Search

Abstract Background Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. Methods This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. Results The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. Conclusion Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production—including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research—to study, adapt, and apply.

BackgroundAlthough a common injury there is a lack of published primary data to inform clinical management of sports related brachial plexus injuries.MethodsA systematic search was completed in Medline, CINAHL, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases and Google Scholar from inception to August 2023 according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Methodological quality assessment of included articles was with the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Studies providing primary data as to the rehabilitative management of diagnosed or suspected brachial plexus injuries sustained when playing contact sports were included.ResultsSixty-five studies were identified and screened, of which, 8 case reports were included, incorporating 10 participants with a mean age of 19.8 (±4.09) years. There was wide heterogeneity in injury severity, injury reporting, physical examination and imaging approaches documented. 9 of 10 participants returned to competitive sports, though follow-up periods also varied widely. Whilst return to play criteria varied between studies, the most consistent indicator was pain-free shoulder range of motion and strength.ConclusionsThere is a distinct lack of data available to inform evidence-based rehabilitation management of sports related brachial plexus injury. Only 8 individual case reports contain published data reporting on 10 athletes. Further reporting is critical to inform clinical management.

Abstract Background Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production—Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro)—and outline our field test of this approach. Methods Using a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so, we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. Discussion This study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders.

Abstract This editorial provides a comprehensive consolidated overview of the scope and expectations of Implementation Science and Implementation Science Communications. We remain most interested in rigorous empirical studies of the implementation of evidence-based healthcare practices (including interventions, technologies, and policies) and the de-implementation of practices that are demonstrated to be of low or no benefit. Implementation strategies (e.g., continuing professional education, organizational changes, and financial incentives to enhance the uptake of evidence-based practices) are of central interest to the journals. We see the field as large and complex, with a wide literature that is published in many venues. We urge people for whom it is new to spend some time reading the existing literature, and learning the scope of the work that has already been done, and published, in our journals and in an increasing number of other journals in the field.

Fasciola spp. liver flukes have significant impacts in veterinary and human medicine. The absence of a vaccine and increasing anthelmintic resistance threaten sustainable control and underscore the need for novel flukicides. Functional genomic approaches underpinned by in vitro culture of juvenile Fasciola hepatica facilitate control target validation in the most pathogenic life stage. Comparative transcriptomics of in vitro and in vivo maintained 21 day old F. hepatica finds that 86% of genes are expressed at similar levels across maintenance treatments suggesting commonality in core biological functioning within these juveniles. Phenotypic comparisons revealed higher cell proliferation and growth rates in the in vivo juveniles compared to their in vitro counterparts. These phenotypic differences were consistent with the upregulation of neoblast-like stem cell and cell-cycle associated genes in in vivo maintained worms. The more rapid growth/development of in vivo juveniles was further evidenced by a switch in cathepsin protease expression profiles, dominated by cathepsin B in in vitro juveniles and by cathepsin L in in vivo juveniles. Coincident with more rapid growth/development was the marked downregulation of both classical and peptidergic neuronal signalling components in in vivo maintained juveniles, supporting a role for the nervous system in regulating liver fluke growth and development. Differences in the miRNA complements of in vivo and in vitro juveniles identified 31 differentially expressed miRNAs, including fhe-let-7a-5p, fhe-mir-124-3p and miRNAs predicted to target Wnt-signalling, which supports a key role for miRNAs in driving the growth/developmental differences in the in vitro and in vivo maintained juvenile liver fluke. Widespread differences in the expression of neuronal genes in juvenile fluke grown in vitro and in vivo expose significant interplay between neuronal signalling and the rate of growth/development, encouraging consideration of neuronal targets in efforts to dysregulate growth/development for parasite control.

Background: Health literacy is a critical driver of achieving an equitable world for every child and adolescent. Although the relationship between health literacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has been documented, little is known among adolescents. In addition, due to lack of theory-driven empirical research, it remains unknown about the full relationship between health literacy, its antecedents, and HRQoL. Objective: This study aimed to apply Manganello's framework to investigate how health literacy was associated with its antecedents and HRQoL in Beijing secondary students. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 650 students in years 7 to 9 from four secondary schools in Beijing. Based on Manganello's health literacy framework, a self-administered questionnaire was used to collect information on health literacy, its antecedents (i.e., sociodemographics, self-efficacy, social support, school and community environment), and HRQoL. The 8-item Health Literacy Assessment Tool was used to measure health literacy (score range 0–37), and the KIDSCREEN-10 was used to measure HRQoL (score range 10–50). Path analysis was conducted to examine the mediating role of health literacy in the relationship between its antecedents and HRQoL. Key Results: Overall, the average score of students' health literacy and HRQoL was 26.37 (±5.89) and 37.49 (±5.78), respectively. Health literacy was positively correlated with HRQoL (r = 0.36, p < .01). In the final path model, health literacy was not associated with HRQoL. However, students' social support, school environment, and community environment were associated with HRQoL. Health literacy was affected by self-efficacy, social support, and school environment (all p < .05). Conclusions: A range of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental factors were associated with health literacy and HRQoL. A holistic approach is needed to improve health literacy and HRQoL through multilevel intervention strategies such as increasing personal self-efficacy, promoting social support, and creating positive environments. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2022;6(4):e300–e309.] Plain Language Summary: We investigated how health literacy was related to its influencing factors and HRQoL among Beijing secondary students in years 7 to 9. Health literacy and HRQoL were independent outcomes affected by a range of social-ecological factors including self-efficacy, social support, and perceptions of school and community environments.

Background: Evidence supports the effectiveness of shared book reading for promoting language and literacy development, but it is known that families experiencing vulnerability may have reduced access to books and are less likely to share books regularly at home. Community hubs often provide support to families experiencing vulnerability and may provide an opportunity to create environments that support families to engage in shared book reading, especially if families are invited into the creation of these environments through co-design. However, there is currently little evidence regarding the impact of co-designing shared book reading environments with families in community settings. Aims: The current study is part of a broader project which used co-design to develop a shared book reading environment in collaboration with stakeholders in a community hub. This small-scale study aimed to provide a preliminary evaluation of the impact of this co-designed shared book reading environment at the community hub on (1) the frequency of shared book reading at the hub; (2) participants' confidence and enjoyment of reading with children at the hub; and (3) participants' experiences of shared book reading at the hub. Method & Procedures: The co-design project was carried out in four phases with families, staff and community partners at the community hub. A convergent mixed-methods approach was used to collect and analyse quantitative and qualitative data in the first and last phase of the project to evaluate project outcomes. Quantitative data (environmental observations of reading at the hub and participant ratings of confidence and enjoyment of reading with children at the hub) were analysed using descriptive statistics and nonparametric statistical tests. Qualitative data (participants' responses regarding their experiences of changes implemented in the community hub) were analysed using inductive content analysis. Outcome & Results: An increased frequency of shared book reading was observed within the community hub after changes were implemented, and positive changes in enjoyment of book reading were recorded. Qualitative responses from participants following conclusion of the project were organised into three main categories, which showed that (1) children and families were reading more and enjoying reading activities that were happening; (2) children and families were borrowing more books; and (3) families had changed the way they were reading at home with their children. Conclusions & Implications: A co-designed shared book reading environment within a community hub had a positive impact on shared book reading experiences for families in areas with high levels of vulnerability.

Health literacy is a broad and multidimensional construct, making its measurement and conclusions inconsistent. This study aims to compare the patterning of health literacy using different assessment tools and examine their impact on children’s developmental outcomes. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 650 students in Years 7–9 from four secondary schools in Beijing. Health literacy was measured by the eight-item health literacy assessment tool (HLAT, score range 0–37), the six-item Newest Vital Sign (NVS, score range 0–6), and the 16-item Health Literacy Survey (HLS, score range 0–16). Based on Manganello’s health literacy framework, information on upstream factors (e.g., gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status) and developmental outcomes (e.g., health-promoting behaviours, health service use, global health status) was collected. Overall, the average scores for health literacy were 26.34 ± 5.89, 3.64 ± 1.64, and 13.72 ± 2.94, respectively, for HLAT, NVS, and HLS. The distribution of health literacy varied by socio-demographics and individual characteristics except for gender, no matter which health literacy assessment tool was used. The magnitude of associations between health literacy, its upstream factors and developmental outcomes was greater when using three-domain instruments (HLAT and HLS) than using single-domain instruments (NVS). The approach to health literacy measurement will influence the conclusion. Using multidimensional assessment tools may better capture a child’s health literacy and contribute to the maximum efficiency and effectiveness of school-based health literacy interventions.

The transition to school is a sensitive developmental period for young children. Although children born very/extremely preterm have increased risk of health and developmental concerns, predictors of their school readiness and adjustment remain largely unexamined. Parents of very/extremely preterm-born children (aged 3-7 years; pre-transition n = 114, post-transition n = 112) completed an online survey assessing their perceptions of children's school readiness (pre-transition) or adjustment (post-transition), support needs, child behaviour, parent distress, and parent confidence. Poorer school readiness and adjustment and greater needs for support correlated with child health/developmental condition/s; hyperactivity, peer problems, conduct problems, emotional symptoms, and less prosocial behaviour; and lower parent confidence. Using hierarchical linear regression, parent confidence emerged as the strongest common predictor of school readiness (pre-transition) and school adjustment (post-transition), followed by low hyperactivity, high parent education (tertiary), and no diagnosed child health/developmental condition/s. Results will be used to identify families needing support and develop tailored support strategies.

Purpose: There is an important need for interprofessional practice (IPP) between speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and classroom teachers (CTs) in mainstream schools to support student outcomes. This mixed methods systematic review aimed to synthesize existing literature to describe the experiences of IPP between SLPs and CTs in mainstream schools. Method: A systematic review protocol was utilized to conduct a comprehensive search of six databases (PubMed Central, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL EBSCO, ERIC, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global) using key words related to the research question. A total of 1,876 unique studies were retrieved. Of these, 18 studies were identified as relevant to the research question, as they described the experiences of IPP between SLPs and CTs. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the quantitative and qualitative studies. Results: Six main themes describing IPP experiences were identified: (1) what are you bringing to the collaboration table? (2) putting the value in collaboration, (3) sharing is collaborating, (4) the nature of collaboration varies, (5) the educational context matters, and (6) influences to collaboration beyond professional control. Conclusions: IPP between SLPs and CTs is complex, with various facilitators and barriers to IPP emerging within the education context. Competencies for SLPs and CTs related to having a shared understanding, adequate communication, and building relationships with each other help support IPP in schools. The utilization of a relationship-centered care approach between SLPs and CTs is also important to foster and support student outcomes.