Planting the seeds for success: A qualitative study exploring primary healthcare providers' perceptions about medical cannabis.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, cannabis legalization altered the way that the public can access cannabis for medical purposes. However, Canadians still struggle with finding healthcare professionals (HCPs) who are involved in medical cannabis counselling and authorization. This raises questions about the barriers that are causing this breakdown in care. Our study explored the perceptions of primary care providers regarding cannabis in their practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted by Zoom with HCPs in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) to discuss their experiences with medical and non-medical cannabis in practice. Family physicians and nurse practitioners who were practicing in primary care in NL were included. The interview guide and coding template were developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). A thematic analysis across the TDF was then conducted. RESULTS: Twelve participants with diverse demographic backgrounds and experience levels were interviewed. Five main themes emerged including, knowledge acquisition, internal influences, patient influences, external HCP influences, and systemic influences. The TDF domain resulting in the greatest representation of codes was environmental context and resources. INTERPRETATION: The findings suggested that HCPs have significant knowledge gaps in authorizing medical cannabis, which limited their practice competence and confidence in this area. Referring patients to cannabis clinics, while enforcing harm-reduction strategies, was an interim option for patients to access cannabis for medical purposes. However, developing practice guidelines and educational resources were suggested as prominent facilitators to promote medical cannabis authorization within the healthcare system.

A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to "train and educate stakeholders" (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to "develop stakeholder interrelationships" (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.

Barriers and Facilitators to Knowledge Brokering Activities: Perspectives from Knowledge Brokers Working in Canadian Rehabilitation Settings.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge translation experts advocate for employing knowledge brokers (KBs) to promote the uptake of research evidence in health care settings. Yet, no previous research has identified potential barriers for KBs to promote the uptake of research evidence in rehabilitation settings. This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators for KBs in Canadian rehabilitation settings as perceived by individuals serving as KBs. METHODS: Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews with individuals performing KB activities in rehabilitation settings across Canada. The interview topic guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and consisted of 20 questions covering three domains (characteristics of individuals, inner setting, and outer settings). We conducted qualitative descriptive analysis combining deductive coding guided by the CFIR. RESULTS: Characteristics of individuals included having communication skills, clinical experience, research skills, and interpersonal features, in addition to being confident and motivated and receiving training. The inner setting domain included having constant networking with stakeholders and being aware of stakeholders' needs, in addition to resources availability, leadership engagement, knowledge accessibility, prioritizing brokering activities, and monitoring KBs' performance. Finally, the outer setting domain showed that KBs need to be connected to a community of practice to promote information exchange and avoid work duplications. DISCUSSION: Factors likely to hinder or promote the optimal use of KBs within Canadian rehabilitation settings include skill sets and networking abilities; organizational culture, resources, and leadership engagement; and the need for specific training for KBs and for evaluation tools to monitor their performance.

Challenges and Strategies for Improving COPD Primary Care Services in Quebec: Results of the Experience of the COMPAS+ Quality Improvement Collaborative.

INTRODUCTION: Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a challenge in primary care and multiple barriers can limit implementation of COPD guidelines. Since 2016, a quality improvement (QI) collaborative, called COMPAS+, has been implemented across the province of Quebec (Canada) to support improvement of chronic disease management in primary care. The aim of this study was to describe the main COPD quality problems reported by participating teams and the strategies they proposed and implemented to improve COPD primary care services in Quebec. METHODS: Sixteen sites in four different regions of Quebec were engaged in the COMPAS+ intervention to improve primary care services delivered to people living with COPD. A total of 14 workshop reports, 31 QI action plans and 4 regional final reports underwent content analysis. Key COPD quality problems were first identified and, for each of them, root causes were classified according to the domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Proposed strategies were organized according to the intervention function types described in the Behavior Change Wheel. RESULTS: Four key COPD quality problems were identified: 1) lack of organization/coordination of COPD services, 2) lack of screening services coordination, 3) lack of interprofessional communication and collaboration and 4) lack of treatment adherence. Main root causes explaining these quality gaps were 1) lack of awareness of COPD, 2) lack of professional knowledge, 3) lack of definition of professional roles, 4) lack of resources and tools for COPD prevention, diagnosis, and follow-up, 5) lack of communication tools, 6) lack of integration of the patient-as-partner approach, and 7) lack of adaptation of patient education to their specific needs. Multiple strategies were proposed to improve healthcare professionals' education and interprofessional collaboration and communication. CONCLUSION: QI collaborative activities can support achieving understanding of QI challenges healthcare organizations face to improve COPD services.

Profiling knowledge brokers in the rehabilitation sector across Canada: A descriptive study.

RATIONALE: Knowledge brokers (KBs) can help promote the uptake of the latest research evidence into clinical practice. Little is known about who they are, the types of roles they perform, and the training they receive. Establishing a portrait of Canadian KBs working in the rehabilitation sector may inform health care organizations and knowledge translation specialists on how best to advance KBs practices. The overall goal was to describe the profile of KBs working to promote the uptake of evidence within rehabilitation settings in Canada. Specifically, this study aimed to describe the sociodemographic and professional characteristics, work activities, and training of KBs. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was administered to KBs working in rehabilitation settings across Canada. The survey included 20 questions covering sociodemographic and professional characteristics, work activities, and training opportunities. Response frequency and percentage were calculated for all categorical variables, and the weighted average (WA) for each role was calculated across participants. Descriptive analysis was conducted for all open-ended questions. RESULTS: Of 475 participants accessing the website, 198 completed the survey questionnaire, including 99 clinicians, 35 researchers, and 26 managers. While over two-thirds of respondents had completed a graduate degree, only 38% reported receiving KBs-related training. The respondents' primary roles corresponded to a linking agent (WA = 1.84), followed by capacity builder (WA = 1.76), information manager (WA = 1.71), facilitator (WA = 1.41), and evaluator (WA = 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: KBs are mostly expert clinicians who tend to perform brokering activities part-time targeting their peers. Participants mostly perform the linking agent, capacity builder, and information roles. Moreover, only a few participants received formal training to perform brokering activities.

Nationwide Environmental Scan of Knowledge Brokers Training.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge brokers (KBs) can promote the uptake of best practice guidelines in rehabilitation. Although many institutions offer training opportunities to health care professionals who wish to undertake KBs roles, the characteristics and content of those educational training opportunities (ETOs) are currently unknown. This study aimed to describe the ETOs available to rehabilitation professionals in Canada and determine whether the ETOs meet the competencies expected of the KBs roles. METHODS: We conducted a Canada-wide environmental scan to identify ETOs using three strategies: online search, phone calls, and snowball. To be included in the study, ETOs had to be offered to rehabilitation professionals in Canada and be targeting KBs competencies and/or roles. We mapped each of the content to the KBs competencies (knowledge and skills) within the five roles of KBs: information manager, linking agent, capacity builder, facilitator, and evaluator. RESULTS: A total of 51 ETOs offered in three Canadian provinces, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, were included in the analysis. For KBs competencies, 76% of ETOs equipped attendees with research skills, 55% with knowledge brokering skills, and 53% with knowledge on implementation science. For KBs roles, over 60% of ETOs supported attendees to in performing the capacity builder role and 39% the evaluator role. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that ETOs focused primarily on preparing participants with the research and knowledge brokering skills required to perform the capacity builder and evaluator roles. Comprehensive educational training covering all KBs roles and competencies are needed.

Hospital-at-Home Interventions vs In-Hospital Stay for Patients With Chronic Disease Who Present to the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Hospitalizations are costly and may lead to adverse events; hospital-at-home interventions could be a substitute for in-hospital stays, particularly for patients with chronic diseases who use health services more than other patients. Despite showing promising results, heterogeneity in past systematic reviews remains high. Objective: To systematically review and assess the association between patient outcomes and hospital-at-home interventions as a substitute for in-hospital stay for community-dwelling patients with a chronic disease who present to the emergency department and are offered at least 1 home visit from a nurse and/or physician. Data Sources: Databases were searched from date of inception to March 4, 2019. The databases were Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, CINAHL, Health Technology Assessment, the Cochrane Library, OVID Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials in which the experimental group received hospital-at-home interventions and the control group received the usual in-hospital care. Patients were 18 years or older with a chronic disease who presented to the emergency department and received home visits from a nurse or physician. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Risk of bias was assessed, and a meta-analysis was conducted for outcomes that were reported by at least 2 studies using comparable measures. Risk ratios (RRs) were reported for binary outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes. Narrative synthesis was performed for other outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were patient outcomes, which included mortality, long-term care admission, readmission, length of treatment, out-of-pocket costs, depression and anxiety, quality of life, patient satisfaction, caregiver stress, cognitive status, nutrition, morbidity due to hospitalization, functional status, and neurological deficits. Results: Nine studies were included, providing data on 959 participants (median age, 71.0 years [interquartile range, 70.0-79.9 years]; 613 men [63.9%]; 346 women [36.1%]). Mortality did not differ between the hospital-at-home and the in-hospital care groups (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61-1.15; I2 = 0%). Risk of readmission was lower (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.95; I2 = 31%) and length of treatment was longer in the hospital-at-home group than in the in-hospital group (mean difference, 5.45 days; 95% CI, 1.91-8.97 days; I2 = 87%). In addition, the hospital-at-home group had a lower risk of long-term care admission than the in-hospital care group (RR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.74; I2 = 0%). Patients who received hospital-at-home interventions had lower depression and anxiety than those who remained in-hospital, but there was no difference in functional status. Other patient outcomes showed mixed results. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that hospital-at-home interventions represent a viable substitute to an in-hospital stay for patients with chronic diseases who present to the emergency department and who have at least 1 visit from a nurse or physician. Although the heterogeneity of the findings remained high for some outcomes, particularly for length of treatment, the heterogeneity of this study was comparable to that of past reviews and further explored.

Determinants that influence knowledge brokers' and opinion leaders' role to close knowledge practice gaps in rehabilitation: A realist review.

RATIONALE: Despite the available evidence to support optimal practices in rehabilitation, significant knowledge practice gaps persist. Opinion leaders (OLs) and knowledge brokers (KBs) can enhance the success of knowledge translation (KT) interventions and improve uptake of best practices among clinicians. However, the literature on the mechanisms underpinning OLs'/KBs' activities, and guidance on the type of support needed for successful implementation of these roles in rehabilitation contexts is scarce. This research aimed to highlight the differences and similarities between OLs and KBs with respect to context, mechanism, and outcomes as well as describe the common patterns of OLs and KBs by creating a context-mechanism-outcomes configuration. METHODS: We conducted a realist review to synthesize the available evidence on OLs/KBs as active KT strategies. A search was conducted across five databases up to November 2019. Two independent reviewers extracted the data using a structured form. A context-mechanism-outcome configuration was used to conceptualize a cumulative portrait of the features of OLs/KBs roles. RESULTS: The search identified 3282 titles after removing duplicates. Seventeen studies (reported in 20 articles) were included in the review. Findings suggest a number of desirable features of OLs/KBs roles that may maximize the achievement of targeted outcomes namely being (a) embedded within their organization as "insiders"; (b) adequately skilled to perform their role; (c) identified as able to fulfil the role; (d) appropriately trained; and (e) able to use different KT interventions. CONCLUSION: Findings of this realist review converge to create a context-mechanism-outcomes configuration with suggestions to optimally utilize OLs/KBs in rehabilitation. The configurations suggest desirable features that can lead to a greater potential to achieve targeted goals. It is preferable that OLs/KBs be embedded in the organization and that they are adequately skilful and well-trained. Also, OLs/KBs should perform the required roles using KT interventions adapted to the local context.