Partnership-building considerations for implementation science in learning health systems: a case study of the Implementation Science Collaborative in Alberta, Canada.

Introduction: Implementation of health innovations is inherently collaborative, requiring trans-sectoral partnerships between implementation researchers, innovation teams, and implementation practitioners. Implementation science has been shown to improve implementation successes; however, challenges that hinder partnerships to advance implementation science continue to persist. Using a whole-system approach to assess and respond to implementation science partnership barriers may shed light on effective responses. Methods: We conducted a case study of Alberta's learning health system, using semi-structured group and individual interviews to create a nuanced understanding of the considerations required for implementation research collaborations. We interviewed 53 participants representing 21 offices in the health system, academia, professional associations, and government who regularly plan, evaluate, and/or study health system implementation initiatives in Alberta. Using the Partnership Model for Research Capacity Building, we identified current facilitators and challenges for partnerships for conducting and using implementation science, at different levels of Alberta's health-research ecosystem. Results: Alberta's healthcare system is well set up to readily embed intervention effectiveness and efficacy research. Infrastructure was also in place to strengthen implementation practice. However, weaknesses around exchanging knowledge and skills, providing feedback and mentoring, and accommodating diversity affected the ability of both individuals and teams to build implementation science capacity. Without this capacity, teams could not participate in embedded implementation research collaborations. We report the response of the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research SUPPORT Unit to these barriers to provide practical guidance on various program options to strengthen individual- and organization-level implementation science capacity. Discussion: This study applied a whole-system approach to assess factors across Alberta's health-research ecosystem, which affect partnerships to advance implementation science. Our findings illustrated that partnership considerations go beyond interpersonal factors and include system-wide considerations. With the results, health organization leaders have (1) a method for assessing organizational capability to readily embed implementation research and (2) a catalog of potential responses to create conditions to readily engage with implementation science in their day-to-day implementation processes.

A climate resilience maturity matrix for Canadian health systems.

Healthcare decision-makers are becoming increasingly aware that climate change poses significant threats to population health and continued delivery of quality care. Challengingly, responding to climate change requires complex, often expensive, and multi-faceted actions to limit new emissions from worsening climate trajectories, while investing in climate-resilient systems. We present a Climate Resilience Maturity Matrix that brings together both mitigation and adaptation actions into a high-level tool for health leaders, for supporting organizational review, assessment, and decision-making for climate change readiness. This tool is designed to (i) support leaders in Canadian health facilities and regional health authorities in designing mitigation and adaptation roadmaps, (ii) support decision-making for climate change-related strategic planning processes, and (iii) create a high-level overview of organizational readiness. This tool is intended to consolidate key data, provide a clear communication tool, allow for objective rapid baselining, enable system-level gap analysis, facilitate comparability/transparency, and support rapid learning cycles.

Study protocol for Attachment & Child Health (ATTACHTM) program: promoting vulnerable Children's health at scale.

BACKGROUND: Children's exposure to toxic stress (e.g., parental depression, violence, poverty) predicts developmental and physical health problems resulting in health care system burden. Supporting parents to develop parenting skills can buffer the effects of toxic stress, leading to healthier outcomes for those children. Parenting interventions that focus on promoting parental reflective function (RF), i.e., parents' capacity for insight into their child's and their own thoughts, feelings, and mental states, may understand help reduce societal health inequities stemming from childhood stress exposures. The Attachment and Child Health (ATTACHTM) program has been implemented and tested in seven rapid-cycling pilot studies (n = 64) and found to significantly improve parents' RF in the domains of attachment, parenting quality, immune function, and children's cognitive and motor development. The purpose of the study is to conduct an effectiveness-implementation hybrid (EIH) Type II study of ATTACHTM to assess its impacts in naturalistic, real-world settings delivered by community agencies rather than researchers under more controlled conditions. METHODS: The study is comprised of a quantitative pre/post-test quasi-experimental evaluation of the ATTACHTM program, and a qualitative examination of implementation feasibility using thematic analysis via Normalization Process Theory (NPT). We will work with 100 families and their children (birth to 36-months-old). Study outcomes include: the Parent Child Interaction Teaching Scale to assess parent-child interaction; the Parental Reflective Function and Reflective Function Questionnaires to assess RF; and the Ages and Stages Questionnaire - 3rd edition to examine child development, all administered pre-, post-, and 3-month-delayed post-assessment. Blood samples will be collected pre- and post- assessment to assess immune biomarkers. Further, we will conduct one-on-one interviews with study participants, health and social service providers, and administrators (total n = 60) from each collaborating agency, using NPT to explore perceptions and experiences of intervention uptake, the fidelity assessment tool and e-learning training as well as the benefits, barriers, and challenges to ATTACHTM implementation. DISCUSSION: The proposed study will assess effectiveness and implementation to help understand the delivery of ATTACHTM in community agencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Name of registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04853888 . Date of registration: April 22, 2021.

Chronic kidney disease and vaccinations-A practical guide for primary care providers.

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are susceptible to infectious organisms in part due to the many facets of uremia-associated immune deficiency. Vaccination plays a crucial role in curbing vaccine preventable infection in patients with CKD and Kidney transplant recipients. Vaccination should be done early in the course of CKD or prior to kidney transplantation when possible. It is incumbent upon all healthcare providers to not only stay abreast of the rapidly evolving evidence and recommendations regarding this area but to also continue to update clinical practice regarding vaccines for long-recognized infectious threats, such as pneumococcal disease and chronic hepatitis B infection, to mitigate the burden of infectious diseases on this particularly vulnerable patient population.

A framework to guide storytelling as a knowledge translation intervention for health-promoting behaviour change.

BACKGROUND: Stories can be a powerful tool to increase uptake of health information, a key goal of knowledge translation (KT). Systematic reviews demonstrate that storytelling (i.e. sharing stories) can be effective in changing health-promoting behaviours. Though an attractive KT strategy, storytelling is a complex approach requiring careful planning and consideration of multiple factors. We sought to develop a framework to assist KT researchers and practitioners in health contexts to consider and develop effective KT interventions that include stories or storytelling. METHODS: We conducted a broad search of the literature to identify studies that used storytelling as a KT intervention across different disciplines: health research, education, policy development, anthropology, organizational development, technology research, and media. We extracted purposes, theories, models, mechanisms, and outcomes and then mapped the theoretical and practical considerations from the literature onto the Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions. The theoretical and practical considerations uncovered comprised the basis of the storytelling framework development. Through discussion and consensus, methodological experts refined and revised the framework for completeness, accuracy, nuance, and usability. RESULTS: We used a complex intervention lens paired with existing behaviour change techniques to guide appropriate theory-based intervention planning and practical choices. An intentional approach to the development of story-based KT interventions should involve three phases. The theory phase specifies the goal of the intervention, mechanisms of action, and behaviour change techniques that will achieve the intended effects. The modelling phase involves development and testing using an iterative approach, multiple methods and engagement of end-users. Finally, formal evaluation using multiple methods helps determine whether the intervention is having its intended effects and value added. CONCLUSIONS: This framework provides practical guidance for designing story-based KT interventions. The framework was designed to make explicit the requisite considerations when determining the appropriateness and/or feasibility of storytelling KT, clarify intervention goals and audience, and subsequently, support the development and testing of storytelling interventions. The framework presents considerations as opposed to being prescriptive. The framework also offers an opportunity to further develop theory and the KT community's understanding of effectiveness and mechanisms of action in storytelling interventions.

An Implementation Science Laboratory as One Approach to Whole System Improvement: A Canadian Healthcare Perspective.

Implementation science (IS) has emerged as an integral component for evidence-based whole system improvement. IS studies the best methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions into routine practice to improve the quality and effectiveness of health service delivery and patient care. IS laboratories (IS labs) are one mechanism to integrate implementation science as an evidence-based approach to whole system improvement and to support a learning health system. This paper aims to examine if IS labs are a suitable approach to whole system improvement. We retrospectively analyzed an existing IS lab (Alberta, Canada's Implementation Science Collaborative) to assess the potential of IS labs to perform as a whole system approach to improvement and to identify key activities and considerations for designing IS labs specifically to support learning health systems. Results from our evaluation show the extent to which IS labs support learning health systems through enabling infrastructures for system-wide improvement and research.

Considerations for Health Researchers Using Social Media for Knowledge Translation: Multiple Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite extensive literature describing the use of social media in health research, a gap exists around best practices in establishing, implementing, and evaluating an effective social media knowledge translation (KT) and exchange strategies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine successes, challenges, and lessons learned from using social media within health research and to create practical considerations to guide other researchers. METHODS: The Knowledge Translation Platform of the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research SUPPORT Unit formed a national working group involving platform staff, academics, and a parent representative with experience using social media for health research. We collected and analyzed 4 case studies that used a variety of social media platforms and evaluation methods. The case studies covered a spectrum of initiatives from participant recruitment and data collection to dissemination, engagement, and evaluation. Methods and findings from each case study as well as barriers and facilitators encountered were summarized. Through iterative discussions, we converged on recommendations and considerations for health researchers planning to use social media for KT. RESULTS: We provide recommendations for elements to consider when developing a social media KT strategy: (1) set a clear goal and identify a theory, framework, or model that aligns with the project goals and objectives; (2) understand the intended audience (use social network mapping to learn what platforms and social influences are available); (3) choose a platform or platforms that meet the needs of the intended audience and align well with the research team's capabilities (can you tap into an existing network, and what mode of communication does it support?); (4) tailor messages to meet user needs and platform requirements (eg, plain language and word restrictions); (5) consider timing, frequency, and duration of messaging as well as the nature of interactions (ie, social filtering and negotiated awareness); (6) ensure adequate resources and personnel are available (eg, content creators, project coordinators, communications experts, and audience stakeholder or patient advocate); (7) develop an evaluation plan a priori driven by goals and types of data available (ie, quantitative and qualitative); and (8) consider ethical approvals needed (driven by evaluation and type of data collection). CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of a comprehensive framework to guide health researchers using social media for KT, we provide several key considerations. Future research will help validate the proposed components and create a body of evidence around best practices for using and evaluating social media as part of a KT strategy.

Programme theory development and formative evaluation of a provincial knowledge translation unit.

BACKGROUND: Research shows a significant gap between healthcare research and evidence-based healthcare policy and practice. Knowledge translation (KT) has an important role in addressing this gap by bolstering evidence-informed healthcare. Canada's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) is a nationally mandated and supported initiative developed to respond to the gap between research and practice. One aspect of SPOR is the provincial/territorial SUpport for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials (SUPPORT) Units, intended to assist local health researchers and systems to reach the goal of improving the quality and quantity of patient-oriented research in Canada. This article presents the programme theory development and a formative evaluation of the KT Platform in Alberta's SPOR SUPPORT Unit. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach to develop the KT Platform's programme theory and subsequently conducted the formative evaluation. An extensive needs assessment, comprised of 59 qualitative interviews with researchers and health systems employees in Canada with an interest in KT, served as the basis for our programme theory design. Three years after launching the KT Platform, we hired an evaluation consultant to conduct a formative evaluation of the Platform's programme theory and operations. The evaluation was performed by conducting nine interviews with KT Platform service users (n = 6) and KT experts acting in advisory capacities to the KT Platform (n = 3). RESULTS: The KT Platform developed a '4C Model' as a summary of the Platform's programme theory. This model is designed to meet local needs for capacity-building, a community of practice, consultation services, and contributions to KT science. This suite of services was found to help the local health system implement health evidence with measurable positive health outcomes. However, the community remains hesitant about their capacity as individuals to design and perform important KT activities independently. CONCLUSIONS: With the mandate and support provided by SPOR, the KT Platform was able to design a strong programme theory based on evidence from an extensive needs assessment of the local community. The resulting 4C Model has provided a framework for KT work to assist in improving local health outcomes and can be considered by others designing KT programmes as a useful model to follow. Ongoing monitoring and assessment are required to continue to identify and respond to local needs.

A descriptive analysis of non-Cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews published in 2014.

BACKGROUND: Consumers, clinicians, policymakers and researchers require high quality evidence to guide decision-making in child health. Though Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) are a well-established source of evidence, little is known about the characteristics of non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs. To complement published descriptions of Cochrane SRs, we aimed to characterize the epidemiologic, methodological, and reporting qualities of non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs published in 2014. METHODS: English-language child-relevant SRs of quantitative primary research published outside the Cochrane Library in 2014 were eligible for this descriptive analysis. A research librarian searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PubMed in August 2015. A single reviewer screened articles for inclusion; a second verified the excluded studies. Reviewers extracted: general characteristics of the review; included study characteristics; methodological approaches. We performed univariate analyses and presented the findings narratively. RESULTS: We identified 1598 child-relevant SRs containing a median (IQR) 19 (11, 33) studies. These originated primarily from high-income countries (n = 1247, 78.0%) and spanned 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Most synthesized therapeutic (n = 753, 47.1%) or epidemiologic (n = 701, 43.8%) evidence. Though 39.3% (n = 628) of SRs included evidence related to children only, few were published in pediatric-specific journals (n = 283, 17.7%). Reporting quality seemed poor based on the items we assessed; few reviews mentioned an a-priori protocol (n = 246, 15.4%) or registration (n = 111, 6.9%), and only 23.4% (n = 374) specified a primary outcome. Many SRs relied solely on evidence from non-RCTs (n = 796, 49.8%). Less than two-thirds (n = 953, 59.6%) appraised the quality of included studies and assessments of the certainty of the body of evidence were rare (n = 102, 6.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Child-relevant Cochrane SRs are a known source of high quality evidence in pediatrics. There exists, however, an abundance of evidence from non-Cochrane SRs that may be complementary. Our findings show that high-quality non-Cochrane SRs may not be practical nor easy for knowledge users to find. Improvements are needed to ensure that evidence syntheses published outside of the Cochrane Library adhere to the high standard of conduct and reporting characteristic of Cochrane SRs.

Safe Care for Pediatric Patients: A Scoping Review Across Multiple Health Care Settings.

Children are particularly vulnerable to patient safety concerns due to pediatric-specific and general health care challenges. This scoping review identifies and describes the vulnerabilities of those aged 0 to 18 years to iatrogenic harm in various health care settings. Six databases were searched from 1991 to 2012. Primary studies were categorized using predetermined groupings. Categories were tallied and descriptive statistics were employed. A total of 388 primary studies exploring interventions that improved patient safety, deficiencies, or errors leading to safety concerns were included. The most common issues were medication (189 studies, 48.7%) and general medical (81 studies, 20.9%) errors. Sixty studies (15.5%) evaluated or described patient safety interventions, 206 studies (53.1%) addressed health care systems and technologies, 17 studies (4.4%) addressed caregiver perspectives and 20 studies (5.2%) discussed analytic models for patient safety. Further work is needed to ensure consistency of definitions in patient safety research to facilitate comparison and collation of results.

Classification schemes for knowledge translation interventions: a practical resource for researchers.

BACKGROUND: As implementation science advances, the number of interventions to promote the translation of evidence into healthcare, health systems, or health policy is growing. Accordingly, classification schemes for these knowledge translation (KT) interventions have emerged. A recent scoping review identified 51 classification schemes of KT interventions to integrate evidence into healthcare practice; however, the review did not evaluate the quality of the classification schemes or provide detailed information to assist researchers in selecting a scheme for their context and purpose. This study aimed to further examine and assess the quality of these classification schemes of KT interventions, and provide information to aid researchers when selecting a classification scheme. METHODS: We abstracted the following information from each of the original 51 classification scheme articles: authors' objectives; purpose of the scheme and field of application; socioecologic level (individual, organizational, community, system); adaptability (broad versus specific); target group (patients, providers, policy-makers), intent (policy, education, practice), and purpose (dissemination versus implementation). Two reviewers independently evaluated the methodological quality of the development of each classification scheme using an adapted version of the AGREE II tool. Based on these assessments, two independent reviewers reached consensus about whether to recommend each scheme for researcher use, or not. RESULTS: Of the 51 original classification schemes, we excluded seven that were not specific classification schemes, not accessible or duplicates. Of the remaining 44 classification schemes, nine were not recommended. Of the 35 recommended classification schemes, ten focused on behaviour change and six focused on population health. Many schemes (n = 29) addressed practice considerations. Fewer schemes addressed educational or policy objectives. Twenty-five classification schemes had broad applicability, six were specific, and four had elements of both. Twenty-three schemes targeted health providers, nine targeted both patients and providers and one targeted policy-makers. Most classification schemes were intended for implementation rather than dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-five classification schemes of KT interventions were developed and reported with sufficient rigour to be recommended for use by researchers interested in KT in healthcare. Our additional categorization and quality analysis will aid in selecting suitable classification schemes for research initiatives in the field of implementation science.

Social Media for the Dissemination of Cochrane Child Health Evidence: Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers value ready access to reliable synthesized information to support point-of-care decision making. Web-based communities, facilitated by the adoption of social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, are increasingly being used for knowledge dissemination, bridging the gap between knowledge generation and synthesis and knowledge implementation. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to implement and evaluate a structured social media strategy, using multiple platforms, to disseminate Cochrane Child Health evidence to health care providers caring for children. METHODS: Our social media strategy had three components: daily "tweets" using the Cochrane Child Health Twitter account, weekly WordPress blog posts, and a monthly journal club on Twitter ("tweet chat"). Each tweet, blog, and journal club shared Cochrane evidence on a child health topic. We evaluated the strategy through (1) Twitter and blog site analytics, (2) traceable link (Bitly) statistics, (3) Altmetric.com scores for promoted evidence, and (4) participant feedback. We also tracked the resources required to write the blog, tweet content, and manage the strategy. RESULTS: The 22-week social media strategy ran between November 2014 and April 2015. We created 25 blog posts, sent 585 tweets, and hosted 3 tweet chats. Monthly blog visits and views and Twitter account followers increased over time. During the study period, the blog received 2555 visitors and 3967 page views from a geographically diverse audience of health care providers, academics, and health care organizations. In total, 183 traceable Bitly links received 3463 clicks, and the Twitter account gained 469 new followers. The most visited and viewed blog posts included gastrointestinal topics (lactose avoidance), research on respiratory conditions (honey for cough and treatments for asthma), and maternal newborn care (skin-to-skin contact). On Twitter, popular topics were related to public health (vaccination) and pain management. We collected Altmetric.com scores for 61 studies promoted during the study period and recorded an average increase of 11 points. Research staff (n=3) contributed approximately 433 hours to promotion activities and planning (6.5 hours each per week) to implement the social media strategy, and study investigators reviewed all content (blog posts and tweets). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides empirical evidence on the use of a coordinated social media strategy for the dissemination of evidence to professionals providing health services to children and youth. The results and lessons learned from our study provide guidance for future knowledge dissemination activities using social media tools.

Descriptive analysis of cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews: an update and comparison between 2009 and 2013.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews support health systems and clinical decision-making by identifying and summarizing all existing studies on a particular topic. In 2009, a comprehensive description of child-relevant systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was compiled. This study aims to provide an update, and to describe these systematic reviews according to their content and methodological approaches. METHODS: All child-relevant systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) as of March, 2013 were identified and described in relation to their content and methodological approaches. This step equated to an update of the Child Health Field Review Register (CHFRR). The content of the updated CHFRR was compared to the published 2009 CHFRR description regarding clinical and methodological characteristics, using bivariate analyses. As the Cochrane Collaboration has recognized that disease burden should guide research prioritization, we extracted data from the Global and National Burden of Diseases and Injuries Among Children and Adolescents Between 1990 and 2013 study in order to map the distribution of the burden of disease in child health to the distribution of evidence across Review Groups in the CHFRR. RESULTS: Of the 5,520 potential Cochrane systematic reviews identified, 1,293 (23.4%) were child-relevant (an increase of 24% since 2009). Overall, these reviews included 16,738 primary studies. The most commonly represented Review Groups were Airways (11.5%), Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Diseases (7.9%), Acute Respiratory Infections (7.8%), Developmental, Psychological and Learning Problems (6.7%), and Infectious Diseases (6.2%). Corresponding authors were most often from Europe (51%), North America (15%), and Australia (15%). The majority of systematic reviews examined pharmacological interventions alone (52% compared to 59% in 2009). Out of 611 reviews that were assessed as up-to-date, GRADE was used in 204 (35%) reviews to assess the overall quality of the evidence, which was often moderate (35.6%) or low (37.8%) for primary outcomes. Ninety percent of reviews that were assessed as up to date used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, or a modified version, to assess methodological quality. Most reviews conducted one or more meta-analyses (73%). Among the 25 leading causes of death globally, the Review Groups associated with the largest number of causes were: 1) Infectious Diseases, 2) Anaesthesia, Critical, and Emergency Care, 3) Injuries, 4) Pregnancy and Childbirth (PC), and 5) Neonatal. There were large discrepancies between the number of causes of mortality that each Review Group was associated with and the total amount of evidence each Review Group contributed to the CHFRR. Ninety-eight percent of the causes of mortality in 2013 were from developing nations, but only 224 (17.3%) reviews had corresponding authors from developing countries. CONCLUSION: The content and methodological characteristics of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane CHFRR have been described in detail. There were modest advances in methods between 2009 and 2013. Systematic reviews contained in the CDSR offer an important resource for researcher's, clinicians and policy makers by synthesizing an extensive body of primary research. Further content analysis will allow the identification of clinical topics of greatest priority for future systematic reviews in child health.

High stakes and high emotions: providing safe care in Canadian emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: The high-paced, unpredictable environment of the emergency department (ED) contributes to errors in patient safety. The ED setting becomes even more challenging when dealing with critically ill patients, particularly with children, where variations in size, weight, and form present practical difficulties in many aspects of care. In this commentary, we will explore the impact of the health care providers' emotional reactions while caring for critically ill patients, and how this can be interpreted and addressed as a patient safety issue. DISCUSSION: ED health care providers encounter high-stakes, high-stress clinical scenarios, such as pediatric cardiac arrest or resuscitation. This health care providers' stress, and at times, distress, and its potential contribution to medical error, is underrepresented in the current medical literature. Most patient safety research is limited to error reporting systems, especially medication-related ones, an approach that ignores the effects of health care provider stress as a source of error, and limits our ability to learn from the event. Ways to mitigate this stress and avoid this type of patient safety concern might include simulation training for rare, high-acuity events, use of pre-determined clinical order sets, and post-event debriefing. CONCLUSION: While there are physiologic and anatomic differences that contribute to patient safety, we believe that they are insufficient to explain the need to address critical life-threatening event-related patient safety issues for both adults and, especially, children. Many factors make patient safety during critical medical events distinct from general patient safety issues, but it is, perhaps, this heightened high-stress, emotional climate that is the most distinct and important part of all. We believe that consideration of this concept is essential when discussing safety improvement in critical medical events.

Publication of reviews synthesizing child health evidence (PORSCHE): a survey of authors to identify factors associated with publication in Cochrane and non-Cochrane sources.

BACKGROUND: Cochrane Child Health maintains a register of child-relevant Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a comprehensive source of high-quality evidence. However, a large number of SRs are published outside of The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane), impacting the comprehensiveness of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). We surveyed authors who published child-relevant SRs with Cochrane and elsewhere in the medical literature to (1) understand their experiences in preparing and publishing SRs and (2) identify factors influencing choice of publication venue. METHODS: We identified SRs published in the CDSR for the most recent complete year prior to our study (2013; n = 145). We searched the medical literature and randomly selected the same number of SRs published the same year. We developed an internet-based survey and contacted the corresponding author of each review via email. Data were analyzed descriptively. Qualitative analysis elicited common themes from open-ended questions. RESULTS: Seventy-six (26 %) responded: 41 % Cochrane, 42 % non-Cochrane, and 17 % published in both venues. Among respondents who published their SR in both venues (n = 13), 46 % found it easier to publish in a non-Cochrane journal, 15 % easier with Cochrane, and 31 % similar. Main reasons for conducting SRs with Cochrane (n = 44) were Cochrane's positive reputation (82 %) and good impact factor (66 %). Among respondents who published their SR in a non-Cochrane journal (n = 32), most frequent reasons for not conducting their SR with Cochrane were time required to follow Cochrane processes (25 %), lack of knowledge about how to conduct an SR with Cochrane (19 %), administrative processes (16 %), and perception that non-Cochrane journals yielded more interest (16 %). Among respondents who published their SR in a non-Cochrane journal (n = 32), 78 % did not register their review and 22 % did not prepare a protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Key reasons for publishing in Cochrane are its positive reputation and impact factor. Reasons for publishing in non-Cochrane sources include lack of familiarity or challenges with the Cochrane processes and desire to publish in a source more directly relevant to the topic of interest. End users looking for evidence in the form of SRs need to be aware that there is a vast number of SRs published across the medical literature. Efforts to optimize the identification of SRs in non-Cochrane sources (e.g., through effective labeling or protocol/review registration) and their content will help end users find the necessary synthesized evidence to support clinical practice.

An evaluation of harvest plots to display results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Harvest plots are used to graphically display evidence from complex and diverse studies or results. Overviews of reviews bring together evidence from two or more systematic reviews. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of using harvest plots to depict complex results of overviews of reviews. METHODS: We conducted a survey of 279 members of Cochrane Child Health to determine their preferences for graphical display of data, and their understanding of data presented in the form of harvest plots. Preferences were rated on a scale of 0-100 (100 most preferred) and tabulated using descriptive statistics. Knowledge and accuracy were assessed by tabulating the number of correctly answered questions for harvest plots and traditional data summary tables; t-tests were used to compare responses between formats. RESULTS: 53 individuals from 7 countries completed the survey (19%): 60% were females; the majority had an MD (38%), PhD (47%), or equivalent. Respondents had published a median of 3 systematic reviews (inter-quartile range 1 to 8). There were few differences between harvest plots and tables in terms of being: well-suited to summarize and display results from meta-analysis (52 vs. 56); easy to understand (53 vs. 51); and, intuitive (49 vs. 44). Harvest plots were considered more aesthetically pleasing (56 vs. 44, p = 0.03). 40% felt the harvest plots could be used in conjunction with tables to display results from meta-analyses; additionally, 45% felt the harvest plots could be used with some improvement. There was no statistically significant difference in percentage of knowledge questions answered correctly for harvest plots compared with tables. When considering both types of data display, 21% of knowledge questions were answered incorrectly. CONCLUSIONS: Neither harvest plots nor standard summary tables were ranked highly in terms of being easy to understand or intuitive, reflecting that neither format is ideal to summarize the results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews. Responses to knowledge questions showed some misinterpretation of results of meta-analyses. Reviewers should ensure that messages are clearly articulated and summarized in the text to avoid misinterpretation.

Emergency medical services provider comfort with prehospital analgesia administration to children.

INTRODUCTION: The undertreatment of pediatric pain is a significant concern among families, clinicians, and researchers. Although some have examined prehospital pain management, the deterrents to pediatric analgesia administration by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) have not yet been examined in Canada. Problem This study describes EMS pain-management practices and prehospital provider comfort treating pediatric pain. It highlights differences in pain management between adults and children and assesses the potential barriers, misconceptions, difficulties, and needs related to provision of pediatric analgesia. METHODS: A study-specific survey tool was created and distributed to all Primary Care Paramedics (PCPs) and Advanced Care Paramedics (ACPs) over four mandatory educational seminars in the city of Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) from September through December 2008. RESULTS: Ninety-four percent (191/202) of EMS personnel for the city of Edmonton completed the survey. The majority of respondents were male (73%, 139/191), aged 26-35 (42%, 80/191), and had been in practice less than 10 years (53%, 101/191). Seventy-four percent (141/191) of those surveyed were ACPs, while 26% (50/191) were PCPs. Although the majority of respondents reported using both pain scales and clinical judgement to assess pain for adults (85%, 162/191) and adolescents (86%, 165/191), children were six times more likely than adults (31%, 59/191 vs 5%, 10/191) to be assessed by clinical judgement alone. Emergency Medical Services personnel felt more comfortable treating adults than children (P < .001), and they were less likely to treat children even if they were experiencing identical types and intensities of pain as adults (all P values <.05) and adolescents (all P values < .05). Twenty-five percent of providers (37/147) assumed pediatric patients required less analgesia due to immature nervous systems. Three major barriers to treating children's pain included limited clinical experience (34%, 37/110), difficulty in communication (24%, 26/110) and inability to assess children's pain accurately (21%, 23/110). CONCLUSION: Emergency Medical Services personnel self-report that children's pain is less rigorously measured and treated than adults' pain. Educational initiatives aimed at increasing clinical exposure to children, as well as further education regarding simple pain measurement tools for use in the field, may help to address identified barriers and discomfort with assessing and treating children.