Taking an integrated knowledge translation approach in research to develop the CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting guideline: an observational study

Co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching: a mixed methods case study within a review

BACKGROUND

Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis.

RESULTS

We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.

Interventions for Indigenous Peoples making health decisions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making facilitates collaboration between patients and health care providers for informed health decisions. Our review identified interventions to support Indigenous Peoples making health decisions. The objectives were to synthesize evidence and identify factors that impact the use of shared decision making interventions.

METHODS

An Inuit and non-Inuit team of service providers and academic researchers used an integrated knowledge translation approach with framework synthesis to coproduce a systematic review. We developed a conceptual framework to organize and describe the shared decision making processes and guide identification of studies that describe interventions to support Indigenous Peoples making health decisions. We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases from September 2012 to March 2022, with a grey literature search. Two independent team members screened and quality appraised included studies for strengths and relevance of studies' contributions to shared decision making and Indigenous self-determination. Findings were analyzed descriptively in relation to the conceptual framework and reported using guidelines to ensure transparency and completeness in reporting and for equity-oriented systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Of 5068 citations screened, nine studies reported in ten publications were eligible for inclusion. We categorized the studies into clusters identified as: those inclusive of Indigenous knowledges and governance ("Indigenous-oriented")(n = 6); and those based on Western academic knowledge and governance ("Western-oriented")(n = 3). The studies were found to be of variable quality for contributions to shared decision making and self-determination, with Indigenous-oriented studies of higher quality overall than Western-oriented studies. Four themes are reflected in an updated conceptual framework: 1) where shared decision making takes place impacts decision making opportunities, 2) little is known about the characteristics of health care providers who engage in shared decision making processes, 3) community is a partner in shared decision making, 4) the shared decision making process involves trust-building.

CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies that report on and evaluate shared decision making interventions with Indigenous Peoples. Overall, Indigenous-oriented studies sought to make health care systems more amenable to shared decision making for Indigenous Peoples, while Western-oriented studies distanced shared decision making from the health care settings. Further studies that are solutions-focused and support Indigenous self-determination are needed.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline

BACKGROUND

Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension.

METHODS

We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels.

DISCUSSION

Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Dynamic geographical accessibility assessments to improve health equity: protocol for a test case in Cali, Colombia

This protocol proposes an approach to assessing the place of residence as a spatial determinant of health in cities where traffic congestion might impact health services accessibility. The study provides dynamic travel times presenting data in ways that help shape decisions and spur action by diverse stakeholders and sectors.  Equity assessments in geographical accessibility to health services typically rely on static metrics, such as distance or average travel times. This new approach uses dynamic spatial accessibility measures providing travel times from the place of residence to the health service with the shortest journey time. It will show the interplay between traffic congestion, accessibility, and health equity and should be used to inform urban and health services monitoring and planning. Available digitised data enable efficient and accurate accessibility measurements for urban areas using publicly available sources and provide disaggregated sociodemographic information and an equity perspective. Test cases are done for urgent and frequent care (i.e., repeated ambulatory care). Situational analyses will be done with cross-sectional urban assessments; estimated potential improvements will be made for one or two new services, and findings will inform recommendations and future studies. This study will use visualisations and descriptive statistics to allow non-specialized stakeholders to understand the effects of accessibility on populations and health equity. This includes "time-to-destination" metrics or the proportion of the people that can reach a service by car within a given travel time threshold from the place of residence. The study is part of the AMORE Collaborative Project, in which a diverse group of stakeholders seeks to address equity for accessibility to essential health services, including health service users and providers, authorities, and community members, including academia.

Principles to guide spinal cord injury research partnerships: a Delphi consensus study

PURPOSE

To establish consensus regarding principles that should be used to guide spinal cord injury (SCI) research partnerships between researchers and research users.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A three-round Delphi consensus exercise was carried out with researchers and/or research users involved in one or more SCI research partnerships. Participants considered a list of 125 partnership principles. In rounds 1 and 2, participants rated their agreement that a principle should guide SCI research partnerships on an 11-point Likert scale. After each round, principles that received a mean score of ≥8.0 or 70% of participants rated the principle ≥8.0 were retained. In round 3, participants categorized principles as essential, desirable, irrelevant, or unsure.

RESULTS

At least 20 individuals participated in each round. In round 1, 103 principles met consensus criteria and eight principles were added. In round 2, 93 principles met the criteria. In round 3, 29 principles were categorized as essential and eight as desirable. Recommended principles focused on the interpersonal, relational, and logistical aspects of partnerships. Principles that did not reach consensus related to social justice and actionable impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide insight into 37 principles that could be used to combat tokenism and inform future guidance to meaningfully engage partners in SCI research.Implications for RehabilitationConsensus-based research partnership principles (i.e., norms or beliefs) were identified and could be prioritized to help support spinal cord injury (SCI) researchers and research users combat tokenism and meaningfully engage research users as partners in the co-creation of knowledge.The resulting list of recommended research partnership principles was used to inform the development of guidance to support quality partnerships between SCI researchers and research users within and outside the rehabilitation context (www.IKTprinciples.com).Guidance supporting meaningful research partnerships may accelerate the time between discovery and use of research in practice.

Fit for purpose. Co-production of complex behavioural interventions. A practical guide and exemplar of co-producing a telehealth-delivered exercise intervention for people with stroke

Background

Careful development of interventions using principles of co-production is now recognized as an important step for clinical trial development, but practical guidance on how to do this in practice is lacking. This paper aims (1) provide practical guidance for researchers to co-produce interventions ready for clinical trial by describing the 4-stage process we followed, the challenges experienced and practical tips for researchers wanting to co-produce an intervention for a clinical trial; (2) describe, as an exemplar, the development of our intervention package.

Method

We used an Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) approach to co-produce a telehealth-delivered exercise program for people with stroke. The 4-stage process comprised of (1) a start-up planning phase with the co-production team. (2) Content development with knowledge user informants. (3) Design of an intervention protocol. (4) Protocol refinement.

Results and reflections

The four stages of intervention development involved an 11-member co-production team and 32 knowledge user informants. Challenges faced included balancing conflicting demands of different knowledge user informant groups, achieving shared power and collaborative decision making, and optimising knowledge user input. Components incorporated into the telehealth-delivered exercise program through working with knowledge user informants included: increased training for intervention therapists; increased options to tailor the intervention to participant’s needs and preferences; and re-naming of the program. Key practical tips include ways to minimise the power differential between researchers and consumers, and ensure adequate preparation of the co-production team.

Conclusion

Careful planning and a structured process can facilitate co-production of complex interventions ready for clinical trial.

Graphical Abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-021-00790-2.

Migrants' involvement in health policy, service development and research in the WHO European Region: A narrative review of policy and practice

OBJECTIVES

The involvement of individuals and communities in health decision-making is enshrined in WHO policies. However, migrant groups are under-represented in health decision-making processes. Our aim was to explore migrants' involvement in health policy, service development and research in the WHO European Region to identify levers for inclusive and meaningful practice.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of grey literature and peer-reviewed research on migrants' involvement in health decision-making across the 53 countries in WHO Europe. We searched for articles published in English between 2010 and the present in two electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus), IOM MIPEX Health Strand country reports, the EU SOPHIE project and using a Google advanced search. Findings were analysed descriptively and using Normalisation Process Theory to investigate levers and barriers to implementation of policy into practice.

RESULTS

Of 1,444 articles retrieved, 79 met the inclusion criteria. We identified 20 policies promoting migrants' involvement, but national-level policies were present in only two countries. We identified 59 examples of migrants' involvement in practice from half of the WHO Europe countries (n = 27). Our Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) analysis of 14 peer-reviewed empirical papers found that participatory research approaches are a lever to putting policy into practice in a meaningful way.

CONCLUSIONS

Migrants' involvement in health decision-making requires explicit national policies that are implemented evenly across policymaking, service provider and research activities in all countries in the WHO European Region. Participatory approaches to involvement activities are encouraged because they are a lever to perceived barriers to migrants' involvement.

Experiences of Inuit in Canada who travel from remote settings for cancer care and impacts on decision making

BACKGROUND

Inuit experience the highest cancer mortality rates from lung cancer in the world with increasing rates of other cancers in addition to other significant health burdens. Inuit who live in remote areas must often travel thousands of kilometers to large urban centres in southern Canada and negotiate complex and sometimes unwelcoming health care systems. There is an urgent need to improve Inuit access to and use of health care. Our study objective was to understand the experiences of Inuit in Canada who travel from a remote to an urban setting for cancer care, and the impacts on their opportunities to participate in decisions during their journey to receive cancer care.

METHODS

We are an interdisciplinary team of Steering Committee and researcher partners ("the team") from Inuit-led and/or -specific organizations that span Nunavut and the Ontario cancer health systems. Guided by Inuit societal values, we used an integrated knowledge translation (KT) approach with qualitative methods. We conducted semi-structured interviews with Inuit participants and used process mapping and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We mapped the journey to receive cancer care and related the findings of client (n = 8) and medical escort (n = 6) ("participant") interviews in four themes: 1) It is hard to take part in decisions about getting health care; 2) No one explains the decisions you will need to make; 3) There is a duty to make decisions that support family and community; 4) The lack of knowledge impacts opportunities to engage in decision making. Participants described themselves as directed, with little or no support, and seeking opportunities to collaborate with others on the journey to receive cancer care.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the journey to receive cancer care as a "decision chain" which can be described as a series of events that lead to receiving cancer care. We identify points in the decision chain that could better prepare Inuit to participate in decisions related to their cancer care. We propose that there are opportunities to build further health care system capacity to support Inuit and enable their participation in decisions related to their cancer care while upholding and incorporating Inuit knowledge.

A review and synthesis of frameworks for engagement in health research to identify concepts of knowledge user engagement

BACKGROUND

Engaging those who influence, administer and/or who are active users ("knowledge users") of health care systems, as co-producers of health research, can help to ensure that research products will better address real world needs. Our aim was to identify and review frameworks of knowledge user engagement in health research in a systematic manner, and to describe the concepts comprising these frameworks.

METHODS

An international team sharing a common interest in knowledge user engagement in health research used a consensus-building process to: 1) agree upon criteria to identify articles, 2) screen articles to identify existing frameworks, 3) extract, analyze data, and 4) synthesize and report the concepts of knowledge user engagement described in health research frameworks. We utilized the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer (PCORI Explorer) as a source of articles related to engagement in health research. The search includes articles from May 1995 to December 2017.

RESULTS

We identified 54 articles about frameworks for knowledge user engagement in health research and report on 15 concepts. The average number of concepts reported in the 54 articles is n = 7, and ranges from n = 1 to n = 13 concepts. The most commonly reported concepts are: knowledge user - prepare, support (n = 44), relational process (n = 39), research agenda (n = 38). The least commonly reported concepts are: methodology (n = 8), methods (n = 10) and analysis (n = 18). In a comparison of articles that report how research was done (n = 26) versus how research should be done (n = 28), articles about how research was done report concepts more often and have a higher average number of concepts (n = 8 of 15) in comparison to articles about how research should be done (n = 6 of 15). The exception is the concept "evaluate" and that is more often reported in articles that describe how research should be done.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose that research teams 1) consider engagement with the 15 concepts as fluid, and 2) consider a form of partnered negotiation that takes place through all phases of research to identify and use concepts appropriate to their team needs. There is a need for further work to understand concepts for knowledge user engagement.