Search

Background Context is recognized as important to successful knowledge translation (KT) in health settings. What is meant by context, however, is poorly understood. The purpose of the current study was to elicit tacit knowledge about what is perceived to constitute context by conducting interviews with a variety of health system stakeholders internationally so as to compile a comprehensive list of contextual attributes and their features relevant to KT in healthcare. Methods A descriptive qualitative study design was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health system stakeholders (change agents/KT specialists and KT researchers) in four countries: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Interview transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic content analysis in four steps: (1) selection of utterances describing context, (2) coding of features of context, (3) categorizing of features into attributes of context, (4) comparison of attributes and features by: country, KT experience, and role. Results A total of 39 interviews were conducted. We identified 66 unique features of context, categorized into 16 attributes. One attribute, Facility Characteristics, was not represented in previously published KT frameworks. We found instances of all 16 attributes in the interviews irrespective of country, level of experience with KT, and primary role (change agent/KT specialist vs. KT researcher), revealing robustness and transferability of the attributes identified. We also identified 30 new context features (across 13 of the 16 attributes). Conclusion The findings from this study represent an important advancement in the KT field; we provide much needed conceptual clarity in context, which is essential to the development of common assessment tools to measure context to determine which context attributes and features are more or less important in different contexts for improving KT success.

Abstract Background Patient and family engagement in health care has emerged as a critical priority. Understanding engagement, from the perspective of the patient and family member, coupled with an awareness of how patient and family members are motivated to be involved, is an important component in increasing the effectiveness of patient engagement initiatives. The purpose of this research was to co‐design a patient and family engagement framework. Methods Workshops were held to provide additional context to the findings from a survey. Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling strategy. Workshop data collected were analysed using a modified constant comparative technique. The core research team participated in a workshop to review the findings from multiple inputs to inform the final framework and participated in a face validity exercise to determine that the components of the framework measured what they were intended to measure. Results The framework is organized into three phases of engagement: why I got involved; why I continue to be involved; and what I need to strengthen my involvement. The final framework describes seven motivations and 24 statements, arranged by the three phases of engagement. Conclusion The results of this research describe the motivations of patient and family members who are involved with health systems in various roles including as patient advisors. A deeper knowledge of patient and family motivations will not only create meaningful engagement opportunities but will also enable health organizations to gain from the voice and experience of these individuals, thereby enhancing the quality and sustainability of patient and family involvement.

Abstract Background Large‐scale transformation depends on effective engagement of diverse stakeholders. With the evolution of the role of the ‘patient partner’ in health‐care decision making, understanding the motivations of these individuals is essential to the success of engagement initiatives. This study reports on motivational factors associated with patient engagement in health care. Methods Patient co‐investigators and a researcher co‐designed and conducted this study. A survey was administered to patients and family members. Key informant interviews and previous research informed the development of the survey tool. The survey data were analysed using exploratory factor analysis to identify the underlying dimensions in the data. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine reliability. Results A total of 1449 individuals participated in the survey. Of these, 543 completed and 427 partially completed the survey (67% complete rate). The mean age of the respondents was 54 years. The majority of participants were female, well‐educated, retired, married and lived in an urban centre. Seven motivational factors explained 65% of the total variance. Analysis of internal consistency revealed acceptable reliability for all items. The seven motivations were as follows: Self‐fulfillment, Improving Healthcare, Compensation, Influence, Learning New Things, Conditional and Perks. Conclusion The results of this research describe a sample of patient and family members currently engaged with health systems. We identified seven motivational factors underlying their engagement. A deeper knowledge of volunteer motivations will not only create meaningful engagement opportunities for patients, but also enable health organizations to gain from the experience of these individuals, thereby enhancing quality and sustainability of patient engagement programmes.

Abstract Background To increase the likelihood of successful implementation of evidence-based practices, researchers, knowledge users, and healthcare professionals must consider aspects of context that promote and hinder implementation in their setting. The purpose of the current study was to identify contextual attributes and their features relevant to implementation by healthcare professionals and compare and contrast these attributes and features across different clinical settings and healthcare professional roles. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of 145 semi-structured interviews comprising 11 studies (10 from Canada and one from Australia) investigating healthcare professionals’ perceived barriers and enablers to their use of research evidence in clinical practice. The data was collected using semi-structured interview guides informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework across different healthcare professional roles, settings, and practices. We analyzed these data inductively, using constant comparative analysis, to identify attributes of context and their features reported in the interviews. We compared these data by (1) setting (primary care, hospital-medical/surgical, hospital-emergency room, hospital-critical care) and (2) professional role (physicians and residents, nurses and organ donor coordinators). Results We identified 62 unique features of context, which we categorized under 14 broader attributes of context. The 14 attributes were resource access, work structure, patient characteristics, professional role, culture, facility characteristics, system features, healthcare professional characteristics, financial, collaboration, leadership, evaluation, regulatory or legislative standards, and societal influences. We found instances of the majority (n = 12, 86%) of attributes of context across multiple (n = 6 or more) clinical behaviors. We also found little variation in the 14 attributes of context by setting (primary care and hospitals) and professional role (physicians and residents, and nurses and organ donor coordinators). Conclusions There was considerable consistency in the 14 attributes identified irrespective of the clinical behavior, setting, or professional role, supporting broad utility of the attributes of context identified in this study. There was more variation in the finer-grained features of these attributes with the most substantial variation being by setting.

Abstract Background With healthcare striving to shift to a more person-centered delivery model, patient and family involvement must have a bigger role in shaping this. While many initiatives involving patients and family members focus on self-care, a broader understanding of patient participation is necessary. Ensuring a viable and sustainable critical number of qualified patients and family members to support this shift will be of utmost importance. The purpose of this study was to understand how health systems are intentionally investing in the training and skill development of patients and family members. Methods Patient co-investigators and researchers conducted a scoping review of the existing literature on methods adopted by healthcare systems to build the skills and capacity of patients to participate in healthcare decision-making using a recognized methodological framework. Six electronic databases were searched to identify studies. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full-text papers for inclusion. The research team independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by achieving consensus through discussion. Quantitative and qualitative content synthesis, as well as a quality assessment, was conducted. Results After eliminating duplicates, the search resulted in 9428 abstracts. Four hundred fifty-eight articles were reviewed and 15 articles were included. Four themes emerged: forums (33%), patient instructors (20%), workshops (33%), and co-design (13%). Four of the identified studies measured the impact and overall effectiveness of the respective programs. Examples of how patient and family members were supported (invested in) included advocacy training to support future involvement in engagement activities, a training program to conduct patient-led research, involvement in an immersive experience-based co-design initiative, and involvement in training pharmacy students. Overall, these studies found positive outcomes when patients and family members were recipients of these opportunities. Conclusions The results of this scoping review demonstrate that an evidence base around programs to advance patient engagement is largely absent. An opportunity exists for further research to identify strategies and measures to support patient engagement in healthcare decision-making.

Objective To assess the relationship between comorbidities and amount of improvement in pain and physical function in recipients of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for knee osteoarthritis (OA).Design Prospective cohort study.Setting Two provincial central intake hip and knee centres in Alberta, Canada.Participants 1051 participants (278 in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) subset), ≥30 years of age with primary knee OA referred for consultation regarding elective primary TKA; assessed 1 month prior and 12 months after TKA.Primary and secondary outcome measures Pre-post TKA change in knee OA pain (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)), physical function (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Physical Function Short-Form) and 6MWT walking distance; and the reporting of an acceptable symptom state (Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS)) at 12 months after TKA.Results Mean participant age was 67 years (SD 8.8), 59% were female and 85% reported at least one comorbidity. Individuals with a higher number of comorbidities had worse pre-TKA and post-TKA scores for pain, physical function and 6MWT distance. At 12-month follow-up, mean changes in pain, function and 6MWT distance, and proportion reporting a PASS, were similar for those with and without comorbidities. In multivariable regression analysis, adjusted for potential confounders and clustering by surgeon, no specific comorbidities nor total number of comorbidities were associated with less improvement in pain, physical function or 6MWT distance at 12 months after TKA. Patients with diabetes (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.94) and a higher number of lower extremity troublesome joints (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96) had lower odds of reporting a PASS.Conclusion For individuals with knee OA, comorbid conditions do not limit improvement in pain, physical function or walking ability after TKA, and most conditions do not impact achieving an acceptable symptom state.

Abstract Background Systematic reviews are infrequently used by health care managers (HCMs) and policy-makers (PMs) in decision-making. HCMs and PMs co-developed and tested novel systematic review of effects formats to increase their use. Methods A three-phased approach was used to evaluate the determinants to uptake of systematic reviews of effects and the usability of an innovative and a traditional systematic review of effects format. In phase 1, survey and interviews were conducted with HCMs and PMs in four Canadian provinces to determine perceptions of a traditional systematic review format. In phase 2, systematic review format prototypes were created by HCMs and PMs via Conceptboard©. In phase 3, prototypes underwent usability testing by HCMs and PMs. Results Two hundred two participants (80 HCMs, 122 PMs) completed the phase 1 survey. Respondents reported that inadequate format (Mdn = 4; IQR = 4; range = 1–7) and content (Mdn = 4; IQR = 3; range = 1–7) influenced their use of systematic reviews. Most respondents (76%; n = 136/180) reported they would be more likely to use systematic reviews if the format was modified. Findings from 11 interviews (5 HCMs, 6 PMs) revealed that participants preferred systematic reviews of effects that were easy to access and read and provided more information on intervention effectiveness and less information on review methodology. The mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 55.7 (standard deviation [SD] 17.2) for the traditional format; a SUS score

Objectives We assessed: (1) waiting time variation among surgeons; (2) proportion of patients receiving surgery within benchmark and (3) influence of the Winnipeg Central Intake Service (WCIS) across five dimensions of quality: accessibility, acceptability, appropriateness, effectiveness, safety.Design Preimplementation/postimplementation cross-sectional design comparing historical (n=2282) and prospective (n=2397) cohorts.Setting Regional, provincial health authority.Participants Patients awaiting total joint replacement of the hip or knee.Interventions The WCIS is a single-entry model (SEM) to improve access to total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, implemented to minimise variation in total waiting time (TW) across orthopaedic surgeons and increase the proportion of surgeries within 26 weeks (benchmark). Impact of SEMs on quality of care is poorly understood.Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcomes related to ‘accessibility’: waiting time variation across surgeons, waiting times (Waiting Time 2 (WT2)=decision to treat until surgery and TW=total waiting time) and surgeries within benchmark. Analysis included descriptive statistics, group comparisons and clustered regression.Results Variability in TW among surgeons was reduced by 3.7 (hip) and 4.3 (knee) weeks. Mean waiting was reduced for TKR (WT2/TW); TKR within benchmark increased by 5.9%. Accessibility and safety were the only quality dimensions that changed (post-WCIS THR and TKR). Shorter WT2 was associated with post-WCIS (knee), worse Oxford score (hip and knee) and having medical comorbidities (hip). Meeting benchmark was associated with post-WCIS (knee), lower Body Mass Index (BMI) (hip) and worse Oxford score (hip and knee).Conclusions The WCIS reduced variability across surgeon waiting times, with modest reductions in overall waits for surgery. There was improvement in some, but not all, dimensions of quality.

Objectives The purpose of this study is to estimate the prevalence of comorbidities among people with osteoarthritis (OA) using administrative health data.Design Retrospective cohort analysis.Setting All residents in the province of Alberta, Canada registered with the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan population registry.Participants 497 362 people with OA as defined by ‘having at least one OA-related hospitalization, or at least two OA-related physician visits or two ambulatory care visits within two years’.Primary outcome measures We selected eight comorbidities based on literature review, clinical consultation and the availability of validated case definitions to estimate their frequencies at the time of diagnosis of OA. Sex-stratified age-standardised prevalence rates per 1000 population of eight clinically relevant comorbidities were calculated using direct standardisation with 95% CIs. We applied χ2 tests of independence with a Bonferroni correction to compare the percentage of comorbid conditions in each age group.Results 54.6% (n=2 71 794) of people meeting the OA case definition had at least one of the eight selected comorbidities. Females had a significantly higher rate of comorbidities compared with males (standardised rates ratio=1.26, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.28). Depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypertension were the most prevalent in both females and males after age-standardisation, with 40% of all cases having any combination of these comorbidities. We observed a significant difference in the percentage of comorbidities among age groups, illustrated by the youngest age group (65 years.Conclusions Our findings highlight the high frequency of comorbidity in people with OA, with depression having the highest age-standardised prevalence rate. Comorbidities differentially affect females, and vary by age. These factors should inform healthcare programme and delivery.