Identification and assessment of factors that impact the demand for and supply of dental hygienists amidst an evolving workforce context: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: This study involved a scoping review to explore factors influencing dental hygienist demand and supply in high-income countries. METHODS: A six-stage scoping review was conducted with separate search strategies tailored to four databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Google) plus a targeted scan of dental hygienist organization websites. This yielded 2,117 unique citations, leading to 148 articles included in the review. RESULTS: Nearly half of the articles (47%) focused on the United States, with 11% on Canada. Most articles (91%) were in English, alongside 13 in Korean and one in French. Journal articles comprised 62% of the publications, followed by reports/working papers (11%) and websites (11%). Other types included conference abstracts, policy briefs, and presentation slides. Content-wise, 47% were original research, with analysis articles (14%), commentaries (11%), and reviews (8%) also present. The articles were coded into three main categories: workforce characteristics/projections, factor-specific analyses, and workforce opportunities. The articles on workforce characteristics covered demographic, geographic, and employment aspects of dental hygienists, along with projections for supply and demand using simulation modelling and geospatial analyses. Factor-specific articles investigated the (1) working environment, (2) policy/regulatory/training environment, (3) job/career satisfaction and related human resource issues, and (4) scope of practice. The third key category of articles highlighted opportunities for expanding the workforce through alternative models in different sectors/settings (e.g., public health, primary care, long-term care, hospitals, mobile outreach, and non-clinical roles including research, education and leadership) and for a range of vulnerable or underserved populations (e.g., geriatric and pediatric populations, persons with disabilities, those living in rural/remote areas, Indigenous peoples, and incarcerated people). CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive documentation of the current state of the dental hygienist workforce, compiling factors affecting demand and supply, and highlighting opportunities for the dental hygienist workforce in Canada and other high-income countries. The findings offer a foundation for future research, highlighting the need for more focused and rigorous reviews and underscoring the necessity of high-quality studies to verify the effectiveness of various interventions and policies. This is crucial to address dental hygienist workforce challenges and ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of oral health care delivery.

Health system learning with Indigenous communities: a study protocol for a two-eyed seeing review and multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: It is well documented that Canadian healthcare does not fully meet the health needs of First Nations, Inuit or Métis peoples. In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples concluded that Indigenous peoples' healthcare needs had to be met by strategies and systems that emerged from Indigenous worldviews and cultures. In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission also called on health organizations to learn from Indigenous "knowledges" and integrate Indigenous worldviews alongside biomedicine and other western ways of knowing. These calls have not yet been met. Meanwhile, the dynamic of organizational learning from knowledges and evidence within communities is poorly understood-particularly when learning is from communities whose ways of knowing differ from those of the organization. Through an exploration of organizational and health system learning, this study will explore how organizations learn from the Indigenous communities they serve and contribute to (re-)conceptualizing the learning organization and learning health system in a way that privileges Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing. METHODS: This study will employ a two-eyed seeing literature review and embedded multiple case study. The review, based on Indigenous and western approaches to reviewing and synthesizing knowledges, will inform understanding of health system learning from different ways of knowing. The multiple case study will examine learning by three distinct government organizations in Northwest Territories, a jurisdiction in northern Canada, that have roles to support community health and wellness: TlįchÇ« Government, Gwich'in Tribal Council, and Government of Northwest Territories. Case study data will be collected via interviews, talking circles, and document analysis. A steering group, comprising TlįchÇ« and Gwich'in Elders and representatives from each of the three partner organizations, will guide all aspects of the project. DISCUSSION: Examining systems that create health disparities is an imperative for Canadian healthcare. In response, this study will help to identify and understand ways for organizations to learn from and respectfully apply knowledges and evidence held within Indigenous communities so that their health and wellness are supported. In this way, this study will help to guide health organizations in the listening and learning that is required to contribute to reconciliation in healthcare.

Referral and access to heart function clinics: A realist review.

RATIONALE, AIM, AND OBJECTIVES: Heart failure (HF) clinics are highly effective, yet not optimally utilized. A realist review was performed to identify contexts (eg, health system characteristics, clinic capacity, and siting) and underlying mechanisms (eg, referring provider knowledge of clinics and referral criteria, barriers in disadvantaged patients) that influence utilization (provider referral [ie, of all appropriate and no inappropriate patients] and access [ie, patient attends ≥1 visit]) of HF clinics. METHODS: Following an initial scoping search and field observation in a HF clinic, we developed an initial program theory in conjunction with our expert panel, which included patient partners. Then, a literature search of seven databases was searched from inception to December 2019, including Medline; Grey literature was also searched. Studies of any design or editorials were included; studies regarding access to cardiac rehabilitation, or a single specialist for example, were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts, and then full-texts. Relevant data from included articles were used to refine the program theory. RESULTS: A total of 29 papers from five countries (three regions) were included. There was limited information to support or refute many elements of our initial program theory (eg, referring provider knowledge/beliefs, clinic inclusion/exclusion criteria), but refinements were made (eg, specialized care provided in each clinic, lack of patient encouragement). Lack of capacity, geography, and funding arrangements were identified as contextual factors, explaining a range of mechanistic processes, including patient clinical characteristics and social determinants of health as well as clinic characteristics that help to explain inappropriate and low use of HF clinics (outcome). CONCLUSION: Given the burden of HF and benefit of HF clinics, more research is needed to understand, and hence overcome sub-optimal use of HF clinics. In particular, an understanding from the perspective of referring providers is needed.

Interoperable Electronic Health Records and Health Information Exchanges: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: As the availability of interoperable electronic health records (iEHRs) or health information exchanges (HIEs) continues to increase, there is greater need and opportunity to assess the current evidence base on what works and what does not regarding the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project is to assess the international evidence base on the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching multiple databases-MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)-with supplemental searches conducted in Google Scholar and grey literature sources (ie, Google, Grey Literature Report, and OpenGrey). All searches were conducted in January and February 2017. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, were published from 2006 to 2017, and were either an original research study or a literature review. In order to be included, articles needed to focus on iEHRs and HIEs across multiple health care settings, as well as on the impact and effectiveness of iEHR adoption and use. RESULTS: We included 130 articles in the synthesis (113 primary studies, 86.9%; 17 reviews, 13.1%), with the majority focused on the United States (88/130, 67.7%). The primary studies focused on a wide range of health care settings; the three most prevalent settings studied included acute care (59/113, 52.2%), primary care (44/113, 38.9%), and emergency departments (34/113, 30.1%). We identified 29 distinct measurement items in the 113 primary studies that were linked to 522 specific measurement outcomes. Productivity and quality were the two evaluation dimensions that received the most attention, accounting for 14 of 29 (48%) measurement items and 306 of 522 (58.6%) measurement outcomes identified. Overall, the majority of the 522 measurement outcomes were positive (298/522, 57.1%). We also identified 17 reviews on iEHR use and impact, 6 (35%) that focused on barriers and facilitators to adoption and implementation and 11 (65%) that focused on benefits and impacts, with the more recent reviews finding little generalizable evidence of benefit and impact. CONCLUSIONS: This review captures the status of an evolving and active field focused on the use and impact of iEHRs. While the overall findings suggest many positive impacts, the quality of the primary studies were not evaluated systematically. When broken down by specific measurement item, the results directed attention both to measurement outcomes that were consistently positive and others that were mostly negative or equivocal.

Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process.

BACKGROUND: In 1968, Wilson and Jungner published 10 principles of screening that often represent the de facto starting point for screening decisions today; 50 years on, are these principles still the right ones? Our objectives were to review published work that presents principles for population-based screening decisions since Wilson and Jungner's seminal publication, and to conduct a Delphi consensus process to assess the review results. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and modified Delphi consensus process. We searched multiple databases for articles published in English in 1968 or later that were intended to guide population-based screening decisions, described development and modification of principles, and presented principles as a set or list. Identified sets were compared for basic characteristics (e.g., number, categorization), a citation analysis was conducted, and principles were iteratively synthesized and consolidated into categories to assess evolution. Participants in the consensus process assessed the level of agreement with the importance and interpretability of the consolidated screening principles. RESULTS: We identified 41 sets and 367 unique principles. Each unique principle was coded to 12 consolidated decision principles that were further categorized as disease/condition, test/intervention or program/system principles. Program or system issues were the focus of 3 of Wilson and Jungner's 10 principles, but comprised almost half of all unique principles identified in the review. The 12 consolidated principles were assessed through 2 rounds of the consensus process, leading to specific refinements to improve their relevance and interpretability. No gaps or missing principles were identified. INTERPRETATION: Wilson and Jungner's principles are remarkably enduring, but increasingly reflect a truncated version of contemporary thinking on screening that does not fully capture subsequent focus on program or system principles. Ultimately, this review and consensus process provides a comprehensive and iterative modernization of guidance to inform population-based screening decisions.

What do we mean when we talk about the Triple Aim? A systematic review of evolving definitions and adaptations of the framework at the health system level.

Notwithstanding important contributions of the Triple Aim, uncritical enthusiasm regarding the implications of the framework may be leading to inconsistent use, particularly when applied at the health system level, which goes beyond the original positioning of the framework as a strategic organizing principle to guide improvement initiatives at the organizational or local community level. We systematically identified uses of the Triple Aim that extended beyond its original intention to focus on uses at the whole health system level, to assess convergence and divergence with the original definition. We also attempted to identify consistencies in the way the Triple Aim was adapted for different contexts and settings. Data sources were indexed databases, web search engines, and international experts. Forty-seven articles were included in the analysis. We found that the definition of the Triple Aim has been subject to important modifications when the framework is used to define goals for whole health care systems or globally. Despite widespread recognition of the name, what constitutes the Triple Aim framework varies. We identified the need to consider the inclusion of at least two additional aims of health care systems - the provider experience of care, and the desire to achieve health equity for populations.

Understanding relevance of health research: considerations in the context of research impact assessment.

BACKGROUND: With massive investment in health-related research, above and beyond investments in the management and delivery of healthcare and public health services, there has been increasing focus on the impact of health research to explore and explain the consequences of these investments and inform strategic planning. Relevance is reflected by increased attention to the usability and impact of health research, with research funders increasingly engaging in relevance assessment as an input to decision processes. Yet, it is unclear whether relevance is a synonym for or predictor of impact, a necessary condition or stage in achieving it, or a distinct aim of the research enterprise. The main aim of this paper is to improve our understanding of research relevance, with specific objectives to (1) unpack research relevance from both theoretical and practical perspectives, and (2) outline key considerations for its assessment. APPROACH: Our approach involved the scholarly strategy of review and reflection. We prepared a draft paper based on an exploratory review of literature from various fields, and gained from detailed and insightful analysis and critique at a roundtable discussion with a group of key health research stakeholders. We also solicited review and feedback from a small sample of expert reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: Research relevance seems increasingly important in justifying research investments and guiding strategic research planning. However, consideration of relevance has been largely tacit in the health research community, often depending on unexplained interpretations of value, fit and potential for impact. While research relevance seems a necessary condition for impact - a process or component of efforts to make rigorous research usable - ultimately, relevance stands apart from research impact. Careful and explicit consideration of research relevance is vital to gauge the overall value and impact of a wide range of individual and collective research efforts and investments. To improve understanding, this paper outlines four key considerations, including how research relevance assessments (1) orientate to, capture and compare research versus non-research sources, (2) consider both instrumental versus non-instrumental uses of research, (3) accommodate dynamic temporal-shifting perspectives on research, and (4) align with an intersubjective understanding of relevance.

Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Leading health systems have invested in substantial quality improvement (QI) capacity building, but little is known about the aggregate effect of these investments at the health system level. We conducted a systematic review to identify key steps and elements that should be considered for system-level evaluations of investment in QI capacity building. METHODS: We searched for evaluations of QI capacity building and evaluations of QI training programmes. We included the most relevant indexed databases in the field and a strategic search of the grey literature. The latter included direct electronic scanning of 85 relevant government and institutional websites internationally. Data were extracted regarding evaluation design and common assessment themes and components. RESULTS: 48 articles met the inclusion criteria. 46 articles described initiative-level non-economic evaluations of QI capacity building/training, while 2 studies included economic evaluations of QI capacity building/training, also at the initiative level. No system-level QI capacity building/training evaluations were found. We identified 17 evaluation components that fit within 5 overarching dimensions (characteristics of QI training; characteristics of QI activity; individual capacity; organisational capacity and impact) that should be considered in evaluations of QI capacity building. 8 key steps in return-on-investment (ROI) assessments in QI capacity building were identified: (1) planning-stakeholder perspective; (2) planning-temporal perspective; (3) identifying costs; (4) identifying benefits; (5) identifying intangible benefits that will not be included in the ROI estimation; (6) discerning attribution; (7) ROI calculations; (8) sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on QI capacity building evaluation is limited in the number and scope of studies. Our findings, summarised in a Framework to Guide Evaluations of QI Capacity Building, can be used to start closing this knowledge gap.

How do organisational characteristics influence teamwork and service delivery in lung cancer diagnostic assessment programmes? A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic assessment programmes (DAPs) can reduce wait times for cancer diagnosis, but optimal DAP design is unknown. This study explored how organisational characteristics influenced multidisciplinary teamwork and diagnostic service delivery in lung cancer DAPs. DESIGN: A mixed-methods approach integrated data from descriptive qualitative interviews and medical record abstraction at 4 lung cancer DAPs. Findings were analysed with the Integrated Team Effectiveness Model. SETTING: 4 DAPs at 2 teaching and 2 community hospitals in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 22 staff were interviewed about organisational characteristics, target service benchmarks, and teamwork processes, determinants and outcomes; 314 medical records were reviewed for actual service benchmarks. RESULTS: Formal, informal and asynchronous team processes enabled service delivery and yielded many perceived benefits at the patient, staff and service levels. However, several DAP characteristics challenged teamwork and service delivery: referral volume/workload, time since launch, days per week of operation, rural-remote population, number and type of full-time/part-time human resources, staff colocation, information systems. As a result, all sites failed to meet target benchmarks (from referral to consultation median 4.0 visits, median wait time 35.0 days). Recommendations included improved information systems, more staff in all specialties, staff colocation and expanded roles for patient navigators. Findings were captured in a conceptual framework of lung cancer DAP teamwork determinants and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several DAP characteristics that could be improved to facilitate teamwork and enhance service delivery, thereby contributing to knowledge of organisational determinants of teamwork and associated outcomes. Findings can be used to update existing DAP guidelines, and by managers to plan or evaluate lung cancer DAPs. Ongoing research is needed to identify ideal roles for navigators, and staffing models tailored to case volumes.

A scoping review of online repositories of quality improvement projects, interventions and initiatives in healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) is becoming an important focal point for health systems. There is increasing interest among health system stakeholders to learn from and share experiences on the use of QI methods and approaches in their work. Yet there are few easily accessible, online repositories dedicated to documenting QI activity. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of publicly available, web-based QI repositories to (i) identify current approaches to sharing information on QI practices; (ii) categorise these approaches based on hosting, scope and size, content acquisition and eligibility, content format and search, and evaluation and engagement characteristics; and (iii) review evaluations of the design, usefulness and impact of their online QI practice repositories. The search strategy consisted of traditional database and grey literature searches, as well as expert consultation, with the ultimate aim of identifying and describing QI repositories of practices undertaken in a healthcare context. RESULTS: We identified 13 QI repositories and found substantial variation across the five categories. The QI repositories used different terminology (eg, practices vs case studies) and approaches to content acquisition, and varied in terms of primary areas of focus. All provided some means for organising content according to categories or themes and most provided at least rudimentary keyword search functionality. Notably, none of the QI repositories included evaluations of their impact. DISCUSSION: With growing interest in sharing and spreading best practices and increasing reliance on QI as a key contributor to health system performance, the role of QI repositories is likely to expand. Designing future QI repositories based on knowledge of the range and type of features available is an important starting point for improving their usefulness and impact.

Identifying the conditions needed for integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care organizations: qualitative interviews with researchers and research users.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration among researchers and research users, or integrated knowledge translation (IKT), enhances the relevance and uptake of evidence into policy and practice. However, it is not widely practiced and, even when well-resourced, desired impacts may not be achieved. Given that large-scale investment is not the norm, further research is needed to identify how IKT can be optimized. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with researchers and research users (clinicians, managers) in a health care delivery (HCDO) and health care monitoring (HCMO) organization that differed in size and infrastructure, and were IKT-naïve. Basic qualitative description was used. Participants were asked about IKT activities and challenges, and recommendations for optimizing IKT. Data were analysed inductively using constant comparative technique. RESULTS: Forty-three interviews were conducted (28 HCDO, 15 HCMO) with 13 researchers, 8 clinicians, and 22 managers. Little to no IKT took place. Participants articulated similar challenges and recommendations revealing that a considerable number of changes were needed at the organizational, professional and individual levels. Given the IKT-absent state of participating organizations, this research identified a core set of conditions which must be addressed to prepare an environment conducive to IKT. These conditions were compiled into a framework by which organizations can plan for, or evaluate their capacity for IKT. CONCLUSIONS: The IKT capacity framework is relevant for organizations in which there is no current IKT activity. Use of the IKT framework may result in more organizations that are ready to initiate and establish IKT, perhaps ultimately leading to more, and higher-quality collaboration for health system innovation. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in other organizations not yet resourced for, or undertaking IKT, and to explore the resource implications and mechanisms for establishing the conditions identified here as essential to preparing for IKT.

The relationship between integrated care and cancer patient experience: A scoping review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Health policy documents underscore the need to develop organizational models to optimize the integration of cancer care pathways around patient needs. Still, there is a lack of clarity about the meaning of integrated care as perceived by patients. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between the integration of cancer services and patients' experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We completed a scoping review of the available literature searching PubMed, Embase and Scopus from the earliest date available in each database to February 2013. RESULTS: From 1760 bibliographic records, we identified 30 articles relevant for this analysis. Based on the qualitative conventional content analysis, we defined three integrated care approaches: "individual care provider", "team care providers", "mixed approach", that impact on the following patient experience dimensions: patient satisfaction, quality of life, psychological and physical outcomes, continuity of care and empowerment. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identifies important aspects of integration from patients' perspective and suggests that policy makers should consider how to best include patients' experience into the patient care pathway. Future perspectives include engaging patients, family members, caregivers and clinicians in an on-going dialogue and have them participate actively in developing, implementing and evaluating policies, services and programmes.

Creation of a diagnostic wait times measurement framework based on evidence and consensus.

PURPOSE: Public reporting of wait times worldwide has to date focused largely on treatment wait times and is limited in its ability to capture earlier parts of the patient journey. The interval between suspicion and diagnosis or ruling out of cancer is a complex phase of the cancer journey. Diagnostic delays and inefficient use of diagnostic imaging procedures can result in poor patient outcomes, both physical and psychosocial. This study was designed to develop a framework that could be adopted for multiple disease sites across different jurisdictions to enable the measurement of diagnostic wait times and diagnostic delay. METHODS: Diagnostic benchmarks and targets in cancer systems were explored through a targeted literature review and jurisdictional scan. Cancer system leaders and clinicians were interviewed to validate the information found in the jurisdictional scan. An expert panel was assembled to review and, through a modified Delphi consensus process, provide feedback on a diagnostic wait times framework. RESULTS: The consensus process resulted in agreement on a measurement framework that identified suspicion, referral, diagnosis, and treatment as the main time points for measuring this critical phase of the patient journey. CONCLUSIONS: This work will help guide initiatives designed to improve patient access to health services by developing an evidence-based approach to standardization of the various waypoints during the diagnostic pathway. The diagnostic wait times measurement framework provides a yardstick to measure the performance of programs that are designed to manage and expedite care processes between referral and diagnosis or ruling out of cancer.

A scoping review of appropriateness of care research activity in Canada from a health system-level perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Jurisdictions are increasingly focusing on appropriate use of healthcare services and interventions as a means to improve health system performance. Our objectives were to conduct a scoping review to (a) map Canadian research and related activity on system-level appropriateness of care and (b) create a resource database that could be used to inform evidence-based decision-making and future research priorities in this area. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL databases between 2003-2013 using terms including "appropriate," "inappropriate," "health technology assessment" and "cost-effectiveness." Articles were included if they were Canadian-based and relevant to our definition. The database search was complemented by a website search of relevant Canadian organizations. RESULTS: 4,979 articles were identified through the literature search, and 103 articles relevant to system-level appropriateness of care across Canada were charted. Of these, 64 contained an evaluation of appropriateness, 30 used a method of cost-effectiveness or total cost impact analysis and 9 involved another methodology. The most common health service categories included drug therapy (n=40) and health service utilization (n=33). Fifty-eight websites were summarized containing material relevant to system-level appropriateness of care. CONCLUSION: Our review identifies Canadian research and related activity pertaining to appropriateness of healthcare from a system-level perspective and provides a useful resource both to support evidence-based decision-making and to guide future appropriateness research.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing conventional versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for surgically ineligible stage I non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In 25% to 35% of patients with early stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), surgery is not feasible, and external-beam radiation becomes their standard treatment. Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) is the traditional radiation treatment standard; however, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is increasingly being adopted as an alternate radiation treatment. Our objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing SBRT with CFRT for stage I NSCLC in a public payer system. METHODS: Consecutive patients were reviewed using 2010 Canadian dollars for direct medical costs from a public payer perspective. A subset of direct radiation treatment delivery costs, excluding physician billings and hospitalization, was also included. Health outcomes as life-years gained (LYGs) were computed using time-to-event methods. Sensitivity analyses identified critical factors influencing costs and benefits. RESULTS: From January 2002 to June 2010, 168 patients (CFRT, n = 50; SBRT, n = 118) were included; median follow-up was 24 months. Mean overall survival was 2.83 years (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.1) for CFRT and 3.86 years (95% CI, 3.2 to not reached) for SBRT (P = .06). Mean costs for CFRT were $6,886 overall and $5,989 for radiation treatment delivery only versus $8,042 and $6,962, respectively, for SBRT. Incremental costs (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) per LYG for SBRT versus CFRT were $1,120 for the public payer and $942 for radiation treatment alone. Varying survival and labor costs individually (± 20%) created the largest changes in the ICER, and simultaneous adjustment (± 5% to ± 30%) confirmed cost effectiveness of SBRT. CONCLUSION: Using a threshold of $50,000 per LYG, SBRT seems cost effective. Results require confirmation with randomized data.

How can diagnostic assessment programs be implemented to enhance inter-professional collaborative care for cancer?

BACKGROUND: Inter-professional collaborative care (ICC) for cancer leads to multiple system, organizational, professional, and patient benefits, but is limited by numerous challenges. Empirical research on interventions that promote or enable ICC is sparse so guidance on how to achieve ICC is lacking. Research shows that ICC for diagnosis could be improved. Diagnostic assessment programs (DAPs) appear to be a promising model for enabling ICC. The purpose of this study was to explore how DAP structure and function enable ICC, and whether that may be associated with organizational and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A case study approach will be used to explore ICC among eight DAPs that vary by type of cancer (lung, breast), academic status, and geographic region. To describe DAP function and outcomes, and gather information that will enable costing, recommendations expressed in DAP standards and clinical guidelines will be assessed through retrospective observational study. Data will be acquired from databases maintained by participating DAPs and the provincial cancer agency, and confirmed by and supplemented with review of medical records. We will conduct a pilot study to explore the feasibility of estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using person-level data from medical records and other sources. Interviews will be conducted with health professionals, staff, and referring physicians from each DAP to learn about barriers and facilitators of ICC. Qualitative methods based on a grounded approach will be used to guide sampling, data collection and analysis. DISCUSSION: Findings may reveal opportunities for unique structures, interventions or tools that enable ICC that could be developed, implemented, and evaluated through future research. This information will serve as a formative needs assessment to identify the nature of ongoing or required improvements, which can be directly used by our decision maker collaborators, and as a framework by policy makers, cancer system managers, and DAP managers elsewhere to strategically plan for and implement diagnostic cancer services.

The applicability and transferability of public health research from one setting to another: a survey of maternal health researchers.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the process of assessing whether research conducted in one setting is applicable (i.e. implementable) and transferable (i.e. as effective) to another, despite its importance for health policy and practice. Applicability/transferability differs from external validity; the former focuses on potential utility in another specific setting, whilst the latter is more general. This study explored perceptions of applicability/transferability among maternal health researchers. METHODS: Published maternal public health researchers in low- or middle-income countries were invited to complete an online questionnaire. They were shown four summaries of maternal public health intervention evaluations and asked which they felt were the most and least applicable/transferable to their own setting and why. RESULTS: 283 valid questionnaires were received (41% response rate). Applicability/transferability decisions frequently depended on the pertinence of the problem addressed by the intervention or the intervention's characteristics. Less common were comparison of the respondents' setting with the study setting, or consideration of the study's effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The factors affecting perceptions of applicability/transferability are broader than those associated with external validity. Improving the reporting of intervention characteristics and implementation is particularly important for applicability/transferability assessments and could increase the appropriate use of public health research in policy and practice.

When can research from one setting be useful in another? Understanding perceptions of the applicability and transferability of research.

Determining whether research findings from one setting are relevant to another is complex and poorly understood. This study aimed to explore the factors affecting whether research from other settings was perceived to be of potential use to those working in or researching maternal health in Ghana. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 69 purposively sampled government decision-makers, researchers and other stakeholders working in maternal health in Ghana in 2008-09. The most influential factors affecting perceptions of applicability/transferability were the study's congruence with interviewees' previous experiences and beliefs. Interventions' adaptability was also considered crucial (and more important than remaining faithful to the original intervention). However, it was frequently considered a distinct stage in the research use process rather than a consideration of applicability/transferability. More attention was paid to the implementability of the intervention in the new setting, than to whether it would be as effective there. Interpretations of intervention descriptions and evaluation findings varied between interviewees, even when the same information was presented. This study is one of the first to explore perceptions of applicability/transferability of public health research among researchers and potential research users in a low-income setting. The findings suggest that existing frameworks of applicability/transferability do not reflect the factors considered to be most important in Ghana.

A prospective multiple case study of the impact of emerging scientific evidence on established colorectal cancer screening programs: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Health-policy decision making is a complex and dynamic process, for which strong evidentiary support is required. This includes scientifically produced research, as well as information that relates to the context in which the decision takes place. Unlike scientific evidence, this "contextual evidence" is highly variable and often includes information that is not scientifically produced, drawn from sources such as political judgement, program management experience and knowledge, or public values. As the policy decision-making process is variable and difficult to evaluate, it is often unclear how this heterogeneous evidence is identified and incorporated into "evidence-based policy" decisions. Population-based colorectal cancer screening poses an ideal context in which to examine these issues. In Canada, colorectal cancer screening programs have been established in several provinces over the past five years, based on the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or the fecal immunochemical test. However, as these programs develop, new scientific evidence for screening continues to emerge. Recently published randomized controlled trials suggest that the use of flexible sigmoidoscopy for population-based screening may pose a greater reduction in mortality than the FOBT. This raises the important question of how policy makers will address this evidence, given that screening programs are being established or are already in place. This study will examine these issues prospectively and will focus on how policy makers monitor emerging scientific evidence and how both scientific and contextual evidence are identified and applied for decisions about health system improvement. METHODS: This study will employ a prospective multiple case study design, involving participants from Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Quebec. In each province, data will be collected via document analysis and key informant interviews. Documents will include policy briefs, reports, meeting minutes, media releases, and correspondence. Interviews will be conducted in person with senior administrative leaders, government officials, screening experts, and high-level cancer system stakeholders. DISCUSSION: The proposed study comprises the third and final phase of an Emerging Team grant to address the challenges of health-policy decision making and colorectal cancer screening decisions in Canada. This study will contribute a unique prospective look at how policy makers address new, emerging scientific evidence in several different policy environments and at different stages of program planning and implementation. Findings will provide important insight into the various approaches that are or should be used to monitor emerging evidence, the relative importance of scientific versus contextual evidence for decision making, and the tools and processes that may be important to support challenging health-policy decisions.

Paucity of qualitative research in general medical and health services and policy research journals: analysis of publication rates.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research has the potential to inform and improve health care decisions but a study based on one year of publications suggests that it is not published in prominent health care journals. A more detailed, longitudinal analysis of its availability is needed. The purpose of this study was to identify, count and compare the number of qualitative and non-qualitative research studies published in high impact health care journals, and explore trends in these data over the last decade. METHODS: A bibliometric approach was used to identify and quantify qualitative articles published in 20 top general medical and health services and policy research journals from 1999 to 2008. Eligible journals were selected based on performance in four different ranking systems reported in the 2008 ISI Journal Citation Reports. Qualitative and non-qualitative research published in these journals were identified by searching MEDLINE, and validated by hand-searching tables of contents for four journals. RESULTS: The total number of qualitative research articles published during 1999 to 2008 in ten general medical journals ranged from 0 to 41, and in ten health services and policy research journals from 0 to 39. Over this period the percentage of empirical research articles that were qualitative ranged from 0% to 0.6% for the general medical journals, and 0% to 6.4% for the health services and policy research journals. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that qualitative research it is rarely published in high impact general medical and health services and policy research journals. The factors that contribute to this persistent marginalization need to be better understood.