Research Lifecycle to Increase the Substantial Real-world Impact of Research: Accelerating Innovations to Application.

BACKGROUND: US health care systems face a growing demand to incorporate innovations that improve patient outcomes at a lower cost. Funding agencies increasingly must demonstrate the impact of research investments on public health. The Learning Health System promotes continuous institutional innovation, yet specific processes to develop innovations for further research and implementation into real-world health care settings to maximize health impacts have not been specified. OBJECTIVE: We describe the Research Lifecycle and how it leverages institutional priorities to support the translation of research discoveries to clinical application, serving as a broader operational approach to enhance the Learning Health System. METHODS: Developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development Research-to-Real-World Workgroup, the Research Lifecycle incorporates frameworks from product development, translational science, and implementation science methods. The Lifecycle is based on Workgroup recommendations to overcome barriers to more direct translation of innovations to clinical application and support practice implementation and sustainability. RESULTS: The Research Lifecycle posits 5 phases which support a seamless pathway from discovery to implementation: prioritization (leadership priority alignment), discovery (innovation development), validation (clinical, operational feasibility), scale-up and spread (implementation strategies, performance monitoring), and sustainability (business case, workforce training). An example of how the Research Lifecycle has been applied within a health system is provided. CONCLUSIONS: The Research Lifecycle aligns research and health system investments to maximize real-world practice impact via a feasible pathway, where priority-driven innovations are adapted for effective clinical use and supported through implementation strategies, leading to continuous improvement in real-world health care.

"It Would've Been Nice if They Interpreted the Data a Little Bit. It Didn't Really Say Much, and It Didn't Really Help Us.": A Qualitative Study of VA Health System Evidence Needs.

BACKGROUND: Patient health outcomes improve when learning health care systems use evidence to implement promising services and allocate resources effectively. Here, we examine the unique environment in which Veterans Health Administration (VHA) leadership use evidence and the facilitators and barriers to using evidence synthesis products in decision-making. We end by describing the steps researchers can take to better support the needs of health system leadership. METHODS: We conducted 20 semistructured phone interviews with individuals in VHA leadership positions. We used an inductive approach to identify themes observed across key informant interviews. RESULTS: Key informants identified several factors that fostered the use of evidence including, timeliness, lack of bias, flexible approaches, and concise reports with a clear bottom line. Barriers included lack of relevant evidence and lack of information on how to translate evidence into practice, resistance to change among providers and within the larger health system, and political pressures to implement therapies or technologies with little evidence or uncertainty. Researchers can foster evidence uptake by developing a review scope and key questions that are important to multiple stakeholders, including frontline clinicians and health system leadership. CONCLUSIONS: The VHA's evidence needs resemble other health systems, but evidence synthesis products should include a translational component to enhance implementation. Resistance to change and political pressures can further hinder the uptake of evidence within VHA.

"Implementation Is so Difficult": Survey of National Learning Health System Decision-makers Identifies Need For Implementation Information in Evidence Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Evidence use within learning health care systems can improve patient health outcomes. Embedded in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) since 2007, the Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) provides tailored evidence synthesis services to support VHA's learning health care system goals. As part of the ESP's ongoing quality improvement efforts, we have been surveying our users since 2016. METHODS: We reviewed data from a survey of end-users received between September 5, 2016, and June 10, 2019. The survey assessed: (1) nature of decision-making needs; (2) actions resulting from the report's findings; (3) implementation timeframe; and (4) overall perception of report content. RESULTS: Feedback was received from 66 of the 138 operational partners requesting ESP products during the fiscal year 2015 through 2018. Requests commonly informed clinical guidance (58%), identified future research needs (58%), and determined VHA-specific implementation strategy (47%). A total of 91% of responders used reports, typically within 3 months after completion (82%). Use was typically for VHA publications and/or presentations to inform VHA policy or guidance (26%), to inform intervention/strategy adoption decisions (23%) and for medical device and therapy procurement decisions (21%). Over half (53%) of respondents indicated that it would be useful for ESP reports to include more guidance on implementing findings. CONCLUSION: Our survey of learning health system decision-makers' actual patterns and timing of evidence use provides valuable new information that can further support development of other health system and evidence producer partnerships and identifies key needs for better supporting health systems' uptake of evidence.

User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making.

BACKGROUND: To provide evidence synthesis for faster-paced healthcare decision-making, rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined alternative to standard systematic reviews. In 2012, the Veterans Affairs Evidence-based Synthesis Program (VA ESP) added rapid reviews to support Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operational partners' more urgent decision-making needs. VHA operational partners play a substantial role in dissemination of ESP rapid reviews through a variety of routes, including posting on the VA ESP's public website ( http://www.hsrd. RESEARCH: va.gov/publications/esp/ ). As demand for rapid reviews rises, much progress has been made in characterizing methods and practices. However, evidence synthesis organizations still seek to better understand how and when rapid reviews are being used. METHODS: The VA ESP administered an online survey to rapid review operational partners. The survey assessed the nature of decision-making needs, overall perception of review content, resulting actions, and implementation timeframe. We use descriptive statistics and narrative methods to summarize findings. RESULTS: Between October 2011 and April 2015, we completed 12 rapid reviews for 35 operational partners. Operational partners were primarily non-academic subject matter experts with VA operations' decision-making authority. The most common topic categories reviewed were policy or system (50 %) or process of care (42 %) initiatives. Median report completion time was 14.5 weeks. Survey response rate was 46 %, with at least one operational partner responding for 92 % of reports. Reviews served multiple purposes including policy directive or regulation (72 %), supporting program development and evaluation (55 %), identifying future research needs (45 %), and determining implementation strategy (45 %). Overall, operational partners' perception of report content was positive. A majority of rapid reviews were used immediately and informed actions ranking high on the Institute of Medicine's Degrees of Impact framework: 45.4 % effected change, 18.2 % inspired action, 18.2 % informed the field, 9.1 % received recognition, and 9.1 % spread a message. CONCLUSIONS: VA ESP rapid reviews have increased the VHA's uptake of evidence to inform time-sensitive system-level decision-making. Key areas of interest for future evaluation include assessing user perception of our streamlined methods and the quality of our efforts to inform users of these methods, as well as comparing the usability and impact of our rapid and standard systematic reviews.

AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program.

OBJECTIVE: This article discusses the identification, selection, and refinement of topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Effective Health Care (EHC) program. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The EHC program seeks to align its research topic selection with the overall goals of the program, impartially and consistently apply predefined criteria to potential topics, involve stakeholders to identify high-priority topics, be transparent and accountable, and continually evaluate and improve processes. RESULTS: A topic prioritization group representing stakeholder and scientific perspectives evaluates topic nominations that fit within the EHC program (are "appropriate") to determine how "important" topics are as considered against seven criteria. The group then judges whether a new comparative effectiveness systematic review would be a duplication of existing research syntheses, and if not duplicative, if there is adequate type and volume of research to conduct a new systematic review. Finally, the group considers the "potential value and impact" of a comparative effectiveness systematic review. CONCLUSION: As the EHC program develops, ongoing challenges include ensuring the program addresses truly unmet needs for synthesized research because national and international efforts in this arena are uncoordinated, as well as engaging a range of stakeholders in program decisions while also achieving efficiency and timeliness.