A qualitative exploration of disseminating research findings among public health researchers in China.

BACKGROUND: Research dissemination is essential to accelerate the translating of evidence into practice. Little is known about dissemination among Chinese public health researchers. This study aimed to explore the understanding and practices of disseminating research findings and to identify barriers and facilitators that influence dissemination activities to non-research audiences. METHODS: This study deployed an exploratory qualitative design with purposive and snowball sampling. One focus group with 5 participants and 12 in-depth interviews were conducted with participants working in diverse fields from universities (n = 10), the National Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (n = 4), the Chinese National Cancer Center (n = 1), the Chinese National Center for Cardiovascular Disease (n = 1), and China office of a global research institute (n = 1) from May to December 2021 to reach saturation. Data were initially analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. The designing for dissemination (D4D) logic model was then used to organize themes and subthemes. Two coders independently coded all transcripts and discussed disparities to reach a consensus. RESULTS: Out of 17 participants, 12 misunderstood the concept of dissemination; 14 had disseminated to non-research audiences: 10 to the public, 10 to practitioners, and 9 to policymakers. We identified multiple barriers to dissemination to non-research audiences across four phases of the D4D logic model, including low priority of dissemination, limited application of D4D strategies, insufficient support from the research organizations, practice settings, and health systems, and overemphasis on academic publications. CONCLUSIONS: There was a lack of understanding and experience of dissemination, indicating a lack of emphasis on active dissemination in China. We provide implications for raising awareness, building capacity, facilitating multidisciplinary collaboration, providing incentives and infrastructure, changing climate and culture, establishing communication and executive networks, and accelerating systematic shifts in impact focus.

What Do We Know About Sharing Power in Co-Production in Mental Health Research? A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Guidance on co-production between researchers and people with lived experience was published in 2018 by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) advisory group, previously known as INVOLVE. This guidance described sharing power as a key principle within co-production. Authentic sharing of power within co-produced mental health research does not always occur however and remains a challenge to achieve within many projects. OBJECTIVES: To explore what has been learned about the sharing of power in co-production within mental health research since the publication of these guidelines, by synthesising qualitative literature relating to power within co-produced mental health research. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review with thematic synthesis. We searched CINHAL, Embase and PubMed databases to identify qualitative or mixed-method studies relating to power within co-produced mental health research. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool (CASP) for qualitative research. RESULTS: We identified nine papers that met the criteria for inclusion and were included in the synthesis. Three themes were generated: (1) Battling to share power against a more powerful system, (2) Empowerment through relationships and (3) The journey is turbulent, but it is not supposed to be smooth. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight that power is pervasive, especially within the hierarchical systems research is often conducted within. Sharing power within co-produced mental health research is an ongoing complex process that is not intended to be easy. Respectful trusting relationships can help facilitate power sharing. However, ultimately meaningful change needs to come from research funders, universities and NHS providers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The study authors include a lived experience researcher who contributed to the review design, analysis and write-up.

Ethical Considerations for Enrolling "Invested Parties" in Large-Scale Clinical Studies: Insights from the RECOVER Initiative.

Research institutions often lack policies addressing the risks and benefits of enrolling "invested parties" such as investigators, research staff, and patient, caregiver, and community representatives (groups most affected by a disease or intervention) in studies where they have direct involvement. Invested parties may have both strong motivations to study the condition or intervention and to participate as study subjects. More guidance is needed to promote appropriate access to research participation and mitigate potential risks. This article addresses the gap in guidance by presenting an ethical framework and practical guidelines for the enrollment of invested parties. Drawing from experiences with the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a large multisite observational cohort study, we argue that invested parties should not be categorically excluded from enrollment in their own research studies if certain criteria are met and appropriate safeguards are in place. We underscore the need to balance inclusion with fairness, promote valid voluntary informed consent, ensure data privacy, protect scientific validity, and mitigate unique risks to invested parties as participants. Additionally, we recommend regular reporting and empirical assessment to evaluate the impact of enrolling invested parties on participants and study outcomes.

Bill targeting Chinese firms worries U.S. researchers.

Biosecure Act could hinder science collaborations, limit sequencer purchases.

Construction of a competency evaluation model for Clinical Research Coordinators in China: a study based on the Delphi method and questionnaire survey.

PURPOSE: As the number of clinical trials in China continues to grow, the assessment of competency of Clinical Research Coordinators (CRCs), who play a crucial role in clinical trials, has become an important and challenging topic. This study aims to construct a competency model for CRCs tailored to the Chinese context, in order to promote the standardisation and regulated development of the CRC industry. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was conducted in China, engaging CRCs as the primary subjects. A competency evaluation model for CRCs was constructed through literature review, semi-structured interviews, Delphi expert consultation and the analytic hierarchy process. A questionnaire survey was distributed to a broad sample of CRCs across China to evaluate the model's reliability and validity. RESULTS: The final model encompasses 4 core competency dimensions and 37 indicators, tailored to assess the competencies of CRCs in China. The questionnaire yielded an effective response rate of 81.83%, with high internal consistency(Cronbach's α>0.7). Factor analysis confirmed the model's structure, indicating good reliability and validity. CONCLUSION: This study represents a pioneering effort in constructing a competency model specifically designed for Chinese CRCs, complemented by a robust and valid assessment scale. The findings bear significant implications for the recruitment, training, development and management of CRCs.

Strengthening Clinician-Researchers' Communication and Knowledge Translation Skills: An Innovative Game Model From the Breathe Well Group.

Communication is a core component of a clinician's role; however, when clinicians conduct research, communicating the emerging findings and recommendations to different types of stakeholders can be unfamiliar territory. Communicating research to advocate for change can be even more challenging. Clinician researchers seeking to be agents for change need to conceive and craft specific, evidence-based messages and communicate these effectively to different stakeholders to negotiate action. As part of a global health research program, we developed and tested a novel game-based model to strengthen the communication skills of clinician researchers, from 4 countries, for improving services for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This model focused on communication with 3 key stakeholder groups for knowledge translation: Patients/carers, healthcare providers and policy makers/healthcare managers. Delivered through a series of facilitated, online meetings, this model consisted of 2 parts: developing and rehearsing advocacy messages with coaching support, and then testing them with a panel of 3 representative stakeholders, and an audience of fellow researchers. All the country teams reported increased confidence in crafting advocacy messages for specific stakeholders and have applied lessons learned from the model. Delivering this model within a global health research program requires mentoring, time, commitment, resources and translation support to address language barriers. It offers an exemplar to build the communication skills of clinician and non-clinician researchers so that they can go beyond dissemination toward translation of evidence into policy and practice.

Challenges and opportunities of translating animal research into human trials in Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although the goal of translational research is to bring biomedical knowledge from the laboratory to clinical trial and therapeutic products for improving health, this goal has not been well achieved as often as desired because of many barriers documented in different countries. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the challenges and opportunities of translating animal research into human trials in Ethiopia. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study, using in-depth interviews, was conducted in which preclinical and clinical trial researchers who have been involved in animal research or clinical trials as principal investigator were involved. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic process. RESULTS: Six themes were emerged for challenges: lack of financial and human capacity, inadequate infrastructure, operational obstacles and poor research governance, lack of collaboration, lack of reproducibility of results and prolonged ethical and regulatory approval processes. Furthermore, three themes were synthesized for opportunities: growing infrastructure and resources, improved human capacity and better administrative processes and initiatives for collaboration. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The study found that the identified characteristics/features are of high importance either to hurdle or enable the practice of translating animal research into human trials. The study suggests that there should be adequate infrastructure and finance, human capacity building, good research governance, improved ethical and regulatory approval process, multidisciplinary collaboration, and incentives and recognition for researchers to overcome the identified challenges and allow translating of animal research into human trials to proceed more efficiently.