Search

Diabetes Action Canada Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Network in Chronic Disease was formed in 2016 and is funded primarily through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). We propose a novel mixed-methods approach to a network evaluation integrating the State of Network Evaluation framework and the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (CAHS) preferred framework and indicators. We measure key network themes of connectivity, health and results, and impact and return on investment associated with health research networks. Our methods consist of a longitudinal cross-sectional network survey of members and social network analysis to examine Network Connectivity and assess the frequency of interactions, the topics discussed during them, and how networking effectively facilitates interactions and collaboration among members. Network Health will be evaluated through semistructured interviews, a membership survey inquiring about satisfaction and experience with the Network, and a review of documentary sources related to funding and infrastructure to evaluate Network Sustainability. Finally, we will examine Network Results and Impact using the CAHS preferred framework and indicators to measure returns on investment in health research across the five domains of the CAHS framework, which include: advancing knowledge, capacity building, informing decision making, health impact, and economic and social impact. Indicators will be assessed with various methods, including bibliometric analyses, review of relevant documentary sources (annual reports), member activities informing health and research policy, and Patient Partner involvement. The Network Evaluation will provide members and stakeholders with information for planning, improvements, and funding future Network endeavors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2015 mandatory disclosure activity for lobbying that targeted health and social service centres in Quebec, a sector which consumes a significant share of the annual spending budget, suddenly became a mandatory disclosure activity for lobbyists operating in the province. This research note traces the trajectory of key events that led to this shift towards greater lobbying transparency in the health care sector. The study also analyzes whether this change was followed by increased lobbying registrations for activities targeting health sector institutions. The article's findings suggest that significant change in lobbying regulation may occur accidentally, against the government's will, rather than as a result of an ethical scandal, cross‐jurisdictional learning, or electoral calculations, as the literature suggests. The article's findings also show that the change was followed by an increase of about 969 registered firm lobbyists (p‐value 0.015) and 254 registered lobbyists from covered NGOs (p‐value 0.00). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic allowed for exceptional decision-making power to be placed in the hands of public health departments. Data and information were widely disseminated in the media and on websites. While the improvement of pandemic management is still a learning curve, the ecosystem perspective – that is, the interconnection of academic health research systems and decision-making spaces – has received little attention. In this commentary, we look at the mechanisms in place, or not, in Canada for ensuring decision-making spheres can "speak" to academic research systems. We look at the thick walls that are still in place between health research systems and decision-making spaces. More precisely, we discuss three organizational flaws that we identified in the evidence-informed decision-making ecosystem of Québec and, more broadly, Canada. We introduce some inspiring measures that other countries have implemented to better link evidence and public health decision-making during health crises. The observed flaws and options are related to the vitality of early information sharing relays, the cross-sectional capacity to issue opinions, and the collection and integration of hard and soft data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we test the hypothesis that health technology assessment units located in hospitals tend to be more optimistic toward technologies that are currently in use in their organization than technologies that are not. The data include 108 health technologies assessed in 87 full-scale health technology assessment reports produced by the four main local health technology assessment units in Quebec (Canada) on behalf of decision makers from the same facility. We found that 58 (53.7 percent) of the 108 technologies were currently in use within the hospital during their assessment. Based on the assessors' interpretation of the scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of the technologies, 67.3 percent of the technologies that were in use in the hospital during the evaluation were effective (56 percent for those that were not currently being used), but the difference is not statistically significant (chi-square 1.38; p = 0.24). Controlling for the efficacy judgment, the type of technologies (i.e. preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic or organizational), the number of technologies assessed in the report and the assessment unit, we found that the technologies that were currently in use in the facility during the evaluation were 62 percent more likely to be recommended favorably by the assessment unit than the technologies that were not currently being used (RR = 1.62; 95 percent CI = 1.06–1.88). This suggests that the local health technology units that were examined in the study tended to be more optimistic toward technologies that were currently in use in their hospital at the time of the evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on ongoing reflections on how to improve the structures and processes by which relevant research findings produced outside Canadian government departments (for example, in universities, think tanks or other research institutions) can be more effectively found, assessed for potential biases, synthesized and disseminated to provide support to government analysts, advisers and decision makers. The focus is on how to structure and routinize research use by government analysts and advisers within a large Canadian department that has a strategic research directorate and many program divisions. Our starting point is the current situation where literature reviews that are produced and used by government analysts and advisers do not correspond to the systematic review standards. We discuss four alternative models. In two models, the whole production process would be controlled from within the department. In the other two models, external actors such as university-based teams or independent non-governmental evidence centres would carry the leadership in producing those reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses have been promoted as important types of evidence to inform policy analysis and policy decisions. Little is known, however, about ministerial policy analysts' knowledge of this type of evidence. Drawing from a survey conducted among policy analysts (Québec), we report on the extent to which these research methods and contributions are known and used across policy sectors, and develop a socio-professional profile of users. We conclude with recommendations for researchers and policy makers to improve the uptake of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to more effectively implement evidence-informed practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ability to critically appraise empirical studies of any type is a prerequisite to evidence-informed policy making. We scanned the syllabi of all Canadian university undergraduate and graduate programs in public affairs, public administration, public policy and political science. Our findings suggest that evidence-informed policy is not yet institutionalized in most public administration and political science training curricula. We conducted a systematic review of prospective experimental and quasi-experimental studies examining the effect of university courses aimed at training social sciences students in critical appraisal, but did not find such a study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study related to correlation between perceived autonomy and perceived behavioral control regarding resolving ethical dilemmas. Topics discussed include alleged lack of trust of general public in public organizations; behavior of civil servants; initiatives taken by Western countries for public management; factors effecting behavior of employees in organization like gender, nationality and culture and limitation of ethical codes due to lack of enforcement by leaders.

This protocol builds on the development of a) a framework that identified the various supports (i.e. positions, activities, interventions) that a healthcare organisation or health system can implement for evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) and b) a qualitative study that showed the current mix of supports that some Canadian healthcare organisations have in place and the ones that are perceived to facilitate the use of research evidence in decision-making. Based on these findings, we developed a web survey to collect crosssectional data about the specific supports that regional health authorities and hospitals in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec) have in place to facilitate EIDM. Methods/design This paper describes the methods for a cross-sectional web survey among 32 regional health authorities and 253 hospitals in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario (Canada) to collect data on the current mix of organisational supports that these organisations have in place to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making. The data will be obtained through a two-step survey design: a 10-min survey among CEOs to identify key units and individuals in regard to our objectives (step 1) and a 20-min survey among managers of the key units identified in step 1 to collect information about the activities performed by their unit regarding the acquisition, assessment, adaptation and/or dissemination of research evidence in decisionmaking (step 2). The study will target three types of informants: CEOs, library/documentation centre managers and all other key managers whose unit is involved in the acquisition, assessment, adaptation/packaging and/or dissemination of research evidence in decision-making. We developed an innovative data collection system to increase the likelihood that only the best-informed respondent available answers each survey question. The reporting of the results will be done using descriptive statistics of supports by organisation type and by province. Discussion This study will be the first to collect and report large-scale cross-sectional data on the current mix of supports health system organisations in the two most populous Canadian provinces have in place for evidence-informed decision-making. The study will also provide useful information to researchers on how to collect organisation-level data with reduced risk of selfreporting bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence-informed health policymaking logically depends on timely access to research evidence. To our knowledge, despite the substantial political and societal pressure to enhance the use of the best available research evidence in public health policy and program decision making, there is no study addressing availability of peer-reviewed research in Canadian health ministries. Objectives: To assess availability of (1) a purposive sample of high-ranking scientific journals, (2) bibliographic databases, and (3) health library services in the fourteen Canadian health ministries. Methods: From May to October 2011, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among librarians employed by Canadian health ministries to collect information relative to availability of scientific journals, bibliographic databases, and health library services. Availability of scientific journals in each ministry was determined using a sample of 48 journals selected from the 2009 Journal Citation Reports (Sciences and Social Sciences Editions). Selection criteria were: relevance for health policy based on scope note information about subject categories and journal popularity based on impact factors. Results: We found that the majority of Canadian health ministries did not have subscription access to key journals and relied heavily on interlibrary loans. Overall, based on a sample of high-ranking scientific journals, availability of journals through interlibrary loans, online and print-only subscriptions was estimated at 63%, 28% and 3%, respectively. Health Canada had a 2.3-fold higher number of journal subscriptions than that of the provincial ministries' average. Most of the organisations provided access to numerous discipline-specific and multidisciplinary databases. Many organisations provided access to the library resources described through library partnerships or consortia. No professionally led health library environment was found in four out of fourteen Canadian health ministries (i.e. Manitoba Health, Northwest Territories Department of Health and Social Services, Nunavut Department of Health and Social Services and Yukon Department of Health and Social Services). Conclusions: There is inequity in availability of peer-reviewed research in the fourteen Canadian health ministries. This inequity could present a problem, as each province and territory is responsible for formulating and implementing evidence-informed health policies and services for the benefit of its population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consultation of scientific evidence by policy actors has been the foci of attention of knowledge utilization scholars for decades. The present study questioned the extent to which randomized controlled trials ( RCTs)-generally seen as the gold standard of scientific research-are known and consulted by policy analysts in ministerial settings. Using cross-sectional data collected in 17 ministries in Québec ( Canada), our study showed that fairly high levels of policy analysts report never having heard of RCTs, thus possibly hindering effective communication of scientific results to relevant policy makers. Statistical analyses reveal the importance of cognitive factors in explaining both phenomena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The electronic health record (EHR) is an important application of information and communication technologies to the healthcare sector. EHR implementation is expected to produce benefits for patients, professionals, organisations, and the population as a whole. These benefits cannot be achieved without the adoption of EHR by healthcare professionals. Nevertheless, the influence of individual and organisational factors in determining EHR adoption is still unclear. This study aims to assess the unique contribution of individual and organisational factors on EHR adoption in healthcare settings, as well as possible interrelations between these factors.Methods: A prospective study will be conducted. A stratified random sampling method will be used to select 50 healthcare organisations in the Quebec City Health Region (Canada). At the individual level, a sample of 15 to 30 health professionals will be chosen within each organisation depending on its size. A semi-structured questionnaire will be administered to two key informants in each organisation to collect organisational data. A composite adoption score of EHR adoption will be developed based on a Delphi process and will be used as the outcome variable. Twelve to eighteen months after the first contact, depending on the pace of EHR implementation, key informants and clinicians will be contacted once again to monitor the evolution of EHR adoption. A multilevel regression model will be applied to identify the organisational and individual determinants of EHR adoption in clinical settings. Alternative analytical models would be applied if necessary.Results: The study will assess the contribution of organisational and individual factors, as well as their interactions, to the implementation of EHR in clinical settings.Conclusions: These results will be very relevant for decision makers and managers who are facing the challenge of implementing EHR in the healthcare system. In addition, this research constitutes a major contribution to the field of knowledge transfer and implementation science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper addresses three questions: What is the extent of clinical guideline utilization by decision-makers in provincial health ministries, regional health authorities and hospitals in Canada? Are there differences between these work settings in regard to the extent of clinical guideline utilization? What are the determinants of clinical guidelines utilization in health ministries, regional health authorities and hospitals? Based on a survey of 899 decision-makers from Canadian provincial health ministries, regional health authorities and hospitals, the results indicate that there are large differences between work settings in regard to clinical guideline utilization. Not surprisingly, work settings like hospitals rely more intensively on clinical guidelines than the other work settings (health ministries or agencies and regional health authorities). The results of the regression models indicate that cognitive factors, social factors, technological factors, organizational factors and individual attributes significantly predict the utilization of clinical practice guidelines by decision-makers. However, the results of the regression models also indicate that some factors that predict clinical guideline utilization by decision-makers in hospitals do not predict clinical guidelines utilization by decision-makers working in ministries or in regional health authorities. Therefore, these results suggest that customized interventions would be appropriate in order to efficiently increase the utilization of clinical practice guidelines in different work settings. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article addresses three questions: What is the extent of instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use of university research in government agencies? Are there differences between the policy domains in regard to the extent of each type of use? What are the determinants of instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use of university research? Based on a survey of 833 government officials, the results suggest that (1) the three types of use of research simultaneously play a significant role in government agencies, (2) there are large differences between policy domains in regard to research utilization, and (3) a small number of determinants explain the increase of instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of research in a different way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This protocol builds on the development of a) a framework that identified the various supports (i.e. positions, activities, interventions) that a healthcare organisation or health system can implement for evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) and b) a qualitative study that showed the current mix of supports that some Canadian healthcare organisations have in place and the ones that are perceived to facilitate the use of research evidence in decision-making. Based on these findings, we developed a web survey to collect cross-sectional data about the specific supports that regional health authorities and hospitals in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec) have in place to facilitate EIDM.Methods/design: This paper describes the methods for a cross-sectional web survey among 32 regional health authorities and 253 hospitals in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario (Canada) to collect data on the current mix of organisational supports that these organisations have in place to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making. The data will be obtained through a two-step survey design: a 10-min survey among CEOs to identify key units and individuals in regard to our objectives (step 1) and a 20-min survey among managers of the key units identified in step 1 to collect information about the activities performed by their unit regarding the acquisition, assessment, adaptation and/or dissemination of research evidence in decision-making (step 2). The study will target three types of informants: CEOs, library/documentation centre managers and all other key managers whose unit is involved in the acquisition, assessment, adaptation/packaging and/or dissemination of research evidence in decision-making. We developed an innovative data collection system to increase the likelihood that only the best-informed respondent available answers each survey question. The reporting of the results will be done using descriptive statistics of supports by organisation type and by province.Discussion: This study will be the first to collect and report large-scale cross-sectional data on the current mix of supports health system organisations in the two most populous Canadian provinces have in place for evidence-informed decision-making. The study will also provide useful information to researchers on how to collect organisation-level data with reduced risk of self-reporting bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence-informed health policymaking logically depends on timely access to research evidence. To our knowledge, despite the substantial political and societal pressure to enhance the use of the best available research evidence in public health policy and program decision making, there is no study addressing availability of peer-reviewed research in Canadian health ministries.Objectives: To assess availability of (1) a purposive sample of high-ranking scientific journals, (2) bibliographic databases, and (3) health library services in the fourteen Canadian health ministries.Methods: From May to October 2011, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among librarians employed by Canadian health ministries to collect information relative to availability of scientific journals, bibliographic databases, and health library services. Availability of scientific journals in each ministry was determined using a sample of 48 journals selected from the 2009 Journal Citation Reports (Sciences and Social Sciences Editions). Selection criteria were: relevance for health policy based on scope note information about subject categories and journal popularity based on impact factors.Results: We found that the majority of Canadian health ministries did not have subscription access to key journals and relied heavily on interlibrary loans. Overall, based on a sample of high-ranking scientific journals, availability of journals through interlibrary loans, online and print-only subscriptions was estimated at 63%, 28% and 3%, respectively. Health Canada had a 2.3-fold higher number of journal subscriptions than that of the provincial ministries' average. Most of the organisations provided access to numerous discipline-specific and multidisciplinary databases. Many organisations provided access to the library resources described through library partnerships or consortia. No professionally led health library environment was found in four out of fourteen Canadian health ministries (i.e. Manitoba Health, Northwest Territories Department of Health and Social Services, Nunavut Department of Health and Social Services and Yukon Department of Health and Social Services).Conclusions: There is inequity in availability of peer-reviewed research in the fourteen Canadian health ministries. This inequity could present a problem, as each province and territory is responsible for formulating and implementing evidence-informed health policies and services for the benefit of its population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Efforts have been made by health research granting agencies to bring research closer to patients' concerns. In Canada, such efforts were formalized in 2011 with the funding of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR)'s research networks to address research priorities identified by patients and accelerate the translation of research findings into patient care and health care policy. Among these networks, SPOR Diabetes Action Canada (DAC) has created patient-partner circles to facilitate their integration within the network. The nature of the relationships within this atypical patient-oriented research network is systematically explored in this paper.Methods: A cross-sectional social network study was conducted among the SPOR DAC's network members to examine inter-individual interactions, and the topics discussed the most between members. Descriptive data analyses were conducted to explore which discussion topics were discussed most among members whose primary roles were research, administration, governance, and patient representation.Results: The response rate was 51.9%, providing data on 76.5% of the maximum number of connections in the network. The survey captured 2763 inter-individual relationships. Responses to a sub-question inserted in the survey show that 482 of these relationships (17,4%) existed before joining the network in collaboration on a research project. Most ties captured in the survey were yearly or quarterly, while few relationships were monthly, weekly, or daily. In measured relationships, members discussed several topics, the most frequent being scientific research, patient engagement, network coordination and governance, and operations and management. The topics associated with the most significant proportion of relationships captured in the survey were scientific research (45.4%) and patient engagement (40.7%). Management & operations and governance & coordination follow, corresponding to 24.3 and 23.9% of the captured relationships. All discussion topic subnetworks were either somewhat or highly centralized, meaning that relationships were not equally distributed among members involved in these discussions. Of the 1256 relationships involving exchanges about scientific research, 647 (51.5%) involved a researcher, 419 (33.3%) an administrator, 182 (14.5%) a patient partner, and 82 (6.5%) a member whose primary role is network governance.Conclusions: Scientific research and patient engagement were the most common topics discussed, consistent with the patient-centered research at the heart of the SPOR Diabetes Action Canada network. The study identified several relationships where a patient partner has discussed scientific research with a researcher. However, relationships involving research discussions were three times more common between a researcher and an administrator than between a researcher and a patient partner, although twice as many patient partners as administrators participated in the survey. The institutionalization of patient-partner involvement in large research networks is an evolving practice for which optimal engagement methods are still being explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic review and synthesis methods have gained wide acceptance within the social sciences and, as a result, many postgraduate students now consider using them for their thesis or dissertation research. However, students are rarely aware of all the concrete implications that their decision entails. This reflective narrative reports the experience of a political science student who began to conduct a systematic review as part of his Ph.D. dissertation but who did not complete it. The aim of this article is to identify challenges and lessons learned from this experience and to formulate recommendations for postgraduate students who wish to make an informed choice with respect to the use of these methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study examines research knowledge infrastructures (RKIs) found in health systems. An RKI is defined as any instrument (i.e., programs, interventions, tools) implemented in order to facilitate access, dissemination, exchange, and/or use of evidence in healthcare organisations. Based on an environmental scan (17 key informant interviews) and scoping review (26 studies), we found support for a framework that we developed that outlines components that a health system can have in its RKI. The broad domains are climate for research use, research production, activities used to link research to action, and evaluation. The objective of the current study is to profile the RKI of three types of health system organisations-regional health authorities, primary care practices, and hospitals-in two Canadian provinces to determine the current mix of components these organisations have in their RKI, their experience with these components, and their views about future RKI initiatives. Methods: This study will include semistructured telephone interviews with a purposive sample region of a senior management team member, library/resource centre manager, and a 'knowledge broker' in three regional health authorities, five or six purposively sampled hospitals, and five or six primary care practices in Ontario and Quebec, for a maximum of 71 interviewees. The interviews will explore (a) which RKI components have proven helpful, (b) barriers and facilitators in implementing RKI components, and (c) views about next steps in further development of RKIs. Discussion: This is the first qualitative examination of potential RKI efforts that can increase the use of research evidence in health system decision making. We anticipate being able to identify broadly applicable insights about important next steps in building effective RKIs. Some of the identified RKI components may increase the use of research evidence by decision makers, which may then lead to more informed decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National and regional differences are more and more frequently explained by differences in milieux . This type of explanation raises three questions: Can we identify milieux ? What are the determinants of milieux ? Are there differences between industries in the matter of determinants of milieux ? Most studies on milieux innovateurs are based on case studies and qualitative data. This paper is quantitative and comparative in nature. It attempts to identify milieux and their determinants by using data from the 1999 Statistics Canada Innovation Survey. Based on two synthetic indicators of interactions (weak/strong) and learning (weak/strong), four categories of milieux innovateurs are differentiated which become the dependent variables. In order to see what the determinants of the various milieux innovateurs are and to see in what ways the most favorable milieux innovateurs compare to the others, binomial logit models have been estimated for four industries using the following independent variables: competitive pressures, barriers to knowledge exchange, use of government support, number of employees, collaborative arrangements, R&D activities, regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence-based indicators of quality of care have been developed to improve care and performance in Canadian emergency departments. The feasibility of measuring these indicators has been assessed mainly in urban and academic emergency departments. We sought to assess the feasibility of measuring quality-of-care indicators in rural emergency departments in Quebec. Methods: We previously identified rural emergency departments in Quebec that offered medical coverage with hospital beds 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and were located in rural areas or small towns as defined by Statistics Canada. A standardized protocol was sent to each emergency department to collect data on 27 validated quality-of-care indicators in 8 categories: duration of stay, patient safety, pain management, pediatrics, cardiology, respiratory care, stroke and sepsis/infection. Data were collected by local professional medical archivists between June and December 2013. Results: Fifteen (58%) of the 26 emergency departments invited to participate completed data collection. The ability to measure the 27 quality-of-care indicators with the use of databases varied across departments. Centres 2, 5, 6 and 13 used databases for at least 21 of the indicators (78%–92%), whereas centres 3, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 15 used databases for 5 (18%) or fewer of the indicators. On average, the centres were able to measure only 41% of the indicators using heterogeneous databases and manual extraction. The 15 centres collected data from 15 different databases or combinations of databases. The average data collection time for each quality- of-care indicator varied from 5 to 88.5 minutes. The median data collection time was 15 minutes or less for most indicators. Interpretation: Quality-of-care indicators were not easily captured with the use of existing databases in rural emergency departments in Quebec. Further work is warranted to improve standardized measurement of these indicators in rural emergency departments in the province and to generalize the information gathered in this study to other health care environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We completed a scoping review on the barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers, including consideration of format and content, to develop recommendations for systematic review authors and to inform research efforts to develop and test formats for systematic reviews that may optimise their uptake.Methods: We used the Arksey and O'Malley approach for our scoping review. Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo) were searched from inception until September 2014. Any study that identified barriers or facilitators (including format and content features) to uptake of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers/analysts was eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the literature results and abstracted data from the relevant studies. The identified barriers and facilitators were charted using a barriers and facilitators taxonomy for implementing clinical practice guidelines by clinicians.Results: We identified useful information for authors of systematic reviews to inform their preparation of reviews including providing one-page summaries with key messages, tailored to the relevant audience. Moreover, partnerships between researchers and policy makers/managers to facilitate the conduct and use of systematic reviews should be considered to enhance relevance of reviews and thereby influence uptake.Conclusions: Systematic review authors can consider our results when publishing their systematic reviews. These strategies should be rigorously evaluated to determine impact on use of reviews in decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rural emergency departments (EDs) constitute crucial safety nets for the 20% of Canadians who live in rural areas. Pilot data suggests that the province of Québec appears to provide more comprehensive access to services than do other provinces. A difference that may be attributable to provincial policy/guidelines "the provincial ED management Guide". The aim of this study was to provide a detailed description of rural EDs in Québec and utilization of the provincial ED management Guide.Methods: We selected EDs offering 24/7 medical coverage, with hospitalization beds, located in rural or small towns. We collected data via telephone, paper, and online surveys with rural ED/hospital staff. Data were also collected from Québec's Ministry of Health databases and from Statistics Canada. We computed descriptive statistics, ANOVA and t-tests were used to examine the relationship between ED census, services and inter-facility transfer requirements.Results: A total of 23 of Québec's 26 rural EDs (88%) consented to participate in the study. The mean annual ED visits was 18 813 (Standard Deviation = 6 151). Thirty one percent of ED physicians were recent graduates with fewer than 5 years of experience. Only 6 % had residency training or certification in emergency medicine. Teams have good local access (24/7) to diagnostic equipment such as CT scanner (74%), intensive unit care (78%) and general surgical services (78%), but limited access to other consultants. Sixty one percent of participants have reported good knowledge of the provincial ED management Guide, but only 23% of them have used the guidelines. Furthermore, more than 40% of EDs were more than 300 km from levels 1 to 2 trauma centers, and only 30% had air transport access.Conclusions: Rural EDs in Québec are staffed by relatively new graduates working as solo physicians in well-resourced and moderately busy (by rural standards) EDs. The provincial ED management Guide may have contributed to this model of service attribution. However, the majority of rural ED staff report limited knowledge or use of the provincial ED management Guide and increased efforts at disseminating this Guide are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We developed an evidence service that draws inputs from Health Systems Evidence (HSE), which is a comprehensive database of research evidence about governance, financial and delivery arrangements within health systems and about implementation strategies relevant to health systems. Our goal was to evaluate whether, how and why a 'full-serve' evidence service increases the use of synthesized research evidence by policy analysts and advisors in the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care as compared to a 'self-serve' evidence service.Methods: We attempted to conduct a two-arm, 10-month randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process evaluation, but we terminated the RCT when we failed to reach our recruitment target. For the qualitative process evaluation we modified the original interview guide to allow us to explore the (1) factors influencing participation in the trial; (2) usage of HSE, factors explaining usage patterns, and strategies to increase usage; (3) participation in training workshops and use of other supports; and (4) views about and experiences with key HSE features.Results: We terminated the RCT given our 15% recruitment rate. Six factors were identified by those who had agreed to participate in the trial as encouraging their participation: relevance of the study to participants' own work; familiarity with the researchers; personal view of the importance of using research evidence in policymaking; academic background; support from supervisors; and participation of colleagues. Most reported that they never, infrequently or inconsistently used HSE and suggested strategies to increase its use, including regular email reminders and employee training. However, only two participants indicated that employee training, in the form of a workshop about finding and using research evidence, had influenced their use of HSE. Most participants found HSE features to be intuitive and helpful, although registration/sign-in and some page formats (particularly the advanced search page and detailed search results page) discouraged their use or did not optimize the user experience.Conclusions: The qualitative findings informed a re-design of HSE, which allows users to more efficiently find and use research evidence about how to strengthen or reform health systems or in how to get cost-effective programs, services and drugs to those who need them. Our experience with RCT recruitment suggests the need to consider changing the unit of allocation to divisions instead of individuals within divisions, among other lessons.Trial Registration: This protocol for this study is published in Implementation Science and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( HHS/FHS REB 10-267 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Information about recruitment and retention factors and quality of work life (QWL) in rural emergency departments (EDs) is limited. A pilot study was used to determine the feasibility of a large-scale study of these variables in Quebec EDs. Methods: Two EDs, approximately 10,000 and 30,000 patients per year respectively, were selected as convenience samples. An online survey containing the Quality of Work Life Systemic Inventory (QWLSI; 34 items) and the Recruitment and Retention Factors Questionnaire (39 items) was sent to ED nurses and physicians of these two EDs. Descriptive statistics of percentage, mean and standard deviation and correlations were used to analyse the data. Results: Forty out of 64 eligible workers (62%) gave their consent to participate, but only 20 had completed both questionnaires. Participants' mean age was 42 years (SD = 11.6). The average participants satisfaction with their access to continuing education was low (Mean = 1.6, SD = 0.8). However, their satisfaction with technical resources (Mean = 2.4, SD = 0.7), pre-hospital and inter-hospital transfer services (Mean = 2.5, SD = 0.6), relationships with colleagues (Mean = 2.7, SD = 0.6) and managers (Mean = 2.2, SD = 0.7), work-life balance (Mean = 2.4, SD = 0.6) and emergency patient access to other departments (Mean = 3.7, SD = 0.6) was in the average. The impact of several aspects of the rural environment (e.g. tranquility) on quality of life was also in the average (Mean = 2.5, SD = 0.7). QWL was in the average, excepted subscale 'support offered to employee' for which the QWL was lower. Conclusions: Data collection was difficult and the larger study will require strategies to improve recruitment such as a paper alternative. The study showed globally good recruitment and retention factors and QWL for these ED nurses and physicians. These results will help hospital administrations better plan initiatives aimed at improving retention and QWL [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Health services research generates useful knowledge. Promotion of implementation of this knowledge in medical practice is essential. Prior to initiation of a major study on rural emergency departments (EDs), we deployed two knowledge transfer strategies designed to generate interest and engagement from potential knowledge users. The objective of this paper was to review: 1) a combined project launch and media press release strategy, and 2) a pre-study survey designed to survey potential knowledge users’ opinions on the proposed study variables. Materials and Methods: We evaluated the impact of the project launch (presentation at two conferences hosted by key stakeholders) and media press release via a survey of participants/stakeholders and by calculating the number of media interview requests and reports generated. We used a pre-study survey to collect potential key stakeholder’ opinions on the study variables. Results: Twenty-one of Quebec’s 26 rural EDs participated in the pre-study survey (81% participation rate). The press release about the study generated 51 press articles and 20 media request for interviews, and contributed to public awareness of a major rural research initiative. In the pre-study survey, thirteen participants (46%) mentioned prior knowledge of the research project. Results from the pre-study survey revealed that all of the potential study variables were considered to be relevant for inclusion in the research project. Respondents also proposed additional variables of interest, including factors promoting retention of human resources. Conclusions: The present study demonstrated the potential utility of a two-pronged knowledge transfer strategy, including a combined formal launch and press release, and a pre-study survey designed to ensure that the included variables were of interest to participants and stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mobilizing research evidence for daily decision-making is challenging for health system decision-makers. In a previous qualitative paper, we showed the current mix of supports that Canadian health-care organizations have in place and the ones that are perceived to be helpful to facilitate the use of research evidence in health system decision-making. Factors influencing the implementation of such supports remain poorly described in the literature. Identifying the barriers to and facilitators of different interventions is essential for implementation of effective, context-specific, supports for evidence-informed decisionmaking (EIDM) in health systems. The purpose of this study was to identify (a) barriers and facilitators to implementing supports for EIDM in Canadian health-care organizations, (b) views about emerging development of supports for EIDM, and (c) views about the priorities to bridge the gaps in the current mix of supports that these organizations have in place. Methods This qualitative study was conducted in three types of health-care organizations (regional health authorities, hospitals, and primary care practices) in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec). Fifty-seven in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with senior managers, library managers, and knowledge brokers from health-care organizations that have already undertaken strategic initiatives in knowledge translation. The interviews were taped, transcribed, and then analyzed thematically using NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software. Results Limited resources (i.e., money or staff), time constraints, and negative attitudes (or resistance) toward change were the most frequently identified barriers to implementing supports for EIDM. Genuine interest from health system decision-makers, notably their willingness to invest money and resources and to create a knowledge translation culture over time in health-care organizations, was the most frequently identified facilitator to implementing supports for EIDM. The most frequently cited views about emerging development of supports for EIDM were implementing accessible and efficient systems to support the use of research in decision-making (e.g., documentation and reporting tools, communication tools, and decision support tools) and developing and implementing an infrastructure or position where the accountability for encouraging knowledge use lies. The most frequently stated priorities for bridging the gaps in the current mix of supports that these organizations have in place were implementing technical infrastructures to support research use and to ensure access to research evidence and establishing formal or informal ties to researchers and knowledge brokers outside the organization who can assist in EIDM. Conclusions These results provide insights on the type of practical implementation imperatives involved in supporting EIDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The translation of research into practices has been incomplete. Organizational readiness for change (ORC) is a potential facilitator of effective knowledge translation (KT). However we know little about the best way to assess ORC. Therefore, we sought to systematically review ORC measurement instruments. Methods: We searched for published studies in bibliographic databases (Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, etc.) up to November 1st, 2012. We included publications that developed ORC measures and/or empirically assessed ORC using an instrument at the organizational level in the health care context. We excluded articles if they did not refer specifically to ORC, did not concern the health care domain or were limited to individual-level change readiness. We focused on identifying the psychometric properties of instruments that were developed to assess readiness in an organization prior to implementing KT interventions in health care. We used the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing to assess the psychometric properties of identified ORC measurement instruments. Findings: We found 26 eligible instruments described in 39 publications. According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 18 (69%) of a total of 26 measurement instruments presented both validity and reliability criteria. The Texas Christian University –ORC (TCU-ORC) scale reported the highest instrument validity with a score of 4 out of 4. Only one instrument, namely the Modified Texas Christian University – Director version (TCU-ORC-D), reported a reliability score of 2 out of 3. No information was provided regarding the reliability and validity of five (19%) instruments. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that there are few valid and reliable ORC measurement instruments that could be applied to KT in the health care sector. The TCU-ORC instrument presents the best evidence in terms of validity testing. Future studies using this instrument could provide more knowledge on its relevance to diverse clinical contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health-care organizations need to be ready prior to implement evidence-based interventions. In this study, we sought to achieve consensus on a framework to assess the readiness of health-care organizations to implement evidence-based interventions in the context of chronic care. Methods:We conducted a web-based modified Delphi study between March and May 2013. We contacted 76 potentially eligible international experts working in the fields of organizational readiness (OR), knowledge translation (KT), and chronic care to comment upon the 76 elements resulting from our proposed conceptual map. This conceptual map was based on a systematic review of the existing frameworks of Organizational Readiness for Change (ORC) in health-care. We developed a conceptual map that proposed a set of core concepts and their associated 17 dimensions and 59 sub-dimensions. Experts rated their agreement concerning the applicability and importance of ORC elements on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates total disagreement and 5 indicates total agreement. Two rounds were needed to get a consensus from the experts. Consensus was a priori defined as strong (≥75%) or moderate (60-74%). Simple descriptive statistics was used. Results: In total, 14 participants completed the first round and 10 completed the two rounds. Panel members reached consensus on the applicability and importance of 6 out of 17 dimensions and 28 out of 59 sub-dimensions to assess OR for KT in the context of chronic care. A strong level of consensus (≥75%) was attained on the Organizational contextual factors, Leadership/participation, Organizational support, and Motivation dimensions. The Organizational climate for change and Change content dimensions reached a moderate consensus (60-74%). Experts also reached consensus on 28 out of 59 sub-dimensions to assess OR for KT. Twenty-one sub-dimensions reached a strong consensus (≥75%) and seven a moderate consensus (60-74%). Conclusion: This study results provided the most important and applicable dimensions and sub-dimensions for assessing OR-KT in the context of chronic care. They can be used to guide the design of an assessment tool to improve knowledge translation in the field of chronic care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background With the persistent gaps between research and practice in healthcare systems, knowledge translation (KT) has gained significance and importance. Also, in most industrialized countries, there is an increasing emphasis on managing chronic health conditions with the best available evidence. Yet, organizations aiming to improve chronic care (CC) require an adequate level of organizational readiness (OR) for KT. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to review and synthesize the existing evidence on conceptual models/frameworks of Organizational Readiness for Change (ORC) in healthcare as the basis for the development of a comprehensive framework of OR for KT in the context of CC. Data sources We conducted a systematic review of the literature on OR for KT in CC using Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Sciences (SCI and SSCI), and others. Search terms included readiness; commitment and change; preparedness; willing to change; organization and administration; and health and social services. Study selection: The search was limited to studies that had been published between the starting date of each bibliographic database (e.g., 1964 for PubMed) and November 1, 2012. Only papers that refer to a theory, a theoretical component from any framework or model on OR that were applicable to the healthcare domain were considered. We analyzed data using conceptual mapping. Data extraction: Pairs of authors independently screened the published literature by reviewing their titles and abstracts. Then, the two same reviewers appraised the full text of each study independently. Results Overall, we found and synthesized 10 theories, theoretical models and conceptual frameworks relevant to ORC in healthcare described in 38 publications. We identified five core concepts, namely organizational dynamics, change process, innovation readiness, institutional readiness, and personal readiness. We extracted 17 dimensions and 59 subdimensions related to these 5 concepts. Conclusion Our findings provide a useful overview for researchers interested in ORC and aims to create a consensus on the core theoretical components of ORC in general and of OR for KT in CC in particular. However, more work is needed to define and validate the core elements of a framework that could help to assess OR for KT in CC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Scientific knowledge can help develop interventions that improve public health. The objectives of this review are (1) to describe the status of research on knowledge transfer strategies in the field of complex social interventions in public health and (2) to identify priorities for future research in this field. Method: A scoping study is an exploratory study. After searching databases of bibliographic references and specialized periodicals, we summarized the relevant studies using a predetermined assessment framework. In-depth analysis focused on the following items: types of knowledge transfer strategies, fields of public health, types of publics, types of utilization, and types of research specifications. Results: From the 1,374 references identified, we selected 26 studies. The strategies targeted mostly administrators of organizations and practitioners. The articles generally dealt with instrumental utilization and most often used qualitative methods. In general, the bias risk for the studies is high. Conclusion: Researchers need to consider the methodological challenges in this field of research in order to improve assessment of more complex knowledge transfer strategies (when they exist), not just diffusion/dissemination strategies and conceptual and persuasive utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Decisions regarding health systems are sometimes made without the input of timely and reliable evidence, leading to less than optimal health outcomes. Healthcare organizations can implement tools and infrastructures to support the use of research evidence to inform decision-making. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to profile the supports and instruments (i.e., programs, interventions, instruments or tools) that healthcare organizations currently have in place and which ones were perceived to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making. Methods: In-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals in three different types of positions (i.e., a senior management team member, a library manager, and a 'knowledge broker') in three types of healthcare organizations (i.e., regional health authorities, hospitals and primary care practices) in two Canadian provinces (i.e., Ontario and Quebec). The interviews were taped, transcribed, and then analyzed thematically using NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software. Results: A total of 57 interviews were conducted in 25 organizations in Ontario and Quebec. The main findings suggest that, for the healthcare organizations that participated in this study, the following supports facilitate evidence-informed decision-making: facilitating roles that actively promote research use within the organization; establishing ties to researchers and opinion leaders outside the organization; a technical infrastructure that provides access to research evidence, such as databases; and provision and participation in training programs to enhance staff's capacity building. Conclusions: This study identified the need for having a receptive climate, which laid the foundation for the implementation of other tangible initiatives and supported the use of research in decision-making. This study adds to the literature on organizational efforts that can increase the use of research evidence in decision-making. Some of the identified supports may increase the use of research evidence by decision-makers, which may then lead to more informed decisions, and hopefully to a strengthened health system and improved health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health-system policy makers need timely access to synthesised research evidence to inform the policymaking process. No efforts to address this need have been evaluated using an experimental quantitative design. We developed an evidence service that draws inputs from Health Systems Evidence, which is a database of policy-relevant systematic reviews. The reviews have been (a) categorised by topic and type of review; (b) coded by the last year searches for studies were conducted and by the countries in which included studies were conducted; (c) rated for quality; and (d) linked to available user-friendly summaries, scientific abstracts, and full-text reports. Our goal is to evaluate whether a "full-serve" evidence service increases the use of synthesized research evidence by policy analysts and advisors in the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) as compared to a "self-serve" evidence service. Methods/design: We will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process study in order to explore the findings in greater depth. For the RCT, all policy analysts and policy advisors (n = 168) in a single division of the MOHLTC will be invited to participate. Using a stratified randomized design, participants will be randomized to receive either the "full-serve" evidence service (database access, monthly e-mail alerts, and full-text article availability) or the "self-serve" evidence service (database access only). The trial duration will be ten months (two-month baseline period, six-month intervention period, and two month cross-over period). The primary outcome will be the mean number of site visits/month/user between baseline and the end of the intervention period. The secondary outcome will be participants' intention to use research evidence. For the qualitative study, 15 participants from each trial arm (n = 30) will be purposively sampled. One-on-one semi-structured interviews will be conducted by telephone on their views about and their experiences with the evidence service they received, how helpful it was in their work, why it was helpful (or not helpful), what aspects were most and least helpful and why, and recommendations for next steps. Discussion: To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT to evaluate the effects of an evidence service specifically designed to support health-system policy makers in finding and using research evidence. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01307228 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While the evidence suggests that the way physicians provide information to patients is crucial in helping patients decide upon a course of action, the field of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) is silent about how the physician and the patient influence each other during clinical interactions and decision-making. Consequently, based on a novel relationshipcentered model, EXACKTE2 (EXploiting the clinicAl Consultation as a Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Environment), this study proposes to assess how patients and physicians influence each other in consultations. Methods: We will employ a cross-sectional study design involving 300 pairs of patients and family physicians from two primary care practice-based research networks. The consultation between patient and physician will be audio-taped and transcribed. Following the consultation, patients and physicians will complete a set of questionnaires based on the EXACKTE2 model. All questionnaires will be similar for patients and physicians. These questionnaires will assess the key concepts of our proposed model based on the essential elements of shared decision-making (SDM): definition and explanation of problem; presentation of options; discussion of pros and cons; clarification of patient values and preferences; discussion of patient ability and self-efficacy; presentation of doctor knowledge and recommendation; and checking and clarifying understanding. Patients will be contacted by phone two weeks later and asked to complete questionnaires on decisional regret and quality of life. The analysis will be conducted to compare the key concepts in the EXACKTE2 model between patients and physicians. It will also allow the assessment of how patients and physicians influence each other in consultations. Discussion: Our proposed model, EXACKTE2, is aimed at advancing the science of KTE based on a relationship process when decision-making has to take place. It fosters a new KTE paradigm by putting forward a relationship-centered perspective and has the potential to reveal unknown mechanisms that underline effective KTE in clinical contexts. This will result in better understanding of the mechanisms that may promote a new generation of knowledge transfer strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the use of research by managers and professionals in Canadian health service organizations (ministries, regional authorities, and hospitals). The results of the analysis of the 928 responses underlined the important role that the absorption, learning, culture, and linkage mechanism variables played in determining utilization. General linear regression and regression by organizational type confirmed the importance of the linkage mechanisms, research experience, unit size, and research relevance for the users. The emphasis could thus be put, according to the organization type, on research experience. linkage mechanisms, unit size, research culture, research relevance for the users, and research activities, The article also underscores the individual and organizational contextual factors' high degree of significance by expressing these contextual factors us organizational variables and by adopting a more organizational perspective of knowledge utilization analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Emergency departments (EDs) represent an important safety net for rural populations. In the present context of growing needs and limited resources, policy-makers thus need evidence to inform their choices about allocation of emergency care and services in remote areas. We present preliminary data and unique methodological challenges from this large ongoing study that mobilizes patients, citizens and multiple stakeholders with the mission of improving rural emergency care in Canada's second largest province [1]. Methods: This participatory action research aims to facilitate implementation of locally relevant solutions to improve emergency care. Twenty six rural EDs met our inclusion criteria (24/7 services, admission beds, town < 15 000 inhabitants, located > 5o minutes from a level I or II trauma center). A local "champion" for each site was designated. He/she collaborated with the research team throughout the project. Data collection: 1- A quantitative questionnaire to describe each EDs was completed. 2- In order to emphasize rural stakeholder's perspective on their challenges and solutions, various stakeholders (national, regional and local decisions-makers, health-care professionals, patients and citizens) were invited to participate in semistructured interviews. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. 3- An expert panel will develop consensus recommendations from solutions suggested in the interviews and will evaluate feasibility, impacts, costs and priority. 4- Recommendations will be transferred to stakeholders using tailored knowledge translation strategies. 5- Questionnaires will be develop to evaluate KT and explore further impacts of the project. Results: In total, Rural EDs treat more than 300 000 patients / year (15000/ED/year). Sixty percent of rural EDs are more than 150km away from a level I or II trauma center. Lack of local resources leads to transfers of 3-4% of all cases, often on an emergent basis. A total of 185 persons from 10 different ED/communities participated in an interview phase. The ongoing analysis of the interviews confirm the unique challenges rural ED faced (recruitment and retention, medical transfers, access to specialties, etc.). It also highlights promising solutions to improve care in rural ED (administrative autonomy, expanded practice, technological solutions, etc.). The expert panel will meet this winter. Expected results is a comprehensive list of tailored-made solutions and resources for rural EDs. Discussions: This is the first study in rural Canada to involve multiple stakeholders/patients in a mission to improve locally relevant and sustainable emergency care. Conclusions: This research experience, involving large-scale mobilisation, will hopefully serve as a model for improving performance in all areas of our health and social care system. Lessons learned: Participatory action research approach is demanding but it can lead to rich collaborations and help implement recommendations. Limitation: Implementation of solutions is pending but the unique methodology of the research project is, in itself, interesting to report. Suggestions for future research: The study's methodology could be deployed elsewhere in Canada and internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prenatal education is a core component of perinatal care and services provided by health institutions. Whereas group prenatal education is the most common educational model, some health institutions have opted to implement online prenatal education to address accessibility issues as well as the evolving needs of future parents. Various studies have shown that prenatal education can be effective in acquisition of knowledge on labour and delivery, reducing psychological distress and maximising father's involvement. However, these results may depend on educational material, organization, format and content. Furthermore, the effectiveness of online prenatal education compared to group prenatal education remains unclear in the literature. This project aims to evaluate the impacts of group prenatal education and online prenatal education on health determinants and users' health status, as well as on networks of perinatal educational services maintained with community-based partners.Methods: This multipronged mixed methods study uses a collaborative research approach to integrate and mobilize knowledge throughout the process. It consists of: 1) a prospective cohort study with quantitative data collection and qualitative interviews with future and new parents; and 2) a multiple case study integrating documentary sources and interviews with stakeholders involved in the implementation of perinatal information service networks and collaborations with community partners. Perinatal health indicators and determinants will be compared between prenatal education groups (group prenatal education and online prenatal education) and standard care without these prenatal education services (control group).Discussion: This study will provide knowledge about the impact of online prenatal education as a new technological service delivery model compared to traditional group prenatal education. Indicators related to the complementarity of these interventions and those available in community settings will refine our understanding of regional perinatal services networks. Results will assist decision-making regarding service organization and delivery models of prenatal education services.Protocol Version: Version 1 (February 9 2018). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mobilizing research evidence for daily decision-making is challenging for health system decision-makers. In a previous qualitative paper, we showed the current mix of supports that Canadian health-care organizations have in place and the ones that are perceived to be helpful to facilitate the use of research evidence in health system decision-making. Factors influencing the implementation of such supports remain poorly described in the literature. Identifying the barriers to and facilitators of different interventions is essential for implementation of effective, context-specific, supports for evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in health systems. The purpose of this study was to identify (a) barriers and facilitators to implementing supports for EIDM in Canadian health-care organizations, (b) views about emerging development of supports for EIDM, and (c) views about the priorities to bridge the gaps in the current mix of supports that these organizations have in place.Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in three types of health-care organizations (regional health authorities, hospitals, and primary care practices) in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec). Fifty-seven in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with senior managers, library managers, and knowledge brokers from health-care organizations that have already undertaken strategic initiatives in knowledge translation. The interviews were taped, transcribed, and then analyzed thematically using NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software.Results: Limited resources (i.e., money or staff), time constraints, and negative attitudes (or resistance) toward change were the most frequently identified barriers to implementing supports for EIDM. Genuine interest from health system decision-makers, notably their willingness to invest money and resources and to create a knowledge translation culture over time in health-care organizations, was the most frequently identified facilitator to implementing supports for EIDM. The most frequently cited views about emerging development of supports for EIDM were implementing accessible and efficient systems to support the use of research in decision-making (e.g., documentation and reporting tools, communication tools, and decision support tools) and developing and implementing an infrastructure or position where the accountability for encouraging knowledge use lies. The most frequently stated priorities for bridging the gaps in the current mix of supports that these organizations have in place were implementing technical infrastructures to support research use and to ensure access to research evidence and establishing formal or informal ties to researchers and knowledge brokers outside the organization who can assist in EIDM.Conclusions: These results provide insights on the type of practical implementation imperatives involved in supporting EIDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health-care organizations need to be ready prior to implement evidence-based interventions. In this study, we sought to achieve consensus on a framework to assess the readiness of health-care organizations to implement evidence-based interventions in the context of chronic care.Methods: We conducted a web-based modified Delphi study between March and May 2013. We contacted 76 potentially eligible international experts working in the fields of organizational readiness (OR), knowledge translation (KT), and chronic care to comment upon the 76 elements resulting from our proposed conceptual map. This conceptual map was based on a systematic review of the existing frameworks of Organizational Readiness for Change (ORC) in health-care. We developed a conceptual map that proposed a set of core concepts and their associated 17 dimensions and 59 sub-dimensions. Experts rated their agreement concerning the applicability and importance of ORC elements on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates total disagreement and 5 indicates total agreement. Two rounds were needed to get a consensus from the experts. Consensus was a priori defined as strong (≥75%) or moderate (60-74%). Simple descriptive statistics was used.Results: In total, 14 participants completed the first round and 10 completed the two rounds. Panel members reached consensus on the applicability and importance of 6 out of 17 dimensions and 28 out of 59 sub-dimensions to assess OR for KT in the context of chronic care. A strong level of consensus (≥75%) was attained on the Organizational contextual factors, Leadership/participation, Organizational support, and Motivation dimensions. The Organizational climate for change and Change content dimensions reached a moderate consensus (60-74%). Experts also reached consensus on 28 out of 59 sub-dimensions to assess OR for KT. Twenty-one sub-dimensions reached a strong consensus (≥75%) and seven a moderate consensus (60-74%).Conclusion: This study results provided the most important and applicable dimensions and sub-dimensions for assessing OR-KT in the context of chronic care. They can be used to guide the design of an assessment tool to improve knowledge translation in the field of chronic care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With the persistent gaps between research and practice in healthcare systems, knowledge translation (KT) has gained significance and importance. Also, in most industrialized countries, there is an increasing emphasis on managing chronic health conditions with the best available evidence. Yet, organizations aiming to improve chronic care (CC) require an adequate level of organizational readiness (OR) for KT.Objectives: The purpose of this study is to review and synthesize the existing evidence on conceptual models/frameworks of Organizational Readiness for Change (ORC) in healthcare as the basis for the development of a comprehensive framework of OR for KT in the context of CC.Data Sources: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on OR for KT in CC using Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Sciences (SCI and SSCI), and others. Search terms included readiness; commitment and change; preparedness; willing to change; organization and administration; and health and social services.Study Selection: The search was limited to studies that had been published between the starting date of each bibliographic database (e.g., 1964 for PubMed) and November 1, 2012. Only papers that refer to a theory, a theoretical component from any framework or model on OR that were applicable to the healthcare domain were considered. We analyzed data using conceptual mapping.Data Extraction: Pairs of authors independently screened the published literature by reviewing their titles and abstracts. Then, the two same reviewers appraised the full text of each study independently.Results: Overall, we found and synthesized 10 theories, theoretical models and conceptual frameworks relevant to ORC in healthcare described in 38 publications. We identified five core concepts, namely organizational dynamics, change process, innovation readiness, institutional readiness, and personal readiness. We extracted 17 dimensions and 59 sub-dimensions related to these 5 concepts.Conclusion: Our findings provide a useful overview for researchers interested in ORC and aims to create a consensus on the core theoretical components of ORC in general and of OR for KT in CC in particular. However, more work is needed to define and validate the core elements of a framework that could help to assess OR for KT in CC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Decisions regarding health systems are sometimes made without the input of timely and reliable evidence, leading to less than optimal health outcomes. Healthcare organizations can implement tools and infrastructures to support the use of research evidence to inform decision-making.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to profile the supports and instruments (i.e., programs, interventions, instruments or tools) that healthcare organizations currently have in place and which ones were perceived to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making.Methods: In-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals in three different types of positions (i.e., a senior management team member, a library manager, and a 'knowledge broker') in three types of healthcare organizations (i.e., regional health authorities, hospitals and primary care practices) in two Canadian provinces (i.e., Ontario and Quebec). The interviews were taped, transcribed, and then analyzed thematically using NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software.Results: A total of 57 interviews were conducted in 25 organizations in Ontario and Quebec. The main findings suggest that, for the healthcare organizations that participated in this study, the following supports facilitate evidence-informed decision-making: facilitating roles that actively promote research use within the organization; establishing ties to researchers and opinion leaders outside the organization; a technical infrastructure that provides access to research evidence, such as databases; and provision and participation in training programs to enhance staff's capacity building.Conclusions: This study identified the need for having a receptive climate, which laid the foundation for the implementation of other tangible initiatives and supported the use of research in decision-making. This study adds to the literature on organizational efforts that can increase the use of research evidence in decision-making. Some of the identified supports may increase the use of research evidence by decision-makers, which may then lead to more informed decisions, and hopefully to a strengthened health system and improved health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To assess the psychometric properties of dyadic measures for shared decision making (SDM) research. Study Design and Setting: We conducted an observational cross-sectional study in 17 primary care clinics with physician-patient dyads. We used seven subscales to measure six elements of SDM: (1) defining the problem, presenting options, and discussing pros and cons; (2) clarifying the patient''s values and preferences; (3) discussing the patient''s self-efficacy; (4) drawing on the doctor''s knowledge; (5) verifying the patient''s understanding; and (6) assessing the patient''s uncertainty. We assessed the reliability and invariance of the factorial structure and considered a measure to be dyadic if the factorial structure of the patient version was similar to that of the physician version and if there was equality of loading (no significant chi-square). Results: We analyzed data for 264 physicians and 269 patients. All measures except one showed adequate reliability (Cronbach alpha, 0.70–0.93) and factorial validity (root mean square error of approximation, 0.000–0.06). However, we found only four measures to be dyadic (P >0.05): the values clarification subscale, perceived behavioral subscale, information-verifying subscale, and uncertainty subscale. Conclusion: The subscales for values clarification, perceived behavioral control, information verifying, and uncertainty are appropriate dyadic measures for SDM research and can be used to derive dyadic indices. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: While the evidence suggests that the way physicians provide information to patients is crucial in helping patients decide upon a course of action, the field of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) is silent about how the physician and the patient influence each other during clinical interactions and decision-making. Consequently, based on a novel relationship-centered model, EXACKTE(2) (EXploiting the clinicAl Consultation as a Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Environment), this study proposes to assess how patients and physicians influence each other in consultations.Methods: We will employ a cross-sectional study design involving 300 pairs of patients and family physicians from two primary care practice-based research networks. The consultation between patient and physician will be audio-taped and transcribed. Following the consultation, patients and physicians will complete a set of questionnaires based on the EXACKTE(2) model. All questionnaires will be similar for patients and physicians. These questionnaires will assess the key concepts of our proposed model based on the essential elements of shared decision-making (SDM): definition and explanation of problem; presentation of options; discussion of pros and cons; clarification of patient values and preferences; discussion of patient ability and self-efficacy; presentation of doctor knowledge and recommendation; and checking and clarifying understanding. Patients will be contacted by phone two weeks later and asked to complete questionnaires on decisional regret and quality of life. The analysis will be conducted to compare the key concepts in the EXACKTE(2) model between patients and physicians. It will also allow the assessment of how patients and physicians influence each other in consultations.Discussion: Our proposed model, EXACKTE(2), is aimed at advancing the science of KTE based on a relationship process when decision-making has to take place. It fosters a new KTE paradigm by putting forward a relationship-centered perspective and has the potential to reveal unknown mechanisms that underline effective KTE in clinical contexts. This will result in better understanding of the mechanisms that may promote a new generation of knowledge transfer strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]