The BC SUPPORT Unit Data Platform: Offering Data-Related Services To Researchers In British Columbia

Introduction The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and provinces co-fund local Units to increase the quality and quantity of patient-oriented research. These SUPPORT (Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials) Units include a prominent Data Plan component. The BC Plan is the result of collaboration between many organizational partners. Objectives and Approach A Data Advisory Committee comprised of eight organizational partners worked together for several months in 2016-2017 to develop BC’s provincial Data Plan. The Data Plan includes seven objectives; in general, the plan seeks to make additional data available for research, increase the speed and transparency of data access, and offer services to enable more efficient data use. The services resulting from the Data Plan are intended to improve support for the entire continuum of a research project, from developing a research question to analyzing the results. Several projects are part of Ministry of Health-led work developing a Health Data Platform. Results The projects initiated so far as part of the Data Plan include: • BC Data Scout\textsuperscript{TM}: an online tool that provides aggregate cohort information to inform research question development; • REDCap: software to support privacy-sensitive data collection and management; • INFORM: software to support data collection for complex clinical research studies and trials; • Direct Access: enables Population Data BC to access BC Ministry of Health databases so researchers have access to up-to-date data; • Streamlining: making the data request process more efficient; • New datasets: several projects that will provide new data sources, including patient experience and outcome measures and secondary use data drawn from electronic medical records; and • Inventory: an online catalog for all high-value and linkable data sets available to researchers. Conclusion/Implications The services and tools included in BC’s Data Plan will help researchers develop and deliver world-class research and inform important health care decisions. The patient-oriented focus of these services help to ensure that research is done in partnership with patients and centered on research questions that matter to them

Making stone soup: Building organizational capacity for health research

The BC Ministry of Health Services is a large and complex organization with a strong requirement for research to inform policy. The presentation examines the complexity and importance of building solid policy-research linkages, particularly where research is variable and contested, using the case study of a policy initiative to respond more effectively to the needs of women accessing public mental health services. Lessons learned over several years developing and implementing strategies to strengthen the Ministry’s corporate capacity to access, interpret and apply research are highlighted.Applied Science, Faculty ofNursing, School ofUnreviewedResearche

Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study

Abstract Background Systematic reviews are infrequently used by health care managers (HCMs) and policy-makers (PMs) in decision-making. HCMs and PMs co-developed and tested novel systematic review of effects formats to increase their use. Methods A three-phased approach was used to evaluate the determinants to uptake of systematic reviews of effects and the usability of an innovative and a traditional systematic review of effects format. In phase 1, survey and interviews were conducted with HCMs and PMs in four Canadian provinces to determine perceptions of a traditional systematic review format. In phase 2, systematic review format prototypes were created by HCMs and PMs via Conceptboard©. In phase 3, prototypes underwent usability testing by HCMs and PMs. Results Two hundred two participants (80 HCMs, 122 PMs) completed the phase 1 survey. Respondents reported that inadequate format (Mdn = 4; IQR = 4; range = 1–7) and content (Mdn = 4; IQR = 3; range = 1–7) influenced their use of systematic reviews. Most respondents (76%; n = 136/180) reported they would be more likely to use systematic reviews if the format was modified. Findings from 11 interviews (5 HCMs, 6 PMs) revealed that participants preferred systematic reviews of effects that were easy to access and read and provided more information on intervention effectiveness and less information on review methodology. The mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 55.7 (standard deviation [SD] 17.2) for the traditional format; a SUS score < 68 is below average usability. In phase 2, 14 HCMs and 20 PMs co-created prototypes, one for HCMs and one for PMs. HCMs preferred a traditional information order (i.e., methods, study flow diagram, forest plots) whereas PMs preferred an alternative order (i.e., background and key messages on one page; methods and limitations on another). In phase 3, the prototypes underwent usability testing with 5 HCMs and 7 PMs, 11 out of 12 participants co-created the prototypes (mean SUS score 86 [SD 9.3]). Conclusions HCMs and PMs co-created prototypes for systematic review of effects formats based on their needs. The prototypes will be compared to a traditional format in a randomized trial

Additional file 2: of Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study

Figure SA1: Phase 1. Content components that were considered of interest; Figure SA2: Phase 1. Content component modifications that were considered important; Figure SA3: Phase 1. Format features that were considered satisfactory; Figure SA4: Phase 1. Format feature modifications that were considered important; Table SA1: Phase 1. Preference towards font and color; Table SA2: Phase 2. Preference towards color, content, and layout; and Table SA3: Phase 2. Voting results towards color, content, and layout. (DOCX 81 kb

Additional file 1: of Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study

Appendix S1. Survey questions. Appendix S2. Phases 1 and 3 usability testing interview guide. Appendix S3. The three options created for round two; and Appendix S4. The two final prototypes created from round two). (PDF 4111 kb