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

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

Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine.

The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.

The Ottawa Statement implementation guidance document for cluster randomized trials in the hemodialysis setting.

Research teams are increasingly interested in using cluster randomized trial (CRT) designs to generate practice-guiding evidence for in-center maintenance hemodialysis. However, CRTs raise complex ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues arising within 7 domains: justifying the CRT design, research ethics committee review, identifying research participants, obtaining informed consent, gatekeepers, assessing benefits and harms, and protecting vulnerable participants. But applying the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting is complicated by the unique features of the setting and population. Here, with the help of content experts and patient partners, we co-developed this implementation guidance document to provide research teams, research ethics committees, and other stakeholders with detailed guidance on how to apply the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, the result of a 4-year research project. Thus, our work demonstrates how the voices of patients, caregivers, and all stakeholders may be included in the development of research ethics guidance.

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

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

Advance Consent in Acute Stroke Trials: Survey of Canadian Stroke Physicians.

Advance consent presents a potential solution to the challenge of obtaining informed consent for participation in acute stroke trials. Clinicians in stroke prevention clinics are uniquely positioned to identify and seek consent from potential stroke trial participants. To assess the acceptability of advance consent to Canadian stroke clinic physicians, we performed an online survey. We obtained 58 respondents (response rate 35%): the vast majority (82%) expressed comfort with obtaining advance consent and 92% felt that doing so would not be a significant disruption to clinic workflow. These results support further study of advance consent for acute stroke trials.

Advance Consent in Acute Stroke Trials: Survey of Canadian Research Ethics Board Chairs.

Advance consent could allow individuals at high risk of stroke to provide consent before they might become eligible for enrollment in acute stroke trials. This survey explores the acceptability of this novel technique to Canadian Research Ethics Board (REB) chairs that review acute stroke trials. Responses from 15 REB chairs showed that majority of respondents expressed comfort approving studies that adopt advance consent. There was no clear preference for advance consent over deferral of consent, although respondents expressed significant concern with broad rather than trial-specific advance consent. These findings shed light on the acceptability of advance consent to Canadian ethics regulators.

One size doesn't fit all: methodological reflections in conducting community-based behavioural science research to tailor COVID-19 vaccination initiatives for public health priority populations.

BACKGROUND: Promoting the uptake of vaccination for infectious diseases such as COVID-19 remains a global challenge, necessitating collaborative efforts between public health units (PHUs) and communities. Applied behavioural science can play a crucial role in supporting PHUs' response by providing insights into human behaviour and informing tailored strategies to enhance vaccination uptake. Community engagement can help broaden the reach of behavioural science research by involving a more diverse range of populations and ensuring that strategies better represent the needs of specific communities. We developed and applied an approach to conducting community-based behavioural science research with ethnically and socioeconomically diverse populations to guide PHUs in tailoring their strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccination. This paper presents the community engagement methodology and the lessons learned in applying the methodology. METHODS: The community engagement methodology was developed based on integrated knowledge translation (iKT) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles. The study involved collaboration with PHUs and local communities in Ontario, Canada to identify priority groups for COVID-19 vaccination, understand factors influencing vaccine uptake and co-design strategies tailored to each community to promote vaccination. Community engagement was conducted across three large urban regions with individuals from Eastern European communities, African, Black, and Caribbean communities and low socioeconomic neighbourhoods. RESULTS: We developed and applied a seven-step methodology for conducting community-based behavioural science research: (1) aligning goals with system-level partners; (2) engaging with PHUs to understand priorities; (3) understanding community strengths and dynamics; (4) building relationships with each community; (5) establishing partnerships (community advisory groups); (6) involving community members in the research process; and (7) feeding back and interpreting research findings. Research partnerships were successfully established with members of prioritized communities, enabling recruitment of participants for theory-informed behavioural science interviews, interpretation of findings, and co-design of targeted recommendations for each PHU to improve COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Lessons learned include the importance of cultural sensitivity and awareness of sociopolitical context in tailoring community engagement, being agile to address the diverse and evolving priorities of PHUs, and building trust to achieve effective community engagement. CONCLUSION: Effective community engagement in behavioural science research can lead to more inclusive and representative research. The community engagement approach developed and applied in this study acknowledges the diversity of communities, recognizes the central role of PHUs, and can help in addressing complex public health challenges.

How a Canadian federal organization integrated synoptic reporting and quality improvement tools to drive a national learning health system in cancer surgery.

Accurate and complete surgical and pathology reports are the cornerstone of treatment decisions and cancer care excellence. Synoptic reporting is a process for reporting specific data elements in a specific format in surgical and pathology reports. Since 2007, The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer has led the implementation of synoptic reporting mechanisms across multiple cancer disease sites and jurisdictions across Canada. While the implementation of synoptic reporting has been successful, its use to drive improvements in the quality of cancer care delivery has been lacking. Here we describe the Partnership's 4-year, national multi-jurisdictional quality improvement initiative to catalyse the use synoptic data to drive cancer system improvements. Resources provided to the jurisdictions included operational funding, training in quality improvement methodology, national forums, expert coaches, and ad hoc monitoring and support. The program emphasized foundational concepts including data literacy, audit and feedback reports, communities of practice, and positive deviance methodology.

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

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

Analyzing interprofessional teamwork in the operating room: An exploratory observational study using conventional and alternative approaches.

Intraoperative teamwork is vital for patient safety. Conventional tools for studying intraoperative teamwork typically rely on behaviorally anchored rating scales applied at the individual or team level, while others capture narrative information across several units of analysis. This prospective observational study characterizes teamwork using two conventional tools (Operating Theatre Team Non-Technical Skills Assessment Tool [NOTECHS]; Team Emergency Assessment Measure [TEAM]), and one alternative approach (modified-Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety [SEIPS] model). We aimed to explore the advantages and disadvantages of each for providing feedback to improve teamwork practice. Fifty consecutive surgical cases at a Canadian academic hospital were recorded with the OR Black Box®, analyzed by trained raters, and summarized descriptively. Teamwork performance was consistently high within and across cases rated with NOTECHS and TEAMS. For cases analyzed with the modified-SEIPS tool, both optimal and suboptimal teamwork behaviors were identified, and team resilience was frequently observed. NOTECHS and TEAM provided summative assessments and overall pattern descriptions, while SEIPS facilitated a deeper understanding of teamwork processes. As healthcare organizations continue to prioritize teamwork improvement, SEIPS may provide valuable insights regarding teamwork behavior and the broader context influencing performance. This may ultimately enhance the development and effectiveness of multi-level teamwork interventions.

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Support Intervention About Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Hospitalized Patients Who Have a High Risk of Death.

BACKGROUND: Many seriously ill hospitalized patients have cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as part of their care plan, but CPR is unlikely to achieve the goals of many seriously ill hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a multicomponent decision support intervention changes documented orders for CPR in the medical record, compared to usual care. DESIGN: Open-label randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: Patients on internal medicine and neurology wards at two tertiary care teaching hospitals who had a 1-year mortality greater than 10% as predicted with a validated model and whose care plan included CPR, if needed. INTERVENTION: Both the control and intervention groups received usual communication about CPR at the discretion of their care team. The intervention group participated in a values clarification exercise and watched a CPR video decision aid. MAIN MEASURE: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had a no-CPR order at 14 days after enrollment. KEY RESULTS: We recruited 200 patients between October 2017 and October 2018. Mean age was 77 years. There was no difference between the groups in no-CPR orders 14 days after enrollment (17/100 (17%) intervention vs 17/99 (17%) control, risk difference, - 0.2%) (95% confidence interval - 11 to 10%; p = 0.98). In addition, there were no differences between groups in decisional conflict summary score or satisfaction with decision-making. Patients in the intervention group had less conflict about understanding treatment options (decisional conflict knowledge subscale score mean (SD), 17.5 (26.5) intervention arm vs 40.4 (38.1) control; scale range 0-100 with lower scores reflecting less conflict). CONCLUSIONS: Among seriously ill hospitalized patients who had CPR as part of their care plan, this decision support intervention did not increase the likelihood of no-CPR orders compared to usual care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Frailty Network, The Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization.

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

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

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

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

Multi-centre implementation of an Educational program to improve the Cardiac Arrest diagnostic accuracy of ambulance Telecommunicators and survival outcomes for sudden cardiac arrest victims: the EduCATe study design and methodology.

BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac death remains a leading cause of mortality in Canada, resulting in more than 35,000 deaths annually. Most cardiac arrest victims collapse in their own home (85% of the time) and 50% are witnessed by a family member or bystander. Survivors have a quality of life similar to the general population, but the overall survival rate for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) rarely exceeds 8%. Victims are almost four times more likely to survive when receiving bystander CPR, but bystander CPR rates have remained low in Canada over the past decade, not exceeding 15-25% until recently. Telecommunication-assisted CPR instructions have been shown to significantly increase bystander CPR rates, but agonal breathing may be misinterpreted as a sign of life by 9-1-1 callers and telecommunicators, and is responsible for as much as 50% of missed OHCA diagnoses. We sought to improve the ability and speed with which ambulance telecommunicators can recognize OHCA over the phone, initiate timely CPR instructions, and improve survival. METHODS: In this multi-center national study, we will implement and evaluate an educational program developed for ambulance telecommunicators using a multiple baseline interrupted time-series design. We will compare outcomes 12 months before and after the implementation of a 20-min theory-based educational video addressing barriers to recognition of OHCA while in the presence of agonal breathing. Participating Canadian sites demonstrated prior ability to collect standardized data on OHCA. Data will be collected from eligible 9-1-1 recordings, paramedic documentation and hospital medical records. Eligible cases will include suspected or confirmed OHCA of presumed cardiac origin in patients of any age with attempted resuscitation. DISCUSSION: The ability of telecommunication-assisted CPR instructions to improve bystander CPR and survival rates for OHCA victims is undeniable. The ability of telecommunicators to recognize OHCA over the phone is unequivocally impeded by relative lack of training on agonal breathing, and reluctance to initiate CPR instructions when in doubt. Our pilot data suggests the potential impact of this project will be to increase absolute OHCA recognition and bystander CPR rates by at least 10%, and absolute out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival by 5% or more. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on March 28, 2019 at ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03894059 .

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

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

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

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

Ethical Issues in Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trials in Dialysis Facilities.

A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial (CRT) is a research design that may be used to efficiently test promising interventions that directly inform dialysis care. While the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials provides general ethical guidance for CRTs, the dialysis setting raises additional considerations. In this article, we outline ethical issues raised by pragmatic CRTs in dialysis facilities. These issues may be divided into 7 key domains: justifying the use of cluster randomization, adopting randomly allocated individual-level interventions as a facility standard of care, conducting benefit-harm analyses, gatekeepers and their responsibilities, obtaining informed consent from research participants, patient notification, and including vulnerable participants. We describe existing guidelines relevant to each domain, illustrate how they were considered in the Time to Reduce Mortality in End-Stage Renal Disease (TiME) trial (a prototypical pragmatic hemodialysis CRT), and highlight remaining areas of uncertainty. The following is the first step in an interdisciplinary mixed-methods research project to guide the design and conduct of pragmatic CRTs in dialysis facilities. Subsequent work will expand on these concepts and when possible, argue for a preferred solution.

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

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

A systematic review of the association between coping strategies and quality of life among caregivers of children with chronic illness and/or disability.

BACKGROUND: Parents of children with chronic illness have reported decreased psychological and physical quality of life (QoL) relative to parents of children without such illness, which may be associated with the extent of complexity involved in the caregiving role. Given that coping strategies have been reported to influence QoL, our goal was to synthesize existing research about the association between coping strategies and QoL in caregivers of children with chronic illness. We were particularly interested in whether coping strategies may mediate the association between caregiving complexity and QoL, or may modify the association. METHODS: We developed an electronic search strategy to identify relevant citations in Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Two reviewers independently assessed retrieved citations against pre-specified inclusion criteria in two stages of screening. One reviewer abstracted data on study characteristics, methods to address confounding, measurement tools, risk of bias, and results with respect to associations of interest. A second reviewer validated extracted data. We summarized results narratively. RESULTS: 2602 citations were screened and 185 full-text articles reviewed. The 11 articles that met inclusion criteria addressed 5 diseases and included a total of 2155 caregivers. Ten of the 11 included studies were cross-sectional. We identified some evidence that coping was associated with QoL: in three studies, coping strategies considered to be adaptive were positively associated with psychological QoL while in one study, maladaptive strategies were negatively associated with psychological QoL. Only two studies considered coping as a potential mediating variable in the association between caregiving complexity and parental QoL, with inconsistent findings and challenges in interpreting cross-sectional associations. No studies considered coping as a moderating variable. The variability among instruments used to measure key constructs, particularly coping strategies, made it difficult to synthesize results. CONCLUSIONS: We found that coping strategies may be associated with psychological QoL among parents of children with chronic illness. We also identified important research gaps related to the consistent and clear measurement of coping strategies and their prospective association with QoL. Understanding how coping strategies are associated with QoL is important to inform the development of interventions to support families of children with chronic illness.

Understanding context: A concept analysis.

AIMS: To conduct a concept analysis of clinical practice contexts (work environments) in health care. BACKGROUND: Context is increasingly recognized as important to the development, delivery, and understanding of implementation strategies; however, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is lacking. DESIGN: Modified Walker and Avant concept analysis comprised of five steps: (1) concept selection; (2) determination of aims; (3) identification of uses of context; (4) determination of its defining attributes; and (5) definition of its empirical referents. METHODS: A wide range of databases were systematically searched from inception to August 2014. Empirical articles were included if a definition and/or attributes of context were reported. Theoretical articles were included if they reported a model, theory, or framework of context or where context was a component. Double independent screening and data extraction were conducted. Analysis was iterative, involving organizing and reorganizing until a framework of domains, attributes. and features of context emerged. RESULT: We identified 15,972 references, of which 70 satisfied our inclusion criteria. In total, 201 unique features of context were identified, of these 89 were shared (reported in two or more studies). The 89 shared features were grouped into 21 attributes of context which were further categorized into six domains of context. CONCLUSION: This study resulted in a framework of domains, attributes and features of context. These attributes and features, if assessed and used to tailor implementation activities, hold promise for improved research implementation in clinical practice.