Patient-shared knowledge and information in clinical decision-making: an international survey of the perspectives and experiences of naturopathic practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: Most knowledge translation models pay relatively little attention to patient-held knowledge and are largely based on the premise that researchers and clinicians hold all valuable knowledge, and patients are passive recipients of such knowledge. Counter to this clinician- and researcher-centred lens is a growing interest and awareness of patients as experts in their health. While naturopathic medicine is described and experienced as a patient-centred system of traditional medicine, the position of patient-held knowledge is unclear particularly when considered alongside their use of other more objective forms of knowledge such as research evidence. METHODS: This international online cross-sectional survey aimed to explore naturopathic practitioners' perceptions of the value and contribution of patient-shared knowledge and information within the context of naturopathic clinical consultations. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 453 naturopathic practitioners (response rate: 74.3%). Approximately two-thirds (68.2%) of respondents reported using information shared by the patient. Most rated 'information provided by the patient' as either 'extremely important' (60.7%) or 'very important' (31.4%) to patients. Highest levels of trust were reported for information provided by the patient ('completely': 9.9%; 'a lot': 53.6%). Most practitioners indicated they trusted knowledge and information derived from the patient's personal health history 'completely' (n = 79; 21.8%) or 'a lot' (n = 226; 62.4%) from the patient's perspective of living with a health condition ('completely' [n = 63, 17.4%]; 'a lot' [n = 224, 61.9%]). Patients were the highest ranked stakeholder group (mean: 1.5) perceived to influence NP use of patient experience of living with a health condition to inform clinical decision-making. CONCLUSION: Researchers and policy makers are increasingly focused on the value of the 'expert patient' in clinical decision-making, yet health professionals' report challenges and, in some cases, resistance to meaningfully engaging with patient-shared knowledge in practice. However, our study has found patient-shared knowledge - inclusive of patient experience of their health condition - is among the knowledge used and trusted by naturopathic practitioners to inform their clinical decision-making. This study both offers insights into the knowledge translation behaviours of an under-researched health profession and provides a novel contribution to the wider aim of adopting patient-shared knowledge into clinical care more generally.

Explaining variable effects of an adaptable implementation package to promote evidence-based practice in primary care: a longitudinal process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based recommendations is challenging in UK primary care, especially given system pressures and multiple guideline recommendations competing for attention. Implementation packages that can be adapted and hence applied to target multiple guideline recommendations could offer efficiencies for recommendations with common barriers to achievement. We developed and evaluated a package of evidence-based interventions (audit and feedback, educational outreach and reminders) incorporating behaviour change techniques to target common barriers, in two pragmatic trials for four "high impact" indicators: risky prescribing; diabetes control; blood pressure control; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. We observed a significant, cost-effective reduction in risky prescribing but there was insufficient evidence of effect on the other outcomes. We explored the impact of the implementation package on both social processes (Normalisation Process Theory; NPT) and hypothesised determinants of behaviour (Theoretical Domains Framework; TDF). METHODS: We conducted a prospective multi-method process evaluation. Observational, administrative and interview data collection and analyses in eight primary care practices were guided by NPT and TDF. Survey data from trial and process evaluation practices explored fidelity. RESULTS: We observed three main patterns of variation in how practices responded to the implementation package. First, in integration and achievement, the package "worked" when it was considered distinctive and feasible. Timely feedback directed at specific behaviours enabled continuous goal setting, action and review, which reinforced motivation and collective action. Second, impacts on team-based determinants were limited, particularly when the complexity of clinical actions impeded progress. Third, there were delivery delays and unintended consequences. Delays in scheduling outreach further reduced ownership and time for improvement. Repeated stagnant or declining feedback that did not reflect effort undermined engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Variable integration within practice routines and organisation of care, variable impacts on behavioural determinants, and delays in delivery and unintended consequences help explain the partial success of an adaptable package in primary care.

Naturopaths' mobilisation of knowledge and information in clinical practice: an international cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The contemporary evidence-based practice model acknowledges the importance of patient preferences and clinician experience when applying evidence within a clinical setting. Knowledge mobilisation (KM) acknowledges the complexities of knowledge translation by recognising and respecting diversity in types of knowledge and how such diversity can influence health care and health care choices. While there has been considerable discussion on KM in health care, it has received little attention in the field of naturopathy. Despite naturopathy's widespread international use, it is unclear how naturopathic practitioners (NPs) use and share knowledge and information in clinical practice. This study examines the mobilisation of knowledge amongst NPs internationally. METHODS: Online, international, cross-sectional survey of a self-selected sample of NPs from any country, that were either currently in clinical practice or had been in practice within the previous 12 months. The survey was administered in five languages (English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, German). Descriptive statistics were prepared for all survey items. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 478 NPs who reported using an average of seven (median = 7, SD = 2.6) information sources to inform patient care. NPs also drew on knowledge gained through patients sharing their perspectives of living with their health condition (Always/Most of the time: 89.3%). They mostly sought knowledge about how a treatment might benefit a patient, as well as knowledge about treatment safety and a better understanding of a patient's health condition. NPs frequently reported sharing knowledge developed through consideration of the patient's unique needs (83.3%), and primarily shared knowledge by producing information for the public (72.6%) and for patients (72.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, it may be argued that NPs practice knowledge mobilisation; employing multiple forms and sources of knowledge, and mobilising knowledge to - as well as from - others. Due to their active engagement in patient and community education, NPs also may be considered knowledge brokers. In the context of the growing understanding of the complexities of knowledge translation and mobilisation in contemporary health care - and particularly within the context of implementation science - this study provides novel insights into an under-researched element of health services accessed by the community.

Mentoring as an intervention to promote gender equality in academic medicine: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Mentoring is frequently suggested as an intervention to address gender inequalities in the workplace. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review evidence published since a definitive review in 2006 on the effectiveness of mentoring interventions aimed at achieving gender equality in academic medicine. DESIGN: Systematic Review, using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication as a template for data extraction and synthesis. SAMPLE: Studies were included if they described a specific mentoring intervention in a medical school or analogous academic healthcare organisation and included results from an evaluation of the intervention. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Mentoring was defined as (1) a formally organised intervention entailing a supportive relationship between a mentor, defined as a more senior/experienced person and a mentee defined as a more junior/inexperienced person; (2) mentoring intervention involved academic career support (3) the mentoring relationship was outside line management or supervision of performance and was defined by contact over an extended period of time. OUTCOMES: The impact of mentoring was usually reported at the level of individual participants, for example, satisfaction and well-being or self-reported career progression. We sought evidence of impact on gender equality via reports of organisation-level effectiveness, of promotion or retention, pay and academic performance of female staff. RESULTS: We identified 32 publications: 8 review articles, 20 primary observational studies and 4 randomised controlled trials. A further 19 discussed mentoring in relation to gender but did not meet our eligibility criteria. The terminology used, and the structures and processes reported as constituting mentoring, varied greatly. We identified that mentoring is popular with many who receive it; however, we found no robust evidence of effectiveness in reducing gender inequalities. Primary research used weak evaluation designs. CONCLUSIONS: Mentoring is a complex intervention. Future evaluations should adopt standardised approaches used in applied health research to the design and evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Good practice or positive action? Using Q methodology to identify competing views on improving gender equality in academic medicine.

OBJECTIVES: The number of women entering medicine has increased significantly, yet women are still under-represented at senior levels in academic medicine. To support the gender equality action plan at one School of Medicine, this study sought to (1) identify the range of viewpoints held by staff on how to address gender inequality and (2) identify attitudinal barriers to change. DESIGN: Q methodology. 50 potential interventions representing good practice or positive action, and addressing cultural, organisational and individual barriers to gender equality, were ranked by participants according to their perception of priority. SETTING: The School of Medicine at the University of Leeds, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-five staff members were purposively sampled to represent gender and academic pay grade. RESULTS: Principal components analysis identified six competing viewpoints on how to address gender inequality. Four viewpoints favoured positive action interventions: (1) support careers of women with childcare commitments, (2) support progression of women into leadership roles rather than focus on women with children, (3) support careers of all women rather than just those aiming for leadership, and (4) drive change via high-level financial and strategic initiatives. Two viewpoints favoured good practice with no specific focus on women by (5) recognising merit irrespective of gender and (6) improving existing career development practice. No viewpoint was strongly associated with gender, pay grade or role; however, latent class analysis identified that female staff were more likely than male to prioritise the setting of equality targets. Attitudinal barriers to the setting of targets and other positive action initiatives were identified, and it was clear that not all staff supported positive action approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The findings and the approach have utility for those involved in gender equality work in other medical and academic institutions. However, the impact of such initiatives needs to be evaluated in the longer term.

Developing a framework for gathering and using service user experiences to improve integrated health and social care: the SUFFICE framework.

BACKGROUND: More people than ever receive care and support from health and social care services. Initiatives to integrate the work of health and social care staff have increased rapidly across the UK but relatively little has been done to chart and improve their impact on service users. Our aim was to develop a framework for gathering and using service user feedback to improve integrated health and social care in one locality in the North of England. METHODS: We used published literature and interviews with health and social care managers to determine the expected service user experiences of local community-based integrated teams and the ways in which team members were expected to work together. We used the results to devise qualitative data collection and analysis tools for gathering and analyzing service user feedback. We used developmental evaluation and service improvement methodologies to devise a procedure for developing service improvement plans. FINDINGS: We identified six expected service user experiences of integrated care and 15 activities that health and social care teams were expected to undertake. We used these to develop logic models and tools for collecting and analysing service user experiences. These include a narrative interview schedule, a plan for analyzing data, and a method for synthesizing the results into a composite 'story'. We devised a structured service improvement procedure which involves teams of health and social care staff listening to a composite service user story, identifying how their actions as a team may have contributed to the story and developing a service improvement plan. CONCLUSIONS: This framework aims to put service user experiences at the heart of efforts to improve integration. It has been developed in collaboration with National Health Service (NHS) and Social Care managers. We expect it to be useful for evaluating and improving integrated care initiatives elsewhere.

Action to Support Practices Implement Research Evidence (ASPIRE): protocol for a cluster-randomised evaluation of adaptable implementation packages targeting 'high impact' clinical practice recommendations in general practice.

BACKGROUND: There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting which provides particular challenges for implementation. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of 'high impact' indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted, adaptable intervention package to implement four targeted, high impact recommendations in general practice. METHODS/DESIGN: The research programme Action to Support Practice Implement Research Evidence (ASPIRE) includes a pair of pragmatic cluster-randomised trials which use a balanced incomplete block design. Clusters are general practices in West Yorkshire, United Kingdom (UK), recruited using an 'opt-out' recruitment process. The intervention package adapted to each recommendation includes combinations of audit and feedback, educational outreach visits and computerised prompts with embedded behaviour change techniques selected on the basis of identified needs and barriers to change. In trial 1, practices are randomised to adapted interventions targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing and those in trial 2 to adapted interventions targeting either blood pressure control in patients at risk of cardiovascular events or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. The respective primary endpoints comprise achievement of all recommended target levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure and cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes, a composite indicator of risky prescribing, achievement of recommended blood pressure targets for specific patient groups and anticoagulation prescribing in patients with atrial fibrillation. We are also randomising practices to a fifth, non-intervention control group to further assess Hawthorne effects. Outcomes will be assessed using routinely collected data extracted 1 year after randomisation. Economic modelling will estimate intervention cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation involving eight non-trial practices will examine intervention delivery, mechanisms of action and unintended consequences. DISCUSSION: ASPIRE will provide 'real-world' evidence about the effects, cost-effectiveness and delivery of adapted intervention packages targeting high impact recommendations. By implementing our adaptable intervention package across four distinct clinical topics, and using 'opt-out' recruitment, our findings will provide evidence of wider generalisability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN91989345.

Using the structure of social networks to map inter-agency relationships in public health services.

This article investigates network governance in the context of health and wellbeing services in England, focussing on relationships between managers in a range of services. There are three aims, namely to investigate, (i) the configurations of networks, (ii) the stability of network relationships over time and, (iii) the balance between formal and informal ties that underpin inter-agency relationships. Latent position cluster network models were used to characterise relationships. Managers were asked two questions, both designed to characterise informal relationships. The resulting networks differed substantially from one another in membership. Managers described networks of relationships that spanned organisational boundaries, and that changed substantially over time. The findings suggest that inter-agency co-ordination depends more on informal than on formal relationships.

The role of boundary maintenance and blurring in a UK collaborative research project: how researchers and health service managers made sense of new ways of working.

The paper investigates whether, how and in what circumstances boundary blurring or boundary maintenance is productive or destructive of sense in collaborative research based on a case study involving researchers from two universities and two principal organisational stakeholders in a local healthcare system in England between 2009 and 2012. Adopting a narrative method, using meeting observation, document analysis and interviews, we describe two key sets of activities in the evolution of collaboration, which allows us to tackle the question at two levels. Studying the production of documents and their use as boundary objects in project management meetings, we show how these were used to enable cooperation by establishing a truce between worldviews, giving participants a better feel for the game and a clearer perception of its stakes. Studying how the partnership expanded to take in other organisations besides the two formal partners, we show how the project accommodated pre-existing organisational interests but thereby sacrificed its experimental ethos. In showing how actors needed to subvert their experimental script to enact collaborative partnership, we argue for understanding and evaluating the latter as the co-produced outcome of disputes and co-orientations towards a practical ideal, not as an organisational format for knowledge co-production.

The development and application of audit criteria for assessing knowledge exchange plans in health research grant applications.

BACKGROUND: Research funders expect evidence of end user engagement and impact plans in research proposals. Drawing upon existing frameworks, we developed audit criteria to help researchers and their institutions assess the knowledge exchange plans of health research proposals. FINDINGS: Criteria clustered around five themes: problem definition; involvement of research users; public and patient engagement; dissemination and implementation; and planning, management and evaluation of knowledge exchange. We applied these to a sample of grant applications from one research institution in the United Kingdom to demonstrate feasibility. CONCLUSION: Our criteria may be useful as a tool for researcher self-assessment and for research institutions to assess the quality of knowledge exchange plans and identify areas for systematic improvement.

Exploring knowledge exchange: a useful framework for practice and policy.

Knowledge translation is underpinned by a dynamic and social knowledge exchange process but there are few descriptions of how this unfolds in practice settings. This has hampered attempts to produce realistic and useful models to help policymakers and researchers understand how knowledge exchange works. This paper reports the results of research which investigated the nature of knowledge exchange. We aimed to understand whether dynamic and fluid definitions of knowledge exchange are valid and to produce a realistic, descriptive framework of knowledge exchange. Our research was informed by a realist approach. We embedded a knowledge broker within three service delivery teams across a mental health organisation in the UK, each of whom was grappling with specific challenges. The knowledge broker participated in the team's problem-solving process and collected observational fieldnotes. We also interviewed the team members. Observational and interview data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively in order to determine and describe the nature of the knowledge exchange process in more detail. This enabled us to refine our conceptual framework of knowledge exchange. We found that knowledge exchange can be understood as a dynamic and fluid process which incorporates distinct forms of knowledge from multiple sources. Quantitative analysis illustrated that five broadly-defined components of knowledge exchange (problem, context, knowledge, activities, use) can all be in play at any one time and do not occur in a set order. Qualitative analysis revealed a number of distinct themes which better described the nature of knowledge exchange. By shedding light on the nature of knowledge exchange, our findings problematise some of the linear, technicist approaches to knowledge translation. The revised model of knowledge exchange which we propose here could therefore help to reorient thinking about knowledge exchange and act as a starting point for further exploration and evaluation of the knowledge exchange process.

Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: Although there is widespread agreement about the importance of transferring knowledge into action, we still lack high quality information about what works, in which settings and with whom. While there are a large number of models and theories for knowledge transfer interventions, the majority are untested, meaning that their applicability and relevance is largely unknown. This paper describes the development of a conceptual framework of translating knowledge into action and discusses how it can be used for developing a useful model of the knowledge transfer process. METHODS: A narrative review of the knowledge transfer literature identified 28 different models which explained all or part of the knowledge transfer process. The models were subjected to a thematic analysis to identify individual components and the types of processes used when transferring knowledge into action. The results were used to build a conceptual framework of the process. RESULTS: Five common components of the knowledge transfer process were identified: problem identification and communication; knowledge/research development and selection; analysis of context; knowledge transfer activities or interventions; and knowledge/research utilization. We also identified three types of knowledge transfer processes: a linear process; a cyclical process; and a dynamic multidirectional process. From these results a conceptual framework of knowledge transfer was developed. The framework illustrates the five common components of the knowledge transfer process and shows that they are connected via a complex, multidirectional set of interactions. As such the framework allows for the individual components to occur simultaneously or in any given order and to occur more than once during the knowledge transfer process. CONCLUSION: Our framework provides a foundation for gathering evidence from case studies of knowledge transfer interventions. We propose that future empirical work is designed to test and refine the relevance, importance and applicability of each of the components in order to build a more useful model of knowledge transfer which can serve as a practical checklist for planning or evaluating knowledge transfer activities.

Knowledge brokering: exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action.

BACKGROUND: There are many theories about knowledge transfer but there are few clear descriptions of knowledge transfer interventions or the processes they involve. This failure to characterise structure and process in proposed KT interventions is a major barrier to the design and implementation of evaluations of particular KT strategies. This study is designed to provide a detailed description of the processes involved in a knowledge transfer intervention and to develop and refine a useful model of the knowledge transfer process. METHODS AND DESIGN: This research is taking a sociological approach to investigating the process of knowledge transfer. The approach is designed to articulate the broad components of the knowledge transfer process and to test these against evidence from case study sites. The research falls into three phases. First, we have carried out a literature review to produce a theoretical framework of the knowledge transfer process. This involved summarising, thematically analysing and synthesising evidence from the literature. Second, we are carrying out fieldwork in a mental health setting based on the application of a knowledge brokering intervention. The intervention involves helping participants identify, refine and reframe their key issues, finding, synthesising and feeding back research and other evidence, facilitating interactions between participants and relevant experts and transferring information searching skills to participants. Finally, we are using the observations of the knowledge broker and interviews with participants to produce narratives of the brokering process. The narratives will be compared in order to identify evidence which will confirm, refute or revise each of the broad components of the knowledge transfer process. This comparison will enable us to generate a refined framework of knowledge transfer which could be used as a basis for planning and evaluating knowledge transfer interventions. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an opportunity for a detailed description of a knowledge transfer intervention and the processes which are involved. Our approach is also designed to enable us to develop and refine a useful model of the knowledge transfer process. We believe that it will significantly enhance the growing body of knowledge about knowledge transfer.

Knowledge Brokering: The missing link in the evidence to action chain?

Transferring health care research into policy and practice is a messy and complex process which both policymakers and researchers can struggle with. A potential solution is to use individuals or organisations as knowledge brokers. Using a range of literature, this paper explains the theory behind knowledge brokering, identifies three models of brokering and explores the challenges of brokering. We suggest that clarifying these factors is a significant step towards planning well designed and rigorously evaluated brokering interventions. We also suggest that a clearly defined theoretical framework could help us to find out more about how brokering works and its effectiveness.

Patient priorities of care in rheumatology outpatient clinics: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To provide more understanding of what rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients want and need from an outpatient visit. METHODS: 25 patients who experienced care in a nurse practitioner clinic (n = 10), junior doctor clinic (n = 9) or consultant clinic (n = 6) in a large teaching hospital in West Yorkshire were interviewed about their perceptions and experiences of care. Interviews were approximately 1 1/2 hours in duration and were carried out in a neutral environment by a research nurse. Interview data were subjected to atheoretical content analysis, which resulted in the identification of emergent themes. RESULTS: Five main themes emerged from the analysis of interview data: 1) patients want to be communicated to clearly and effectively and value positive relationships with practitioners. These help to give patients confidence in the care they are receiving; 2) patients want to feel in control of their condition and tend to refuse interventions as a way of gaining control; 3) patients want to be given clear explanations during consultations, and want information in oral and written forms; 4) patients want to be able to access practitioners between scheduled appointments as a way of gaining reassurance; and 5) patients want to feel valued by society through having their difficulties appreciated and understood by others. CONCLUSION: This research adds to the body of evidence on what patients want from their rheumatology care, and each theme has clear implications for future practice.

Fathers' behavior during their child's ambulatory surgery.

This study is a secondary analysis of data previously collected to examine the effects of preoperative parental teaching in ambulatory pediatric surgery. The authors used a descriptive comparative design to re-examine and differentiate mothers' and fathers' behaviors during their child's ambulatory surgery experience. Parental behaviors of 142 families during the hour following their child's return from surgery were captured on videotape and scored by two nurses using the Parental Behaviors Inventory. The final sample was comprised of 78 fathers and 131 mothers. Fathers and mothers demonstrated similar types of behaviors, mostly behaviors such as showing affection and giving some physical care. Fathers were less present at the bedside than mothers and demonstrated quantifiably less helping behaviors than mothers. The results of this analysis illustrated that fathers demonstrate helping behaviors at the hospital and that these behaviors can be encouraged and supported by hospital staff. Additional research is needed with larger samples and with different ethnicities that investigates fathers' roles in this and other healthcare settings and that will lead to programs aimed at building fathers' competencies in their child's health care.

Molecular and functional differences induced in thrombospondin-1 by the single nucleotide polymorphism associated with the risk of premature, familial myocardial infarction.

A serine (Ser-700) amino acid rather than an asparagine (Asn-700) at residue 700 of thrombospondin-1 has been linked to an increased risk for development of premature, familial heart attacks. We now have identified both functional and structural differences between the Ser-700 and Asn-700 thrombospondin-1 variants. The Ser-700 variant increased the rate and extent of platelet aggregation and showed increased surface expression on platelets compared with the Asn-700 variant. These differences could be ascribed to an enhanced interaction of the Ser-700 variant with fibrinogen on the platelet surface and are consistent with a prothrombotic phenotype in Ser-700 individuals. The Ser-700 variant thrombospondin-1 was conformationally more labile than the Asn-700 variant as demonstrated by increased susceptibility to proteolytic digestion and enhanced susceptibility to unfolding by denaturants. These data suggest a potential molecular and cellular basis for a genetic risk factor associated with early onset myocardial infarction.