Adaptation of a standardized self-reported cost questionnaire specific for the severe burn injury population (BI-CoPaQ).

Severe burn injuries (SBIs) are known to pose a significant burden on patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system. Yet, scarce data on the short and long-term clinical and economic impacts of these injuries limit the development of evidence-informed strategies and policies to better care for these patients. To fill in this gap, we adapted a previously validated self-reported out-of-pocket cost measurement questionnaire, the Cost for Patients Questionnaire (CoPaQ), to the severe burn injury survivor context. We conducted one-on-one cognitive semi-structured interviews with burn injury survivors, their caregivers, and healthcare providers to identify elements of the CoPaQ's structure and content that needed to be revised to adapt to the specific health care trajectory, service utilization, needs and expenses incurred by adult severe burn injury survivors and their caregivers. Summative content analysis was used to identify items needing to be modified, deleted, or added. Based on this information, a preliminary version of a Burn Injury Cost for Patients Questionnaire (BI-CoPaQ) was developed and subsequently pre-tested on a small sample of SBIs survivors. Further validation of this tool will be required before BI-CoPaQ can be used as the standard for the estimation of the financial burden of SBIs in this population.

Mapping inter-professional collaboration in oncogenetics: Results from a scoping review.

Inter-professional collaboration could improve timely access and quality of oncogenetic services. Here, we present the results of a scoping review conducted to systematically identify collaborative models available, unpack the nature and extent of collaboration proposed, synthesize evidence on their implementation and evaluation, and identify areas where additional research is needed. A comprehensive search was conducted in four journal indexing databases on June 13th, 2022, and complemented with searches of the grey literature and citations. Screening was conducted by two independent reviewers. Eligible documents included those describing either the theory of change, planning, implementation and/or evaluation of collaborative oncogenetic models. 165 publications were identified, describing 136 unique interventions/studies on oncogenetic models with somewhat overlapping collaborative features. Collaboration appears to be mostly inter-professional in nature, often taking place during risk assessment and pre-testing genetic counseling. Yet, most publications provide very limited information on their collaborative features, and only a few studies have set out to formally evaluate them. Better quality research is needed to comprehensively examine and make conclusions regarding the value of collaboration in this oncogenetics. We propose a definition, logic model, and typology of collaborative oncogenetic models to strengthen future planning, implementation, and evaluation in this field.

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.

Examining interprofessional collaboration in oncogenetic service delivery models for hereditary cancers: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In a context of limited genetic specialists, collaborative models have been proposed to ensure timely access to high quality oncogenetic services for individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility. Yet, extensive variability in the terminology used and lack of a clear understanding of how interprofessional collaboration is operationalised and evaluated currently constrains the development of a robust evidence base on the value of different approaches used to optimise access to these services. To fill in this knowledge gap, this scoping review aims to systematically unpack the nature and extent of collaboration proposed by these interventions, and synthesise the evidence available on their implementation, effectiveness and economic impact. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews, a comprehensive literature search will be conducted to identify peer-reviewed and grey literature on collaborative models used for adult patients with, or at increased risk of, hereditary breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancers. An initial search was developed for Medline, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Cochrane and Web of Science on 13 June 2022 and will be complemented by searches in Google and relevant websites. Documents describing either the theory of change, planning, implementation and/or evaluation of these interventions will be considered for inclusion. Results will be summarised descriptively and used to compare relevant model characteristics and synthesise evidence available on their implementation, effectiveness and economic impact. This process is expected to guide the development of a definition and typology of collaborative models in oncogenetics that could help strengthen the knowledge base on these interventions. Moreover, because we will be mapping the existing evidence on collaborative models in oncogenetics, the proposed review will help us identify areas where additional research might be needed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research does not require ethics approval. Results from this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles and conferences.

Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework and the Analysis of Decision-Making Processes Regarding Publicly-Funded Immunization Programs.

Introduction: The implementation of a publicly-funded immunization program results from a complex decision-making process. John Kingdon's 'Multiple Streams Framework' has been extensively used to analyze how and why governmental policies were adopted. Area covered: Ideas that will ultimately end up in a proposal for a new immunization program develop gradually along three main streams: (i) the problem stream, which focuses on a particular vaccine-preventable disease and its perception by stakeholders; (ii) the policy stream, which is centered on experts' views on the optimal use of available vaccines; and (iii) the politics stream, which consists of socio-political factors, including budgetary constraints. Ideas are progressively shaped by policy entrepreneurs into a proposal with concrete implementation strategies. The three streams then converge within a policy window, during which adoption is especially likely to occur. To survive, the proposed program should be operationally feasible, consistent with mainstream social values, and financially affordable. The timing of the policy window is usually unpredictable and of short duration. Expert opinion: Analytical frameworks traditionally used to assess immunization programs focus on the technical aspects of the disease, the vaccine, and the program. The 'Multiple Streams Framework' brings added analytical value by enlarging the scope of the analysis into the political arena.