The effectiveness of knowledge-sharing techniques and approaches in research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR): a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR), funds, enables and delivers world-leading health and social care research to improve people's health and wellbeing. To achieve this aim, effective knowledge sharing (two-way knowledge sharing between researchers and stakeholders to create new knowledge and enable change in policy and practice) is needed. To date, it is not known which knowledge sharing techniques and approaches are used or how effective these are in creating new knowledge that can lead to changes in policy and practice in NIHR funded studies. METHODS: In this restricted systematic review, electronic databases [MEDLINE, The Health Management Information Consortium (including the Department of Health's Library and Information Services and King's Fund Information and Library Services)] were searched for published NIHR funded studies that described knowledge sharing between researchers and other stakeholders. One researcher performed title and abstract, full paper screening and quality assessment (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist) with a 20% sample independently screened by a second reviewer. A narrative synthesis was adopted. RESULTS: In total 9897 records were identified. After screening, 17 studies were included. Five explicit forms of knowledge sharing studies were identified: embedded models, knowledge brokering, stakeholder engagement and involvement of non-researchers in the research or service design process and organisational collaborative partnerships between universities and healthcare organisations. Collectively, the techniques and approaches included five types of stakeholders and worked with them at all stages of the research cycle, except the stage of formation of the research design and preparation of funding application. Seven studies (using four of the approaches) gave examples of new knowledge creation, but only one study (using an embedded model approach) gave an example of a resulting change in practice. The use of a theory, model or framework to explain the knowledge sharing process was identified in six studies. CONCLUSIONS: Five knowledge sharing techniques and approaches were reported in the included NIHR funded studies, and seven studies identified the creation of new knowledge. However, there was little investigation of the effectiveness of these approaches in influencing change in practice or policy.

Community case management and unplanned hospital admissions in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to describe case management as experienced by patients with heart failure and their health professionals with the aim of understanding why case management might contribute in reducing hospital admissions. BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a common cause of unplanned hospital admission. The evidence for case management in patients with heart failure for reducing admissions is promising. DESIGN: Systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. DATA SOURCE: Searches were conducted in Medline, Psychinfo, Kings Fund database and Cinahl from inception of each database to 16 February 2017. REVIEW METHODS: Robust systematic review methodology was used to identify qualitative studies describing the experiences of patients with heart failure and healthcare providers of case management. Data were synthesized thematically, and analytic themes were developed. FINDINGS: Five studies (six papers) from which nine descriptive themes were used to determine three analytic themes. This synthesis showed that case management provides positive quality of care for patients, increases perceived access to services and creates more time to ask questions and develop trusted relationships. For health professionals, case management enhanced care by improved relationships with both patients and colleagues although concerns remained around resources, training and inter-professional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: This synthesis emphasizes the importance of the quality of being cared for as a patient and caring as a health professional. Case management enhances communication between patients and health professionals, supports patient self-care and self-management and can be an important contributing factor in reducing unplanned admissions for patients with heart failure.

Supportive care for men with prostate cancer: why are the trials not working? A systematic review and recommendations for future trials.

Men with prostate cancer are likely to have a long illness and experience psychological distress for which supportive care may be helpful. This systematic review describes the evidence for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of supportive care for men with prostate cancer, taking into account treatment pathway and components of interventions. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Psychinfo were searched from inception--July 2013 for randomized controlled trials and controlled trials. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Twenty-six studies were included (2740 participants). Interventions were delivered pre and during (n = 12), short-term (n = 8), and longer term (18 months) (n = 5) after primary treatment. No interventions were delivered beyond this time. Few trials recruited ethnic minorities and none recruited men in same sex relationships. Intervention components included information, education, health professional discussion, homework, peer discussion, buddy support, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive restructuring, psychoeducation, Reiki and relaxation. Most interventions were delivered for 5-10 weeks. Risk of bias of trials was assessed as unclear for most domains due to lack of information. The majority of trials measuring quality of life and depression found no effect. Relatively few trials measured anxiety, coping skills and self-efficacy, and the majority found no effect. No cost data were available. Trials of supportive care for men with prostate cancer cover a range of interventions but are limited by population diversity, inconsistent measurement and reporting of outcomes, and inability to assess risk of bias. Recommendations on design and conduct of future trials are presented.