Population-based integrated care funding values and guiding principles: An empirical qualitative study.

There is wide agreement on the benefits of integrated care; yet funding barriers persist. We suggest that funding models could currently hinder quality of care and that identifying values is necessary to designing adequate funding models. Yet it is currently unclear what are these values that ought to shape healthcare policy decisions. To fill in this gap, we conducted semi-structure interviews with fourteen health policy officials, managers, and researchers to elicit and explore how they conceptualize the values and guiding principles underlying these funding policies. Our findings suggest that values guide population-based integrated funding models, namely: accountability & integrity, transparency, equity, and innovation. Overall, funding mechanisms could incentivize integrated population-based care when the following conditions are met: a) there is transparent governance, with a whole-system approach, political will, and engagement and collaboration across health system partners, organizations and institutions, b) regulatory and evaluative frameworks support accountability including in decision-making, in outcomes and quality of care, as well as financial accountability; c) funding is equitable with a fair distribution of resources and supports accessibility to services; and d) funding mechanisms design and implementation include innovation enabling change, which are continuously evaluated. These values and guiding principles could be used in the development of funding models and future studies need to evaluate the effect of these values on decisions made by policy makers with respect to funding allocations and investments.

Knowledge exchange sessions on primary health care research findings in public libraries: A qualitative study with citizens in Quebec.

Little is known about knowledge transfer with the public. We explored how citizens, physicians, and communication specialists understand knowledge transfer in public spaces such as libraries. The initial study aimed at evaluating the scaling up of a program on disseminating research findings on potentially inappropriate medication. Twenty-two citizen workshops were offered by 16 physicians and facilitated by 6 communication specialists to 322 citizens in libraries during spring 2019. We did secondary analysis using the recorded workshop discussions to explore the type of knowledge participants used. Participants described four kinds of knowledge: biomedical, sociocultural beliefs, value-based reasoning, and institutional knowledge. Biomedical knowledge included scientific evidence, research methods, clinical guidelines, and access to research outcomes. Participants discussed beliefs in scientific progress, innovative clinical practices, and doctors' behaviours. Participants discussed values related to reliability, transparency, respect for patient autonomy and participation in decision-making. All categories of participants used these four kinds of knowledge. However, their descriptions varied particularly for biomedical knowledge which was described by physician-speakers and communication specialists-facilitators as scientific evidence, epidemiological and clinical practice guidelines, and pathophysiological theories. Communication specialists-facilitators also described scientific journalistic sources and scientific journalistic reports as proxies of scientific evidence. Citizens described biomedical knowledge in terms of knowledge to make informed decisions. These findings offer insights for future scientific knowledge exchange interventions with the public.

Hospital funding reforms in Canada: a narrative review of Ontario and Quebec strategies.

BACKGROUND: In the early 2000s, Ontario and Quebec, two provinces of Canada, began to introduce hospital payment reforms to improve quality and access to care. This paper (1) critically reviews patient-based funding (PBF) implementation approaches used by Quebec and Ontario over 15 years, and (2) identifies factors that support or limit PBF implementation to inform future decisions regarding the use of PBF models in both provinces. METHODS: We adopted a narrative review approach to document and critically analyse Quebec and Ontario experiences with the implementation of patient-based funding. We searched for documents in the scientific and grey literature and contacted key stakeholders to identify relevant policy documents. RESULTS: Both provinces targeted similar hospital services-aligned with nationwide policy goals-fulfilling in part patient-based funding programmes' objectives. We identified four factors that played a role in ensuring the successful-or not-implementation of these strategies: (1) adoption supports, (2) alignment with programme objectives, (3) funding incentives and (4) stakeholder engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides lessons in the complexity of implementing hospital payment reforms. Implementation is enabled by adoption supports and funding incentives that align with policy objectives and by engaging stakeholders in the design of incentives.

Evidence on scaling in health and social care: protocol for a living umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in scaling effective health innovations to promote equitable access to high-quality health services worldwide. However, multiple challenges persist in scaling innovations. In this study, we aim to summarize the scaling evidence in the health and social care literature and identify current knowledge gaps. METHODS: We will conduct a living umbrella review according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual. We will consider all knowledge syntheses addressing scaling in health or social care (e.g., any setting, any clinical area) and conducted in a systematic way. We will search the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, PsychINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Sociological Abstract (Proquest), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), and Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global, from inception. Furthermore, we will conduct searches of the grey literature. No restriction regarding date or language will be applied. Each phase of the review will be processed by two independent reviewers. We will develop a data extraction form on Covidence. We will assess the methodological quality of the included reviews using AMSTAR2 and the risk of bias using ROBIS. Results will be presented in tabular form and accompanied by a narrative synthesis covering the traditional themes of scaling science that emerge from the analysis, such as coverage, range, and sustainability, as well as themes less covered in the literature, including reporting guidance, models, tools, barriers, and/or facilitators to scaling innovations, evidence regarding application in high-income or low-income countries, and end-user engagement. We will disseminate the findings via publications and through relevant networks. DISCUSSION: The findings of the umbrella review will facilitate access to scaling evidence in the literature and help strengthen the science of scaling for researchers, policy makers, and program managers. Finally, this work will highlight important knowledge gaps and help prioritize future research questions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on November 11, 2020 (registration number: CRD42020183774 ).

Economic evaluations of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Scaling science aims to help roll out evidence-based research results on a wide scale to benefit more individuals. Yet, little is known on how to evaluate economic aspects of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on systematic reviews, we will conduct a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied in economic evaluations in scaling up strategies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must include a scaling up strategy of an evidence-based health intervention delivered and received by any individual or organisation in any country and setting. They must report costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We will consider full or partial economic evaluations, modelling and methodological studies. We searched peer-reviewed publications in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception onwards. We will search grey literature from international organisations, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancy firms websites and region-specific databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the records against the eligibility criteria and extract data using a pretested extraction form. We will extract data on study characteristics, scaling up strategies, economic evaluation methods and their components. We will appraise the methodological quality of included studies using the BMJ Checklist. We will narratively summarise the studies' descriptive characteristics, methodological strengths/weaknesses and the main drivers of cost-effectiveness outcomes. This study will help identify what are the trade-offs of scaling up evidence-based interventions to allocate resources efficiently. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal and presented at national and international conferences.

Patient values and preferences regarding VTE disease: a systematic review to inform American Society of Hematology guidelines.

Values and preferences relate to the importance that patients place on health outcomes (eg, bleeding, having a deep venous thrombosis) and are essential when weighing benefits and harms in guideline recommendations. To inform the American Society of Hematology guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) disease, we conducted a systematic review of patients' values and preferences related to VTE. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to April of 2018 (PROSPERO-CRD42018094003). We included quantitative and qualitative studies. We followed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance for rating the certainty and presenting findings for quantitative research about the relative importance of health outcomes and a grounded theory approach for qualitative thematic synthesis. We identified 14 quantitative studies (2465 participants) describing the relative importance of VTE-related health states in a widely diverse population of patients, showing overall small to important impact on patients' lives (certainty of the evidence from low to moderate). Additionally, evidence from 34 quantitative studies (6424 participants) and 15 qualitative studies (570 participants) revealed that patients put higher value on VTE risk reduction than on the potential harms of the treatment (certainty of evidence from low to moderate). Studies also suggested a clear preference for oral medication over subcutaneous medication (moderate certainty). The observed variability in health state values may be a result of differences in the approaches used to elicit them and the diversity of included populations rather than true variability in values. This finding highlights the necessity to explore the variability induced by different approaches to ascertain values.

Diet modification challenges faced by marginalized and nonmarginalized adults with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.

Objectives Diet modification is an important part of the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes, but sustained dietary change remains elusive for many individuals. This paper describes and interprets the barriers to diet modification from the perspective of people with type 2 diabetes, paying particular attention to the experiences of people who experience social marginalization. Methods A systematic review of primary, empirical qualitative research was performed, capturing 120 relevant studies published between 2002 and 2015. Qualitative meta-synthesis was used to provide an integrative analysis of this knowledge. Results Due to the central role of food in social life, dietary change affects all aspects of a person's life, and barriers related to self-discipline, emotions, family and social support, social significance of food, and knowledge were identified. These barriers are inter-linked and overlapping. Social marginalization magnifies barriers; people who face social marginalization are trying to make the same changes as other people with diabetes with fewer socio-material resources in the face of greater challenges. Discussion A social-ecological model of behavior supports our findings of challenges at all levels, and highlights the need for interventions and counseling strategies that address the social and environmental factors that shape and sustain dietary change.

Patient Perspectives on Quality of Life With Uncontrolled Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with uncontrolled type 1 diabetes mellitus may be candidates for pancreatic islet cell transplantation. This report synthesizes qualitative research on how patients with uncontrolled type 1 diabetes perceive their quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to examine the perceptions of patients with uncontrolled type 1 diabetes on how it affects their lived experience and quality of life. DATA SOURCES: This report synthesizes 31 primary qualitative studies to examine quality of life from the perspectives of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and their families or partners. REVIEW METHODS: We performed a qualitative meta-synthesis to integrate findings across primary research studies. RESULTS: Long- and short-term negative consequences of uncontrolled type 1 diabetes affect all aspects of patients' lives: physical, emotional, practical, and social. The effect on each domain is far-reaching, and effects interact across domains. Uncontrolled blood sugar levels lead to substantial psychological distress, negative moods, cognitive difficulties, irritable or aggressive behaviour, and closely associated problems with relationships, self-image, and confidence. Emotional distress is pervasive and under-addressed by health care providers. Patients live in fear of complications from diabetes over the long term. In the shorter term, they are anxious about the personal, social, and professional consequences of hypoglycemic episodes (e.g., injury, humiliation), and may curtail normal activities such as driving or socializing because they are worried about having an episode. The quality of life for patients' family members is also negatively impacted by uncontrolled type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Uncontrolled type 1 diabetes has significant negative impacts on the quality of life of both people with the disease and their families.

Type 2 diabetes patients' and providers' differing perspectives on medication nonadherence: a qualitative meta-synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to medication regimens increases adverse outcomes for patients with Type 2 diabetes. Improving medication adherence is a growing priority for clinicians and health care systems. We examine the differences between patient and provider understandings of barriers to medication adherence for Type 2 diabetes patients. METHODS: We searched systematically for empirical qualitative studies on the topic of barriers to medication adherence among Type 2 diabetes patients published between 2002-2013; 86 empirical qualitative studies qualified for inclusion. Following qualitative meta-synthesis methods, we coded and analyzed thematically the findings from studies, integrating and comparing findings across studies to yield a synthetic interpretation and new insights from this body of research. RESULTS: We identify 7 categories of barriers: (1) emotional experiences as positive and negative motivators to adherence, (2) intentional non-compliance, (3) patient-provider relationship and communication, (4) information and knowledge, (5) medication administration, (6) social and cultural beliefs, and (7) financial issues. Patients and providers express different understandings of what patients require to improve adherence. Health beliefs, life context and lay understandings all inform patients' accounts. They describe barriers in terms of difficulties adapting medication regimens to their lifestyles and daily routines. In contrast, providers' understandings of patients poor medication adherence behaviors focus on patients' presumed needs for more information about the physiological and biomedical aspect of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights key discrepancies between patients' and providers' understandings of barriers to medication adherence. These misunderstandings span the many cultural and care contexts represented by 86 qualitative studies. Counseling and interventions aimed at improving medication adherence among Type 2 diabetes might become more effective through better integration of the patient's perspective and values concerning adherence difficulties and solutions.