrant populations. They do not always have the capacity and skills to access digital health resources and use them appropriately. To our knowledge, no studies are currently available to examine effective interventions for improving digital health literacy among forced migrant populations. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a systematic review that aims to assess the effectiveness of digital health literacy interventions among forced migrant populations. With this review, our objectives are as follows: (1) identify interventions designed to improve digital health literacy among forced migrant populations, including interventions aimed at creating enabling conditions or environments that cater to the needs and expectations of forced migrants limited by low levels of digital health literacy, with the goal of facilitating their access to and use of eHealth resources; (2) define the categories and describe the characteristics of these interventions, which are designed to enhance the abilities of forced migrants or adapt digital health services to meet the needs and expectations of forced migrant populations. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review will be conducted according to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) checklist. The research will be conducted in an iterative process among the different authors. With the help of a medical information specialist, a specific search strategy will be formulated for the 6 most relevant databases (ie, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier, PsycINFO, and the Google Scholar search engine). A literature search covering studies published between 2000 and 2022 has already been conducted. Two reviewers then proceeded, individually and independently, to conduct a double selection of titles, abstracts, and then full texts. Data extraction will be conducted by a reviewer and validated by a senior researcher. We will use the narrative synthesis method (ie, structured narrative summaries of key themes) to present a comprehensive picture of effective digital health literacy interventions among forced migrant populations and the success factors of these interventions. RESULTS: The search strategy and literature search were completed in December 2022. A total of 1232 articles were identified. The first selection was completed in July 2023. The second selection is still in progress. The publication of the systematic review is scheduled for December 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This mixed methods systematic review will provide comprehensive knowledge on effective interventions for digital literacy among forced migrant populations. The evidence generated will further inform stakeholders and aid decision makers in promoting equitable access to and use of digital health resources for forced migrant populations and the general population in host countries. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/50798.

A conceptualisation of scale-up and sustainability of social innovations in global health: a narrative review and integrative framework for action.

BACKGROUND: The scale-up and sustainability of social innovations for health have received increased interest in global health research in recent years; however, these ambiguous concepts are poorly defined and insufficiently theorised and studied. Researchers, policymakers, and practitioners lack conceptual clarity and integrated frameworks for the scale-up and sustainability of global health innovations. Often, the frameworks developed are conceived in a linear and deterministic or consequentialist vision of the diffusion of innovations. This approach limits the consideration of complexity in scaling up and sustaining innovations. OBJECTIVE: By using a systems theory lens and conducting a narrative review, this manuscript aims to produce an evidence-based integrative conceptual framework for the scale-up and sustainability of global health innovations. METHOD: We conducted a hermeneutic narrative review to synthetise different definitions of scale-up and sustainability to model an integrative definition of these concepts for global health. We have summarised the literature on the determinants that influence the conditions for innovation success or failure while noting the interconnections between internal and external innovation environments. RESULTS: The internal innovation environment includes innovation characteristics (effectiveness and testability, monitoring and evaluation systems, simplification processes, resource requirements) and organisational characteristics (leadership and governance, organisational change, and organisational viability). The external innovation environment refers to receptive and transformative environments; the values, cultures, norms, and practices of individuals, communities, organisations, and systems; and other contextual characteristics relevant to innovation development. CONCLUSION: From these syntheses, we proposed an interconnected framework for action to better guide innovation researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in incorporating complexity and systemic interactions between internal and external innovation environments in global health.

Risk of Bias Mitigation for Vulnerable and Diverse Groups in Community-Based Primary Health Care Artificial Intelligence Models: Protocol for a Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: The current literature identifies several potential benefits of artificial intelligence models for populations' health and health care systems' efficiency. However, there is a lack of understanding on how the risk of bias is considered in the development of primary health care and community health service artificial intelligence algorithms and to what extent they perpetuate or introduce potential biases toward groups that could be considered vulnerable in terms of their characteristics. To the best of our knowledge, no reviews are currently available to identify relevant methods to assess the risk of bias in these algorithms. The primary research question of this review is which strategies can assess the risk of bias in primary health care algorithms toward vulnerable or diverse groups? OBJECTIVE: This review aims to identify relevant methods to assess the risk of bias toward vulnerable or diverse groups in the development or deployment of algorithms in community-based primary health care and mitigation interventions deployed to promote and increase equity, diversity, and inclusion. This review looks at what attempts to mitigate bias have been documented and which vulnerable or diverse groups have been considered. METHODS: A rapid systematic review of the scientific literature will be conducted. In November 2022, an information specialist developed a specific search strategy based on the main concepts of our primary review question in 4 relevant databases in the last 5 years. We completed the search strategy in December 2022, and 1022 sources were identified. Since February 2023, two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts on the Covidence systematic review software. Conflicts are solved through consensus and discussion with a senior researcher. We include all studies on methods developed or tested to assess the risk of bias in algorithms that are relevant in community-based primary health care. RESULTS: In early May 2023, almost 47% (479/1022) of the titles and abstracts have been screened. We completed this first stage in May 2023. In June and July 2023, two reviewers will independently apply the same criteria to full texts, and all exclusion motives will be recorded. Data from selected studies will be extracted using a validated grid in August and analyzed in September 2023. Results will be presented using structured qualitative narrative summaries and submitted for publication by the end of 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The approach to identifying methods and target populations of this review is primarily qualitative. However, we will consider a meta-analysis if quantitative data and results are sufficient. This review will develop structured qualitative summaries of strategies to mitigate bias toward vulnerable populations and diverse groups in artificial intelligence models. This could be useful to researchers and other stakeholders to identify potential sources of bias in algorithms and try to reduce or eliminate them. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries qbph8; https://osf.io/qbph8. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46684.

Engaging patients and citizens in digital health technology development through the virtual space.

Digital technologies are increasingly empowering individuals to take charge of their health and improve their well-being. However, there are disparities in access related to demographic, economic, and sociocultural factors that result in exclusion from the use of digital technologies for different groups of the population. The development of digital technology in health is a powerful lever for improving care and services, but also brings risks for certain users in vulnerable situations. Increased digital health inequalities are associated with limited digital literacy, lack of interest, and low levels of self-efficacy in using technology. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic healthcare systems, the leap to digital is essential. To foster responsible innovation and optimal use of digital health by all, including vulnerable groups, we propose that patient and citizen engagement must be an essential component of the research strategy. Patient partners will define expectations and establish research priorities using their experiential knowledge, while benefiting from rich exposure to the research process to increase their self-efficacy and digital literacy. We will support this proposition with an operationalised example aiming to implement a Virtual Community of Patients and Citizens Partners (COMVIP), a digital tool co-created with patients and public experts, as active team members in research. Founded on the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion, this base of citizen expertise will assemble individuals from different backgrounds and literacy levels living in vulnerable situations to acquire knowledge, and share their experiences, while contributing actively in the co-development of innovative strategies and health technology assessment.

Digital interventions to promote physical activity among inactive adults: A study protocol for a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: Physical inactivity is the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality, and inactive adults have a higher risk to develop lifestyle diseases. To date, there is preliminary evidence of the efficacy of fitness technologies and other digital interventions for physical activity (PA) promotion. Intervention studies are needed to test the effectiveness and implementation of innovative PA promotion strategies. Methods and analysis: The ONWARDS study is a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation randomized control trial aiming at an inactive and presumably high-risk population living in Northern Norway. One hundred and eighty participants will be assigned to 3 groups in a 1:1:1 ratio and participate for 18 months. Participants in group A will be provided an activity tracker with the personalized metric Personal Activity Intelligence (PAI). Participants in group B will be provided with both an activity tracker with the personalized metric PAI and access to online training videos (Les Mills+) to perform home-based training. Participants in group C will be provided an activity tracker with the personalized metric PAI, home-based online training and additional peer support via social media. The primary objective is to test which combination of interventions is more effective in increasing PA levels and sustaining long-term exercise adherence. Secondary objectives include: proportion of participants reaching PA recommendations; exercise adherence; physical fitness; cardiovascular risk; quality of life; perceived competence for exercise; self-efficacy; social support; usability; users' perspectives on implementation outcomes (adoption, acceptability, adherence, sustainability). The study design will allow testing the effectiveness of the interventions while gathering information on implementation in a real-world situation. Discussion: This study can contribute to reduce disparities in PA levels among inactive adults by promoting PA and long-term adherence. Increased PA might, in turn, result in better prevention of lifestyle diseases. Digital interventions delivered at home can become an alternative to training facilities, making PA accessible and feasible for inactive populations and overcoming known barriers to PA. If effective, such interventions could potentially be offered through national health portals to citizens who do not meet the minimum recommendations on PA or prescribed by general practitioners or specialists. Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04526444, Registered 23 April 2021, identifier: NCT04526444.

Barriers and facilitators for implementation of a patient prioritization tool in two specialized rehabilitation programs.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Prioritization tools aim to manage access to care by ranking patients equitably in waiting lists based on determined criteria. Patient prioritization has been studied in a wide variety of clinical health services, including rehabilitation contexts. We created a web-based patient prioritization tool (PPT) with the participation of stakeholders in two rehabilitation programs, which we aim to implement into clinical practice. Successful implementation of such innovation can be influenced by a variety of determinants. The goal of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a PPT in rehabilitation programs. METHODS: We used two questionnaires and conducted two focus groups among service providers from two rehabilitation programs. We used descriptive statistics to report results of the questionnaires and qualitative content analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Key facilitators are the flexibility and relative advantage of the tool to improve clinical practices and produce beneficial outcomes for patients. Main barriers are the lack of training, financial support and human resources to sustain the implementation process. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that highlights organizational, individual and innovation levels facilitators and barriers for the implementation of a prioritization tool from service providers' perspective.

Why is repositioning public health innovation towards a social paradigm necessary? A reflection on the field of public health through the examples of Ebola and Covid-19.

Health innovations are generally oriented on a techno-economic vision. In this perspective, technologies are seen as an end in themselves, and there is no arrangement between the technical and the social values of innovation. This vision prevails in sanitary crises, in which management is carried out based on the search for punctual, reactive, and technical solutions to remedy a specific problem without a systemic/holistic, sustainable, or proactive approach. This paper attempts to contribute to the literature on the epistemological orientation of innovations in the field of public health. Taking the Covid-19 and Ebola crises as examples, the primary objective is to show how innovation in health is oriented towards a techno-economic paradigm. Second, we propose a repositioning of public health innovation towards a social paradigm that will put more emphasis on the interaction between social and health dimensions in the perspective of social change. We will conclude by highlighting the roles that public health could play in allowing innovations to have more social value, especially during sanitary crises.

Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment: update of a systematic review of international experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize current evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health technology assessment (HTA) in order to synthesize the barriers and facilitators, and to propose a framework to assess its impact. METHODS: We conducted an update of a systematic review published in 2011 considering the recent scientific literature (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies). We searched papers published between March 2009 (end of the initial search) and December 2019 in five databases using specific search strategies. We identified other publications through citation tracking and contacting authors of previous related studies. Reviewers independently selected relevant studies based on prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. We extracted information using a pre-established grid. RESULTS: We identified a total of 7872 publications from the main search strategy. Ultimately, thirty-one distinct new studies met the inclusion criteria, whereas seventeen studies were included in the previous systematic review. PPI is realized through two main strategies: (i) patients and public members participate directly in decision-making processes (participation) and (ii) patients or public perspectives are solicited to inform decisions (consultation or indirect participation). This review synthesizes the barriers and facilitators to PPI in HTA, and a framework to assess its impact is proposed. CONCLUSION: The number of studies on patients or public involvement in HTA has dramatically increased in recent years. Findings from this updated systematic review show that PPI is done mostly through consultation and that direct involvement is less frequent. Several barriers to PPI in HTA exist, notably the lack of information to patients and public about HTA and the lack of guidance and policies to support PPI in HTA.

Development of a decisional flowchart for meaningful patient involvement in Health Technology Assessment.

INTRODUCTION: This paper aims to describe the development of a flowchart to guide the decisions of researchers in the Spanish Network for Health Technology Assessment of the National Health System (RedETS) regarding patient involvement (PI) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). By doing so, it reflects on current methodological challenges in PI in the HTA field: how best to combine PI methods and what is the role of patient-based evidence. METHODS: A decisional flowchart for PI in HTA was developed between March and April 2019 following an iterative process, reviewed by the members of the PI Interest Group and other RedETS members and validated during an online deliberative meeting. The development of the flowchart was based on a previous methodological framework assessed in a pilot study. RESULTS: The guidelines on how to involve patients in HTA in the RedETS were graphically represented in a flowchart. PI must be included in all HTA reports, except those that assess technologies with no relevant impact on patients' experiences, values, and preferences. Patient organizations or expert patients related to the topic of the HTA report must be identified and invited. These patients can participate in protocol development, outcomes' identification, assessment process, and report review. When the technology assessed affects in a relevant way patient experiences, values, and preferences, patient-based evidence should be included through a systematic literature review or a primary study. CONCLUSIONS: The decisional flowchart for PI in HTA contributes to the current methodological challenges by proposing a combination of direct involvement and patient-based evidence.

A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services.

BACKGROUND: Patient prioritization is a strategy used to manage access to healthcare services. Patient prioritization tools (PPT) contribute to supporting the prioritization decision process, and to its transparency and fairness. Patient prioritization tools can take various forms and are highly dependent on the particular context of application. Consequently, the sets of criteria change from one context to another, especially when used in non-emergency settings. This paper systematically synthesizes and analyzes the published evidence concerning the development and challenges related to the validation and implementation of PPTs in non-emergency settings. METHODS: We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. We searched evidence in five databases to select articles based on eligibility criteria, and information of included articles was extracted using an extraction grid. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The article selection process, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by at least two reviewers independently. RESULTS: We included 48 studies listing 34 different patient prioritization tools. Most of them are designed for managing access to elective surgeries in hospital settings. Two-thirds of the tools were investigated based on reliability or validity. Inconclusive results were found regarding the impact of PPTs on patient waiting times. Advantages associated with PPT use were found mostly in relationship to acceptability of the tools by clinicians and increased transparency and equity for patients. CONCLUSIONS: This review describes the development and validation processes of PPTs used in non-urgent healthcare settings. Despite the large number of PPTs studied, implementation into clinical practice seems to be an open challenge. Based on the findings of this review, recommendations are proposed to develop, validate, and implement such tools in clinical settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018107205.

Patients, users, caregivers, and citizens' involvement in local health technology assessment unit in Quebec: a survey.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing emphasis is given on involving patients in health technology assessment (HTA). While this is mainly done at the level of regional and national HTA agencies, this tendency is also emerging in local HTA units. In this study, we provide the results of a survey conducted in local HTA units in the province of Quebec, Canada. The aim of the survey was to provide an overview of local HTA unit practices to involve patients, users, caregivers, and citizens in their process, their interest in doing so, and their information needs for this. METHODS: The survey was conducted in 2017 with a response rate of eleven units over a possibility of twelve. RESULTS: Three units out of eleven (27.3 percent) never involved patients or members of the public in their processes and all indicated that they will involve them in the next few years. The three most important needs for support identified in the HTA units were in: recruiting and selecting patients; integrating experiential knowledge; and knowing and implementing the best methods and practices for partnership. CONCLUSION: Patient involvement in local HTA units is quickly evolving and that is why they urgently need tools to involve more effectively patients and members of the public in their process.

Factors explaining the shortage and poor retention of qualified health workers in rural and remote areas of the Kayes, region of Mali: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Shortage of health workers is a worldwide problem but is particularly critical in sub-Saharan Africa. In Mali, the number of health workers is insufficient and their retention is low, particularly in rural and remote areas. Rural postings are unattractive to health workers. Very few studies have examined the factors contributing to the shortage and poor retention of health workers in Mali. The objective of this study is to identify and understand these factors with regards to skilled health workers in two rural health districts (Yélimané and Bafoulabé) in the region of Kayes, Mali. METHODS: This qualitative study is based on the conceptual framework of Lehman, Dieleman and Martineau. Data were collected through 46 in-depth interviews with health workers and decision-makers. A thematic content analysis was conducted with the support of QDA Miner software. RESULTS: The study identified factors contributing to the insufficient allocation and poor retention of rural health workers in these districts. They are individual-level factors (gender, family situation, age), unattractive living and working conditions, community recognition and participation, quality of leadership, an unfavourable recruitment/assignment process and insufficient financial incentives. It shows that female staff have specific constraints that prevent them from deploying to or staying in rural areas for long periods. In addition, the number of staff recruited at the national level is unpredictable and insufficient, while their recruitment and assignment process is perceived to be inequitable and not very transparent, disadvantaging rural health structures. Some strategies were identified to improve the availability and retention of health workers in these areas. They take into account certain social norms, notably gender roles, and include the improvement of living and working conditions, as well as the strengthening of health workforce management. CONCLUSION: This study's findings highlight the multifaceted nature of factors contributing to the availability and retention of health workers in rural and remote areas of sub-Saharan Africa and the challenges associated with them. This study identifies some strategies that can be combined to facilitate the retention and availability of health workers in these areas. Some strategies involve actors outside the health sector, requiring joint efforts for their implementation. This research provides decision-makers with evidence to support informed decision making with regards to the retention of health workers in rural areas.

Artificial Intelligence and Health Technology Assessment: Anticipating a New Level of Complexity.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is seen as a strategic lever to improve access, quality, and efficiency of care and services and to build learning and value-based health systems. Many studies have examined the technical performance of AI within an experimental context. These studies provide limited insights into the issues that its use in a real-world context of care and services raises. To help decision makers address these issues in a systemic and holistic manner, this viewpoint paper relies on the health technology assessment core model to contrast the expectations of the health sector toward the use of AI with the risks that should be mitigated for its responsible deployment. The analysis adopts the perspective of payers (ie, health system organizations and agencies) because of their central role in regulating, financing, and reimbursing novel technologies. This paper suggests that AI-based systems should be seen as a health system transformation lever, rather than a discrete set of technological devices. Their use could bring significant changes and impacts at several levels: technological, clinical, human and cognitive (patient and clinician), professional and organizational, economic, legal, and ethical. The assessment of AI's value proposition should thus go beyond technical performance and cost logic by performing a holistic analysis of its value in a real-world context of care and services. To guide AI development, generate knowledge, and draw lessons that can be translated into action, the right political, regulatory, organizational, clinical, and technological conditions for innovation should be created as a first step.

Rethinking the electronic health record through the quadruple aim: time to align its value with the health system.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are considered as a powerful lever for enabling value-based health systems. However, many challenges to their use persist and some of their unintended negative impacts are increasingly well documented, including the deterioration of work conditions and quality, and increased dissatisfaction of health care providers. The "quadruple aim" consists of improving population health as well as patient and provider experience while reducing costs. Based on this approach, improving the quality of work and well-being of health care providers could help rethinking the implementation of EHRs and also other information technology-based tools and systems, while creating more value for patients, organizations and health systems.

Scaling up eConsult for access to specialists in primary healthcare across four Canadian provinces: study protocol of a multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Canada has been referred to as the land of 'perpetual pilot projects'. Effective innovations often remain small in scale, with limited impact on health systems. Several innovations have been developed in Canada to tackle important challenges such as poor access to services and excessive wait times - one of the most promising innovations that has been piloted is eConsult, which is a model of asynchronous communication that allows primary care providers to electronically consult with specialists regarding their patients' medical issues. eConsult pilot projects have been shown to reduce wait times for specialist care, prevent unnecessary referrals and reduce health system costs. eConsult has been spread throughout Ontario as well as to certain regions in Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Our aim is to understand and support the scale-up process of eConsult in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Our specific objectives are to (1) describe the main components of eConsult relevant to the scale-up process in each province; (2) understand the eConsult scale-up process in each province and compare across provinces; (3) identify policy issues and strategies to scaling up eConsult in each province; and (4) foster cross-level and cross-jurisdictional learning on scaling up eConsult. METHODS: We will conduct a qualitative multiple case study to investigate the scaling up of eConsult in four Canadian provinces using a grey literature review, key stakeholder interviews (10 interviews/province), non-participant observations, focus groups and deliberative dialogues. We will identify the main components of eConsult to be scaled up using logic models (obj. 1). Scaling up processes will be analysed using strategies adapted from process research (obj. 2). Policy issues and strategies to scale-up eConsult will be analysed thematically (obj. 3). Finally, a symposium will foster pan-Canadian learning on the process of scaling up eConsult (obj. 4). DISCUSSION: This study will likely increase learning and support evidence-based policy-making across participating provinces and may improve the capacity for a pan-Canadian scale-up of eConsult, including in provinces where eConsult has not yet been implemented. This work is essential to inform how similar innovations can reshape our health systems in the evolving information age.

Patient prioritization tools and their effectiveness in non-emergency healthcare services: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Waiting lists should be managed as fairly as possible to ensure that patients with greater or more urgent needs receive services first. Patient prioritization refers to the process of ranking referrals in a certain order based on various criteria with the aim of improving fairness and equity in the delivery of care. Despite the widespread use of patient prioritization tools (PPTs) in healthcare services, the existing literature on this subject has mainly focused on emergency settings. Evidence has not been synthesized with respect to all the non-emergency services. METHODS: This review aims to perform a systematic synthesis of published evidence concerning (1) prioritization tools' characteristics, (2) their metrological properties, and (3) their effect measures across non-emergency services. Five electronic databases will be searched (Cochrane Library, Ovid/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL). Eligibility criteria guiding data selection will be (1) qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods empirical studies; (2) patient prioritization in any non-emergency setting; and (3) discussing characteristic, metrological properties, or effect measures. Data will be sought to report tool's format, description, population, setting, purpose, criteria, developer, metrological properties, and outcome measures. Two reviewers will independently screen, select, and extract data. Data will be synthesized with sequential exploratory design method. We will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess the quality of articles included in the review. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide much-needed knowledge regarding patient prioritization tools. The results will benefit clinicians, decision-makers, and researchers by giving them a better understanding of the methods used to prioritize patients in clinical settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018107205.

Development and Content Validation of a Transcultural Instrument to Assess Organizational Readiness for Knowledge Translation in Healthcare Organizations: The OR4KT.

BACKGROUND: Implementing effective interventions in healthcare requires organizations to be ready to support change. This study aimed to develop, adapt transculturally, and assess the content and face validity of the Organizational Readiness for Knowledge Translation (OR4KT) tool. The OR4KT was designed to measure the readiness of healthcare organizations to implement evidence-informed change across a variety of services. METHODS: Based on systematic reviews of the literature, a Delphi exercise, and expert consultation, we first generated an initial pool of items. Second, we developed and assessed content validity of the pilot OR4KT questionnaire in English. Third, we created French and Spanish versions using a sequential forward and backward translation approach, and transcultural adaptation by a consensus process. Finally, we conducted pilot studies in three contexts - the Basque country region (Spain), and the provinces of Québec and Ontario (Canada) - where 30 experts assessed the face validity of the three versions of OR4KT. RESULTS: We selected 59 items, grouped in 6 dimensions (organizational climate, context, change content, leadership, organizational support, and motivation) for the final English version of OR4KT. Translation and transcultural adaptation did not identify any content or language problems. Our findings indicate that the English, French and Spanish versions of OR4KT are linguistically equivalents and have high face validity. Only minor revisions to the wording of some items were recommended. CONCLUSION: The OR4KT holds promise as a measure of readiness for knowledge translation (KT) in healthcare organizations. The validity and reliability of the three versions of the OR4KT will be assessed in real-life contexts of implementation of evidence-based changes in healthcare.

Approaches to considering sex and gender in continuous professional development for health and social care professionals: An emerging paradigm.

Consideration of sex and gender in research and clinical practice is necessary to redress health inequities and reduce knowledge gaps. As all health professionals must maintain and update their skills throughout their career, developing innovative continuing professional education programs that integrate sex and gender issues holds great promise for reducing these gaps. This article proposes new approaches to partnership, team development, pedagogical theory, content development, evaluation and data management that will advance the integration of sex and gender in continuing professional development (CPD). Our perspectives build on an intersectoral and interprofessional research team that includes several perspectives, including those of CPD, health systems, knowledge translation and sex and gender.

Involving Citizen-Patients in the Development of Telehealth Services: Qualitative Study of Experts' and Citizen-Patients' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding telehealth services in Quebec (Canada) have been largely technocratic by nature for the last 15 years, and the involvement of citizen-patients in the development of telehealth services is virtually nonexistent. In view of the societal challenges that telehealth raises, citizen-patient involvement could ensure more balance between evidence from traditional research methodologies and technical experts and the needs and expectations of populations in decisions about telehealth services. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the perception of various stakeholders (decision makers, telehealth program and policy managers, clinicians, researchers, evaluators, and citizen-patients) regarding the involvement of citizen-patients in the development of telehealth services in Quebec. In particular, we explored its potential advantages, added value, obstacles, and challenges it raises for decision making. METHODS: We used a qualitative research approach based on semistructured individual interviews, with a total of 29 key actors. Respondents were identified by the contact network method. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A pragmatic content thematic analysis was performed. To increase the capacity for interpretation and analysis, we were guided by the principle of data triangulation. RESULTS: Citizen-patient involvement in decision making is perceived more as a theoretical idea than as a practical reality in health care organizations or in the health system. There is very little connection between citizen involvement structures or patient and user groups and telehealth leaders. For the respondents, citizen-patient involvement in telehealth could increase the accountability and transparency of decision making and make it more pragmatic within an innovation-driven health system. This involvement could also make citizen-patients ambassadors and promoters of telehealth and improve the quality and organization of health services while ensuring they are more socially relevant. Challenges and constraints that were reported include the ambiguity of the citizen-patient, who should be involved and how, claimant citizen-patient, the risk of professionalization of citizen-patient involvement, and the gap between decision time versus time to involve the citizen-patient. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a basis for future research on the potential of involving citizen-patients in telehealth. There is a great need for research on the issue of citizen-patient involvement as an organizational innovation (in terms of decision-making model). Research on the organizational predisposition and preparation for such a change becomes central. More efforts to synthesize and translate knowledge on public participation in decision making in the health sector, particularly in the field of technology development, are needed.

Validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the Organizational Readiness for Knowledge Translation (OR4KT) questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Organizational readiness to change healthcare practice is a major determinant of successful implementation of evidence-based interventions. However, we lack of comprehensive, valid, and reliable instruments to measure it. We assessed the validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the Organizational Readiness for Knowledge Translation (OR4KT) questionnaire in the context of the implementation of the Prescribe Vida Saludable III project, which seeks to strengthen health promotion and chronic disease prevention in primary healthcare organizations of the Osakidetza (Basque Health Service, Spain). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted including 127 professionals from 20 primary care centers within Osakidetza. They filled in the OR4KT questionnaire twice in a 15- to 30-day period to test repeatability. In addition, we used the Survey of Organizational Attributes for Primary Care (SOAPC) and we documented the number of healthcare professionals who formally engaged in the Prescribe Vida Saludable III project within each participating center to assess concurrent validity. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha for the overall OR4KT was .95, and the overall repeatability coefficient was 6.95%, both excellent results. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the underlying theoretical structure of 6 dimensions and 23 sub-dimensions. There were positive moderate-to-high internal correlations between these six dimensions, and there was evidence of good concurrent validity (correlation coefficient of .76 with SOAPC, and .80 with the proportion of professionals engaged by center). A score higher than 64 (out of 100) would be indicative of an organization with high level of readiness to implement the intervention (sensitivity = .75, specificity = 1). CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish version of the OR4KT exhibits very strong reliability and good validity, although it needs to be validated in a larger sample and in different implementation contexts.