Systematic overviews of partnership principles and strategies identified from health research about spinal cord injury and related health conditions: A scoping review

Developing a digital mind body medicine supportive care intervention for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis using stakeholder engagement and design thinking

Background

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis disease (ALS) is also called the disease of a thousand farewells. Consequently, it is important to offer supportive care interventions that can be applied continuously during the whole course of the disease. People with ALS are interested in complementary and integrative medicine. Due to ALS' progressive nature, digital solutions might be most feasible and accessible for people with ALS in the long-term.

Objectives

In our study, we explored with stakeholders which digital complementary and integrative medicine interventions and formats are considered as supportive for people with ALS, and which settings are needed by the people with ALS to incorporate the interventions in everyday life.

Methods

We used a participatory research approach and conducted a stakeholder engagement process, applying a design thinking process with qualitative research methods (interviews, workshops).

Results

Due to the unpredictable course of the disease on their loss of abilities, people with ALS welcome online settings because they are accessible and easy to implement in their daily life. Stakeholders considered the following implementation factors for a complementary and integrative medicine intervention as essential: short-term realization of planned interventions, short duration of interventions, and user-friendliness in terms of accessibility and applicability. Concerning the complementary and integrative medicine interventions, the people with ALS preferred mind body medicine interventions, such as breathing, mindfulness and relaxation exercises.

Conclusions

Short-term treatment intervals and short online mind body medicine interventions align with the needs of people with ALS. The complementary and integrative medicine interventions as well as the digital infrastructure must meet the special accessibility and applicability needs of people with ALS.

A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts

BACKGROUND

Health research partnership approaches have grown in popularity over the past decade, but the systematic evaluation of their outcomes and impacts has not kept equal pace. Identifying partnership assessment tools and key partnership characteristics is needed to advance partnerships, partnership measurement, and the assessment of their outcomes and impacts through systematic study.

OBJECTIVE

To locate and identify globally available tools for assessing the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships.

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL + , PsychINFO) with an a priori strategy from inception to June 2021, without limits. We screened studies independently and in duplicate, keeping only those involving a health research partnership and the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts. Reviewer disagreements were resolved by consensus. Study, tool and partnership characteristics, and emerging research questions, gaps and key recommendations were synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We screened 36 027 de-duplicated citations, reviewed 2784 papers in full text, and kept 166 studies and three companion reports. Most studies originated in North America and were published in English after 2015. Most of the 205 tools we identified were questionnaires and surveys targeting researchers, patients and public/community members. While tools were comprehensive and usable, most were designed for single use and lacked validity or reliability evidence. Challenges associated with the interchange and definition of terms (i.e., outcomes, impacts, tool type) were common and may obscure partnership measurement and comparison. Very few of the tools identified in this study overlapped with tools identified by other, similar reviews. Partnership tool development, refinement and evaluation, including tool measurement and optimization, are key areas for future tools-related research.

CONCLUSION

This large scoping review identified numerous, single-use tools that require further development and testing to improve their psychometric and scientific qualities. The review also confirmed that the health partnership research domain and its measurement tools are still nascent and actively evolving. Dedicated efforts and resources are required to better understand health research partnerships, partnership optimization and partnership measurement and evaluation using valid, reliable and practical tools that meet partners' needs.

Essential content for teaching implementation practice in healthcare: a mixed-methods study of teams offering capacity-building initiatives

BACKGROUND

Applying the knowledge gained through implementation science can support the uptake of research evidence into practice; however, those doing and supporting implementation (implementation practitioners) may face barriers to applying implementation science in their work. One strategy to enhance individuals' and teams' ability to apply implementation science in practice is through training and professional development opportunities (capacity-building initiatives). Although there is an increasing demand for and offerings of implementation practice capacity-building initiatives, there is no universal agreement on what content should be included. In this study we aimed to explore what capacity-building developers and deliverers identify as essential training content for teaching implementation practice.

METHODS

We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study with participants who had developed and/or delivered a capacity-building initiative focused on teaching implementation practice. Participants completed an online questionnaire to provide details on their capacity-building initiatives; took part in an interview or focus group to explore their questionnaire responses in depth; and offered course materials for review. We analyzed a subset of data that focused on the capacity-building initiatives' content and curriculum. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative data and conventional content analysis for qualitative data, with the data sets merged during the analytic phase. We presented frequency counts for each category to highlight commonalities and differences across capacity-building initiatives.

RESULTS

Thirty-three individuals representing 20 capacity-building initiatives participated. Study participants identified several core content areas included in their capacity-building initiatives: (1) taking a process approach to implementation; (2) identifying and applying implementation theories, models, frameworks, and approaches; (3) learning implementation steps and skills; (4) developing relational skills. In addition, study participants described offering applied and pragmatic content (e.g., tools and resources), and tailoring and evolving the capacity-building initiative content to address emerging trends in implementation science. Study participants highlighted some challenges learners face when acquiring and applying implementation practice knowledge and skills.

CONCLUSIONS

This study synthesized what experienced capacity-building initiative developers and deliverers identify as essential content for teaching implementation practice. These findings can inform the development, refinement, and delivery of capacity-building initiatives, as well as future research directions, to enhance the translation of implementation science into practice.

Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist.

RESULTS

From 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932.