Organizational Knowledge Translation Strategies for Allied Health Professionals in Traumatology Settings: A Realist Review Protocol.

Background Knowledge translation (KT) is an important means of improving the health service quality. Most research on the effectiveness of KT strategies has focused on individual strategies, i.e., those directly targeting the modification of allied health professionals’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, for example. In general, these strategies are moderately effective in changing practices (maximum 10% change). Effecting change in organizational contexts (e.g., change readiness, general and specific organizational capacity, organizational routines) is part of a promising new avenue to service quality improvement through the implementation of evidence-based practices. The objective of this study will be to identify why, how, and under what conditions organizational KT strategies have been shown to be effective or ineffective in changing the (a) knowledge, (b) attitudes, and (c) clinical behaviors of allied health professionals in traumatology settings. Methods This is a realist review protocol involving four iterative steps: (1) Initial theory formulation, (2) search for Evidence search, (3) knowledge extraction and synthesis, and (4) recommendations. We will search electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, Cochrane Library, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. The studies included will be those relating to the use of organizational KT strategies in trauma settings, regardless of study designs, published between January 1990 and October 2020, and presenting objective measures that demonstrate change in allied health professionals’ knowledge, attitudes, and clinical behaviors. Two independent reviewers will select, screen, and extract the data related to all relevant sources in order to refine or refute the context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations developed in the initial theory and identify new CMO configurations. Discussion Using a systematic and rigorous method, this review will help guide decision-makers and researchers in choosing the best organizational strategies to optimize the implementation of evidence-based practices

A strategic initiative to facilitate knowledge translation research in rehabilitation

While there is a growing body of literature supporting clinical decision-making for rehabilitation professionals, suboptimal use of evidence-based practices in that field persists. A strategic initiative that ensures the relevance of the research and its implementation in the context of rehabilitation could 1) help improve the coordination of knowledge translation (KT) research and 2) enhance the delivery of evidence-based rehabilitation services offered to patients with physical disabilities. This paper describes the process and methods used to develop a KT strategic initiative aimed at building capacity and coordinating KT research in physical rehabilitation and its strategic plan; it also reports the initial applications of the strategic plan implementation

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults: rapid review

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed the lives of countless members of the general population. Older adults are known to experience loneliness, age discrimination, and excessive worry. It is therefore reasonable to anticipate that they would experience greater negative outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic given their increased isolation and risk for complications than younger adults. Objective: This study aims to synthesize the existing research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated isolation and protective measures, on older adults. The secondary objective is to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated isolation and protective measures, on older adults with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. Methods: A rapid review of the published literature was conducted on October 6, 2020, through a search of 6 online databases to synthesize results from published original studies regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults. The Human Development Model conceptual framework–Disability Creation Process was used to describe and understand interactions between personal factors, environmental factors, and life habits. Methods and results are reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement. Results: A total of 135 records were included from the initial search strategy of 13,452 individual studies. Of these, 113 (83.7%) studies were determined to be of level 4 according to the levels of evidence classification by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The presence of psychological symptoms, exacerbation of ageism, and physical deterioration of aged populations were reported in the included studies. Decreased social life and fewer in-person social interactions reported during the COVID-19 pandemic were occasionally associated with reduced quality of life and increased depression. Difficulties accessing services, sleep disturbances, and a reduction of physical activity were also noted. Conclusions: Our results highlight the need for adequate isolation and protective measures. Older adults represent a heterogeneous group, which could explain the contradictory results found in the literature. Individual, organizational, and institutional strategies should be established to ensure that older adults are able to maintain social contacts, preserve family ties, and maintain the ability to give or receive help during the current pandemic. Future studies should focus on specific consequences and needs of more at-risk older adults to ensure their inclusion, both in public health recommendations and considerations made by policy makers

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Criteria for prioritizing best practices to implement in cognitive rehabilitation

Cognitive rehabilitation is a high priority area to address in acquired brain injury (ABI) care. A greater understanding of the criteria used by rehabilitation teams when prioritizing specific cognitive interventions for implementation could inform the development of effective strategies to move evidence into practice. Therefore, the objective of this qualitative study was to describe the criteria for prioritizing best practices to implement in cognitive rehabilitation post-ABI using a comprehensive implementation framework. As the first step in a multi-site integrated knowledge translation initiative, a consensus-building methodology, i.e., the Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts (TRIAGE), was used to prioritize practices to implement by three separate ABI rehabilitation teams (n = 8, 12 and 15 members). Transcripts of the teams’ TRIAGE consensual group discussions were analyzed using the Framework Method and mapped across the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The most important criteria guiding priority setting in all the teams were the characteristics of the inner setting, the interventions, the individuals involved, and patients’ and families’ needs and resources. Particularly critical in prioritizing best practices to implement in the view of all the teams appeared to be the characteristics of the inner setting (e.g., implementation climate, readiness for implementation). Overall, the teams tended to prioritize practices that were partially known and used by a few clinicians but needed more systematic implementation through inter-professional collaboration. Rehabilitation teams should monitor these factors throughout the process from prioritization to implementation of the selected best practices in order to guide the tailoring of implementation strategies

Additional file 2 of Prognostic factors for persistent symptoms in adults with mild traumatic brain injury: an overview of systematic reviews

Additional file 2

Additional file 3 of Prognostic factors for persistent symptoms in adults with mild traumatic brain injury: an overview of systematic reviews

Additional file 3