Comment favoriser la recherche clinique en pédopsychiatrie? Une expérience de recherche-action collaborative

Les recherches cliniques évaluatives sont trop peu nombreuses. Nous décrirons ici un processus de recherche susceptible d'en favoriser la multiplication. Nous rapportons l'étude de cas d'un processus apparenté à la recherche-action collaborative mené par un groupe de cliniciens en pédopsychiatrie. À l'aide des résultats de l'étude et à la lumière des caractéristiques des recherche-actions, nous expliquons pourquoi et comment ce groupe de cliniciens a réussi à instaurer un processus de recherche. Les leçons tirées de cette expérience sont multiples et nous concluons en proposant la recherche-action collaborative comme un modèle dont tout clinicien ou chercheur pourrait s'inspirer en vue de mener une recherche clinique.How to favor clinical research in pedopsychiatry? An experience of a cooperative action-research Clinical evaluative research are far too few. In this article, the authors describe a research process likely to favor its multiplication. They report on a case study of a process resembling a cooperative action-research led by a group of clinicians in pedopsychiatry. With the results and in the light of caracteristics of action-research, they explain why and how this group of clinicians has succeeded in establishing a research process. The lessons drawned from this experience are numerous. The authors conclude by proposing a cooperative action-research as a model that all clinicians could apply to a clinical study.¿Como favorisar la investigación clínica en pedopsyquiatría? Investigaciones evaluativas clínicas no son muy numerosas. Describiremos aquí un proceso de investigación susceptible de favorisar su multiplicación. Relatamos el estudio de caso de un proceso emparentado a la investigación-acción colaborativa conducida por un grupo de clínicos en pedopsiquiatría. Con los resultados del estudio y a la vista de las características de las investigaciones-acción, explicaremos porque y como este grupo de clínicos lograron instaurar un proceso de investigación. Frutos sacados de esta experiencia son múltiples y concluyemos proponiendo la investigación-acción colaborativa como modelo del cual un investigador podria inspirarse en el conducto de una investigación clínica

Delineating and Operationalizing the Definition of Patient-Oriented Research: A Modified e-Delphi Study

Purpose: The importance of patient-oriented research (POR) has been recognized by the scientific community and governmental agencies, and its development is exponential across most health-related disciplines. The current Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) definition of POR is overly broad and hinders the reliable selection of POR-related publications from bibliographic databases. The present study was aimed to adapt CIHR’s definition of POR into an operational definition that can be used by stakeholders for selecting POR publications. Methods: Eighteen POR experts in Québec, Canada, were invited to participate in a modified e-Delphi study. Two rounds of Delphi surveys were undertaken to reach consensus. Round-1 sought consensus on clarity and indispensability of POR characteristics. Round-2 included modifications planned in POR characteristics and obtained final consensus leading to an adapted POR definition. Finally, POR experts across Canada were consulted to assess generalizability of this adapted POR definition. Results: The item that achieved 75% of consensus was removal of the POR characteristic “POR can be conducted in partnership with relevant stakeholders,” because it was considered redundant and confusing. Additionally, participants suggested defining unclear concepts such as “continuum,” “direct impact,” and “patient.” Finally, based on results of Round-1 and Round-2 and the consultation with POR experts across Canada, an operational POR definition was developed. Conclusions: This study was a novel attempt to adapt an operational POR definition to help patients and POR stakeholders have a common understanding of what POR is, focus on important outcomes that matter to patients, and improve care quality

Can we build on social movement theories to develop and improve community‐based participatory research? a framework synthesis review

A long‐standing challenge in community‐based participatory research (CBPR) has been to anchor practice and evaluation in a relevant and comprehensive theoretical framework of community change. This study describes the development of a multidimensional conceptual framework that builds on social movement theories to identify key components of CBPR processes. Framework synthesis was used as a general literature search and analysis strategy. An initial conceptual framework was developed from the theoretical literature on social movement. A literature search performed to identify illustrative CBPR projects yielded 635 potentially relevant documents, from which eight projects (corresponding to 58 publications) were retained after record and full‐text screening. Framework synthesis was used to code and organize data from these projects, ultimately providing a refined framework. The final conceptual framework maps key concepts of CBPR mobilization processes, such as the pivotal role of the partnership; resources and opportunities as necessary components feeding the partnership's development; the importance of framing processes; and a tight alignment between the cause (partnership's goal), the collective action strategy, and the system changes targeted. The revised framework provides a context‐specific model to generate a new, innovative understanding of CBPR mobilization processes, drawing on existing theoretical foundations

The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers

INTRODUCTION: Appraising the quality of studies included in systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence is challenging. To address this challenge, a critical appraisal tool was developed: the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The aim of this paper is to present the enhancements made to the MMAT. DEVELOPMENT: The MMAT was initially developed in 2006 based on a literature review on systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. It was subject to pilot and interrater reliability testing. A revised version of the MMAT was developed in 2018 based on the results from usefulness testing, a literature review on critical appraisal tools and a modified e-Delphi study with methodological experts to identify core criteria. TOOL DESCRIPTION: The MMAT assesses the quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. It focuses on methodological criteria and includes five core quality criteria for each of the following five categories of study designs: (a) qualitative, (b) randomized controlled, (c) nonrandomized, (d) quantitative descriptive, and (e) mixed methods. CONCLUSION: The MMAT is a unique tool that can be used to appraise the quality of different study designs. Also, by limiting to core criteria, the MMAT can provide a more efficient appraisal

The cognitive impact of research synopses on physicians: a prospective observational analysis of evidence-based summaries sent by email

Background Effective information transfer in primary care is becoming more difficult as the volume of medical information expands. Emailed research synopses are expected to raise awareness and thereby permit more effective information retrieval. Objective To identify key factors that influence physicians' self-reported cognitive impact of emailed research synopses. Method In this prospective observational study, research synopses sent by email between 8 September 2006 and 30 May 2007 were analysed. Seven characteristics of synopses (number of characters, research design, study setting, number of types of patient populations studied, number of comparisons, number of outcomes, and number of results) were analysed. Each synopsis was classified as either positive or negative based on physician-reported impacts. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between a negative impact and the synopsis' characteristics. Results A total of 1960 Canadian physicians submitted 159 442 ratings on 193 synopses. Each synopsis was assessed on average by 826.1 physicians. On average there were 28.3 negative ratings per research synopsis, 146.3 neutral, and 656.2 positive. Out of the seven characteristics analysed, only the number of comparisons (odds ratio (OR) = 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.23_0.93) and the number of results (OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.44_0.93) had a statistically significant influence on physician ratings. An increase in the number of comparisons (P = 0.03) or the number of results (P = 0.02) decreased the likelihood of a negative impact. Conclusions Characteristics of the synopses appear to influence cognitive impact, and there might be lexical patterns specific to these factors. Further research is recommended in order to understand the mechanism for the influence of these characteristics

Disseminating health evidence summaries to increase evidence use in health care

OBJECTIVE: To verify whether an intervention based on disseminating health evidence summaries by e-mail to health professionals increases access to health evidence databases, and whether health professionals intend to apply the evidence received by e-mail in their clinical practice. METHODS: This quantitative study started with a survey to collect demographic data and patterns of access to health evidence databases. It was followed by a longitudinal intervention, over 48 weeks, that disseminated 143 health evidence summaries to 339 health professionals with higher education degree who work in the Brazilian Unified Health System. In the longitudinal intervention phase, health professionals voluntarily assessed the received health evidence summaries using the information assessment method. Finally, the study concluded with a survey to identify changes in accessing health evidence databases. RESULTS: Of the 339 Brazilian health professionals participating in this research, 90 (26.5%) answered the initial and final surveys. After 48 weeks, there was an increase in the use of health evidence databases; 186 (54.9%) participants submitted 7,942 assessments of health evidence summaries, which were relevant for patient care in 5,409 (68%) assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The dissemination of health evidence summaries by e-mail to health professionals in Brazil increases the reported use of evidence in clinical practice

Many family physicians will not manually update PDA software: an observational study

Background In a prospective study to explore connections between clinical information delivery and information retrieval, 41 Canadian family physicians searched an electronic knowledge resource (EKR) as needed for practice. Research software, called the Information Assessment Method (IAM), prompted family physicians to report on the situational relevance, perceived cognitive impact and application of their retrieved information hits. Both the IAM and the EKR needed periodic updating to properly address our research questions. Objective To determine the frequency of software updating when manual or semi-automatic approaches are used by family physicians. Methods Each family physician received a handheld computer (PDA) that ran the Windows Mobile 6 operating system. For technical reasons, both the IAM and the EKR were accessed offline on PDA. To update the EKR and the IAM, family physicians were asked to synchronise their PDA to their PC. Updating the IAM was a manual process, whereas updating the EKR was semi-automatic. Results We found: (1) about 25% of family physicians never or rarely updated PDA software on their own, (2) a large number of software updates were never installed and (3) the semi-automatic method was associated with a small increase in the proportion of installed software updates (58.9% versus 48.6% for the manual method). Conclusions When a wireless internet connection is not used to update PDA software, sociotechnical issues complicate mobile data collection and data transfer

Developing and user-testing Decision boxes to facilitate shared decision making in primary care - a study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Applying evidence is one of the most challenging steps of evidence-based clinical practice. Healthcare professionals have difficulty interpreting evidence and translating it to patients. Decision boxes are summaries of the most important benefits and harms of diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive health interventions provided to healthcare professionals before they meet the patient. Our hypothesis is that Decision boxes will prepare clinicians to help patients make informed value-based decisions. By acting as primers, the boxes will enhance the application of evidence-based practices and increase shared decision making during the clinical encounter. The objectives of this study are to provide a framework for developing Decision boxes and testing their value to users.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We will begin by developing Decision box prototypes for 10 clinical conditions or topics based on a review of the research on risk communication. We will present two prototypes to purposeful samples of 16 family physicians distributed in two focus groups, and 32 patients distributed in four focus groups. We will use the User Experience Model framework to explore users' perceptions of the content and format of each prototype. All discussions will be transcribed, and two researchers will independently perform a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic qualitative analysis of the data. The coding scheme will be developed a priori from the User Experience Model's seven themes (valuable, usable, credible, useful, desirable, accessible and findable), and will include new themes suggested by the data (inductive analysis). Key findings will be triangulated using additional publications on the design of tools to improve risk communication. All 10 Decision boxes will be modified in light of our findings.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will produce a robust framework for developing and testing Decision boxes that will serve healthcare professionals and patients alike. It is the first step in the development and implementation of a new tool that should facilitate decision making in clinical practice.</p