Economic Evaluations of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapies for Hematologic and Solid Malignancies: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies for patients with cancer. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched in October 2022 and updated in September 2023. Systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and economic evaluations that compared costs and effects of CAR-T therapy in patients with cancer were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, synthesized results, and critically appraised studies using the Philips checklist. Cost data were presented in 2022 US dollars. RESULTS: Our search yielded 1809 records, 47 of which were included. Most of included studies were cost-utility analysis, published between 2018 and 2023, and conducted in the United States. Tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, idecabtagene vicleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel, lisocabtagene maraleucel, brexucabtagene autoleucel, and relmacabtagene autoleucel were compared with various standard of care chemotherapies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CAR-T therapies ranged from $9424 to $4 124 105 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in adults and from $20 784 to $243 177 per QALY in pediatric patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were found to improve over longer time horizons or when an earlier cure point was assumed. Most studies failed to meet the Philips checklist due to a lack of head-to-head comparisons and uncertainty surrounding CAR-T costs and curative effects. CONCLUSIONS: CAR-T therapies were more expensive and generated more QALYs than comparators, but their cost-effectiveness was uncertain and dependent on patient population, cancer type, and model assumptions. This highlights the need for more nuanced economic evaluations and continued research to better understand the value of CAR-T therapies in diverse patient populations.

Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). METHODS: Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. RESULTS: We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Turning the tide on inequity through systematic equity action-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Collective agreement about the importance of centering equity in health research, practice, and policy is growing. Yet, responsibility for advancing equity is often situated as belonging to a vague group of 'others', or delegated to the leadership of 'equity-seeking' or 'equity-deserving' groups who are tasked to lead systems transformation while simultaneously navigating the violence and harms of oppression within those same systems. Equity efforts also often overlook the breadth of equity scholarship. Harnessing the potential of current interests in advancing equity requires systematic, evidence-guided, theoretically rigorous ways for people to embrace their own agency and influence over the systems in which they are situated. ln this article, we introduce and describe the Systematic Equity Action-Analysis (SEA) Framework as a tool that translates equity scholarship and evidence into a structured process that leaders, teams, and communities can use to advance equity in their own settings. METHODS: This framework was derived through a dialogic, critically reflective and scholarly process of integrating methodological insights garnered over years of equity-centred research and practice. Each author, in a variety of ways, brought engaged equity perspectives to the dialogue, bringing practical and lived experience to conversation and writing. Our scholarly dialogue was grounded in critical and relational lenses, and involved synthesis of theory and practice from a broad range of applications and cases. RESULTS: The SEA Framework balances practices of agency, humility, critically reflective dialogue, and systems thinking. The framework guides users through four elements of analysis (worldview, coherence, potential, and accountability) to systematically interrogate how and where equity is integrated in a setting or object of action-analysis. Because equity issues are present in virtually all aspects of society, the kinds of 'things' the framework could be applied to is only limited by the imagination of its users. It can inform retrospective or prospective work, by groups external to a policy or practice setting (e.g., using public documents to assess a research funding policy landscape); or internal to a system, policy, or practice setting (e.g., faculty engaging in a critically reflective examination of equity in the undergraduate program they deliver). CONCLUSIONS: While not a panacea, this unique contribution to the science of health equity equips people to explicitly recognize and interrupt their own entanglements in the intersecting systems of oppression and injustice that produce and uphold inequities.

Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research. DESIGN: Scoping review. PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support. RESULTS: Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Engaging Patients and Caregivers in an Early Health Economic Evaluation: Discerning Treatment Value Based on Lived Experience.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, economic evaluations have engaged clinicians and policymakers; however, patients and their caregivers have insight that can ensure that the economic evaluation process appropriately reflects disease consequences and adequately addresses their priorities related to treatment. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify patient priorities to inform an early economic evaluation of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. METHODS: We conducted two online group discussions of four participants each, involving patients with experience of hematological cancer and a caregiver. We used an adapted version of the nominal group technique, a consensus-building discussion approach, to generate focused qualitative data. RESULTS: Patients and a caregiver acknowledged both the costs directly related to clinical care, such as the out-of-pocket cost of drugs, and the indirect treatment costs, such as the cost of transport, accommodation, and food. The emotional and physical toll of treatment and the influence of treatment on employment and education were additional costs emphasized by participants. Treatment benefits prioritized by participants included the efficacy of treatment, manageable side effects, improved quality of life, accessibility of treatment, and short treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging patients and caregivers in an early economic evaluation could help identify additional costs and benefits of therapies that are not typically recognized in economic evaluations but have the potential to increase the commercial viability of novel therapies. This research also demonstrates how patients and caregivers can be engaged at different levels in the development of early economic evaluation models.

Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches.

BACKGROUND: Models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) provide the foundation for a cumulative science of implementation, reflecting a shared, evolving understanding of various facets of implementation. One under-represented aspect in implementation MTFs is how intersecting social factors and systems of power and oppression can shape implementation. There is value in enhancing how MTFs in implementation research and practice account for these intersecting factors. Given the large number of MTFs, we sought to identify exemplar MTFs that represent key implementation phases within which to embed an intersectional perspective. METHODS: We used a five-step process to prioritize MTFs for enhancement with an intersectional lens. We mapped 160 MTFs to three previously prioritized phases of the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework. Next, 17 implementation researchers/practitioners, MTF experts, and intersectionality experts agreed on criteria for prioritizing MTFs within each KTA phase. The experts used a modified Delphi process to agree on an exemplar MTF for each of the three prioritized KTA framework phases. Finally, we reached consensus on the final MTFs and contacted the original MTF developers to confirm MTF versions and explore additional insights. RESULTS: We agreed on three criteria when prioritizing MTFs: acceptability (mean = 3.20, SD = 0.75), applicability (mean = 3.82, SD = 0.72), and usability (median = 4.00, mean = 3.89, SD = 0.31) of the MTF. The top-rated MTFs were the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care for the 'Identify the problem' phase (mean = 4.57, SD = 2.31), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for the 'Assess barriers/facilitators to knowledge use' phase (mean = 5.79, SD = 1.12), and the Behaviour Change Wheel for the 'Select, tailor, implement interventions' phase (mean = 6.36, SD = 1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Our interdisciplinary team engaged in a rigorous process to reach consensus on MTFs reflecting specific phases of the implementation process and prioritized each to serve as an exemplar in which to embed intersectional approaches. The resulting MTFs correspond with specific phases of the KTA framework, which itself may be useful for those seeking particular MTFs for particular KTA phases. This approach also provides a template for how other implementation MTFs could be similarly considered in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registration: osf.io/qgh64.

Development and usability testing of tools to facilitate incorporating intersectionality in knowledge translation.

BACKGROUND: The field of knowledge translation (KT) has been criticized for neglecting contextual and social considerations that influence health equity. Intersectionality, a concept introduced by Black feminist scholars, emphasizes how human experience is shaped by combinations of social factors (e.g., ethnicity, gender) embedded in systemic power structures. Its use has the potential to advance equity considerations in KT. Our objective was to develop and conduct usability testing of tools to support integrating intersectionality in KT through three key phases of KT: identifying the gap; assessing barriers to knowledge use; and selecting, tailoring, and implementing interventions. METHODS: We used an integrated KT approach and assembled an interdisciplinary development committee who drafted tools. We used a mixed methods approach for usability testing with KT intervention developers that included semi-structured interviews and the System Usability Scale (SUS). We calculated an average SUS score for each tool. We coded interview data using the framework method focusing on actionable feedback. The development committee used the feedback to revise tools, which were formatted by a graphic designer. RESULTS: Nine people working in Canada joined the development committee. They drafted an intersectionality primer and one tool that included recommendations, activities, reflection prompts, and resources for each of the three implementation phases. Thirty-one KT intervention developers from three countries participated in usability testing. They suggested the tools to be shorter, contain more visualizations, and use less jargon. Average SUS scores of the draft tools ranged between 60 and 78/100. The development committee revised and shortened all tools, and added two, one-page summary documents. The final toolkit included six documents. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and evaluated tools to help embed intersectionality considerations in KT. These tools go beyond recommending the use of intersectionality to providing practical guidance on how to do this. Future work should develop guidance for enhancing social justice in intersectionality-enhanced KT.

Stakeholder engagement in economic evaluation: Protocol for using the nominal group technique to elicit patient, healthcare provider, and health system stakeholder input in the development of an early economic evaluation model of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy is a class of immunotherapy. An economic evaluation conducted at an early stage of development of CAR-T therapy for treatment of adult relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukaemia could provide insight into factors contributing to the cost of treatment, the potential clinical benefits, and what the health system can afford. Traditionally, stakeholders are engaged in certain parts of health technology assessment processes, such as in the identification and selection of technologies, formulation of recommendations, and implementation of recommendations; however, little is known about processes for stakeholder engagement during the conduct of the assessment. This is especially the case for economic evaluations. Stakeholders, such as clinicians, policy-makers, patients, and their support networks, have insight into factors that can enhance the validity of an economic evaluation model. This research outlines a specific methodology for stakeholder engagement and represents an avenue to enhance health economic evaluations and support the use of these models to inform decision making for resource allocation. This protocol may inform a tailored framework for stakeholder engagement processes in future economic evaluation model development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will involve clinicians, healthcare researchers, payers, and policy-makers, as well as patients and their support networks in the conduct and verification of an early economic evaluation of a novel health technology to incorporate stakeholder-generated knowledge. Three stakeholder-specific focus groups will be conducted using an online adaptation of the nominal group technique to elicit considerations from each. This study will use CAR-T therapy for adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia as a basis for investigating broader stakeholder engagement processes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethics approval from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Research Ethics Board (REB 20200320-01HT) and the results will be shared via conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications, and ongoing stakeholder engagement.

Piecing together the Labrador Inuit food security policy puzzle in Nunatsiavut, Labrador (Canada): a scoping review.

Inuit in Canada experience greater social and economic inequities than the general Canadian population. Food security exemplifies this inequity and is a distinct determinant of Inuit health. This scoping review focuses on food security-related policies implemented in Nunatsiavut, located in Northern Labrador. The primary objective was to identify the range of existing policies that pertain to food security in Nunatsiavut. The secondary objective was to complete a directed content analysis to map each policy against the applicable dimension of food security. This scoping review followed the Johanna Briggs methodology. The search strategy included the databases: Medline (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), CINAHL, and Scopus, and a hand search of the relevant journals, conference abstracts and grey literature. This search was undertaken from April 2019 - October 2019. A content analysis mapped each policy against the applicable dimension of food security. Results: The results showed that twenty five policies were identified, spanning three levels of government, that explicitly or implicitly addressed at least one dimension of food security. Accessibility was the most frequent food security dimension identified. The Government of Canada developed 60% of policies and the Nunatsiavut Government implemented 48% of policies. Most policies focused on proximal factors for food security. Identifying distal policies for food security and understanding the impact of existing policies in Nunatsiavut remain as areas of further investigation. Ethics and Dissemination:This project was reviewed by the Nunatsiavut Government Research Advisory Committee.

Global evidence of gender inequity in academic health research: a living scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe the global evidence of gender inequity among individuals with appointments at academic institutions that conduct health research, and examine how gender intersects with other social identities to influence outcomes. INTRODUCTION: The gender demographics of universities have shifted, yet the characteristics of those who lead academic health research institutions have not reflected this change. Synthesized evidence will guide decision-making and policy development to support the progress of gender and other under-represented social identities in academia. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider any quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods primary research that reports outcome data related to gender equity and other social identities among individuals affiliated with academic or research institutions that conduct health research, originating from any country. METHODS: The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Cochrane Collaboration's guidance on living reviews will inform the review methods. Information sources will include electronic databases, unpublished literature sources, reference scanning of relevant systematic reviews, and sources provided by experts on the research team. Searches will be run regularly to monitor the development of new literature and determine when the review will be updated. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers working independently, and all discrepancies will be resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data synthesis will summarize information using descriptive frequencies and simple thematic analysis. Results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to scoping reviews. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Applying an intersectionality lens to the theoretical domains framework: a tool for thinking about how intersecting social identities and structures of power influence behaviour.

BACKGROUND: A key component of the implementation process is identifying potential barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is one of the most commonly used frameworks for this purpose. When applying the TDF, it is critical to understand the context in which behaviours occur. Intersectionality, which accounts for the interface between social identity factors (e.g. age, gender) and structures of power (e.g. ageism, sexism), offers a novel approach to understanding how context shapes individual decision-making and behaviour. We aimed to develop a tool to be used alongside applications of the TDF to incorporate an intersectionality lens when identifying implementation barriers and enablers. METHODS: An interdisciplinary Framework Committee (n = 17) prioritized the TDF as one of three models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) to enhance with an intersectional lens through a modified Delphi approach. In collaboration with the wider Framework Committee, a subgroup considered all 14 TDF domains and iteratively developed recommendations for incorporating intersectionality considerations within the TDF and its domains. An iterative approach aimed at building consensus was used to finalize recommendations. RESULTS: Consensus on how to apply an intersectionality lens to the TDF was achieved after 12 rounds of revision. Two overarching considerations for using the intersectionality alongside the TDF were developed by the group as well as two to four prompts for each TDF domain to guide interview topic guides. Considerations and prompts were designed to assist users to reflect on how individual identities and structures of power may play a role in barriers and facilitators to behaviour change and subsequent intervention implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Through an expert-consensus approach, we developed a tool for applying an intersectionality lens alongside the TDF. Considering the role of intersecting social factors when identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing research evidence may result in more targeted and effective interventions that better reflect the realities of those involved.

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

Connecting knowledge with action for health equity: a critical interpretive synthesis of promising practices.

Connecting knowledge with action (KWA) for health equity involves interventions that can redistribute power and resources at local, national, and global levels. Although there is ample and compelling evidence on the nature, distribution, and impact of health inequities, advancing health equity is inhibited by policy arenas shaped by colonial legacies and neoliberal ideology. Effective progress toward health equity requires attention to evidence that can promote the kind of socio-political restructuring needed to address root causes of health inequities. In this critical interpretive synthesis, results of a recent scoping review were broadened to identify evidence-informed promising practices for KWA for health equity. Following screening procedures, 10 literature reviews and 22 research studies were included in the synthesis. Analysis involved repeated readings of these 32 articles to extract descriptive data, assess clarity and quality, and identify promising practices. Four distinct kinds of promising practices for connecting KWA for health equity were identified and included: ways of structuring systems, ways of working together, and ways of doing research and ways of doing knowledge translation. Our synthesis reveals that advancing health equity requires greater awareness, dialogue, and action that aligns with the what is known about the causes of health inequities. By critically reflecting on dominant discourses and assumptions, and mobilizing political will from a more informed and transparent democratic exercise, knowledge to action for health equity can be achieved.

Piecing together the Inuit food security policy puzzle in Nunatsiavut, Labrador (Canada): protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Inuit Nunangat is the Inuit homeland in Canada. It is comprised of four Inuit regions. Inuit residing in these areas experience greater social and economic inequities than the general Canadian population. Food security exemplifies this inequity and is a distinct determinant of Inuit health. Policy can play an integral role in health equity. However, demonstrating this role can be a complex task, especially when there are both national and regionally specific policies pertaining to each of the Inuit regions. This scoping review will focus on Nunatsiavut, located in northern Labrador. This region is situated within a complex policy space due to the national, provincial and regional governance structures, geographical location and the breadth of factors pertaining to food security. This scoping review aims to identify the range of policies pertaining to food security in Nunatsiavut and complete a directed content analysis to code each policy against the applicable dimension of food security. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The researchers will conduct a search strategy on the following four databases: MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), CINHAL and Scopus. A hand search of the relevant journals, conference abstracts and grey literature will be completed from April to October 2019. The following parameters will be extracted: a description of the policy, the organisation/institution that developed the policy, the definition of food security used or implied, and any stated intended targets or outcomes. The results will be compiled in a tabular form. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings from this scoping review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and public presentations. The results of this scoping review will be validated by a Nunatsiavut Government Advisory Group.

Taking an integrated knowledge translation approach in research to develop the CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting guideline: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: We describe the use of an integrated knowledge translation (KT) approach in the development of the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials extension for equity ('CONSORT-Equity 2017'), and advisory board-research team members' ('the team') perceptions of the integrated KT process. DESIGN: This is an observational study to describe team processes and experience with a structured integrated KT approach to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017. Participant observation to describe team processes and a survey were used with the 38 team members. SETTING: Use of the CONSORT health research reporting guideline contributes to an evidence base for health systems decision-making, and CONSORT-Equity 2017 may improve reporting about health equity-relevant evidence. An integrated KT research approach engages knowledge users (those for whom the research is meant to be useful) with researchers to co-develop research evidence and is more likely to produce findings that are applied in practice or policy. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers adopted an integrated KT approach and invited knowledge users to form a team. RESULTS: An integrated KT approach was used in the development of CONSORT-Equity 2017 and structured replicable steps. The process for co-developing the reporting guideline involved two stages: (1) establishing guiding features for co-development and (2) research actions that supported the co-development of the reporting guideline. Stage 1 consisted of four steps: finding common ground, forming an advisory board, committing to ethical guidance and clarifying theoretical research assumptions. Bound by the stage 1 guiding features of an integrated KT approach, stage 2 consisted of five steps during which studies for consensus-based reporting guidelines were conducted. Of 38 team members, 25 (67.5%) completed a survey about their perceptions of the integrated KT approach. CONCLUSIONS: An integrated KT approach can be used to engage a team to co-develop reporting guidelines. Further study is needed to understand the use of an integrated KT approach in the development of reporting guidelines.

It's All About the IKT Approach: Three Perspectives on an Embedded Research Fellowship Comment on "CIHR Health System Impact Fellows: Reflections on 'Driving Change' Within the Health System".

As a group of Health System Impact (HSI) postdoctoral fellows, Sim and colleagues offer their reflections on 'driving change' within the health system and present a framework for understanding the HSI fellow as an embedded researcher. Our commentary offers a different perspective of the fellow's role by highlighting the integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach we consider to be foundational to the fellowship experience. Further, we provide several recommendations to enhance Sim and colleagues' framework to ensure we capture the full value of the fellowship program to the HSI fellow, health system organization, and academic institution.

Interventions to improve emergency department use for mental health reasons: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare resources are limited and unnecessary, and inappropriate emergency department use is now a highly visible healthcare priority. Individuals visiting the emergency department for mental health-related reasons are often amongst the most frequent presenters. In response, researchers and clinicians have created interventions to streamline emergency department use and several primary studies describe the effects of these interventions. Yet, no consensus exists on the optimal approach, and information on the quality of development, effectiveness, acceptability, and economic considerations is hard to find. The purpose of this study is to systematically review interventions designed to improve appropriate use of the emergency department for mental health reasons. METHOD: A mixed-method systematic review using Joanna Briggs Methodology. Search combining electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, PROQUEST, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health) and secondary searches (grey literature and hand search with consultation). Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts using predetermined eligibility criteria and a third reviewer will resolve conflicts. Full texts will also be screened by two independent reviews and conflicts resolved in a consensus meeting with a third reviewer. A pilot-tested data extraction form will be used to retrieve data relevant to the study objectives. We will assess the quality and of all included studies. Data describing interventions will be summarized using logic models and reported narratively. Quality of development will be assessed using the Oxford Implementation Index. For data on intervention effectiveness, we will assess statistical heterogeneity and conduct a meta-analysis using a random effects method, if appropriate. For interventions that cannot be pooled, we will report outcomes narratively and descriptively. Qualitative data on acceptability will be synthesized using meta-aggregation and an economic evaluation of interventions will be done. The reporting of this protocol follows the PRISMA-P statement. DISCUSSION: Using a combined systematic review methodology and integrated knowledge translation plan, the project will provide decision makers with concrete evidence to support the implementation and evaluation of interventions to improve emergency department use for mental health reasons. These interventions reflect widespread priorities in the area of mental health care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018087430.

Correction: Screening for osteoporosis: A systematic assessment of the quality and content of clinical practice guidelines, using the AGREE II instrument and the IOM Standards for Trustworthy Guidelines.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208251.].

Patient and Public Engagement in Integrated Knowledge Translation Research: Are we there yet?

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: There have been many attempts to improve how healthcare services are developed and delivered. Despite this, we know that there are many gaps and differences in practice and that these can lead to poor patient outcomes. In addition, there are also concerns that research is being undertaken that does not reflects the realities or needs of those using healthcare services, and that the use of research findings in practice is slow. As such, shared approaches to research, such as integrated knowledge translation, are being used.Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a research approach that brings together researchers, along with other stakeholders that have knowledge about a particular healthcare issue. Stakeholders may include healthcare providers and policy-makers. More recently, there has been a growing awareness of the need to include patients and members of the public within research processes. These collaborative and patient-oriented research approaches are seen as a way to develop research that tackles ongoing gaps in practice and reflect the insights, needs and priorities of those most affected by health research outcomes. Despite great support, little is known about how these major research approaches are connected, or how they may bring about improvements in the development and use of research evidence. In this paper, we examine how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked, as well as exploring where differences exist. Through this, we highlight opportunities for greater patient engagement in IKT research and to identify areas that need to be understood further. ABSTRACT: Healthcare organizations across the world are being increasingly challenged to develop and implement services that are evidence-based and bring about improvement in patient and health service outcomes. Despite an increasing emphasis upon evidence-based practice, large variations in practice remain and gaps pervade in the creation and application of knowledge that improves outcomes. More collaborative models of health research have emerged over recent years, including integrated knowledge translation (IKT), whereby partnerships with key knowledge users are developed to enhance the responsiveness and application of the findings. Likewise, the meaningful engagement of patients, in addition to the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes and priorities, has been hailed as another mechanism to improve the relevance, impact and efficiency of research.Collectively, both IKT and patient engagement processes provide a vehicle to support research that can address health disparities and improve the delivery of effective and responsive healthcare services. However, the evidence to support their impact is limited and while these approaches are inextricably connected through their engagement focus, it is unclear how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked conceptually, theoretically, and practically. In this paper, we will begin to critically examine some of the linkages and tensions that exist between IKT and patient-engagement for research and will examine potential opportunities for IKT researchers as they navigate and enact meaningful partnerships with patients and the public.