Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review.

Background: Nurses, midwives and paramedics are the largest collective group of clinical staff in the National Health Service and have some of the highest prevalence of psychological ill-health. Existing literature tends to be profession-specific and focused on individual interventions that place responsibility for good psychological health with nurses, midwives and paramedics themselves. Aim: To improve understanding of how, why and in what contexts nurses, midwives and paramedics experience work-related psychological ill-health; and determine which high-quality interventions can be implemented to minimise psychological ill-health in these professions. Methods: Realist synthesis methodology consistent with realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards' reporting guidelines. Data sources: First round database searching in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online Database ALL (via Ovid), cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature database (via EBSCO) and health management information consortium database (via Ovid), was undertaken between February and March 2021, followed by supplementary searching strategies (e.g. hand searching, expert solicitation of key papers). Reverse chronology screening was applied, aimed at retaining 30 relevant papers in each profession. Round two database searches (December 2021) targeted COVID-19-specific literature and literature reviews. No date limits were applied. Results: We built on seven key reports and included 75 papers in the first round (26 nursing, 26 midwifery, 23 paramedic) plus 44 expert solicitation papers, 29 literature reviews and 49 COVID-19 focused articles in the second round. Through the realist synthesis we surfaced 14 key tensions in the literature and identified five key findings, supported by 26 context mechanism and outcome configurations. The key findings identified the following: (1) interventions are fragmented, individual-focused and insufficiently recognise cumulative chronic stressors; (2) it is difficult to promote staff psychological wellness where there is a blame culture; (3) the needs of the system often override staff well-being at work ('serve and sacrifice'); (4) there are unintended personal costs of upholding and implementing values at work; and (5) it is challenging to design, identify and implement interventions to work optimally for diverse staff groups with diverse and interacting stressors. Conclusions: Our realist synthesis strongly suggests the need to improve the systemic working conditions and the working lives of nurses, midwives and paramedics to improve their psychological well-being. Individual, one-off psychological interventions are unlikely to succeed alone. Psychological ill-health is highly prevalent in these staff groups (and can be chronic and cumulative as well as acute) and should be anticipated and prepared for, indeed normalised and expected. Healthcare organisations need to (1) rebalance the working environment to enable healthcare professionals to recover and thrive; (2) invest in multi-level system approaches to promote staff psychological well-being; and use an organisational diagnostic framework, such as the NHS England and NHS Improvement Health and Wellbeing framework, to self-assess and implement a systems approach to staff well-being. Future work: Future research should implement, refine and evaluate systemic interventional strategies. Interventions and evaluations should be co-designed with front-line staff and staff experts by experience, and tailored where possible to local, organisational and workforce needs. Limitations: The literature was not equivalent in size and quality across the three professions and we did not carry out citation searches using hand searching and stakeholder/expert suggestions to augment our sample. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020172420. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172420. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129528) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The National Health Service needs healthy, motivated staff to provide high-quality patient care. Nurses, midwives and paramedics experience poor psychological health (e.g. stress/anxiety) because of pressured environments and the difficulties of healthcare work. This study planned to better understand the causes of poor psychological ill-health in nurses, midwives and paramedics and find which interventions might help and why. We analysed the literature using a method called 'realist review' to understand how interventions work (or not), why, and for who. We tested our findings with patients, the public, nurses, midwives and paramedics in our stakeholder group. We reviewed over 200 papers/reports and identified five main findings: (1) existing solutions (interventions) are disjointed, focus mainly on the individual (not the system) and do not recognise enduring stressors enough; (2) when there is a blame culture it is difficult to encourage staff psychological well-being; (3) the needs of the system often override staff psychological well-being at work; (4) upholding and implementing personal and professional values at work can have negative personal costs; and (5) it is difficult to design, identify and implement solutions that work well for staff groups in different circumstances with varied causes of poor psychological health. Healthcare organisations should consider: (1) changing (rebalancing) the working environment to help healthcare professionals rest, recover and thrive; (2) investing in multiple-level system (not just individual) approaches to staff psychological well-being; (3) continuing to reduce stigma; (4) ensuring the essential needs of staff are prioritised (rest-breaks/hydration/hot food) as building blocks for other solutions; (5) addressing the blame culture, assuming staff are doing their best in difficult conditions; (6) prioritising staff needs, as well as patient needs. We will provide guidance and recommendations to policy-makers and organisational leaders to improve work cultures that tackle psychological ill-health and suggest new areas for research.

Care Under Pressure 2: a realist synthesis of causes and interventions to mitigate psychological ill health in nurses, midwives and paramedics.

BACKGROUND: Nurses, midwives and paramedics comprise over half of the clinical workforce in the UK National Health Service and have some of the highest prevalence of psychological ill health. This study explored why psychological ill health is a growing problem and how we might change this. METHODS: A realist synthesis involved iterative searches within MEDLINE, CINAHL and HMIC, and supplementary handsearching and expert solicitation. We used reverse chronological quota screening and appraisal journalling to analyse each source and refine our initial programme theory. A stakeholder group comprising nurses, midwives, paramedics, patient and public representatives, educators, managers and policy makers contributed throughout. RESULTS: Following initial theory development from 8 key reports, 159 sources were included. We identified 26 context-mechanism-outcome configurations, with 16 explaining the causes of psychological ill health and 10 explaining why interventions have not worked to mitigate psychological ill health. These were synthesised to five key findings: (1) it is difficult to promote staff psychological wellness where there is a blame culture; (2) the needs of the system often over-ride staff psychological well-being at work; (3) there are unintended personal costs of upholding and implementing values at work; (4) interventions are fragmented, individual-focused and insufficiently recognise cumulative chronic stressors; and (5) it is challenging to design, identify and implement interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Our final programme theory argues the need for healthcare organisations to rebalance the working environment to enable healthcare professionals to recover and thrive. This requires high standards for patient care to be balanced with high standards for staff psychological well-being; professional accountability to be balanced with having a listening, learning culture; reactive responsive interventions to be balanced by having proactive preventative interventions; and the individual focus balanced by an organisational focus. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020172420.

First Contact Physiotherapy: An evaluation of clinical effectiveness and costs.

BACKGROUND: First Contact Physiotherapy Practitioners (FCPPs) are embedded within general practice, providing expert assessment, diagnosis and management plans for patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs), without the prior need for GP consultation. AIM: To determine the clinical effectiveness and costs of FCPP-led compared to GP-led models of care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multiple site case study design. UK GP practices. METHOD: General Practice sites were recruited representing three models: 1. GP-led care; 2. FCPPs who could not prescribe/inject (Standard (St)); 3. FCPPs who could prescribe/inject (Additional Qualifications (AQ)). Patient participants from each site completed clinical outcome data at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome was the SF-36v.2 Physical Component Score (PCS). Healthcare usage was collected for 6 months. RESULTS: N=426 adults were recruited from 46 practices across the UK. Non-inferiority analysis showed no significant difference in physical function (SF36-PCS) across all three arms at 6 months (p=0.999). At 3 months a significant difference in numbers improving was seen between arms: 54.7% GP consultees; 72.4% FCPP-St, 66.4% FCPP-AQ; (p=0.037). No safety issues were identified. Following initial consultation, a greater proportion of patients received medication (including opioids) in the GP-led arm (44.7%) compared with FCPP-St (17.5%) and FCPP-AQ (22.8%); (p<0.001). NHS costs (initial consultation and over 6 months follow up) were significantly higher in the GP-led model (median £105.50) vs FCPP-St (£41) and FCPP-AQ (£44); (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: FCPP led models provide safe, clinically effective and cost-beneficial management for patients with MSKDs in general practice and reduced opioid use in this cohort.

Understanding paramedic work in general practice in the UK: a rapid realist synthesis.

BACKGROUND: General practice in the UK is under substantial pressure and practices are increasingly including paramedics as part of their workforce. Little is known about how different models of paramedic working may affect successful implementation of the role, as viewed from patient, clinician and system perspectives. This realist synthesis developed theories about 'models of paramedic working in general practice' in different UK contexts to understand their impact. METHODS: The rapid realist synthesis comprised data from: (1) empirical and grey literature searches; (2) semi-structured realist interviews with system leaders involved with the implementation of the role; and (3) a stakeholder event with healthcare professionals and the public, to develop initial programme theories that can be tested in future work. Sources were analysed using a realist approach that explored the data for novel or causal insights to generate initial programme theories. RESULTS: Empirical sources (n = 32), grey sources (n = 95), transcripts from system leader interviews (n = 7) and audio summaries from the stakeholder event (n = 22 participants) were synthesised into a single narrative document. The findings confirmed the presence of a wide variety of models of paramedic working in UK general practice. The perceived success of models was influenced by the extent to which the paramedic service was mature and embedded in practice, and according to four theory areas: (1) Primary care staff understanding and acceptance of the paramedic role; (2) Paramedic induction process, including access to training, supervision and development opportunities; (3) Patient understanding and acceptance of the role; (4) Variations in paramedic employment models. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in how the paramedic role is operating and embedding into general practice across the UK affects the success of the role. These findings provide a theoretical foundation for future research to investigate various 'models of paramedic working' in different contexts.

Benefits of realist evaluation for rapidly changing health service delivery.

Realist evaluation is a methodology that addresses the questions: 'what works, for whom, in which circumstances, and how?'. In this approach, programme theories are developed and tested against available evidence. However, when complex interventions are implemented in rapidly changing environments, there are many unpredictable forces that determine the programme's scope and architecture, as well as resultant outcome. These forces can be theorised, in real time, and included in realist evaluation outputs for current and future optimisation of programmes. Reflecting on a realist evaluation of first-contact physiotherapy in primary care (the FRONTIER Study), five important considerations are described for improving the quality of realist evaluation outputs when studying rapidly changing health service delivery. These are: (1) ensuring that initial programme theories are developed through creative thinking sessions, empirical and non-empirical literature, and stakeholder consultation; (2) testing the causal impact of formal and informal (eg, emergent) components of service delivery models; (3) contrasting initial programme theories with rival theory statements; (4) envisioning broad system impacts beyond the immediate implementation setting; and (5) incorporating rapidly evolving service developments and context changes into the theory testing process in real-time (eg, Additional Role Reimbursement Scheme, COVID-19). Through the reflections presented, the aim is to clarify the benefit of realist evaluation to assess emerging models of care and rapidly changing health service delivery.

Realist Synthesis for Public Health: Building an Ontologically Deep Understanding of How Programs Work, For Whom, and In Which Contexts.

Realist synthesis is a literature review methodology for understanding how, for whom, and under what circumstances complex interventions function in complex environments. Using a heuristic called the context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configuration, realist synthesis produces evidence-informed theories about the interactions between intervention mechanisms and their implementation contexts. Public health interventions and their effects unfold over time and develop differently in different contexts. Much of what causes programs to function remains in a realm beyond empirical measurement. By scrutinizing the theories relevant to the interventions of interest, and by enhancing the conceptualization of complex outcomes, the realist approach deprioritizes evidence hierarchies and harnesses insights from diverse data sources to generate causal understanding. The dynamic learning process that can arise in conducting a realist synthesis may generate new ideas for program development and innovation apart from what can be achieved in reviews providing a summation and aggregation of quantified evidence.

A realist review of shared medical appointments: How, for whom, and under what circumstances do they work?

BACKGROUND: Shared medical appointments (SMAs) are doctor-patient visits in which groups of patients are seen by one or more health care providers in a concurrent session. There is a growing interest in understanding the potential benefits of SMAs in various contexts to improve clinical outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. This study builds upon the existing evidence base that suggests SMAs are indeed effective. In this study, we explored how they are effective in terms of the underlying mechanisms of action and under what circumstances. METHODS: Realist review methodology was used to synthesize the literature on SMAs, which included a broad search of 800+ published articles. 71 high quality primary research articles were retained to build a conceptual model of SMAs and 20 of those were selected for an in depth analysis using realist methodology (i.e.,middle-range theories and and context-mechanism-outcome configurations). RESULTS: Nine main mechanisms that serve to explain how SMAs work were theorized from the data immersion process and configured in a series of context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOs). These are: (1) Group exposure in SMAs combats isolation, which in turn helps to remove doubts about one's ability to manage illness; (2) Patients learn about disease self-management vicariously by witnessing others' illness experiences; (3) Patients feel inspired by seeing others who are coping well; (4) Group dynamics lead patients and providers to developing more equitable relationships; (5) Providers feel increased appreciation and rapport toward colleagues leading to increased efficiency; (6) Providers learn from the patients how better to meet their patients' needs; (7) Adequate time allotment of the SMA leads patients to feel supported; (8) Patients receive professional expertise from the provider in combination with first-hand information from peers, resulting in more robust health knowledge; and (9) Patients have the opportunity to see how the physicians interact with fellow patients, which allows them to get to know the physician and better determine their level of trust. CONCLUSIONS: Nine overarching mechanisms were configured in CMO configurations and discussed as a set of complementary middle-range programme theories to explain how SMAs work. It is anticipated that this innovative work in theorizing SMAs using realist review methodology will provide policy makers and SMA program planners adequate conceptual grounding to design contextually sensitive SMA programs in a wide variety of settings and advance an SMA research agenda for varied contexts.

RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Realist evaluation is increasingly used in health services and other fields of research and evaluation. No previous standards exist for reporting realist evaluations. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES II project. The project's aim is to produce initial reporting standards for realist evaluations. METHODS: We purposively recruited a maximum variety sample of an international group of experts in realist evaluation to our online Delphi panel. Panel members came from a variety of disciplines, sectors and policy fields. We prepared the briefing materials for our Delphi panel by summarising the most recent literature on realist evaluations to identify how and why rigour had been demonstrated and where gaps in expertise and rigour were evident. We also drew on our collective experience as realist evaluators, in training and supporting realist evaluations, and on the RAMESES email list to help us develop the briefing materials. Through discussion within the project team, we developed a list of issues related to quality that needed to be addressed when carrying out realist evaluations. These were then shared with the panel members and their feedback was sought. Once the panel members had provided their feedback on our briefing materials, we constructed a set of items for potential inclusion in the reporting standards and circulated these online to panel members. Panel members were asked to rank each potential item twice on a 7-point Likert scale, once for relevance and once for validity. They were also encouraged to provide free text comments. RESULTS: We recruited 35 panel members from 27 organisations across six countries from nine different disciplines. Within three rounds our Delphi panel was able to reach consensus on 20 items that should be included in the reporting standards for realist evaluations. The overall response rates for all items for rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 94 %, 76 % and 80 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: These reporting standards for realist evaluations have been developed by drawing on a range of sources. We hope that these standards will lead to greater consistency and rigour of reporting and make realist evaluation reports more accessible, usable and helpful to different stakeholders.

Protocol--the RAMESES II study: developing guidance and reporting standards for realist evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Realist evaluation is an increasingly popular methodology in health services research. For realist evaluations (RE) this project aims to: develop quality and reporting standards and training materials; build capacity for undertaking and critically evaluating them; produce resources and training materials for lay participants, and those seeking to involve them. METHODS: To achieve our aims, we will: (1) Establish management and governance infrastructure; (2) Recruit an interdisciplinary Delphi panel of 35 participants with diverse relevant experience of RE; (3) Summarise current literature and expert opinion on best practice in RE; (4) Run an online Delphi panel to generate and refine items for quality and reporting standards; (5) Capture 'real world' experiences and challenges of RE-for example, by providing ongoing support to realist evaluations, hosting the RAMESES JISCmail list on realist research, and feeding problems and insights from these into the deliberations of the Delphi panel; (6) Produce quality and reporting standards; (7) Collate examples of the learning and training needs of researchers, students, reviewers and lay members in relation to RE; (8) Develop, deliver and evaluate training materials for RE and deliver training workshops; and (9) Develop and evaluate information and resources for patients and other lay participants in RE (eg, draft template information sheets and model consent forms) and; (10) Disseminate training materials and other resources.Planned outputs: (1) Quality and reporting standards and training materials for RE. (2) Methodological support for RE. (3) Increase in capacity to support and evaluate RE. (4) Accessible, plain-English resources for patients and the public participating in RE. DISCUSSION: The realist evaluation is a relatively new approach to evaluation and its overall place in the is not yet fully established. As with all primary research approaches, guidance on quality assurance and uniform reporting is an important step towards improving quality and consistency.

A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects.

BACKGROUND: Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is an approach in which researchers and community stakeholders form equitable partnerships to tackle issues related to community health improvement and knowledge production. Our 2012 realist review of CBPR outcomes reported long-term effects that were touched upon but not fully explained in the retained literature. To further explore such effects, interviews were conducted with academic and community partners of partnerships retained in the review. Realist methodology was used to increase the understanding of what supports partnership synergy in successful long-term CBPR partnerships, and to further document how equitable partnerships can result in numerous benefits including the sustainability of relationships, research and solutions. METHODS: Building on our previous realist review of CBPR, we contacted the authors of longitudinal studies of academic-community partnerships retained in the review. Twenty-four participants (community members and researchers) from 11 partnerships were interviewed. Realist logic of analysis was used, involving middle-range theory, context-mechanism-outcome configuration (CMOcs) and the concept of the 'ripple effect'. RESULTS: The analysis supports the central importance of developing and strengthening partnership synergy through trust. The ripple effect concept in conjunction with CMOcs showed that a sense of trust amongst CBPR members was a prominent mechanism leading to partnership sustainability. This in turn resulted in population-level outcomes including: (a) sustaining collaborative efforts toward health improvement; (b) generating spin-off projects; and (c) achieving systemic transformations. CONCLUSION: These results add to other studies on improving the science of CBPR in partnerships with a high level of power-sharing and co-governance. Our results suggest sustaining CBPR and achieving unanticipated benefits likely depend on trust-related mechanisms and a continuing commitment to power-sharing. These findings have implications for building successful CBPR partnerships to address challenging public health problems and the complex assessment of outcomes.

Critical reflections on realist review: insights from customizing the methodology to the needs of participatory research assessment.

Realist review has increased in popularity as a methodology for complex intervention assessment. Our experience suggests that the process of designing a realist review requires its customization to areas under investigation. To elaborate on this idea, we first describe the logic underpinning realist review and then present critical reflections on our application experience, organized in seven areas. These are the following: (1) the challenge of identifying middle range theory; (2) addressing heterogeneity and lack of conceptual clarity; (3) the challenge of appraising the quality of complex evidence; (4) the relevance of capturing unintended outcomes; (5) understanding the process of context, mechanism, and outcome (CMO) configuring; (6) incorporating middle-range theory in the CMO configuration process; and (7) using middle range theory to advance the conceptualization of outcomes - both visible and seemingly 'hidden'. One conclusion from our experience is that the degree of heterogeneity of the evidence base will determine whether theory can drive the development of review protocols from the outset, or will follow only after an intense period of data immersion. We hope that presenting a critical reflection on customizing realist review will convey how the methodology can be tailored to the often complex and idiosyncratic features of health research, leading to innovative evidence syntheses.

Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice.

CONTEXT: Participatory research (PR) is the co-construction of research through partnerships between researchers and people affected by and/or responsible for action on the issues under study. Evaluating the benefits of PR is challenging for a number of reasons: the research topics, methods, and study designs are heterogeneous; the extent of collaborative involvement may vary over the duration of a project and from one project to the next; and partnership activities may generate a complex array of both short- and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Our review team consisted of a collaboration among researchers and decision makers in public health, research funding, ethics review, and community-engaged scholarship. We identified, selected, and appraised a large-variety sample of primary studies describing PR partnerships, and in each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used key realist review concepts (middle-range theory, demi-regularity, and context-mechanism-outcome configurations [CMO]) to analyze and synthesize the data, using the PR partnership as the main unit of analysis. FINDINGS: From 7,167 abstracts and 591 full-text papers, we distilled for synthesis a final sample of twenty-three PR partnerships described in 276 publications. The link between process and outcome in these partnerships was best explained using the middle-range theory of partnership synergy, which demonstrates how PR can (1) ensure culturally and logistically appropriate research, (2) enhance recruitment capacity, (3) generate professional capacity and competence in stakeholder groups, (4) result in productive conflicts followed by useful negotiation, (5) increase the quality of outputs and outcomes over time, (6) increase the sustainability of project goals beyond funded time frames and during gaps in external funding, and (7) create system changes and new unanticipated projects and activities. Negative examples illustrated why these outcomes were not a guaranteed product of PR partnerships but were contingent on key aspects of context. CONCLUSIONS: We used a realist approach to embrace the heterogeneity and complexity of the PR literature. This theory-driven synthesis identified mechanisms by which PR may add value to the research process. Using the middle-range theory of partnership synergy, our review confirmed findings from previous PR reviews, documented and explained some negative outcomes, and generated new insights into the benefits of PR regarding conflicts and negotiation between stakeholders, program sustainability and advancement, unanticipated project activity, and the generation of systemic change.

Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic literature reviews identify, select, appraise, and synthesize relevant literature on a particular topic. Typically, these reviews examine primary studies based on similar methods, e.g., experimental trials. In contrast, interest in a new form of review, known as mixed studies review (MSR), which includes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies, is growing. In MSRs, reviewers appraise studies that use different methods allowing them to obtain in-depth answers to complex research questions. However, appraising the quality of studies with different methods remains challenging. To facilitate systematic MSRs, a pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) has been developed at McGill University (a checklist and a tutorial), which can be used to concurrently appraise the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study is to test the reliability and efficiency of a pilot version of the MMAT. METHODS: The Center for Participatory Research at McGill conducted a systematic MSR on the benefits of Participatory Research (PR). Thirty-two PR evaluation studies were appraised by two independent reviewers using the pilot MMAT. Among these, 11 (34%) involved nurses as researchers or research partners. Appraisal time was measured to assess efficiency. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by calculating a kappa statistic based on dichotomized responses for each criterion. An appraisal score was determined for each study, which allowed the calculation of an overall intra-class correlation. RESULTS: On average, it took 14 min to appraise a study (excluding the initial reading of articles). Agreement between reviewers was moderate to perfect with regards to MMAT criteria, and substantial with respect to the overall quality score of appraised studies. CONCLUSION: The MMAT is unique, thus the reliability of the pilot MMAT is promising, and encourages further development.

Assessing the benefits of participatory research: a rationale for a realist review.

Participatory research (PR) experts believe that increased community and stakeholder participation in research augments program pertinence, quality, outcome, sustainability, uptake, and transferability. There is, however, a dearth of assessments and measurement tools to demonstrate the contribution of participation in health research and interventions. One systematic review of PR, conducted for the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ), provided no conclusive evidence concerning the benefits of community participation to enhance research and health outcomes. To overcome methodological gaps and barriers of the AHRQ review, we propose to conduct a systematic realist review, which can be understood as a theory-driven qualitative review capable of capturing the often complex, diffuse and obtuse evidence concerning participation. Reviewing how PR mechanisms and contextual factors mediate and moderate outcomes, the review will generate and test hypotheses (middle-range theories) conceptualizing the benefits of participation and will portray the manner and circumstances in which participation influences outcomes.

Assessing the outcomes of participatory research: protocol for identifying, selecting, appraising and synthesizing the literature for realist review.

BACKGROUND: Participatory Research (PR) entails the co-governance of research by academic researchers and end-users. End-users are those who are affected by issues under study (e.g., community groups or populations affected by illness), or those positioned to act on the knowledge generated by research (e.g., clinicians, community leaders, health managers, patients, and policy makers). Systematic reviews assessing the generalizable benefits of PR must address: the diversity of research topics, methods, and intervention designs that involve a PR approach; varying degrees of end-user involvement in research co-governance, both within and between projects; and the complexity of outcomes arising from long-term partnerships. METHODS: We addressed the above mentioned challenges by adapting realist review methodology to PR assessment, specifically by developing inductively-driven identification, selection, appraisal, and synthesis procedures. This approach allowed us to address the non-uniformity and complexity of the PR literature. Each stage of the review involved two independent reviewers and followed a reproducible, systematic coding and retention procedure. Retained studies were completed participatory health interventions, demonstrated high levels of participation by non-academic stakeholders (i.e., excluding studies in which end-users were not involved in co-governing throughout the stages of research) and contained detailed descriptions of the participatory process and context. Retained sets are being mapped and analyzed using realist review methods. RESULTS: The librarian-guided search string yielded 7,167 citations. A total of 594 citations were retained after the identification process. Eighty-three papers remained after selection. Principle Investigators (PIs) were contacted to solicit all companion papers. Twenty-three sets of papers (23 PR studies), comprising 276 publications, passed appraisal and are being synthesized using realist review methods. DISCUSSION: The systematic and stage-based procedure addressed challenges to PR assessment and generated our robust understanding of complex and heterogeneous PR practices. To date, realist reviews have focussed on evaluations of relatively uniform interventions. In contrast our PR search yielded a wide diversity of partnerships and research topics. We therefore developed tools to achieve conceptual clarity on the PR field, as a beneficial precursor to our theoretically-driven synthesis using realist methods. Findings from the ongoing review will be provided in forthcoming publications.

The importance of physician listening from the patients' perspective: enhancing diagnosis, healing, and the doctor-patient relationship.

OBJECTIVE: The research findings reported here describe the importance and various functions of physician listening according to patients. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients of the McGill University Health Centre were interviewed using a qualitative, interpretive design approach. RESULTS: Patients explained why listening was important to them and these findings were organized into three themes: (a) listening as an essential component of clinical data gathering and diagnosis; (b) listening as a healing and therapeutic agent; and (c) listening as a means of fostering and strengthening the doctor-patient relationship. The findings are presented along with a conceptual model on the functions of physician listening. CONCLUSION: Elucidating the multiple functions of listening in the clinical encounter from patient perspectives can assist physicians in improving their listening approach. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: For training purposes, we recommend that a module on listening should lead to a discussion not only about the skill required in listening attentively, but also to the values, beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of physicians who choose to listen to their patients. This teaching objective may be facilitated by future research that explores the concept of 'authenticity' in a physician's listening approach, which we argue is central to successful clinical outcomes.

Evaluation of email alerts in practice: Part 1. Review of the literature on clinical emailing channels.

RATIONALE: Methods to systematically assess electronic knowledge resources by health professionals may enhance evaluation of these resources, knowledge exchange between information users and providers, and continuing professional development. We developed the Information Assessment Method (IAM) to document health professional perspectives on the relevance, cognitive impact, potential use and expected health outcomes of information delivered by (push) or retrieved from (pull) electronic knowledge resources. However, little is known about push communication in health sciences, and what we propose to call clinical emailing channels (CECs). CECs can be understood as a communication infrastructure that channels clinically relevant research knowledge, email alerts, from information providers to the inboxes of individual practitioners. AIMS: In two companion papers, our objectives are to (part 1) explore CEC evaluation in routine practice, and (part 2) examine the content validity of the cognitive component of IAM. METHODS: The present paper (part 1) critically reviews the literature in health sciences and four disciplines: communication, information studies, education and knowledge translation. Our review addresses the following questions. What are CECs? How are they assessed? RESULTS: The review contributes to better define CECs, and proposes a 'push-pull-acquisition-cognition-application' evaluation framework, which is operationalized by IAM. CONCLUSION: Compared with existing evaluation tools, our review suggests IAM is comprehensive, generic and systematic.

Patients' perspectives on physicians' roles: implications for curricular reform.

PURPOSE: To elucidate the perspectives of patients on the conceptual framework for a new undergraduate medical curriculum organized around the healer and professional roles of the physician (their physicianship), and to illustrate how these perspectives can affect program development. METHOD: In 2006, using an adapted interpretive description design and semistructured interviews, the authors collected data from a sample of 58 patients receiving care in a major academic medical center. RESULTS: Three findings were particularly salient. (1) The concepts of the physician as healer and professional, although central to the curriculum, did not resonate strongly with patients. The words professionalism and healer occasionally accrued negative connotations. There was little concordance between the lexicon patients use to describe ideal physician behaviors and a faculty-defined list of core physicianship attributes. (2) The listening skills of physicians were highly valued and seen as an "essentia" of ideal doctoring. (3) Being treated as a number by physicians represented a threat to patients' personal identity. CONCLUSIONS: This study found important differences between patients' and physicians' perspectives on key curricular concepts. Understanding these differences represents an important resource for program design and development. The findings also suggest avenues for future research on highly topical issues such as professionalism.