An evaluation of a public partnership project between academic institutions and young people with Black African, Asian and Caribbean heritage.

BACKGROUND: This project (named Reinvent) aimed to promote Public Involvement (PI) in health research. Academics worked with a community group, the Eloquent Praise & Empowerment Dance Company, to develop a community partnership with young people from Black African, Asian and Caribbean heritage communities. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the Reinvent project for key learnings on how to engage and build partnerships with young people from Black African, Asian and Caribbean heritage communities. METHODS: Reinvent developed a steering group which consisted of five young people, one academic, a Race Equality Ambassador and the Director of Eloquent. The steering group co-produced an agenda for two workshops and the evaluation tools used. The content of the workshops included drama exercises, discussions on physical and mental health, nutrition and school-life, short introductions to the concepts of research and PI, and group work to critique and improve a video currently used to promote PI in health research to young people. The evaluation tools included using the 'Cube' evaluation framework, video-blogging and collecting anonymous feedback. Findings The responses to the 'Cube' evaluation framework were positive across all four domains (agenda, voice, contribute change) in both workshops. A few of the young people described having a better understanding of the meaning and practice of PI in a video-blog. The anonymous feedback suggested that the workshops had increased young people's confidence in sharing their thoughts and opinions about health and PI. CONCLUSION: Reinvent has shown that academic institutions and young people from an under-served community can partner to co-design workshops and apply evaluation tools. Working with young people in an environment in which they were comfortable, and by researchers joining in with the activities that the young people enjoyed (such as dance), enabled more informal and open conversations to develop. More work is needed to build upon this project so that young people can feel confident and supported to get involved in PI activities relating to research.

Weights, resistance bands, and rest days are best for tendinopathy.

The studyPavlova AV, Shim JSC, Moss R, et al. Effect of resistance exercise dose components for tendinopathy management: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2023;57:1327-34.To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/weights-resistance-bands-rest-days-best-tendinopathy/.

How common are side effects of treatment to prevent gout flares when starting allopurinol?

The studyRoddy E, Bajpai R, Forrester H, et al. Safety of colchicine and NSAID prophylaxis when initiating urate-lowering therapy for gout: propensity score-matched cohort studies in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Ann Rheum Dis 2023;82:1618-25.To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/how-common-are-side-effects-of-treatment-to-prevent-gout-flares-when-starting-allopurinol/.

Even short periods of diabetes remission are linked to lower risk of heart attack and stroke.

The studyDambha-Miller H, Hounkpatin HO, Stuart B, Farmer A, Griffin S. Type 2 diabetes remission trajectories and variation in risk of diabetes complications: a population-based cohort study. PLoS ONE 2023;18. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290791To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/even-short-periods-of-diabetes-remission-are-linked-to-lower-risk-of-heart-attack-and-stroke/.

Optimising the implementation of evidence-based osteoarthritis guidelines in primary care: Development of a Knowledge Mobilisation Toolkit.

OBJECTIVE: Implementing clinical guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care is complex. Whilst international guidelines detail what best practice for OA looks like, little is known about how this is best implemented. Limited resources are available to guideline developers, practitioners, researchers, or the public to facilitate implementation. Set in the context of a larger research project which sought to understand the factors that influence knowledge mobilisation (KM) in implementation for OA guidelines, this study reports the development of a toolkit to optimise KM for the implementation of evidence-based OA guidelines in primary care. DESIGN: Triangulation of three qualitative data sets was conducted, followed by a stakeholder consensus exercise. Public contributors were involved in dedicated meetings (n = 3) to inform the content, design, and KM plans for the toolkit. RESULTS: From data triangulation, 53 key findings were identified, which were refined into 30 draft recommendation statements, within six domains: approaches to KM; the knowledge mobiliser role; understanding context; implementation planning; the nature of the intervention; and appealing to a range of priorities. Stakeholder voting (n = 27) demonstrated consensus with the recommendations and informed the wording of the final toolkit. CONCLUSIONS: Factors that optimise KM for OA guideline implementation in primary care were identified. Empirical data, practice-based evidence, implementation practice, and stakeholder (including patient and public) engagement have informed a toolkit comprising several overarching principles of KM, which are suitable for use in primary care. Consideration of equitable access when implementing evidence-based OA care among diverse populations is recommended when using the toolkit. Further research is needed to evaluate the toolkit's utility and transferability.

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 4: Maximising the benefits of involving the public in research implementation.

This final article in the four-part series focuses on the often neglected yet important role of the public in implementing research in General Practice and Primary Care more broadly. Experience in implementation of findings from research with public engagement in Primary Care has highlighted how partnership working with patients and the public is important in transitioning from 'what we know' from the evidence-base to 'what we do' in practice. Factors related to Primary Care research that make public engagement important are highlighted e.g. implementing complex interventions, implementing interventions that increase health equity, implementing interventions in countries with different primary healthcare system strengths. Involvement of patients and public can enhance the development of modelling and simulation included in studies on systems modelling for improving health services. We draw on the emerging evidence base to describe public engagement in implementation and offer some guiding principles for engaging with the public in the implementation in General Practice and Primary Care in general. Illustrative case studies are included to support others wishing to offer meaningful engagement in implementing research evidence.

Implementation of physical activity interventions for people with inflammatory arthritis: an overview and future recommendations.

Regular physical activity is important for both physical and mental health. This is particularly important for people with inflammatory arthritis, because of the benefits on both disease-specific and systemic outcomes and the increased risk of comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease. Despite a wealth of evidence supporting physical activity interventions, there remains a significant gap in implementation into routine care. This overview describes what implementation is, examines why it is important to consider implementation approaches to improve uptake of physical activity, highlights factors that influence successful implementation using exemplars from both osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis and recommends where future research is needed.

Optimising the process of knowledge mobilisation in Communities of Practice: recommendations from a (multi-method) qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Communities of Practice (CoPs) offer a strategy for mobilising knowledge and integrating evidence-based interventions into musculoskeletal practice, yet little is known about their practical application in this context. This study aimed to (i) explore the process of knowledge mobilisation in the context of a CoP to implement evidence-based interventions in musculoskeletal care and (ii) co-develop recommendations to optimise the process of knowledge mobilisation in CoPs. METHODS: A qualitative study comprising observation of a CoP and related planning meetings (n = 5), and interviews with CoP stakeholders (including clinicians, lay members, managers, commissioners, academics) (n = 15) was undertaken. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and interpreted considering the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services theory. Public contributors were collaboratively involved at key stages of the study. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: identifying and interpreting knowledge, practical implementation of a CoP, culture and relationship building, and responding to the external context. Resource and infrastructure enabled the set-up, delivery and running of the CoP. Support for lay members is recommended to ensure effective participation and equity of power. CoP aims and purpose can develop iteratively, and this may enhance the ability to respond to contextual changes. Several recommendations for the practical application of CoPs are suggested to create the best environment for knowledge exchange and creation, support an equitable platform for participation, and help members to navigate and make sense of the CoP in a flexible way. CONCLUSION: This study identified how a CoP with diverse membership can promote partnership working at the intersection between knowledge and practice. Several important considerations for preparing for and operationalising the approach in implementation have been identified. Evaluation of the costs, effectiveness and impact of CoPs is needed to better understand the value added by the approach. More broadly, research is needed to explore the practical application of online CoPs and the role of international CoPs in optimising the uptake of innovations and best practice.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of osteoarthritis management programmes in primary or community care settings: a systematic review and qualitative framework synthesis protocol.

Despite consistent international guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) management, evidence-based treatments are underutilised. OA management programmes (OAMPs) are being implemented internationally to address this evidence-practice gap. An OAMP is defined as a 'model of evidence-based, non-surgical OA care that has been implemented in a real-world setting'. Our objective is to identify, synthesise and appraise qualitative research identifying anticipated or experienced micro (individual/behavioural), meso (organisational) or macro (context/system) level barriers or facilitators to the implementation of primary or community care-based OAMPs. Five electronic databases will be searched for papers published between 2010 and 2021. Qualitative or mixed-methods studies that include qualitative data on the anticipated or experienced barriers or facilitators to the implementation of primary or community care-based OAMPs, from the perspective of service users or service providers, will be included. The review will be reported using the PRISMA and ENTREQ guidelines. A data extraction form will be used to provide details of the included studies. Data will be analysed and identified barriers and facilitators will be mapped onto an appropriate implementation framework, such as the Theoretical Domains Framework. The appropriate JBI critical appraisal tools will be used to assess methodological quality, while the GRADE-CERQual approach will be used to assess confidence in the findings. Translation of evidence-based guidelines into practice is challenging and reliant on the quality of implementation. By comparing and contrasting anticipated and experienced barriers, this review will determine the extent of congruence between the two, and provide valuable insights into the views and experiences of key stakeholders involved in the implementation of OAMPs. The mapping of identified barriers and facilitators to behaviour change theory will enhance the applicability and construct validity of our findings and will offer significant utility for future development and implementation of OAMPs. Registration: This protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021255698) on 15/07/21.

Experience of implementing and delivering group consultations in UK general practice: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Group consultations are a relatively new concept in UK primary care and are a suggested solution to current workload pressures in general practice. Little is known about the experience of implementing and delivering this approach from staff and organisational perspectives. AIM: To explore the experience of implementing and delivering group consultations in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative telephone interview study. METHOD: Topic guides explored the perspectives and experiences of general practice staff on the implementation and delivery of group consultations. Data analysis adopted principles of the Framework Method underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 8 GPs, 8 practice nurses, 1 nurse associate, 1 practice pharmacist, 1 deputy practice manager, and 1 healthcare assistant. Four themes were identified: sense making of group consultations; the work associated with initiating group consultations; the experiences of operationalising group consultations; and sustaining change. Group consultations made sense to participants as a mechanism to reduce burden on primary care, enhance multidisciplinary working, and provide patient-centred care. Implementation required strong leadership from a 'champion', and a facilitator had a pivotal role in operationalising the approach. The associated workload was often underestimated. Barriers to embedding change included achieving whole practice buy-in, competing practice priorities, and system-level flexibility. CONCLUSION: General practice clinicians enjoyed group consultations, yet significant work is required to initiate and sustain the approach. An implementation plan considering leadership, roles and responsibilities, and wider organisational support is required at the outset. Further research or evaluation is needed to measure process outcomes.

Understanding the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care: a qualitative study of knowledge mobilisation using the i-PARIHS framework.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. Despite research supporting best practice, evidence-based guidelines are often not followed. Little is known about the implementation of non-surgical models of care in routine primary care practice. From a knowledge mobilisation perspective, the aim of this study was to understand the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis and explore the journey from a clinical trial to implementation. METHODS: This study used two methods: secondary analysis of focus groups undertaken with general practice staff from the Managing OSteoArthritis in ConsultationS research trial, which investigated the effectiveness of an enhanced osteoarthritis consultation, and interviews with stakeholders from an implementation project which started post-trial following demand from general practices. Data from three focus groups with 21 multi-disciplinary clinical professionals (5-8 participants per group), and 13 interviews with clinical and non-clinical stakeholders, were thematically analysed utilising the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, in a theoretically informative approach. Public contributors were involved in topic guide design and interpretation of results. RESULTS: In operationalising implementation of an innovation for osteoarthritis following a trial, the importance of a whole practice approach, including the opportunity for reflection and planning, were identified. The end of a clinical trial provided opportune timing for facilitating implementation planning. In the context of osteoarthritis in primary care, facilitation by an inter-disciplinary knowledge brokering service, nested within an academic institution, was instrumental in supporting ongoing implementation by providing facilitation, infrastructure and resource to support the workload burden. 'Instinctive facilitation' may involve individuals who do not adopt formal brokering roles or fully recognise their role in mobilising knowledge for implementation. Public contributors and lay communities were not only recipients of healthcare innovations but also potential powerful facilitators of implementation. CONCLUSION: This theoretically informed knowledge mobilisation study into the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care has enabled further characterisation of the facilitation and recipient constructs of i-PARIHS by describing optimum timing for facilitation and roles and characteristics of facilitators.

Factors influencing the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for osteoarthritis in primary care: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of evidence-based health guidelines in primary care is challenging. This systematic review aimed to synthesize qualitative evidence that investigates the factors influencing the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for osteoarthritis in primary care. METHODS: A systematic review of qualitative studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Assia were searched (from 2000 to March 2019). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers. Data were analyzed and synthesized using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: 1612 articles were screened and four articles with a total of 87 participants (46 patients, 28 GPs, 13 practice nurses) were included. Three of the studies were conducted in England within the context of an implementation trial and one was conducted in the Netherlands. The thematic synthesis revealed three overarching themes. Best practice was not enough to achieve 'buy-in' to implementation but a range of tacit motivators to implementation were identified. Healthcare professionals used patient reasons to justify engaging or not engaging with implementation. Engaging with the whole practice was important in achieving implementation. A disconnect between research and 'real-world' primary care practice influenced long-term implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relative paucity of current evidence, this systematic review has identified a series of possible disconnects may impact uptake of interventions to improve osteoarthritis care, existing between clinicians and patients, researchers and clinicians, clinicians and guidelines and within general practice itself. There remains a need to further explore the experiences of key stakeholders, including patients involved in implementation for osteoarthritis in primary care.