Browsing by Author "Lavis, John"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Attributes of context relevant to healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice: a multi-study analysis
    (2019-05-22) Squires, Janet E; Aloisio, Laura D; Grimshaw, Jeremy M; Bashir, Kainat; Dorrance, Kristin; Coughlin, Mary; Hutchinson, Alison M; Francis, Jill; Michie, Susan; Sales, Anne; Brehaut, Jamie; Curran, Janet; Ivers, Noah; Lavis, John; Noseworthy, Thomas; Vine, Jocelyn; Hillmer, Michael; Graham, Ian D
    Abstract Background To increase the likelihood of successful implementation of evidence-based practices, researchers, knowledge users, and healthcare professionals must consider aspects of context that promote and hinder implementation in their setting. The purpose of the current study was to identify contextual attributes and their features relevant to implementation by healthcare professionals and compare and contrast these attributes and features across different clinical settings and healthcare professional roles. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of 145 semi-structured interviews comprising 11 studies (10 from Canada and one from Australia) investigating healthcare professionals’ perceived barriers and enablers to their use of research evidence in clinical practice. The data was collected using semi-structured interview guides informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework across different healthcare professional roles, settings, and practices. We analyzed these data inductively, using constant comparative analysis, to identify attributes of context and their features reported in the interviews. We compared these data by (1) setting (primary care, hospital-medical/surgical, hospital-emergency room, hospital-critical care) and (2) professional role (physicians and residents, nurses and organ donor coordinators). Results We identified 62 unique features of context, which we categorized under 14 broader attributes of context. The 14 attributes were resource access, work structure, patient characteristics, professional role, culture, facility characteristics, system features, healthcare professional characteristics, financial, collaboration, leadership, evaluation, regulatory or legislative standards, and societal influences. We found instances of the majority (n = 12, 86%) of attributes of context across multiple (n = 6 or more) clinical behaviors. We also found little variation in the 14 attributes of context by setting (primary care and hospitals) and professional role (physicians and residents, and nurses and organ donor coordinators). Conclusions There was considerable consistency in the 14 attributes identified irrespective of the clinical behavior, setting, or professional role, supporting broad utility of the attributes of context identified in this study. There was more variation in the finer-grained features of these attributes with the most substantial variation being by setting.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    How does integrated knowledge translation (IKT) compare to other collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge? Learning from experts in the field
    (2020-03-30) Nguyen, Tram; Graham, Ian D; Mrklas, Kelly J; Bowen, Sarah; Cargo, Margaret; Estabrooks, Carole A; Kothari, Anita; Lavis, John; Macaulay, Ann C; MacLeod, Martha; Phipps, David; Ramsden, Vivian R.; Renfrew, Mary J; Salsberg, Jon; Wallerstein, Nina
    Abstract Background Research funders in Canada and abroad have made substantial investments in supporting collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge as it is believed to increase knowledge use. Canadian health research funders have advocated for the use of integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health research, however, there is limited research around how IKT compares to other collaborative research approaches. Our objective was to better understand how IKT compares with engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production and participatory research by identifying the differences and similarities among them in order to provide conceptual clarity and reduce researcher and knowledge user confusion about these common approaches. Methods We employed a qualitative descriptive method using interview data to better understand experts’ perspectives and experiences on collaborative research approaches. Participants’ responses were analysed through thematic analysis to elicit core themes. The analysis was centred around the concept of IKT, as it is the most recent approach; IKT was then compared and contrasted with engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production and participatory research. As this was an iterative process, data triangulation and member-checking were conducted with participants to ensure accuracy of the emergent themes and analysis process. Results Differences were noted in the orientation (i.e. original purpose), historical roots (i.e. disciplinary origin) and partnership/engagement (i.e. role of partners etc.). Similarities among the approaches included (1) true partnerships rather than simple engagement, (2) focus on essential components and processes rather than labels, (3) collaborative research orientations rather than research methods, (4) core values and principles, and (5) extensive time and financial investment. Core values and principles among the approaches included co-creation, reciprocity, trust, fostering relationships, respect, co-learning, active participation, and shared decision-making in the generation and application of knowledge. All approaches require extensive time and financial investment to develop and maintain true partnerships. Conclusions This qualitative study is the first to systematically synthesise experts’ perspectives and experiences in a comparison of collaborative research approaches. This work contributes to developing a shared understanding of collaborative research approaches to facilitate conceptual clarity in use, reporting, indexing and communication among researchers, trainees, knowledge users and stakeholders to advance IKT and implementation science.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Inappropriateness of health care in Canada: a systematic review protocol
    (2019-02-11) Squires, Janet E; Graham, Ian D; Grinspun, Doris; Lavis, John; Légaré, France; Bell, Robert; Bornstein, Stephen; Brien, Susan E; Dobrow, Mark; Greenough, Megan; Estabrooks, Carole A; Hillmer, Michael; Horsley, Tanya; Katz, Alan; Krause, Christina; Levinson, Wendy; Levy, Adrian; Mancuso, Michelina; Maybee, Alies; Morgan, Steve; Penno, Letitia N; Neuner, Andrew; Rader, Tamara; Roberts, Janet; Teare, Gary; Tepper, Joshua; Vandyk, Amanda; Widmeyer, Denise; Wilson, Michael; Grimshaw, Jeremy M
    Abstract Background There is increasing recognition in Canada and globally that a substantial proportion of health care delivered is inappropriate as evidenced by (1) harmful and/or ineffective practices being overused, (2) effective clinical practices being underused, and (3) other clinical practices being misused. Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes, and inefficient use of scarce health care resources. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review of inappropriate health care in Canada. Our specific objectives are to (1) systematically search and critically review published and grey literature for studies on inappropriate health care in Canada; (2) estimate the nature and magnitude of inappropriate health care in Canada and its provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Methods We will include all quantitative study designs reporting objective or subjective measurements of inappropriate health care in Canada over the last 10 years. We will search the following online databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, and ISI-Web of Knowledge, which contains Web of Science Core Collection-Citation Indexes, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We will also search grey literature sources to identify provincial and national audits of inappropriate health care. Two authors will independently screen, assess data quality, and extract data for synthesis. Study findings will be synthesized narratively. We will organize our data into three care categorizations: preventive care, acute care, and chronic care. We will provide a compendium of inappropriate health care for each care category for Canada and each Canadian province and territory, where sufficient data exists, by calculating (1) overall medians of underuse, overuse, and misuse of clinical practices and (2) the range of medians of underuse, overuse, and misuse for each clinical practice investigated. Discussion This review will result in the first-ever evidence-based compendium of inappropriate health care in Canada. We will also develop detailed reports of inappropriate health care for each Canadian province and territory. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018093495