Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework : theoretical and practical challenges

Background The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified. Discussion This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally. Summary The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives

Interleukin (IL)-10, IL-1ra and IL-12 profiles in active and quiescent systemic lupus erythematosus: could longitudinal studies reveal patient subgroups of differing pathology?

Several cytokines have been implicated individually in the pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and some, including interleukin (IL)-10, IL-12 and IL-1ra are raised during flares of disease activity. Few studies have been directed at examining the interactions between these cytokines and how their combined profile relates to disease activity. We have examined serum levels of IL-10, IL-12 and IL-1ra in a cohort of SLE patients obtained from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham in cross-sectional and, in a smaller group, longitudinal analyses. In the cross-sectional study, there were significant correlations between levels of the three cytokines. There were also significant correlations between levels of each cytokine and measures of disease activity. IL-10 levels correlated with ESR, anti-dsDNA antibody titres and C3D, IL-12 levels with anti-dsDNA antibody titres and IL-1ra levels with ESR, anti-dsDNA antibody titres and C3D. IL-1ra levels also correlated with CRP. Circulating IL-10 and IL-1ra levels were higher in patients with SLE than in normal controls, although in this study group they did not reach significance. Circulating IL-12 levels were, however, significantly higher in SLE compared to controls. This was true both in patients with active disease and those sampled during a quiescent phase. These data add to the evidence that cytokines such as IL-10, IL-12 and IL-1ra are important in SLE pathogenesis. In a retrospective study of serial serum samples from seven patients, we found two patients whose cytokine profile was very different from the rest of the group. In most patients normalized IL-10, IL-12 and IL-1ra levels mirrored BILAG scores closely, but in these two patients, IL-10, IL-12 and IL-1ra levels did not fluctuate with disease activity. It is possible that there is a subgroup of SLE patients whose cytokine profile could be an important indicator of their pathology. In order to confirm this and determine the frequency of such patients this study needs to be repeated with a much larger subject group. The coexistence of patient groups with different patterns of cytokine activity might explain conflicting reports of associations of levels of particular cytokines with SLE. As the observed differences could reflect different aetiologies of SLE, this information could reveal valuable endophenotypes for genetic and functional studies of SLE and might, ultimately, inform therapeutic management

Coronavirus disease 2019 in patients with inborn errors of immunity: An international study

Background: There is uncertainty about the impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in individuals with rare inborn errors of immunity (IEI), a population at risk of developing severe coronavirus disease 2019. This is relevant not only for these patients but also for the general population, because studies of IEIs can unveil key requirements for host defense. Objective: We sought to describe the presentation, manifestations, and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in IEI to inform physicians and enhance understanding of host defense against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: An invitation to participate in a retrospective study was distributed globally to scientific, medical, and patient societies involved in the care and advocacy for patients with IEI. Results: We gathered information on 94 patients with IEI with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Their median age was 25 to 34 years. Fifty-three patients (56%) suffered from primary antibody deficiency, 9 (9.6%) had immune dysregulation syndrome, 6 (6.4%) a phagocyte defect, 7 (7.4%) an autoinflammatory disorder, 14 (15%) a combined immunodeficiency, 3 (3%) an innate immune defect, and 2 (2%) bone marrow failure. Ten were asymptomatic, 25 were treated as outpatients, 28 required admission without intensive care or ventilation, 13 required noninvasive ventilation or oxygen administration, 18 were admitted to intensive care units, 12 required invasive ventilation, and 3 required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Nine patients (7 adults and 2 children) died. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that (1) more than 30% of patients with IEI had mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and (2) risk factors predisposing to severe disease/mortality in the general population also seemed to affect patients with IEI, including more younger patients. Further studies will identify pathways that are associated with increased risk of severe disease and are nonredundant or redundant for protection against SARS-CoV-2