Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist. RESULTS: From 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932.

Prevalence of renal anomalies after urinary tract infections in hospitalized infants less than 2 months of age.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the incidence of anatomical abnormalities after a urinary tract infection (UTI) in infants <2 months of age hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective, single-center cohort study of infants <2 months of age in the NICU with a UTI and documented renal imaging. RESULT: We identified 141 infants with UTIs. The mean gestational age and birth weight were 28 weeks and 1254 g, respectively. The most commonly identified pathogen was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (28%, 44 of 156). A major abnormality was found on at least one imaging study for 4% (5 of 118) of infants. Major abnormalities were noted on 4% (5 of 114) of renal ultrasounds and 2% (2 of 82) of voiding cystourethrography examinations. CONCLUSION: Among infants in the NICU <2 months of age at the time of a UTI, the prevalence of major anatomical abnormalities is <5%.

National-scale, field-based evaluation of the biota-sediment accumulation factor model.

The biota-sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) model has been suggested as a simple tool to predict bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic compounds (HOCs) in fish and other aquatic biota from measured concentrations in sediment based on equilibrium partitioning between the sediment organic carbon and biotic lipid pools. Currently, evaluation of this model as a predictive tool has been limited to laboratory studies and small-scale field studies, using a limited number of biotic species. This study evaluates the model, from field data, for a suite of organochlorine HOCs from paired fluvial sediment and biota (fish and bivalves) samples throughout the United States and over a large range of biotic species. These data represent a real-world, worst-case scenario of the model because environmental variables are not controlled. Median BSAF values for fish (3.3) and bivalves (2.8) were not statistically different but are higher than theoretically predicted values (1-2). BSAF values varied significantly in a few species. Differences in chemical-specific BSAF values were not observed in bivalves but were statistically significant in fish. The HOCs with differing BSAF values were those known to be biotransformed. Sediment organic carbon content and biota lipid content had no effect on BSAF values in fish and only a weak effect in bivalves. This study suggests that the BSAF model could be useful under in situ riverine conditions as a first-level screening tool for predicting bioaccumulation; however, variability in BSAF values may impose limits on its utility.

National standards and guidelines for pesticides in water, sediment, and aquatic organisms: application to water-quality assessments.

National standards and guidelines for pesticides can be useful tools in water-quality assessment for evaluating potential human health or ecological effects of measured pesticide residues in water, bed sediment, or aquatic organisms. However, valid use of a given standard or guideline requires an understanding of its technical basis and underlying assumptions. Each type of standard or guideline is specific for one sampling medium (water, bed sediment, and fish and shellfish tissue) and is aimed at protection of one or more beneficial uses of the hydrologic system (drinking water, fish and shellfish consumption, aquatic organisms, and wildlife). These characteristics can be used to identify which standards and guidelines are appropriate for comparison with measured pesticide concentrations in environmental samples from a given hydrologic system. A review of standards and guidelines can be restricted to the applicable sampling medium. Then, the beneficial uses of the hydrologic system need to be identified and the measured pesticide concentrations compared with standards and guidelines for all beneficial uses that apply to that system. Several key factors that must be considered when applying this general process to water-quality assessment are summarized below. Two precautions need to be considered regarding sampling media: 1. Standards and guidelines for water distinguish between finished drinking water (potable water, often treated) and ambient surface water. If standards and guidelines for drinking water (EPA primary drinking-water regulations and drinking-water health advisories) are applied to measured pesticide concentrations in ambient water samples, the effects of water treatment (such as filtration) need to be considered. 2. Standards and guidelines for fish and shellfish tissue distinguish between edible fish and shellfish tissue and whole fish tissue. Comparison of pesticide concentrations in whole fish tissue with standards or guidelines for edible fish and shellfish tissue is appropriate only as a screening procedure to determine whether additional sampling and analysis for contaminants in edible fish fillets are warranted. For some sampling media (water, fish and shellfish tissues), both standards and guidelines may exist for a given pesticide. Standards and guidelines may differ in their technical bases and in the implications or consequences of finding measured concentrations in exceedance of the standard or guideline value. Therefore, comparison of measured pesticide concentrations with both standards and guidelines is useful because each provides different information about the hydrologic system.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)