12 research outputs found

    Essential Content for Teaching Implementation Practice in Healthcare: A Mixed-Methods Study of Teams Offering Capacity-Building Initiatives

    Get PDF
    Background Applying the knowledge gained through implementation science can support the uptake of research evidence into practice; however, those doing and supporting implementation (implementation practitioners) may face barriers to applying implementation science in their work. One strategy to enhance individuals’ and teams’ ability to apply implementation science in practice is through training and professional development opportunities (capacity-building initiatives). Although there is an increasing demand for and offerings of implementation practice capacity-building initiatives, there is no universal agreement on what content should be included. In this study we aimed to explore what capacity-building developers and deliverers identify as essential training content for teaching implementation practice. Methods We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study with participants who had developed and/or delivered a capacity-building initiative focused on teaching implementation practice. Participants completed an online questionnaire to provide details on their capacity-building initiatives; took part in an interview or focus group to explore their questionnaire responses in depth; and offered course materials for review. We analyzed a subset of data that focused on the capacity-building initiatives’ content and curriculum. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative data and conventional content analysis for qualitative data, with the data sets merged during the analytic phase. We presented frequency counts for each category to highlight commonalities and differences across capacity-building initiatives. Results Thirty-three individuals representing 20 capacity-building initiatives participated. Study participants identified several core content areas included in their capacity-building initiatives: (1) taking a process approach to implementation; (2) identifying and applying implementation theories, models, frameworks, and approaches; (3) learning implementation steps and skills; (4) developing relational skills. In addition, study participants described offering applied and pragmatic content (e.g., tools and resources), and tailoring and evolving the capacity-building initiative content to address emerging trends in implementation science. Study participants highlighted some challenges learners face when acquiring and applying implementation practice knowledge and skills. Conclusions This study synthesized what experienced capacity-building initiative developers and deliverers identify as essential content for teaching implementation practice. These findings can inform the development, refinement, and delivery of capacity-building initiatives, as well as future research directions, to enhance the translation of implementation science into practice

    Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)

    Get PDF
    Background Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. Methods This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. Results The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. Conclusion Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production—including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research—to study, adapt, and apply

    Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework.

    Get PDF
    Background Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production—Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro)—and outline our field test of this approach. Methods Using a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so, we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. Discussion This study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders

    Using YouTube to Disseminate Effective Vaccination Pain Treatment for Babies

    No full text
    <div><p>Background</p><p>Infant vaccinations are necessary for public health, but are painful, causing distress to the infant and caregivers. Breastfeeding and sucrose effectively reduce infants’ pain during vaccinations, and these strategies are recommended in health care provider (HCP)-targeted education and vaccination pain guidelines. However studies show these strategies are infrequently used. YouTube is a popular medium to publicly share and watch videos, and many consumer posted YouTube videos show distressed infants being vaccinated with no pain treatment. The aims of this study were to evaluate the reach and impact of a consumer-targeted YouTube video demonstrating use of effective pain reduction strategies during infant vaccinations.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A brief consumer-targeted video showing two infants being vaccinated was posted onto YouTube on October 2013. One infant was breastfed and another infant received sucrose by mouth before and during the injection. A link to a viewer survey was visible on a banner near the end of the video. An intensive strategically planned knowledge dissemination strategy using the media, social media and messages to professional organizations took place to promote the video. Data analysis of the viewer survey, YouTube analytics of the reach of the video in terms of number of views, country of viewers, and comments relating to the video took place 12 months after the video was posted.</p><p>Results</p><p>Twelve months after posting, the video had 65,478views, 68 comments, 245 likes, 17 dislikes, and 90 shares. Average duration of viewer time was 65% of the video. The viewer survey was completed by 156 (0.24%) viewers; 90 (58%) answered as HCPs and 66 (42%) as parents. Survey results showed that the video was persuasive; intent to use or support breastfeeding or sucrose was high in both parents and HCPs after viewing the video. Comments posted were often emotional in nature, and were related to anti-vaccination (n = 26, 38%); effectiveness or positive personal experiences (n = 21, 32%); research team comments or promotion (n = 12, 18%); pro-vaccination (n = 6, 8%) and barriers to using breastfeeding or sucrose during vaccinations (n = 3, 4%).</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The video posted onto YouTube demonstrating effective pain treatment during infant vaccinations was viewed by large numbers of people around the world, however the response rate to the linked survey was extremely low. Using YouTube videos for knowledge dissemination has an extensive reach, however it is difficult to evaluate impact on behaviours and practices.</p></div
    corecore