Search

Patient and family engagement has become a widely accepted approach in health care research. We recognize that research conducted in partnership with people with relevant lived experience can substantially improve the quality of that research and lead to meaningful outcomes. Despite the benefits of patient-researcher collaboration, research teams sometimes face challenges in answering the questions of how patient and family research partners should be compensated, due to the limited guidance and lack of infrastructure for acknowledging partner contributions. In this paper, we present some of the resources that might help teams to navigate conversations about compensation with their patient and family partners and report how existing resources can be leveraged to compensate patient and family partners fairly and appropriately. We also present some of our first-hand experiences with patient and family compensation and offer suggestions for research leaders, agencies, and organizations so that the health care stakeholders can collectively move toward more equitable recognition of patient and family partners in research.

Abstract Background Many professional services were pressed to adopt telepractice in response to the global coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. The need to adopt a new service delivery approach quickly created different implementation challenges. This study explored the lived experiences of frontline clinicians who successfully transitioned their in-person speech-language therapy services to telepractice through an implementation science lens. Methods The study was conducted in partnership with one publicly funded program in Ontario, Canada that offers services to preschoolers with speech, language and communication disorders. Sixteen frontline speech-language pathologists and assistants at this organization shared their lived experience transitioning to telepractice during the pandemic during videoconference interviews. A narrative inquiry approach was used to analyze interview transcripts to identify the processes (or steps) this program took to implement telepractice and to understand the facilitators and barriers to telepractice implementation during the pandemic. Results The following six stages were identified from clinicians’ narratives: abrupt lockdown; weeks of uncertainty; telepractice emerged as an option; preparation for telepractice; telepractice trials; and finally, full implementation of telepractice. The stages of events offered significant insights into how government public health measures influenced clinicians’ decisions and their processes of adopting telepractice. In terms of barriers, clinicians reported a lack of knowledge, skills and experience with telepractice and a lack of technological support. The organization’s learning climate and team approach to transitioning services were identified as the main facilitator of implementation. Conclusions Findings suggest a need for better coordination of public health measures and professional services, which would have eased clinicians’ stress and facilitated an earlier transition to telepractice. Fostering an organization’s learning climate may improve organization’s resilience in response to emergency situations.

Abstract Background To improve the uptake of research into practice, knowledge translation frameworks recommend tailoring implementation strategies to address practice barriers. This study reports our experience pairing the Theoretical Domains Framework with information from multiple stakeholder groups to co-develop practice-informed strategies for improving the implementation of an evidence-based outcome measurement tool across a large community health system for preschoolers with communication impairments. Methods Concept mapping was used to identify strategies for improving implementation of the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS) in Ontario Canada’s Preschool Speech and Language Program. This work was done in five stages. First, we interviewed 37 speech-language pathologists (clinicians) who identified 90 unique strategies to resolve practice barriers to FOCUS implementation. Second, clinicians (n = 34), policy-makers (n = 3), and members of the FOCUS research team (n = 6) sorted and rated the strategies by importance and feasibility. Third, stakeholders’ sorting data were analyzed to generate a two-dimensional concept map. Based on the rating data from stakeholders, we prioritized a list of strategies that were rated as highly important and highly feasible, and summarized the practice barriers addressed by each of the prioritized strategies. Fourth, we validated these findings with stakeholders via an online survey. Fifth, the mechanisms of action of the prioritized list of strategies were considered based on available evidence from the Theoretical Domains Framework and associated behavior change literature. Results Stakeholders categorized the 90 unique implementation strategies into a six-cluster concept map. Based on stakeholders’ ratings, a list of 14 implementation strategies were prioritized. These implementation strategies were reported to resolve barriers within the environmental context and resources and beliefs about consequences domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. All but one of the prioritized strategies have a demonstrated link in resolving existing barriers according to the behavioral change literature. Conclusions Our study contributes to a growing literature that demonstrates the process of tailoring implementation strategies to specific barriers. Practical drawbacks and benefits of using concept mapping as a way to engage stakeholders in implementation research are discussed.