Search

Background: Communities of Practice are formed by people who interact regularly to engage in collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor. Virtual Communities of Practice (VCoP) are online communities that use the internet to connect people who share a common concern or passion. VCoPs provide a platform to share and enhance knowledge. The Policy Circle is a VCoP that connects mid-career professionals from across Canada who are committed to improving healthcare policy and practice. We wanted to understand the perceived value of the VCoP.Methods: We used qualitative and quantitative survey research to explore past and current Policy Circle members' thoughts, feelings, and behaviours related to the program. Our research was guided by the Value Creation Framework proposed by Wenger and colleagues. Three surveys were created in collaboration with stakeholders. Data were analyzed within cohort and in aggregate across cohorts. Qualitative data was analyzed thematically, and quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics (means of ranked and scaled responses).Results: Survey participation was high among members (Cohort 1: 67%, Cohort 2: 64%). Participants came from a variety of disciplines including medicine, health policy, allied health, and nursing, with most members having a direct role in health services research or practice. The program was successful in helping participants make connections (mean = 2.43 on a scale from 1 to 5: 1 = yes, significantly, 5 = not at all); variances in both qualitative and quantitative data indicated that levels of enthusiasm within the program varied among individuals. Members appreciated the access to resources; quarterly meetings (n = 11/11), and a curated reading list (n = 8/11) were the most valued resources. Participants reported the development of a sense of belonging (mean = 2.29) and facilitated knowledge exchange (mean = 2.43). At the time of this study, participants felt the program had minor impact on their work (mean = 3.5), however a majority of participants (50%) from Cohort 2 planned to acknowledge the program in their professional or academic endeavours. Through reflective responses, participants expressed a desire for continued and deeper professional network development.Conclusions: The Policy Circle was successful in facilitating knowledge exchange by creating a community that promoted trust, a sense of belonging and a supportive environment. Members were satisfied with the program; to promote further value, the Policy Circle should implement strategies that will continue member participation and networking after the program is finished. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recognising radical shifts in the global health research (GHR) environment, participants in a 2013 deliberative dialogue called for careful consideration of equity-centred principles that should inform Canadian funding polices. This study examined the existing funding structures and policies of Canadian and international funders to inform the future design of a responsive GHR funding landscape.Methods: We used a three-pronged analytical framework to review the ideas, interests and institutions implicated in publically accessible documents relevant to GHR funding. These data included published literature and organisational documents (e.g. strategic plans, progress reports, granting policies) from Canadian and other comparator funders. We then used a deliberative approach to develop recommendations with the research team, advisors, industry informants and low- and middle-income country (LMIC) partners.Results: In Canada, major GHR funders invest an estimated CA$90 M per annum; however, the post-2008 re-organization of funding structures and policies resulted in an uncoordinated and inefficient Canadian strategy. Australia, Denmark, the European Union, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America invest proportionately more in GHR than Canada. Each of these countries has a national strategic plan for global health, some of which have dedicated benchmarks for GHR funding and policy to allow funds to be held by partners outside of Canada. Key constraints to equitable GHR funding included (1) funding policies that restrict financial and cost burden aspects of partnering for GHR in LMICs; and (2) challenges associated with the development of effective governance mechanisms. There were, however, some Canadian innovations in funding research that demonstrated both unconventional and equitable approaches to supporting GHR in Canada and abroad. Among the most promising were found in the International Development Research Centre and the (no longer active) Global Health Research Initiative.Conclusion: Promoting equitable GHR funding policies and practices in Canada requires cooperation and actions by multiple stakeholders, including government, funding agencies, academic institutions and researchers. Greater cooperation and collaboration among these stakeholders in the context of recent political shifts present important opportunities for advancing funding policies that enable and encourage more equitable investments in GHR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is extensive health and public health literature on the 'evidence-policy gap', exploring the frustrating experiences of scientists trying to secure a response to the problems and solutions they raise and identifying the need for better evidence to reduce policymaker uncertainty. We offer a new perspective by using policy theory to propose research with greater impact, identifying the need to use persuasion to reduce ambiguity, and to adapt to multi-level policymaking systems.We identify insights from secondary data, namely systematic reviews, critical analysis and policy theories relevant to evidence-based policymaking. The studies are drawn primarily from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We combine empirical and normative elements to identify the ways in which scientists can, do and could influence policy.We identify two important dilemmas, for scientists and researchers, that arise from our initial advice. First, effective actors combine evidence with manipulative emotional appeals to influence the policy agenda - should scientists do the same, or would the reputational costs outweigh the policy benefits? Second, when adapting to multi-level policymaking, should scientists prioritise 'evidence-based' policymaking above other factors? The latter includes governance principles such the 'co-production' of policy between local public bodies, interest groups and service users. This process may be based primarily on values and involve actors with no commitment to a hierarchy of evidence.We conclude that successful engagement in 'evidence-based policymaking' requires pragmatism, combining scientific evidence with governance principles, and persuasion to translate complex evidence into simple stories. To maximise the use of scientific evidence in health and public health policy, researchers should recognise the tendency of policymakers to base judgements on their beliefs, and shortcuts based on their emotions and familiarity with information; learn 'where the action is', and be prepared to engage in long-term strategies to be able to influence policy; and, in both cases, decide how far you are willing to go to persuade policymakers to act and secure a hierarchy of evidence underpinning policy. These are value-driven and political, not just 'evidence-based', choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health systems globally promote appropriate prescribing by healthcare providers and safe and effective medicine use by consumers. Rx for Change, a publicly available database, provides access to systematic reviews regarding best practices for prescribing and using medicines. Despite the value of the database for improving prescribing and medicine use, its use remains suboptimal. This study aimed to develop a training program for five medicine-focused organisations in Canada and Australia to facilitate the use and understanding of the Rx for Change database.Methods: Four steps were undertaken: 1) key informant interviews were completed across all organisations to understand the knowledge user perspective; 2) a directed content analysis was completed of the interview transcripts and proposed training was developed; 3) a second round of feedback on the proposed training by knowledge users was gathered; and 4) feedback was integrated to develop the final training.Results: Sixteen key informant interviews with knowledge users were conducted. Themes for training content included the scope of, navigation and strategies for using Rx for Change (generic content) and practical examples on incorporating evidence within their workplace context (tailored content). The final training consisted of an informational video, a 60-minute face-to-face workshop and two post-training reminders.Conclusions: A method of engaging knowledge users in the development of a training program to improve the use of an on-line database of systematic reviews was established and used to design training. Next steps include the delivery and evaluation of the training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Given the dramatic rise and impact of chronic diseases and gaps in care in Indigenous peoples in Canada, a shift from the dominant episodic and responsive healthcare model most common in First Nations communities to one that places emphasis on proactive prevention and chronic disease management is urgently needed.Methods: The Transformation of Indigenous Primary Healthcare Delivery (FORGE AHEAD) Program partners with 11 First Nations communities across six provinces in Canada to develop and evaluate community-driven quality improvement (QI) initiatives to enhance chronic disease care. FORGE AHEAD is a 5-year research program (2013-2017) that utilizes a pre-post mixed-methods observational design rooted in participatory research principles to work with communities in developing culturally relevant innovations and improved access to available services. This intensive program incorporates a series of 10 inter-related and progressive program activities designed to foster community-driven initiatives with type 2 diabetes mellitus as the action disease. Preparatory activities include a national community profile survey, best practice and policy literature review, and readiness tool development. Community-level intervention activities include community and clinical readiness consultations, development of a diabetes registry and surveillance system, and QI activities. With a focus on capacity building, all community-level activities are driven by trained community members who champion QI initiatives in their community. Program wrap-up activities include readiness tool validation, cost-analysis and process evaluation. In collaboration with Health Canada and the Aboriginal Diabetes Initiative, scale-up toolkits will be developed in order to build on lessons-learned, tools and methods, and to fuel sustainability and spread of successful innovations.Discussion: The outcomes of this research program, its related cost and the subsequent policy recommendations, will have the potential to significantly affect future policy decisions pertaining to chronic disease care in First Nations communities in Canada.Trial Registration: Current ClinicalTrial.gov protocol ID NCT02234973 . Date of Registration: July 30, 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]