Economic Evaluations of CAR-T Cell Therapies for Hematologic and Solid Malignancies: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to systematically review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T therapies for patients with cancer. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched in October 2022 and updated in September 2023. Systematic reviews, health technology assessments and economic evaluations that compared costs and effects of CAR-T therapy in cancer patients were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, synthesized results, and critically appraised studies using the Philips checklist. Cost data were presented in 2022 US Dollars RESULTS: Our search yielded 1,809 records, 47 of which were included. The majority of included studies were cost-utility analysis, published between 2018 and 2023, and conducted in the United States. Tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, idecabtagene vicleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel, lisocabtagene maraleucel, brexucabtagene autoleucel, and relmacabtagene autoleucel were compared to various standard-of-care chemotherapies. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for CAR-T therapies ranged from $9,424 to $4,124,105 per QALY in adults and from $20,784 to $243,177 per QALY in pediatric patients. ICERs were found to improve over longer time horizons or when an earlier cure point was assumed. Most studies failed to meet the Philips checklist due to a lack of head-to-head comparisons and uncertainty surrounding CAR-T costs and curative effects. CONCLUSIONS: CAR-T therapies were more expensive and generated more QALYs than comparators, but their cost-effectiveness were uncertain and dependent on patient population, cancer type, and model assumptions. This highlights the need for more nuanced economic evaluations and continued research to better understand the value of CAR-T therapies in diverse patient populations.

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.

Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). METHODS: Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. RESULTS: We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

Evidence for clinician underprescription of and patient non-adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications among adults with peripheral artery disease: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines recommend that adults with peripheral artery disease (PAD) be prescribed antiplatelet, statin and antihypertensive medications. However, it is unclear how often people with PAD are underprescribed these drugs, which characteristics predict clinician underprescription of and patient non-adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications, and whether underprescription and non-adherence are associated with adverse health and health system outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews from 2006 onwards. Two investigators will independently review abstracts and full-text studies. We will include studies that enrolled adults and reported the incidence and/or prevalence of clinician underprescription of or patient non-adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications among people with PAD; adjusted risk factors for underprescription of/non-adherence to these medications; and adjusted associations between underprescription/non-adherence to these medications and outcomes. Outcomes will include mortality, major adverse cardiac and limb events (including revascularisation procedures and amputations), other reported morbidities, healthcare resource use and costs. Two investigators will independently extract data and evaluate study risk of bias. We will calculate summary estimates of the incidence and prevalence of clinician underprescription/patient non-adherence across studies. We will also conduct subgroup meta-analyses and meta-regression to determine if estimates vary by country, characteristics of the patients and treating clinicians, population-based versus non-population-based design, and study risks of bias. Finally, we will calculate pooled adjusted risk factors for underprescription/non-adherence and adjusted associations between underprescription/non-adherence and outcomes. We will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation to determine estimate certainty. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as we are studying published data. This systematic review will synthesise existing evidence regarding clinician underprescription of and patient non-adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications in adults with PAD. Results will be used to identify evidence-care gaps and inform where interventions may be required to improve clinician prescribing and patient adherence to prescribed medications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022362801.

Factors influencing nurses' use of sedation interruptions in a critical care unit: a descriptive qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: This study examined critical care nurses', physicians', and allied health professionals' perceptions of factors that support, inhibit, or limit the use of sedation interruption (SI) to improve the use of this integral component of care for mechanically ventilated patients. METHOD: We conducted a theory-based, descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with critical care registered nurses, respiratory therapists, a pharmacist, and a physician in a hospital in Ontario, Canada. The interview guide and analysis were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and transcripts were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: We identified 9 facilitators and 20 barriers to SI use by nurses. Facilitators included the innovation (importance of protocols) and potential adopters (comfort with the skill). The barriers were the potential adopters' (nurses) knowledge gaps regarding the performance and goal of SI and the practice environment (lack of time, availability of extra staff, and lack of multidisciplinary rounds). CONCLUSION: This study identified facilitators and barriers to SI for mechanically ventilated patients. Implementation efforts must address barriers associated with nurses, the environment, and contextual factors. A team-based approach is essential, as the absence of interprofessional rounds is a significant barrier to the appropriate use or non-use of SI. Future research can focus on the indications, contraindications, and goals of SI, emphasizing a shared appreciation for these factors across disciplines. Nursing capacity to manage a patient waking up from sedation is necessary for point-of-care adherence; future research should focus on the best ways to do so. Implementation study designs should use theory and evidence-based determinants of SI to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A178.

Youth, caregiver and healthcare professional perspectives on planning the implementation of a trauma-informed care programme: A qualitative study.

AIMS: To explore youth, caregiver and staff perspectives on their vision of trauma-informed care, and to identify and understand potential considerations for the implementation of a trauma-informed care programme in an inpatient mental health unit within a paediatric hospital. DESIGN AND METHODS: We applied the Interpretive Description approach, guided by complexity theory and the Implementation Roadmap, and used Applied Thematic Analysis methods. FINDINGS: Twenty-five individuals participated in individual or group interviews between March and June 2022, including 21 healthcare professionals, 3 youth and 1 caregiver. We identified two overarching themes. The first theme, 'Understanding and addressing the underlying reasons for distress', related to participants' understanding and vision of TIC in the current setting comprising: (a) 'Participants' understanding of TIC'; (b) 'Trauma screening and trauma processing within TIC'; (c) 'Taking "a more individualized approach"'; (d) 'Unit programming'; and (e) "Connecting to the community". The second theme, 'Factors that support or limit successful TIC implementation' comprises: (a) 'The need for a broad "cultural shift"'; (b) 'The physical environment on the unit'; and (c) 'Factors that may limit successful implementation'. CONCLUSION: We identified five key domains to consider within trauma-informed care implementation: (a) the centrality of engagement with youth, caregivers and staff in trauma-informed care delivery and implementation, (b) trauma-informed care core programme components, (c) factors that may support or limit success in implementing trauma-informed care within the mental health unit and (d) hospital-wide and (e) the importance of intersectoral collaboration (partnering with external organizations and sectors). IMPACT: When implementing TIC, there is an ongoing need to increase clarity regarding TIC interventions and implementation initiatives. Youth, caregiver and healthcare professional participants shared considerations important for planning the delivery and implementation of trauma-informed care in their setting. We identified five key domains to consider within trauma-informed care implementation: (a) the centrality of relational engagement, (b) trauma-informed care programme components, (c) factors that may support or limit successful implementation of trauma-informed care within the mental health unit and (d) hospital-wide and (e) the importance of intersectoral collaboration. Organizations wishing to implement trauma-informed care should consider ongoing engagement with all relevant knowledge user groups throughout the process. REPORTING METHOD: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The local hospital research institute's Patient and Family Advisory Committee reviewed the draft study methods and provided feedback.

Evaluation of an integrated knowledge translation approach used for updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids: a pre-post mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. They are referred to as "knowledge users". This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). We know little about knowledge users' involvement in the conduct of systematic reviews. We aimed to evaluate team members' degree of meaningful engagement and their perceptions of having used an IKT approach when updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post mixed methods study. We surveyed all team members at two time points. Before systematic review conduct, all participating team members indicated their preferred level of involvement within each of the 12 steps of the systematic review process from "Screen titles/abstracts" to "Provide feedback on draft article". After, they reported on their degree of satisfaction with their achieved level of engagement across each step and the degree of meaningful engagement using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22) across 7 domains scored from 100 (extremely meaningful engagement) to 0 (no meaningful engagement). We solicited their experiences with the IKT approach using open-ended questions. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using content analysis. We triangulated data at the level of study design and interpretation. RESULTS: Of 21 team members, 20 completed the baseline survey (95.2% response rate) and 17/20 (85.0% response rate) the follow-up survey. There were 11 (55%) researchers, 3 (15%) patients/consumers, 5 (25%) clinician-researchers, and 1 (5%) graduate student. At baseline, preferred level of involvement in the 12 systematic review steps varied from n = 3 (15%) (search grey literature sources) to n = 20 (100%) (provide feedback on the systematic review article). At follow-up, 16 (94.1%) participants were totally or very satisfied with the extent to which they were involved in these steps. All (17, 100%) agreed that the process was co-production. Total PEIRS-22 scores revealed most participants reported extremely (13, 76.4%) or very (2, 11.8%) meaningful degree of engagement. Triangulated data revealed that participants indicated benefit to having been engaged in an authentic research process that incorporated diverse perspectives, resulting in better and more relevant outputs. Reported challenges were about time, resources, and the logistics of collaborating with a large group. CONCLUSION: Following the use of an IKT approach during the conduct of a systematic review, team members reported high levels of meaningful engagement. These results contribute to our understanding of ways to co-produce systematic reviews.

When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). This approach is rarely used and there is little information about using it with systematic reviews. A systematic review is a type of study that provides the best available evidence on a given topic by combining data from all existing studies. The aim of this study was to find out how engaged our team members felt when partnering on our systematic review about patient decision aids. Twenty of 21 team members participated in the study, including 11 researchers, 3 patients/consumers, 5 clinician-researchers, and 1 graduate student. We asked our team members to complete a survey about their experience as part of our IKT research process at two time points: before starting the study and after the study was done. Most team members felt extremely or very engaged in the process. All team members felt like partners. They gave examples of how this was achieved. Advantages to using the IKT approach included knowledge sharing, inclusion of more diverse voices, a more authentic research process, better and more relevant results, and personal benefits (e.g. enjoyment from being involved). Disadvantages to using this approach was that it took more time and resources. Three team members said there were no disadvantages. It is possible for patients/consumers and clinicians to partner and feel engaged with research teams doing systematic reviews. Our findings may help researchers engage knowledge users as equal partners on study teams.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Nurse managers' perceptions of the prospective acceptability of an implementation leadership training programme: A qualitative descriptive study.

AIM: To explore the prospective acceptability of an implementation leadership training programme prototype for nurse managers in China to implement evidence-based practices, from the perspectives of potential programme participants and deliverers. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in Spring 2022 at three tertiary hospitals in Hunan, China. METHODS: We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with unit-level nurse managers (n = 14), including 12 potential participants, and two potential deliverers that have been involved in developing the programme prototype. Interview questions and thematic analysis were guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. RESULTS: After reviewing the programme content, potential participants and deliverers reported that unit nurse managers would benefit from engaging in the programme, acknowledging that the programme fit with professional nursing values for implementing research evidence. They expressed positive views about being involved in producing academic papers through the training process, and interactive multi-modal training activities such as group work, experience-sharing and coaching. Seven participants were not very confident about being fully engaged in the training, as they could not navigate the English research literature. Both participants and deliverers highlighted factors that would influence their participation, including time constraints, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and support from senior organizational leadership. CONCLUSIONS: The training programme prototype was perceived to be useful and acceptable. The multimodal training activities were considered a strength and managers expressed an interest in writing academic papers about their implementation processes. Support from senior hospital leaders and programme deliverers was identified as critical to the training programme's success. IMPACT: The study helps understand nurse managers' perceptions and concerns of participating in an implementation leadership training programme and could inform the development and refinement of similar programmes in various nursing contexts globally.

A scoping review reveals candidate quality indicators of knowledge translation and implementation science practice tools.

OBJECTIVES: To identify candidate quality indicators from existing tools that provide guidance on how to practice knowledge translation and implemenation science (KT practice tools) across KT domains (dissemination, implementation, sustainability, and scalability). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. We systematically searched multiple electronic databases and the gray literature. Documents were independently screened, selected, and extracted by pairs of reviewers. Data about the included articles, KT practice tools, and candidate quality indicators were analyzed, categorized, and summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Of 43,060 titles and abstracts that were screened from electronic databases and gray literature, 850 potentially relevant full-text articles were identified, and 253 articles were included in the scoping review. Of these, we identified 232 unique KT practice tools from which 27 unique candidate quality indicators were generated. The identified candidate quality indicators were categorized according to the development (n = 17), evaluation (n = 5) and adaptation (n = 3) of the tools, and engagement of knowledge users (n = 2). No tools were identified that appraised the quality of KT practice tools. CONCLUSIONS: The development of a quality appraisal instrument of KT practice tools is needed. The results will be further refined and finalized in order to develop a quality appraisal instrument for KT practice tools.

Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of exome sequencing and its impact on diagnostic thinking for patients with rare disease in a publicly funded health care system: A prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic utility of publicly funded clinical exome sequencing (ES) for patients with suspected rare genetic diseases. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 297 probands who met eligibility criteria and received ES across 5 sites in Ontario, Canada, and extracted data from medical records and clinician surveys. Using the Fryback and Thornbury Efficacy Framework, we assessed diagnostic accuracy by examining laboratory interpretation of results and assessed diagnostic thinking by examining the clinical interpretation of results and whether clinical-molecular diagnoses would have been achieved via alternative hypothetical molecular tests. RESULTS: Laboratories reported 105 molecular diagnoses and 165 uncertain results in known and novel genes. Of these, clinicians interpreted 102 of 105 (97%) molecular diagnoses and 6 of 165 (4%) uncertain results as clinical-molecular diagnoses. The 108 clinical-molecular diagnoses were in 104 families (35% diagnostic yield). Each eligibility criteria resulted in diagnostic yields of 30% to 40%, and higher yields were achieved when >2 eligibility criteria were met (up to 45%). Hypothetical tests would have identified 61% of clinical-molecular diagnoses. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate robustness in eligibility criteria and high clinical validity of laboratory results from ES testing. The importance of ES was highlighted by the potential 40% of patients that would have gone undiagnosed without this test.

Knowledge translation strategies to support the sustainability of evidence-based interventions in healthcare: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge translation (KT) strategies are widely used to facilitate the implementation of EBIs into healthcare practices. However, it is unknown what and how KT strategies are used to facilitate the sustainability of EBIs in institutional healthcare settings. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aimed to consolidate the current evidence on (i) what and how KT strategies are being used for the sustainability of EBIs in institutional healthcare settings; (ii) the reported KT strategy outcomes (e.g., acceptability) for EBI sustainability, and (iii) the reported EBI sustainability outcomes (e.g., EBI activities or component of the intervention continue). METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of five electronic databases. We included studies describing the use of specific KT strategies to facilitate the sustainability of EBIs (more than 1-year post-implementation). We coded KT strategies using the clustered ERIC taxonomy and AIMD framework, we coded KT strategy outcomes using Tierney et al.'s measures, and EBI sustainability outcomes using Scheirer and Dearing's and Lennox's taxonomy. We conducted descriptive numerical summaries and a narrative synthesis to analyze the results. RESULTS: The search identified 3776 studies for review. Following the screening, 25 studies (reported in 27 papers due to two companion reports) met the final inclusion criteria. Most studies used multi-component KT strategies for EBI sustainability (n = 24). The most common ERIC KT strategy clusters were to train and educate stakeholders (n = 38) and develop stakeholder interrelationships (n = 34). Education was the most widely used KT strategy (n = 17). Many studies (n = 11) did not clearly report whether they used different or the same KT strategies between EBI implementation and sustainability. Seven studies adapted KT strategies from implementation to sustainability efforts. Only two studies reported using a new KT strategy for EBI sustainability. The most reported KT strategy outcomes were acceptability (n = 10), sustainability (n = 5); and adoption (n = 4). The most commonly measured EBI sustainability outcome was the continuation of EBI activities or components (n = 23), followed by continued benefits for patients, staff, and stakeholders (n = 22). CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides insight into a conceptual problem where initial EBI implementation and sustainability are considered as two discrete time periods. Our findings show we need to consider EBI implementation and sustainability as a continuum and design and select KT strategies with this in mind. Our review has emphasized areas that require further research (e.g., KT strategy adaptation for EBI sustainability). To advance understanding of how to employ KT strategies for EBI sustainability, we recommend clearly reporting the dose, frequency, adaptations, fidelity, and cost of KT strategies. Advancing our understanding in this area would facilitate better design, selection, tailored, and adapted use of KT strategies for EBI sustainability, thereby contributing to improved patient, provider, and health system outcomes.

A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.

BACKGROUND: Health research partnership approaches have grown in popularity over the past decade, but the systematic evaluation of their outcomes and impacts has not kept equal pace. Identifying partnership assessment tools and key partnership characteristics is needed to advance partnerships, partnership measurement, and the assessment of their outcomes and impacts through systematic study. OBJECTIVE: To locate and identify globally available tools for assessing the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL + , PsychINFO) with an a priori strategy from inception to June 2021, without limits. We screened studies independently and in duplicate, keeping only those involving a health research partnership and the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts. Reviewer disagreements were resolved by consensus. Study, tool and partnership characteristics, and emerging research questions, gaps and key recommendations were synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We screened 36 027 de-duplicated citations, reviewed 2784 papers in full text, and kept 166 studies and three companion reports. Most studies originated in North America and were published in English after 2015. Most of the 205 tools we identified were questionnaires and surveys targeting researchers, patients and public/community members. While tools were comprehensive and usable, most were designed for single use and lacked validity or reliability evidence. Challenges associated with the interchange and definition of terms (i.e., outcomes, impacts, tool type) were common and may obscure partnership measurement and comparison. Very few of the tools identified in this study overlapped with tools identified by other, similar reviews. Partnership tool development, refinement and evaluation, including tool measurement and optimization, are key areas for future tools-related research. CONCLUSION: This large scoping review identified numerous, single-use tools that require further development and testing to improve their psychometric and scientific qualities. The review also confirmed that the health partnership research domain and its measurement tools are still nascent and actively evolving. Dedicated efforts and resources are required to better understand health research partnerships, partnership optimization and partnership measurement and evaluation using valid, reliable and practical tools that meet partners' needs.

Essential content for teaching implementation practice in healthcare: a mixed-methods study of teams offering capacity-building initiatives.

BACKGROUND: Applying the knowledge gained through implementation science can support the uptake of research evidence into practice; however, those doing and supporting implementation (implementation practitioners) may face barriers to applying implementation science in their work. One strategy to enhance individuals' and teams' ability to apply implementation science in practice is through training and professional development opportunities (capacity-building initiatives). Although there is an increasing demand for and offerings of implementation practice capacity-building initiatives, there is no universal agreement on what content should be included. In this study we aimed to explore what capacity-building developers and deliverers identify as essential training content for teaching implementation practice. METHODS: We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study with participants who had developed and/or delivered a capacity-building initiative focused on teaching implementation practice. Participants completed an online questionnaire to provide details on their capacity-building initiatives; took part in an interview or focus group to explore their questionnaire responses in depth; and offered course materials for review. We analyzed a subset of data that focused on the capacity-building initiatives' content and curriculum. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative data and conventional content analysis for qualitative data, with the data sets merged during the analytic phase. We presented frequency counts for each category to highlight commonalities and differences across capacity-building initiatives. RESULTS: Thirty-three individuals representing 20 capacity-building initiatives participated. Study participants identified several core content areas included in their capacity-building initiatives: (1) taking a process approach to implementation; (2) identifying and applying implementation theories, models, frameworks, and approaches; (3) learning implementation steps and skills; (4) developing relational skills. In addition, study participants described offering applied and pragmatic content (e.g., tools and resources), and tailoring and evolving the capacity-building initiative content to address emerging trends in implementation science. Study participants highlighted some challenges learners face when acquiring and applying implementation practice knowledge and skills. CONCLUSIONS: This study synthesized what experienced capacity-building initiative developers and deliverers identify as essential content for teaching implementation practice. These findings can inform the development, refinement, and delivery of capacity-building initiatives, as well as future research directions, to enhance the translation of implementation science into practice.

Planning and implementing practice changes in Ontario maternal-newborn hospital units: a secondary qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Moving evidence into practice is complex, and pregnant and birthing people and their infants do not always receive care that aligns with the best available evidence. Implementation science can inform how to effectively move evidence into practice. While there are a growing number of examples of implementation science being studied in maternal-newborn care settings, it remains unknown how real-world teams of healthcare providers and leaders approach the overall implementation process when making practice changes. The purpose of this study was to describe maternal-newborn hospital teams' approaches to implementing practice changes. We aimed to identify what implementation steps teams take (or not) and identify strengths and potential areas for improvement based on best practices in implementation science. METHODS: We conducted a supplementary qualitative secondary analysis of 22 interviews completed in 2014-2015 with maternal-newborn nursing leaders in Ontario, Canada. We used directed content analysis to code the data to seven steps in an implementation framework (Implementation Roadmap): identify the problem and potential best practice; assemble local evidence; select and customize best practice; discover barriers and drivers; tailor implementation strategies; field-test, plan evaluation, prepare to launch; launch, evaluate, and sustain. Frequency counts are presented for each step. RESULTS: Participants reported completing a median of 4.5 of 7 Implementation Roadmap steps (range = 3-7), with the most common being identifying a practice problem. Other steps were described less frequently (e.g., selecting and adapting evidence, field-testing, outcome evaluation) or discussed frequently but not optimally (e.g., barriers assessment). Participants provided examples of how they engaged point-of-care staff throughout the implementation process, but provided fewer examples of engaging pregnant and birthing people and their families. Some participants stated they used a formal framework or process to guide their implementation process, with the most common being quality improvement approaches and tools. CONCLUSIONS: We identified variability across the 22 hospitals in the implementation steps taken. While we observed many strengths, we also identified areas where further support may be needed. Future work is needed to create opportunities and resources to support maternal-newborn healthcare providers and leaders to apply principles and tools from implementation science to their practice change initiatives.

A Hospital-Wide Open-Label Cluster Crossover Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Trial Comparing Normal Saline to Ringer's Lactate: Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan of The FLUID Trial.

BACKGROUND: Normal saline (NS) and Ringer's lactate (RL) are the most common crystalloids given to hospitalized patients. Despite concern about possible harm associated with NS (eg, hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, impaired kidney function, and death), few large multicenter randomized trials focused on critically ill patients have compared these fluids. Uncertainty exists about the effects of these fluids on clinically important outcomes across all hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: The FLUID trial is a pragmatic, multicenter, 2×2 cluster crossover comparative effectiveness randomized trial that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a hospital-wide policy that stocks either NS or RL as the main crystalloid fluid in 16 hospitals across Ontario, Canada. METHODS: All hospitalized adult and pediatric patients (anticipated sample size 144,000 patients) with an incident admission to the hospital over the course of each study period will be included. Either NS or RL will be preferentially stocked throughout the hospital for 12 weeks before crossing to the alternate fluid for the subsequent 12 weeks. The primary outcome is a composite of death and hospital readmission within 90 days of hospitalization. Secondary outcomes include death, hospital readmission, dialysis, reoperation, postoperative reintubation, length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, and discharge to a facility other than home. All outcomes will be obtained from health administrative data, eliminating the need for individual case reports. The primary analysis will use cluster-level summaries to estimate cluster-average treatment effects. RESULTS: The statistical analysis plan has been prepared "a priori" in advance of receipt of the trial data set from ICES and any analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the evaluation of primary and secondary outcomes for the FLUID trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04512950; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04512950. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/51783.

Co-creation of a patient engagement strategy in cancer research funding.

BACKGROUND: As research teams, networks, and institutes, and health, medical, and scientific communities begin to build consensus on the benefits of patient engagement in cancer research, research funders are increasingly looking to meaningfully incorporate patient partnership within funding processes and research requirements. The Canadian Cancer Society (CCS), the largest non-profit cancer research funder in Canada, set out to co-create a patient engagement in cancer research strategy with patients, survivors, caregivers and researchers. The goal of this strategy was to meaningfully and systematically engage with patients in research funding and research activities. METHODS: A team of four patient partners with diverse cancer and personal experiences, and two researchers at different career stages agreed to participate as members of the strategy team. Ten staff members participated in supportive roles and to give context regarding different departments of CCS. The strategy was co-developed in 2021/2022 over a series of 7 workshops using facilitation strategies such as ground rules and consensus building, and methods such as Design Thinking. The strategy was subjected to 3 rounds of validation. RESULTS: The co-creation and validation process resulted in a multi-faceted strategy with actionable sections, including vision, guiding principles, engagement methods, 13 prioritized engagement activities spanning the spectrum of research funding, and an evaluation framework. The experience of co-creating the strategy was captured using the Patient and Public Engagement Evaluation Tool and revealed a positive, supportive experience. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned included the value of an emphasis on a co-creation process from day one, the utility of facilitation techniques such as ground rules for dialogue, consensus building and Design Thinking, and the importance (and challenge) of designing for and incorporating equity when drafting the strategy. Future work will include implementation and evaluation of the strategy, as well as an examination of further ways to meaningfully and systematically engage diverse voices in research and research funding.

As researchers and healthcare providers see benefits of patient engagement in cancer research, research funders are also looking to engage with patients in their funding processes and research activities. The Canadian Cancer Society (CCS), the largest non-profit cancer research funder in Canada, set out to co-create a patient engagement in cancer research strategy with patients, survivors, caregivers and researchers. The goal of this strategy was to meaningfully and systematically engage with patients in research funding and research activities. Four patient partners and two researchers were supported by ten CCS staff members to co-create the strategy in 2021/2022 over a series of 7 workshops. They used facilitation strategies such as ground rules and consensus building, and methods such as Design Thinking. The strategy was then validated. Co-creation resulted in an easy-to-use strategy with actionable sections, including vision, guiding principles, engagement methods, 13 prioritized activities, and an evaluation framework. The experience of co-creating the strategy was captured using a well-regarded evaluation tool and revealed a positive, supportive experience.    Lessons learned during the process included making sure the co-creation process started on day one, the usefulness of facilitating the process, and the importance of considering issues of equity when drafting the strategy.

Characterizing Canadian funded partnered health research projects between 2011 and 2019: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Involving research users in collaborative research approaches may increase the relevance and utility of research findings. Our primary objectives were to (i) identify and describe characteristics of Canadian federally and provincially funded health research projects that included research users and were funded between 2011 and 2019; (ii) explore changes over time; and (iii) compare characteristics between funder required and optional partnerships. METHODS: Retrospective analysis. Inclusion criteria were projects that included research users. We analyzed publicly available project variables, and coded field and type of research using established classification systems. We summarized data with descriptive statistics and compared variables across three funding year blocks and partnership requirement status. RESULTS: We identified 1153 partnered health research projects, representing 137 fields of research and 37 types of research categories. Most projects included a required partnership (80%) and fell into health and social care services research (66%). Project length and funding amount increased from average of 24.8 months and $266 248 CAD in 2011-2013 to 31.6 months and $438 766 CAD in 2017-2019. There were significantly fewer required partnerships in 2017-2019. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2011 and 2019 Canadian federally and provincially funded partnered health research reflected primarily care services research across many fields. The observed breadth suggests that partnered health research approaches are applicable in many fields of research. Additional work to support partnered research across all types of health research (especially biomedical research) is warranted. The administration of larger grants that are funded for longer time periods may address previously identified concerns among research teams engaging in partnered research but may mean that fewer teams receive funding and risk delaying responding to time-sensitive data needs for users. Our process and findings can be used as a starting point for international comparison.

Trauma-Informed Care Interventions Used in Pediatric Inpatient or Residential Treatment Mental Health Settings and Strategies to Implement Them: A Scoping Review.

Trauma-informed care (TIC) is an approach to care emerging in research and in practice that involves addressing the needs of individuals with histories of trauma. The aim of this scoping review was to examine the current literature relating to TIC interventions used in pediatric mental health inpatient and residential settings. We sought to answer the following two research questions: (a) What are the TIC interventions used in pediatric inpatient and residential treatment mental healthcare settings and what are their components? and (b) What are the implementation goals and strategies used with these TIC interventions? We conducted this scoping review according to JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology for scoping reviews. We included any primary study describing a TIC intervention that was implemented at a specific site which identified and described implementation strategies used. Of 1,571 identified citations and 54 full-text articles located by handsearching, 49 met the eligibility criteria and were included, representing 21 distinct TIC interventions. We present the reported aim, ingredients, mechanism, and delivery (AIMD) of TIC interventions as well as the implementation goals and strategies used, which varied in detail, ranging from very little information to more detailed descriptions. In the context of these findings, we emphasize the complexity of TIC and of TIC interventions, and the importance of identifying and clearly reporting TIC intervention goals, intervention details, and implementation strategies. We suggest applying intervention frameworks or reporting guidelines to support clear and comprehensive reporting, which would better facilitate replication and synthesis of published TIC interventions.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.