Étude biosystématique d'Anthyllis hystrix de Minoerque et d'A. hermanniae de la Méditerranée orientale et centrale

The morphological, cuyological, ecologicai, phytosociological, biogeographical and nomenclatural survey camed out by the authors on Anthyllis hystrix (Willk. ex Barc.) Cardona, Contandriopoulos et Sierra, endemic of Minorca, and A. hermanniae L., distributed in the Mediterranean from Asia Minor to Sardinia and Corsica, shows the differences as well as the narrowness of the phylogenetical and paleogeographical relations between these two taxa. A. hystrix (2n = 84) is a dodecaploid and an apoendemical of A. hermanniae (2n = 14) issued from this species a long time ago. The genotypical modification has caused some distinct and constant phenotypical changes which have allowed us to confer specific status to the Anthyllis of Minorca and, at the same time, elucidate the numerous nomenclature confusions related with this taxon.Les auteurs ont effectué I'étude morphologique, caryologique, écologique, phytosociologique, biogéographique et nomenclaturale d'AnthylIis hystrix (Willk. ex Barc.) Cardona, Contandriopoulos et Sierra, endémique de Minorque, et d'A. hermanniae L. a distribution méditerranéenne disjointe: Méditerranée orientale, Corse, Sardaigne. Cette étude montre les différences et les étroites relations phylogénétiques et paléogéographiques existants entre ces deux taxons. A. hystrix (2n = 84) est un dodécapldide fortement apparenté a A. hermanniae (2n = 14). I1 peut itre considéré comme un apoendémique de ce demier et la différenciation apparait comme fort ancienne. Cette forte modification génotypique est accompagnée de changements phénotypiques apparents et constants qui nous ont permis d'élever au rang d'espkce I'endémique minorcaine et d'interpreter les nombreuses confusions nomenclaturales liées a ce taxon

Institutional context: What elements shape how community occupational therapists think about their clients’ care?

Abstract : Clinical reasoning (CR) is the cognitive process that therapists use to plan, direct, perform and reflect on client care. Linked to intervention efficiency and quality, CR is a core competency that occurs within an institutional context (legal, regulatory, administrative and organisational elements). Because this context can shape how community therapists think about their clients’ care, its involvement in their CR could have a major impact on the interventions delivered. However, little is known about this involvement. Our study thus aimed to describe the elements of the institutional context involved in community therapists’ CR. From March 2012 to June 2014, we conducted an institutional ethnography (IE) inquiry in three Health and Social Services Centres in Québec (Canada). We observed participants and conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 occupational therapists. We also interviewed 12 secondary key informants (colleagues and managers) and collected administrative documents (n = 50). We analysed data using the IE process. Of the 13 elements of the institutional context identified, we found that four are almost constantly involved in participants’ CR. These four elements, that is, institutional procedures, organisation's basket of services, occupational therapists’ mandate and wait times for their services, restrictively shape CR. Specifically, occupational therapists restrict their representation of the client's situation and exploration of potential solutions to what is possible within the bounds of these four elements. In light of such restrictions on the way they think about their clients’ care, therapists should pay close attention to the elements of their own institutional context and how they are involved in their CR. Because of its potentially important impact on the future of professions (e.g. further restrictions on professionals’ role, reduced contribution to population health and well-being), this involvement of the institutional context in CR concerns all professionals, be they clinicians, educators, researchers or regulatory college officers

A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries

Background: The interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence–policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: A systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English. Results: From 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out ‘agenda-setting’, we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting. Conclusion: Our systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs

Reflections on using a community-based and multisystem approach to transforming school-based intervention for children with developmental motor disorders

Evidence-based management of Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) in school-age children requires putting into practice the best and most current research findings, including evidence that early identification, self-management, prevention of secondary disability, and enhanced participation are the most appropriate foci of school-based occupational therapy. Partnering for Change (P4C) is a new school-based intervention based upon these principles that has been developed and evaluated in Ontario, Canada over an 8-year period. Our experience to date indicates that its implementation in schools is highly complex with involvement of multiple stakeholders across health and education sectors. In this paper, we describe and reflect upon our team’s experience in using community-based participatory action research, knowledge translation, and implementation science to transform evidence-informed practice with children who have DCD

What research impacts do Australian primary health care researchers expect and achieve?

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background Funding for research is under pressure to be accountable in terms of benefits and translation of research findings into practice and policy. Primary health care research has considerable potential to improve health care in a wide range of settings, but little is known about the extent to which these impacts actually occur. This study examines the impact of individual primary health care research projects on policy and practice from the perspective of Chief Investigators (CIs). Methods The project used an online survey adapted from the Buxton and Hanney Payback Framework to collect information about the impacts that CIs expected and achieved from primary health care research projects funded by Australian national competitive grants. Results and Discussion Chief Investigators (CIs) provided information about seventeen completed projects. While no CI expected their project to have an impact in every domain of the framework used in the survey, 76% achieved at least half the impacts they expected. Sixteen projects had published and/or presented their work, 10 projects included 11 doctorate awards in their research capacity domain. All CIs expected their research to lead to further research opportunities with 11 achieving this. Ten CIs achieved their expectation of providing information for policy making but only four reported their research had influenced policy making. However 11 CIs achieved their expectation of providing information for organizational decision making and eight reported their research had influenced organizational decision making. Conclusion CIs reported that nationally funded primary health care research projects made an impact on knowledge production, staff development and further research, areas within the realm of influence of the research team and within the scope of awareness of the CIs. Some also made an impact on policy and organizational decision-making, and on localized clinical practice and service delivery. CIs reported few broader economic benefits from their research. Routine use of an instrument of this type would facilitate primary health care research funders' determination of the payback for funding of research in this sector

A study protocol for applying the co-creating knowledge translation framework to a population health study

BACKGROUND: Population health research can generate significant outcomes for communities, while Knowledge Translation (KT) aims to expressly maximize the outcomes of knowledge producing activity. Yet the two approaches are seldom explicitly combined as part of the research process. A population health study in Port Lincoln, South Australia offered the opportunity to develop and apply the co-KT Framework to the entire research process. This is a new framework to facilitate knowledge formation collaboratively between researchers and communities throughout a research to intervention implementation process. DESIGN: This study employs a five step framework (the co-KT Framework) that is formulated from engaged scholarship and action research principles. By following the steps a knowledge base will be cumulatively co-created with the study population that is useful to the research aims. Step 1 is the initiating of contact between the researcher and the study contexts, and the framing of the research issue, achieved through a systematic data collection tool. Step 2 refines the research issue and the knowledge base by building into it context specific details and conducting knowledge exchange events. Step 3 involves interpreting and analysing the knowledge base, and integrating evidence to inform intervention development. In Step 4 the intervention will be piloted and evaluated. Step 5 is the completion of the research process where outcomes for improvement will be instituted as regular practice with the facilitation of the community. In summary, the model uses an iterative knowledge construction mechanism that is complemented by external evidence to design interventions to address health priorities within the community. DISCUSSION: This is a systematic approach that operationalises the translational cycle using a framework for KT practice. It begins with the local context as its foundation for knowledge creation and ends with the development of contextually applicable interventions. It will be of interest to those involved in KT research, participatory action research, population health research and health care systems studies. The co-KT Framework is a method for embedding the principles of KT into all stages of a community-based research process, in which research questions are framed by emergent data from each previous stage.Kathryn Powell, Alison Kitson, Elizabeth Hoon, Jonathan Newbury, Anne Wilson and Justin Beilb

Development, implementation, and evaluation of the Apollo model of pediatric rehabilitation service delivery

This article presents the experience of a rehabilitation program that un- dertook the challenge to reorganize its services to address accessibility issues and im- prove service quality. The context in which the reorganization process occurred, along with the relevant literature justifying the need for a new service delivery model, and an historical perspective on the planning; implementation; and evaluation phases of the process are described. In the planning phase, the constitution of the working committee, the data collected, and the information found in the literature are presented. Apollo, the new service delivery model, is then described along with each of its components (e.g., community, group, and individual interventions). Actions and lessons learnt during the implementation of each component are presented. We hope by sharing our experiences that we can help others make informed decisions about service reorganization to im- prove the quality of services provided to children with disabilities, their families, and their communities