Browsing by Author "Mrklas, Kelly J."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • 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
    Beyond guideline knowledge: a theory-based qualitative study of low-value preoperative testing
    (2023-03-02) Jasaui, Yamile; Mortazhejri, Sameh; Dowling, Shawn; Duquette, D’Arcy; L’Heureux, Geralyn; Linklater, Stefanie; Mrklas, Kelly J.; Wilkinson, Gloria; Beesoon, Sanjay; Patey, Andrea M.; Ruzycki, Shannon M.; Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
    Abstract Background Choosing Wisely Canada and most major anesthesia and preoperative guidelines recommend against obtaining preoperative tests before low-risk procedures. However, these recommendations alone have not reduced low-value test ordering. In this study, the theoretical domains framework (TDF) was used to understand the drivers of preoperative electrocardiogram (ECG) and chest X-ray (CXR) ordering for patients undergoing low-risk surgery (‘low-value preoperative testing’) among anesthesiologists, internal medicine specialists, nurses, and surgeons. Methods Using snowball sampling, preoperative clinicians working in a single health system in Canada were recruited for semi-structured interviews about low-value preoperative testing. The interview guide was developed using the TDF to identify the factors that influence preoperative ECG and CXR ordering. Interview content was deductively coded using TDF domains and specific beliefs were identified by grouping similar utterances. Domain relevance was established based on belief statement frequency, presence of conflicting beliefs, and perceived influence over preoperative test ordering practices. Results Sixteen clinicians (7 anesthesiologists, 4 internists, 1 nurse, and 4 surgeons) participated. Eight of the 12 TDF domains were identified as the drivers of preoperative test ordering. While most participants agreed that the guidelines were helpful, they also expressed distrust in the evidence behind them (knowledge). Both a lack of clarity about the responsibilities of the specialties involved in the preoperative process and the ease by which any clinician could order, but not cancel tests, were drivers of low-value preoperative test ordering (social/professional role and identity, social influences, belief about capabilities). Additionally, low-value tests could also be ordered by nurses or the surgeon and may be completed before the anesthesia or internal medicine preoperative assessment appointment (environmental context and resources, beliefs about capabilities). Finally, while participants agreed that they did not intend to routinely order low-value tests and understood that these would not benefit patient outcomes, they also reported ordering tests to prevent surgery cancellations and problems during surgery (motivation and goals, beliefs about consequences, social influences). Conclusions We identified key factors that anesthesiologists, internists, nurses, and surgeons believe influence preoperative test ordering for patients undergoing low-risk surgeries. These beliefs highlight the need to shift away from knowledge-based interventions and focus instead on understanding local drivers of behaviour and target change at the individual, team, and institutional levels.
  • 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
    Sleeping for two: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia in pregnant women
    (2021-08-12) MacKinnon, Anna L.; Madsen, Joshua W.; Dhillon, Ashley; Keys, Elizabeth; Giesbrecht, Gerald F.; Williamson, Tyler; Metcalfe, Amy; Campbell, Tavis; Mrklas, Kelly J.; Tomfohr-Madsen, Lianne
    Abstract Background Insomnia and sleep disturbances are common in pregnancy and have potentially significant consequences for both maternal and infant health. There is limited research examining the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) during pregnancy. With increased distress and limited access to services during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is also an unprecedented need for telehealth delivery of treatment programs for pregnant women. The aims of this trial are to evaluate the impact of the Sleeping for Two adaptation of CBT-I in pregnancy (in-person or telehealth) versus treatment as usual (TAU) in reducing symptoms of insomnia (primary outcome), as well as increasing gestational length and reducing symptoms of depression (secondary outcomes). Methods A two-arm, single-blinded, parallel group randomized controlled trial (RCT) design with repeated measures will be used to evaluate the impact of CBT-I compared to TAU among a sample of 62 pregnant women, enrolled between 12 and 28 weeks of gestation, who self-identify as experiencing insomnia. Five weekly individual sessions of CBT-I will be delivered in person or via telehealth depending on physical distancing guidelines. Assessment of insomnia diagnosis by structured interview, self-reported insomnia symptom severity and sleep problems, and sleep quantity and quality as measured by a daily diary and actigraphy will occur at 12–28 weeks of pregnancy (T1), 1 week post-treatment (T2), and 6 months postpartum (T3). Discussion CBT-I delivered in pregnancy has the potential to reduce symptoms of insomnia and depression and could lead to reduced risk of preterm birth, all of which can minimize risk of negative maternal and child health and developmental consequences in the short (e.g., infant death) and long terms (e.g., developmental delays). This RCT builds on a successful open pilot trial conducted by our team and will provide further evaluation of a novel evidence-based treatment for pregnancy-related insomnia, which can be widely disseminated and used to treat individuals that are most in need of intervention. Findings will enhance understanding of pregnancy-related sleep problems, as well as means by which to improve the health and sleep of mothers and their children. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03918057. Registered on 17 April 2019.