Browsing by Author "Graham, Ian D."

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts
    (2023-12-22) Mrklas, Kelly J.; Boyd, Jamie M.; Shergill, Sumair; Merali, Sera; Khan, Masood; Moser, Cheryl; Nowell, Lorelli; Goertzen, Amelia; Swain, Liam; Pfadenhauer, Lisa M.; Sibley, Kathryn M.; Vis-Dunbar, Mathew; Hill, Michael D.; Raffin-Bouchal, Shelley; Tonelli, Marcello; Graham, Ian D.
    Abstract 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Efficacy of sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions in chronic disease management in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions
    (2023-07-24) Veroniki, Areti A.; Soobiah, Charlene; Nincic, Vera; Lai, Yonda; Rios, Patricia; MacDonald, Heather; Khan, Paul A.; Ghassemi, Marco; Yazdi, Fatemeh; Brownson, Ross C.; Chambers, David A.; Dolovich, Lisa R.; Edwards, Annemarie; Glasziou, Paul P.; Graham, Ian D.; Hemmelgarn, Brenda R.; Holmes, Bev J.; Isaranuwatchai, Wanrudee; Legare, France; McGowan, Jessie; Presseau, Justin; Squires, Janet E.; Stelfox, Henry T.; Strifler, Lisa; Van der Weijden, Trudy; Fahim, Christine; Tricco, Andrea C.; Straus, Sharon E.
    Abstract Background Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. Methods Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. Eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). Information sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database’s inception to March 2020. Outcome measures: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. Data synthesis: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. Results We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [− 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [− 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I2 = 25%; St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire: MD − 2.12, 95% CI [− 3.72, − 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I2 = 21%). Conclusions KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018084810.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Exploring the intersection of hermeneutics and implementation: a scoping review
    (2023-03-02) MacLeod, Martha L. P.; McCaffrey, Graham; Wilson, Erin; Zimmer, Lela V.; Snadden, David; Zimmer, Peter; Jónatansdóttir, Steinunn; Fyfe, Trina M.; Koopmans, Erica; Ulrich, Cathy; Graham, Ian D.
    Abstract Background An enduring challenge remains about how to effectively implement programs, services, or practices. Too often, implementation does not achieve its intended effectiveness, fidelity, and sustainability, even when frameworks or theories determine implementation strategies and actions. A different approach is needed. This scoping review joined two markedly different bodies of literature: implementation and hermeneutics. Implementation is usually depicted as focused, direct, and somewhat linear, while hermeneutics attends to the messiness of everyday experience and human interaction. Both, however, are concerned with practical solutions to real-life problems. The purpose of the scoping review was to summarize existing knowledge on how a hermeneutic approach has informed the process of implementing health programs, services, or practices. Methods We completed a scoping review by taking a Gadamerian hermeneutic approach to the JBI scoping review method. Following a pilot search, we searched eight health-related electronic databases using broadly stated terms such as implementation and hermeneutics. A diverse research team that included a patient and healthcare leader, working in pairs, independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles. Through the use of inclusion criteria and full-team dialogue, we selected the final articles and identified their characteristics, hermeneutic features, and implementation components. Results Electronic searches resulted in 2871 unique studies. After full-text screening, we retained six articles that addressed both hermeneutics and implementing a program, service, or practice. The studies varied widely in location, topic, implementation strategies, and hermeneutic approach. All addressed assumptions underpinning implementation, the human dimensions of implementing, power differentials, and knowledge creation during implementation. All studies addressed issues foundational to implementing such as cross-cultural communication and surfacing and addressing tensions during processes of change. The studies showed how creating conceptual knowledge was a precursor to concrete, instrumental knowledge for action and behavioral change. Finally, each study demonstrated how the hermeneutic process of the fusion of horizons created new understandings needed for implementation. Conclusions Hermeneutics and implementation have rarely been combined. The studies reveal important features that can contribute to implementation success. Implementers and implementation research may benefit from understanding, articulating, and communicating hermeneutic approaches that foster the relational and contextual foundations necessary for successful implementation. Trial registration The protocol was registered at the Centre for Open Science on September 10, 2019. MacLeod M, Snadden D, McCaffrey G, Zimmer L, Wilson E, Graham I, et al. A hermeneutic approach to advancing implementation science: a scoping review protocol 2019. Accessed at osf.io/eac37.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks
    (2022-12-14) Mrklas, Kelly J.; Merali, Sera; Khan, Masood; Shergill, Sumair; Boyd, Jamie M.; Nowell, Lorelli; Pfadenhauer, Lisa M.; Paul, Kevin; Goertzen, Amelia; Swain, Liam; Sibley, Kathryn M.; Vis-Dunbar, Mathew; Hill, Michael D.; Raffin-Bouchal, Shelley; Tonelli, Marcello; Graham, Ian D.
    Abstract Background Accurate, consistent assessment of outcomes and impacts is challenging in the health research partnerships domain. Increased focus on tool quality, including conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics, could improve the quantification, measurement and reporting partnership outcomes and impacts. This cascading review was undertaken as part of a coordinated, multicentre effort to identify, synthesize and assess a vast body of health research partnership literature. Objective To systematically assess the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships, relevant terminology and the type/use of theories, models and frameworks (TMF) arising from studies using partnership assessment tools with known conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics. Methods Four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) from inception to 2 June 2021. We retained studies containing partnership evaluation tools with (1) conceptual foundations (reference to TMF), (2) empirical, quantitative psychometric evidence (evidence of validity and reliability, at minimum) and (3) one or more pragmatic characteristics. Outcomes, impacts, terminology, definitions and TMF type/use were abstracted verbatim from eligible studies using a hybrid (independent abstraction–validation) approach and synthesized using summary statistics (quantitative), inductive thematic analysis and deductive categories (qualitative). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). Results Application of inclusion criteria yielded 37 eligible studies. Study quality scores were high (mean 80%, standard deviation 0.11%) but revealed needed improvements (i.e. methodological, reporting, user involvement in research design). Only 14 (38%) studies reported 48 partnership outcomes and 55 impacts; most were positive effects (43, 90% and 47, 89%, respectively). Most outcomes were positive personal, functional, structural and contextual effects; most impacts were personal, functional and contextual in nature. Most terms described outcomes (39, 89%), and 30 of 44 outcomes/impacts terms were unique, but few were explicitly defined (9, 20%). Terms were complex and mixed on one or more dimensions (e.g. type, temporality, stage, perspective). Most studies made explicit use of study-related TMF (34, 92%). There were 138 unique TMF sources, and these informed tool construct type/choice and hypothesis testing in almost all cases (36, 97%). Conclusion This study synthesized partnership outcomes and impacts, deconstructed term complexities and evolved our understanding of TMF use in tool development, testing and refinement studies. Renewed attention to basic concepts is necessary to advance partnership measurement and research innovation in the field. Systematic review protocol registration: PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42021137932 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=137932 .
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review
    (2024-04-05) Tricco, Andrea C.; Parker, Amanda; Khan, Paul A.; Nincic, Vera; Robson, Reid; MacDonald, Heather; Warren, Rachel; Cleary, Olga; Zibrowski, Elaine; Baxter, Nancy; Burns, Karen E. A.; Coyle, Doug; Ndjaboue, Ruth; Clark, Jocalyn P.; Langlois, Etienne V.; Ahmed, Sofia B.; Witteman, Holly O.; Graham, Ian D.; El-Adhami, Wafa; Skidmore, Becky; Légaré, France; Curran, Janet; Hawker, Gillian; Watt, Jennifer; Bourgeault, Ivy L.; Leigh, Jeanna P.; Lawford, Karen; Aiken, Alice; McCabe, Christopher; Shepperd, Sasha; Pattani, Reena; Leon, Natalie; Lundine, Jamie; Adisso, Évèhouénou L.; Ono, Santa; Rabeneck, Linda; Straus, Sharon E.
    Abstract Background Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). Methods Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. Results We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. Conclusions There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. Trial registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Interventions that have potential to help older adults living with social frailty: a systematic scoping review
    (2024-06-15) Kastner, Monika; Herrington, Isabella; Makarski, Julie; Amog, Krystle; Bain, Tejia; Evangelista, Vianca; Hayden, Leigh; Gruber, Alexa; Sutherland, Justin; Sirkin, Amy; Perrier, Laure; Graham, Ian D.; Greiver, Michelle; Honsberger, Joan; Hynes, Mary; Macfarlane, Charlie; Prasaud, Leela; Sklar, Barbara; Twohig, Margo; Liu, Barbara; Munce, Sarah; Marr, Sharon; O’Neill, Braden; Papaioannou, Alexandra; Seaton, Bianca; Straus, Sharon E.; Dainty, Katie; Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna
    Abstract Background The impact of social frailty on older adults is profound including mortality risk, functional decline, falls, and disability. However, effective strategies that respond to the needs of socially frail older adults are lacking and few studies have unpacked how social determinants operate or how interventions can be adapted during periods requiring social distancing and isolation such as the COVID-19 pandemic. To address these gaps, we conducted a scoping review using JBI methodology to identify interventions that have the best potential to help socially frail older adults (age ≥65 years). Methods We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL (EPSCO), EMBASE and COVID-19 databases and the grey literature. Eligibility criteria were developed using the PICOS framework. Our results were summarized descriptively according to study, patient, intervention and outcome characteristics. Data synthesis involved charting and categorizing identified interventions using a social frailty framework.  Results Of 263 included studies, we identified 495 interventions involving ~124,498 older adults who were mostly female. The largest proportion of older adults (40.5%) had a mean age range of 70-79 years. The 495 interventions were spread across four social frailty domains: social resource (40%), self-management (32%), social behavioural activity (28%), and general resource (0.4%). Of these, 189 interventions were effective for improving loneliness, social and health and wellbeing outcomes across psychological self-management, self-management education, leisure activity, physical activity, Information Communication Technology and socially assistive robot interventions. Sixty-three interventions were identified as feasible to be adapted during infectious disease outbreaks (e.g., COVID-19, flu) to help socially frail older adults. Conclusions Our scoping review identified promising interventions with the best potential to help older adults living with social frailty.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses
    (2023-08-02) Tugwell, Peter; Welch, Vivian; Magwood, Olivia; Todhunter-Brown, Alex; Akl, Elie A.; Concannon, Thomas W.; Khabsa, Joanne; Morley, Richard; Schunemann, Holger; Lytvyn, Lyubov; Agarwal, Arnav; Antequera, Alba; Avey, Marc T.; Campbell, Pauline; Chang, Christine; Chang, Stephanie; Dans, Leonila; Dewidar, Omar; Ghersi, Davina; Graham, Ian D.; Hazlewood, Glen; Hilgart, Jennifer; Horsley, Tanya; John, Denny; Jull, Janet; Maxwell, Lara J.; McCutcheon, Chris; Munn, Zachary; Nonino, Francesco; Pardo Pardo, Jordi; Parker, Roses; Pottie, Kevin; Rada, Gabriel; Riddle, Alison; Synnot, Anneliese; Ghogomu, Elizabeth T.; Tomlinson, Eve; Toupin-April, Karine; Petkovic, Jennifer
    Abstract Background Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses Methods Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. Consensus. The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. Dissemination. We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. Conclusion Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches
    (2022-08-04) Presseau, Justin; Kasperavicius, Danielle; Rodrigues, Isabel B.; Braimoh, Jessica; Chambers, Andrea; Etherington, Cole; Giangregorio, Lora; Gibbs, Jenna C.; Giguere, Anik; Graham, Ian D.; Hankivsky, Olena; Hoens, Alison M.; Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna; Kelly, Christine; Moore, Julia E.; Ponzano, Matteo; Sharma, Malika; Sibley, Kathryn M.; Straus, Sharon
    Abstract Background Models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) provide the foundation for a cumulative science of implementation, reflecting a shared, evolving understanding of various facets of implementation. One under-represented aspect in implementation MTFs is how intersecting social factors and systems of power and oppression can shape implementation. There is value in enhancing how MTFs in implementation research and practice account for these intersecting factors. Given the large number of MTFs, we sought to identify exemplar MTFs that represent key implementation phases within which to embed an intersectional perspective. Methods We used a five-step process to prioritize MTFs for enhancement with an intersectional lens. We mapped 160 MTFs to three previously prioritized phases of the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework. Next, 17 implementation researchers/practitioners, MTF experts, and intersectionality experts agreed on criteria for prioritizing MTFs within each KTA phase. The experts used a modified Delphi process to agree on an exemplar MTF for each of the three prioritized KTA framework phases. Finally, we reached consensus on the final MTFs and contacted the original MTF developers to confirm MTF versions and explore additional insights. Results We agreed on three criteria when prioritizing MTFs: acceptability (mean = 3.20, SD = 0.75), applicability (mean = 3.82, SD = 0.72), and usability (median = 4.00, mean = 3.89, SD = 0.31) of the MTF. The top-rated MTFs were the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care for the ‘Identify the problem’ phase (mean = 4.57, SD = 2.31), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for the ‘Assess barriers/facilitators to knowledge use’ phase (mean = 5.79, SD = 1.12), and the Behaviour Change Wheel for the ‘Select, tailor, implement interventions’ phase (mean = 6.36, SD = 1.08). Conclusions Our interdisciplinary team engaged in a rigorous process to reach consensus on MTFs reflecting specific phases of the implementation process and prioritized each to serve as an exemplar in which to embed intersectional approaches. The resulting MTFs correspond with specific phases of the KTA framework, which itself may be useful for those seeking particular MTFs for particular KTA phases. This approach also provides a template for how other implementation MTFs could be similarly considered in the future. Trial registration Open Science Framework Registration: osf.io/qgh64.