Production and use of rapid responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec (Canada): perspectives from evidence synthesis producers and decision makers.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has required evidence to be made available more rapidly than usual, in order to meet the needs of decision makers in a timely manner. These exceptional circumstances have caused significant challenges for organizations and teams responsible for evidence synthesis. They had to adapt to provide rapid responses to support decision-making. This study aimed to document (1) the challenges and adaptations made to produce rapid responses during the pandemic, (2) their perceived usefulness, reported use and factors influencing their use and (3) the methodological adaptations made to produce rapid responses. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in 2021 with eight organizations in the health and social services system in Quebec (Canada), including three institutes with a provincial mandate. Data collection included focus groups (n = 9 groups in 8 organizations with 64 participants), interviews with decision makers (n = 12), and a document analysis of COVID-19 rapid responses (n = 128). A thematic analysis of qualitative data (objectives 1 and 2) and a descriptive analysis of documents (objective 3) were conducted. RESULTS: The results highlight the teams and organizations' agility to deal with the many challenges encountered during the pandemic (e.g., increased their workloads, adoption of new technological tools or work processes, improved collaboration, development of scientific monitoring, adaptation of evidence synthesis methodologies and products). The challenge of balancing rigor and speed was reported by teams and organizations. When available at the right time, rapid responses have been reported as a useful tool for informing or justifying decisions in a context of uncertainty. Several factors that may influence their use were identified (e.g., clearly identify needs, interactions with producers, perceived rigor and credibility, precise and feasible recommendations). Certain trends in the methodological approaches used to speed up the evidence synthesis process were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study documented rapid responses producers' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec, and decision makers who requested, consulted, or used these products. Potential areas of improvements are identified such as reinforce coordination, improve communication loops, clarify guidelines or methodological benchmarks, and enhance utility of rapid response products for decision makers.

A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to "train and educate stakeholders" (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to "develop stakeholder interrelationships" (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.

Impacts et mise en œuvre du service sanitaire des étudiants en santé (SSES) français : étude de cas dans deux académies françaises.

CONTEXTE: Le service sanitaire des étudiants en santé (SSES) est un programme de 2018 de sensibilisation à la promotion de la santé (PS), à destination d'étudiants en santé français. Il comprend un temps de formation et un temps d'action des étudiants sur diverses populations. Il est déployé sur le territoire français sans évaluation préalable. L'étude que nous avons conduite a pour objectifs de i) documenter la perception et le degré d'appropriation des objectifs du SSES par les parties prenantes (étudiants et professionnels encadrants), ii) analyser les interventions réalisées par les étudiants au regard des bonnes pratiques de promotion de la santé (PS). MÉTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude de cas qualitative menée dans deux académies de la Région Nouvelle-Aquitaine : Poitiers et Bordeaux. Des entretiens ont été conduits auprès des parties prenantes, ainsi que des observations d'actions menées par les étudiants. RÉSULTATS: Nous avons réalisé 87 entretiens et 18 observations. Les données obtenues montrent que : (i) si les parties prenantes se sont fortement impliquées, les conditions de mise en place étaient difficiles et inégales, (ii) les objectifs se révèlent en décalage avec des enjeux de la prévention dans le système de soins, (iii) les étudiants ont entériné une vision erronée de la PS rationnelle et individualisant les comportements liés à la santé, et (iv) les actions menées contreviennent pour la majorité aux critères de qualité en PS, qu'ils soient pédagogiques, méthodologiques ou éthiques. CONCLUSION: Ces résultats ont été confortés dans l'académie de Normandie. À notre connaissance, aucune autre évaluation de ce type n'est réalisée sur le territoire français. Ceci pose des questions car les impacts observés semblent suffisamment inquiétants pour appeler à une réforme du dispositif, tant sur les objectifs que sur les accompagnements à l'action en PS (ex. sur les déterminants sociaux de la santé).

Evaluation of a knowledge translation strategy to improve policymaking and practices in health promotion and disease prevention setting in French regions: TC-REG, a realist study.

OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the results of a realist evaluation of a knowledge translation (KT) intervention implemented in the field of health promotion and disease prevention at the local level in France. DESIGN: Realist evaluation study. SETTING: The target population comprised decision-makers and field professionals working in prevention and public health services operating in regions of France (ie, ARS (Agence Régionale de Santé: regional health agency), IREPS (Instance Régionale d'Education et de Promotion de la Santé pour tous: regional organisation for health promotion and education) and their partners). PARTICIPANTS: This evaluation was based on data collected from 2 seminars, 82 interviews, 18 observations and 4 focus groups over 18 months. INTERVENTION: The TC-REG intervention aimed to increase the use of evidence in cancer prevention, health promotion and disease prevention across four geographical regions in France. The intervention combined various activities: Supporting access to and adaptation of usable evidence, strengthening professionals' skills in analysing, adopting and using policy briefs, and facilitating the use of evidence in organisations and processes. RESULTS: The collected data was used to define favourable/unfavourable contexts for the use of scientific data and mechanisms to be activated to encourage the use of scientific knowledge. From these raw results eight final refined middle-range theories were defined. Organised around the mechanisms to be activated, these middle-range theories illustrate how to activate knowledge and under what conditions. These analyses provided a basis for the production of seven operational and contextualised recommendations to develop KT to inform regional policymaking regarding health promotion and disease prevention. CONCLUSION: The results obtained from the analyses led us to formulate two perspectives of an operational nature for the benefit of those involved in prevention and health promotion.

Development of a knowledge translation taxonomy in the field of health prevention: a participative study between researchers, decision-makers and field professionals.

OBJECTIVES: The current literature lacks a detailed and standardised description of public health knowledge translation (KT) activities designed to be applied at local levels of health systems. As part of an ongoing research project called the Transfert de connaissances en regions (TC-REG project), we aim to develop a local KT taxonomy in the field of health prevention by means of a participative study between researchers, decision-makers and field professionals. This KT taxonomy provides a comparative description of existing local health prevention KT strategies. METHODS: Two methods were used to design a participative process conducted in France to develop the taxonomy, combining professional meetings (two seminars) and qualitative interviews. The first step involved organising a seminar in Paris, attended by health prevention professionals from health agencies in four regions of France and regional non-profit organisations for health education and promotion. This led to the drafting of regional KT plans to be implemented in the four regions. In a second step, we conducted interviews to obtain a clear understanding of the KT activities implemented in the regions. Based on data from interviews, a KT taxonomy was drawn up and discussed during a second seminar. RESULTS: Our work resulted in a KT taxonomy composed of 35 standardised KT activities, grouped into 11 categories of KT activities, e.g. dissemination of evidence, support for use of evidence through processes and structures, KT advocacy, and so on. CONCLUSIONS: The taxonomy appears to be a promising tool for developing and evaluating KT plans for health prevention in local contexts by providing some concrete examples of potential KT activities (advocacy) and a comparison of the same activities and their outcomes (evaluation).