Recognition of knowledge translation practice in Canadian health sciences tenure and promotion: A content analysis of institutional policy documents

Primate conservation: A public issue?

Nonhuman primates (primates) are one of the most endangered mammalian taxa in the world. In the Global North, primates are considered exotic species and, as such, humans' impact on primate conservation and responsibility to protect primates is often ignored. This view differs from the spectrum of relations and attitudes of humans that live in connection to primates, which can include viewing these animals as culturally/religiously significant, cohabitors of forests, nuisances, or sources of protein. While conservationists argue that primates deserve our protection, the conservation crisis facing primates is rarely framed as a public issue, in contrast to other global crises, such as climate change. However, over half of the world's human population lives within 100 km of primate habitat. Thus, humans and primates share the same environments. We suggest leveraging a holistic approach, such as One Health, that considers the interconnectedness of primates, humans, and their shared environments, through the lens of public anthropology. By approaching primate conservation as an intersectional issue that affects and is affected by humans, researchers and conservationists can identify strategies that simultaneously protect primates and address global inequities that frequently affect people in primate range countries. Reflexive research practices further allow academics to consider the broader impact of their ecological research through means such as publicly accessible dissemination of results, equitable capacity-building of high-quality personnel in primate range countries, and social activism. The use of inter-, multi-, and transdisciplinary concepts and methodology can address the intersectional challenges associated with implementing ethical and sustainable primate conservation measures.

Bridging Public Health Research and State-Level Policy: The Texas Research-to-Policy Collaboration Project

Purpose and Objectives

Significant barriers to the implementation of evidence-based policy exist. Establishing an infrastructure and resources to support this process at the state level can accelerate the translation of research into practice. This study describes the adaptation and initial evaluation of the Texas Research-to-Policy Collaboration (TX RPC) Project, focusing on the adaptation process, legislative public health policy priorities, and baseline researcher policy knowledge and self-efficacy.

Intervention Approach

The federal Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) method was adapted to the Texas legislative process in 2020. Policymakers and public health researchers were recruited using direct outreach and referrals. Legislators or their aides were interviewed to determine health policy needs, which directed the development of legislator resources, webinars, and recruitment of additional public health researchers with specific expertise. Researchers were trained to facilitate communication with policymakers, and TX RPC Project staff facilitated legislator and researcher meetings to provide data and policy input.

Evaluation Methods

Baseline surveys were completed with legislators to assess the use of health researchers in policy. Surveys were also administered before training to researchers assessing self-efficacy, knowledge, and training needs. Qualitative data from the legislator interviews were analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for scales and individual survey items.

Results

Legislative offices (n = 21) identified health care access, mental health, and health disparities as key health issues. Legislators reported that health data were important but did not actively involve researchers in legislation. Researchers (n = 73) reported that policy informed their work but had low engagement with legislators. Researcher training surveys indicated lower policy self-efficacy and knowledge and the need for additional training.

Implications for Public Health

Adaptation of the RPC model for state-level health policy is feasible but necessitates logistical changes based on the unique legislative body. Researchers need training and resources to engage with policymakers.

Clinical decision-making processes among graduate nurses, specialist nurses and nurse practitioners A collaborative international study

AIM

To explore clinical decision-making by comparing the processes used by three groups of nurses in the emergency departments of three hospitals: in Norway, Finland and Ireland.

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision-making in an emergency department environment is a complex process often occurring in times of crisis. It is an important aspect contributing to the quality of care. However, empirical research is limited regarding the decision-making process in different nursing roles.

METHODS

In accordance with the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research, a qualitative and observational study was conducted to explore clinical decision-making by comparing the processes used by three groups of nurses in the emergency departments of three hospitals: in Norway, Finland and Ireland. Six Registered Nurses, six Nurse Specialists and six Nurse Practitioners were observed. A total of 40 hours of observation was made at each setting according to a structured observation guideline, followed by clarifying questions. The data material was analysed by means of a qualitative manifest and latent content analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes arose: acting in accordance with routines, previous experience and intuition; considering patient experience; and facilitating new alternatives based on critical thinking. The Registered Nurses mainly used the first approach, the Nurse Specialists used the first and the second approaches, and the Nurse Practitioners used all three approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight the differences in decision-making processes between these groups. Nurse Practitioners were the only group that facilitated and evaluated new alternatives using their clinical autonomy, such as stepping up and making independent and collaborative decision-making.

IMPLICATION

The results can be used in countries developing advanced practice nursing education and defining their scope of practice to inform stakeholders.

Framework for policymaking on self-management of health by older adults using technologies

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to support care management exponentially increased. Governments around the world adapted existing programs to meet the needs of patients. The reactivity of governments, however, led to changes that were inequitable, undermining groups such as older adults living with chronic diseases and disability. Policies that align with recent developments in ICTs can promote better health outcomes and innovation in care management. A framework for policymaking presents potential for overcoming barriers and gaps that exist in current policies.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to examine how well a provisional framework for policymaking represented the interactions between various components of government policymaking on older adults' self-management of chronic disease and disability using ICTs.

METHODS

Through an online survey, the study engaged policymakers from various ministries of the government of Ontario in the evaluation and revision of the framework. The data were analyzed using simple statistics and by interpreting written comments.

RESULTS

Nine participants from three ministries in the government of Ontario responded to the questionnaire. Overall, participants described the framework as useful and identified areas for improvement and further clarification. A revised version of the framework is presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Through the revision exercise, our study confirmed the relevance and usefulness for a policymaking framework on the self-management of disease and disability of older adults' using ICTs. Further inquiries should examine the application of the framework to jurisdictions other than Ontario considering the dissociated nature of Canadian provincial healthcare systems.