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.

Triage Decision-Making in Interdisciplinary Pediatric Chronic Pain Programs.

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain programs are ideal treatment settings for youth with chronic pain who are complex from a biopsychosocial perspective. There is currently no evidence-based clinical decision support to guide nurses triaging patients to such programs, which increases the risk for haphazard triage decisions. AIMS: To explore and describe the decision-making practices of and contextual influences on nurses triaging patients to interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain programs. DESIGN: A qualitative exploratory descriptive design. SETTINGS: Interdisciplinary Pediatric Chronic Pain Programs. PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS: In all, 12 nurses across 11 different interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain programs participated in this study. METHODS: Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using concurrent content analysis, guided by the Cognitive Continuum Theory and the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: Findings focused on the complexity of the pediatric chronic pain population and the leading role nurses play in triage without evidence-based guidance. Analysis generated three prominent themes: (1) nurse-led triage determinants; (2) process of triage decision-making; and (3) external influences on triage decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Triage decision making in the setting of interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain programs is complex and often led by nurses. There is a desire amongst nurses to adopt an evidence-based clinical decision support triage tool (CDS), which may streamline the referral and triage process and foster a system whereby patients in highest need for interdisciplinary care are best prioritized.

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.

Determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate informed values-based decision-making: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients' involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane' Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022338299.

A systematic review of the biopsychosocial dimensions affected by chronic pain in children and adolescents: identifying reliable and valid pediatric multidimensional chronic pain assessment tools.

Pediatric chronic pain is a complex experience that is often challenging to describe and measure. Multidimensional tools that evaluate the biopsychosocial impact of chronic pain in pediatric patients can help clinicians to prioritize and tailor interdisciplinary pain care; yet, the psychometric value and clinical utility of such tools has not yet been systematically studied in the literature. The purpose of this review was to identify multidimensional biopsychosocial tools used in pediatric chronic pain, synthesize their reliability and validity evidence, and draw on this evidence to describe the relationships between chronic pain and biopsychosocial domains. The search involved 2 phases to (1) identify eligible tools and (2) conduct a measured forward citation search of tool development articles. Tool eligibility was guided by the Multidimensional Biobehavioral Model of Pediatric Pain and study eligibility was focused on primary chronic pain diagnoses unrelated to disease. Data extraction was focused on reliability and validity evidence of eligible tools, guided by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Results yielded 6 tools that included 64 eligible studies, highlighting 84 significant relationships between pain and functional interference across 11 biopsychosocial variables. All tools were shown to have good internal consistency and evidence of validity, primarily through relationships to other variables. Of the 6 tools, the most brief and easy to use were the most under studied. Further psychometric research is warranted for these tools to investigate their clinical utility and psychometric properties in guiding and prioritizing pain care for children and adolescents.

Reversing frailty in older adults: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Individuals 65 years or older are presumably more susceptible to becoming frail, which increases their risk of multiple adverse health outcomes. Reversing frailty has received recent attention; however, little is understood about what it means and how to achieve it. Thus, the purpose of this scoping review is to synthesize the evidence regarding the impact of frail-related interventions on older adults living with frailty, identify what interventions resulted in frailty reversal and clarify the concept of reverse frailty. METHODS: We followed Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review approach and conducted searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. We hand-searched the reference list of included studies and conducted a grey literature search. Two independent reviewers completed the title, abstract screenings, and full-text review using the eligibility criteria, and independently extracted approximately 10% of the studies. We critically appraised studies using Joanna Briggs critical appraisal checklist/tool, and we used a descriptive and narrative method to synthesize and analyze data. RESULTS: Of 7499 articles, thirty met the criteria and three studies were identified in the references of included studies. Seventeen studies (56.7%) framed frailty as a reversible condition, with 11 studies (36.7%) selecting it as their primary outcome. Reversing frailty varied from either frail to pre-frail, frail to non-frail, and severe to mild frailty. We identified different types of single and multi-component interventions each targeting various domains of frailty. The physical domain was most frequently targeted (n = 32, 97%). Interventions also varied in their frequencies of delivery, intensities, and durations, and targeted participants from different settings, most commonly from community dwellings (n = 23; 69.7%). CONCLUSION: Some studies indicated that it is possible to reverse frailty. However, this depended on how the researchers assessed or measured frailty. The current understanding of reverse frailty is a shift from a frail or severely frail state to at least a pre-frail or mildly frail state. To gain further insight into reversing frailty, we recommend a concept analysis. Furthermore, we recommend more primary studies considering the participant's lived experiences to guide intervention delivery.

Appraising publicly available online resources to support patients considering decisions about medical assistance in dying in Canada: an environmental scan.

BACKGROUND: Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada in 2016, with legislation updated in 2021. It is unclear whether resources are available to help patients make this difficult decision; therefore, we sought to identify and quality appraise Canadian MAiD resources for supporting patients making this decision. METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan by searching Canadian websites for online MAiD resources that were published after the 2016 MAiD legislation, patient targeted, publicly accessible and able to inform decisions about MAiD in Canada. We excluded resources that targeted health care professionals or policy-makers, service protocols and personal narratives. Two authors appraised resources using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for health literacy. Descriptive analysis was conducted. We defined resources as patient decision aids if 7 IPDAS defining criteria were met, and we rated resources as adequate for understandability or actionability if the PEMAT score was 70% or greater. RESULTS: We identified 80 MAiD resources. As of March 2023, 62 resources (90%) provided eligibility according to the 2021 legislation and 11 did not discuss any eligibility criteria. The median IPDAS score was 3 out of 7; 52% discussed alternative options and none provided benefits or harms. Of 80 resources, 59% were adequate for understandability and 29% were adequate for actionability. INTERPRETATION: Although many resources on MAiD were updated with 2021 legislation, few were adequate to support patients with lower health literacy. There is a need to determine whether a patient decision aid would be appropriate for people in Canada considering MAiD.

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.

Accelerating knowledge translation to improve cardiovascular outcomes and health services: opportunities for bridging science and clinical practice.

Knowledge translation (KT) is the exchange between knowledge producers and users to understand, synthesize, share, and apply evidence to accelerate the benefits of research to improve health and health systems. Knowledge translation practice (activities/strategies to move evidence into practice) and KT science (study of the methodology and approaches to promote the uptake of research) benefit from the use of conceptual thinking, the meaningful inclusion of patients, and the application of intersectionality. In spite of multiple barriers, there are opportunities to develop strong partnerships and evidence to drive an impactful research agenda and increase the uptake of cardiovascular research.

"It's Overwhelming With the Grief" A Qualitative Study of Families' Experiences When a Young Relative Dies of Sudden Cardiac Death.

BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) in younger individuals is frequently caused by heritable cardiac conditions. The unexpected nature of SCD leaves families with many unanswered questions and an insufficient understanding of the cause of death and their own risk for heritable disease. We explored the experiences of families of young SCD victims upon learning about their relative's cause of death and how they perceive their own risk for heritable cardiac conditions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study, by interviewing families of young (ages 12-45) SCD victims, who died between 2014 and 2018 from a heritable cardiac condition and were investigated by the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario, Canada. We used thematic analysis to analyze the transcripts. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2020, we interviewed 19 family members, of which 10 were males and 9 were females, ages ranging from 21 to 65 (average 46.2±13.1). Four main themes were revealed, each representing a distinct time period that families experience along a trajectory: (1) interactions between bereaved family and others, in particular coroners, shaped their search for answers about their relative's cause of death, with the types, formats, and timing of communication varying by case; (2) searching for answers and processing the cause of death; (3) incidental implications of the SCD event, such as financial strain and lifestyle changes contributed to cumulative stress; (4) receiving answers (or not) and moving forward. CONCLUSIONS: Families rely on communication with others, yet the type, formats, and timing of information received varies, which can influence families' experiences of processing the death (and its cause), their perceived risk and their decision to pursue cascade screening. These results may provide key insights for the interprofessional health care team responsible for the delivery and communication of the cause of death to families of SCD victims.

A mixed-methods systematic review of interventions to improve leadership competencies of managers supervising nurses.

AIM: This study aimed to synthesize evidence on interventions to improve leadership competencies of managers supervising nurses. BACKGROUND: In recent years, numerous interventions have been developed to improve the leadership competencies of managers supervising nurses. However, researchers and nursing leaders are unclear about what aspects of interventions are effective for developing which competencies. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) approach for evidence synthesis. The Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Nursing and Allied Health Database were reviewed. Data extraction, quality appraisal and narrative synthesis were conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 69 studies (35 quantitative, 22 mixed methods, 12 qualitative) evaluating 68 interventions were included. Studies showed that interventions used modal activities such as lectures, group work and mentoring that generally had positive effects on improving leadership competencies such as supporting, developing and recognizing nurses. Opportunities to interact with peers increased managers' engagement in the interventions; however, many barriers existed for managers to use the competencies in practice including understaffing, insufficient time and lack of support from supervisors and staff. CONCLUSIONS: Leadership interventions were shown to have beneficial effects on developing different competencies. Managers predominately felt positive about participating in leadership interventions; however, they expressed many difficulties applying what they learned in practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Leadership interventions should include multimodal activities that give managers opportunities for interaction. When considering interventions for developing the leadership of managers, it is imperative to consider the practice environments for managers to be successful in applying the competencies they learned in practice.

Time to Revisit Heart Failure Self-Care: A Concept Analysis.

Self-care is a central concept in heart failure management and nursing practice. Yet, the uptake of heart failure self-care has been uncritical and detached from broader contexts. Therefore, heart failure self-care was explored using Rodger's evolutionary concept analysis approach to identify antecedents, attributes, and consequences with attention to context, time, application, and meaning. The analysis suggests that heart failure self-care tends to focus on individual behaviors to the detriment of social and structural determinants of health. It also shifts responsibility away from the health care system and onto the individual. Moving forward, a more robust conceptualization of heart failure self-care is needed or possibly, the development of a new concept that focuses beyond the self .

Engaging people with lived experience on advisory councils of a national not-for-profit: an integrated knowledge translation case study of Heart & Stroke Mission Critical Area Councils.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada transformed its approach to organizational strategic planning and priority-setting. The goal was to generate impact from bench to bedside to community, to improve the health of Canadians. It engaged researchers, clinician scientists, health systems leaders, and community members including people with lived experience (PWLE) on six Mission Critical Area (MCA) councils, each of which was co-chaired by a researcher or clinician scientist and a person with lived experience. Together, council members were tasked with providing advice to Heart & Stroke about the most relevant and impactful priorities of our time. The aim of this research was to explore the value of the MCA councils to Heart & Stroke, and to council members themselves. The research questions focused on understanding the process of managing and participating on the councils, the challenges and outcomes. METHODS:  Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, we conducted a case study with developmental evaluation over a 2-year time period (2018-2020). We collected qualitative data from various sources (Heart & Stroke team responsible for managing the councils, council co-chairs, council members, and key informants). We collected documents and analysed them for contextual background. RESULTS:  Participants noted that the MCA councils continuously evolved over the 2 years in various ways: from an uncertain direction to a concrete one, better integrating the voice of PWLE, and increased cohesiveness within and across MCA councils. This evolution was achieved in parallel with successes and challenges at three levels: the MCA councils and its members, Heart & Stroke, and Canadians. The MCA councils were disbanded in 2020, yet learnings, developments, initiatives and established partnerships remain as their legacy. CONCLUSIONS:  Heart & Stroke's intended objectives for the MCA councils, to promote engagement and dialogue among community members including PWLE, clinician scientists, and researchers, and to provide advice into Heart & Stroke's strategic renewal process, were achieved. This collaborative structure and process for PWLE engagement within a community of multidisciplinary clinician scientists and researchers is possible yet requires flexibility, commitment to stakeholder relationship management, and considerable resources. These findings may be helpful for other not-for-profit and funding organizations interested in engaging the public and other stakeholders into their organizational activities.

Shared decision-making in Canada: Update on integration of evidence in health decisions and patient-centred care government mandates.

In Canada, government mandates for patient-centred care (PCC) vary across the 10 provinces and three territories. Although basic medical and hospital services are provided for all, health care options for patients also depend on having private insurance. Thus, the current design of the Canadian healthcare system has several implications for PCC and shared decision-making (SDM). Since 2007, this is our fourth update on SDM in Canada. The aim of this paper is to provide an update on the current state of SDM and patient and public involvement in Canada. Overall, we still observed the difficulty of implementing any sort of national strategy partly because of the decentralized nature of the healthcare system. Second, national professional education programs are complicated by licensure and scope of practice variations across jurisdictions. Third, there are variations in the availability of different options covered by universal healthcare. Canada has experienced some favorable development as PCC is now explicitly articulated in the policies of most provinces and territories and there are increased efforts to give patients more access to their electronic health records. However, patient and public engagement (PPE) reform in health programs and governance remains an exception, and continuing centralization of governance structures may reduce their responsiveness to patient priorities. In a 2018 survey, 47.2% of respondents reported that they were not told by their health professional that they had a choice about treatment. Nonetheless, decision aids and decision coaching are increasingly available for health-related decisions and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute's decision aid inventory has ensured continued leadership in this area. Diverse jurisdictions are starting to embed decision aids into care pathways, with some decision aids being included in clinical practice guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic may have had a negative impact on SDM by removing decision choices due to emergency public health mandates, but stimulated new research and decision aids. Canada continues to assign health research funding to SDM and PCC, and a program dedicated to patient-oriented research is central to this effort. Guides and frameworks are increasingly available for planning and evaluating PPE. Finally, various initiatives are attempting to involve and empower Indigenous peoples through PPE and SDM.

Traduction franco-canadienne de l'Assessment of Systematic Reviews Revised (AMSTAR 2) : validation transculturelle et fidélité interjuges.

Objective: Produce a French-Canadian translation of AMSTAR 2, affirm its content validity, and examine interrater reliability. Methods: Based on Vallerand's methodological approach, we conducted forward and parallel inverse-translations. Subsequently, an expert panel evaluated the translations to create a preliminary experimental French-Canadian version. A second expert panel examined this version and proposed additional modifications. Twenty future health professionals then rated the second experimental version for ambiguity on a scale (from 1 to 7). The principal co-investigators then reviewed the problematic elements and proposed a pre-official version. To ascertain content validity, a final back-translation was conducted resulting in the official version. Four judges evaluated 13 systematic reviews using the official French-Canadian version of AMSTAR 2. The Kappa coefficient was used to evaluate interrater reliability. Results: This rigorous adaptation enabled the development of a Franco-Canadian version of AMSTAR 2. Its application demonstrated low ambiguity (mean 1.15; SD 0.26) as well as good overall interrater reliability (total κ > 0.64) across all items. Conclusion: The French-Canadian version of AMSTAR 2 can now support francophone clinicians, educators, and managers in Canada as they undertake evidence-based practice.

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.