Explore the vast range of titles available.

The objective of this article is to discuss the knowledge dissemination and exchange components of the knowledge translation process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and ethically sound application of knowledge. This article presents and discusses approaches to knowledge dissemination and exchange and provides a summary of factors that appear to influence the effectiveness of these processes. It aims to provide practical information for researchers and knowledge users as they consider what to include in dissemination and exchange plans developed as part of grant applications. Not relevant. Dissemination is targeting research findings to specific audiences. Dissemination activities should be carefully and appropriately considered and outlined in a dissemination plan focused on the needs of the audience who will use the knowledge. Researchers should engage knowledge users to craft messages and help disseminate research findings. Knowledge brokers, networks, and communities of practice hold promise as innovative ways to disseminate and facilitate the application of knowledge. Knowledge exchange or integrated knowledge translation involves active collaboration and exchange between researchers and knowledge users throughout the research process.

Global health financing has increased dramatically in recent years, indicative of a rise in health as a foreign policy issue. Several governments have issued specific foreign policy statements on global health and a new term, global health diplomacy, has been coined to describe the processes by which state and non-state actors engage to position health issues more prominently in foreign policy decision-making. Their ability to do so is important to advancing international cooperation in health. In this paper we review the arguments for health in foreign policy that inform global health diplomacy. These are organized into six policy frames: security, development, global public goods, trade, human rights and ethical/moral reasoning. Each of these frames has implications for how global health as a foreign policy issue is conceptualized. Differing arguments within and between these policy frames, while overlapping, can also be contradictory. This raises an important question about which arguments prevail in actual state decision-making. This question is addressed through an analysis of policy or policy-related documents and academic literature pertinent to each policy framing with some assessment of policy practice. The reference point for this analysis is the explicit goal of improving global health equity. This goal has increasing national traction within national public health discourse and decision-making and, through the Millennium Development Goals and other multilateral reports and declarations, is entering global health policy discussion. Initial findings support conventional international relations theory that most states, even when committed to health as a foreign policy goal, still make decisions primarily on the basis of the 'high politics' of national security and economic material interests. Development, human rights and ethical/moral arguments for global health assistance, the traditional 'low politics' of foreign policy, are present in discourse but do not appear to dominate practice. While political momentum for health as a foreign policy goal persists, the framing of this goal remains a contested issue. The analysis offered in this article may prove helpful to those engaged in global health diplomacy or in efforts to have global governance across a range of sectoral interests pay more attention to health equity impacts.

Background: With the increasing incidence of Alzheimer disease (AD), determining the validity and reliability of outcome measures for people with this disease is necessary. Objective: The goals of this study were to assess test-retest reliability of data for the Timed “Up & Go” Test (TUG), the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), and gait speed and to calculate minimal detectable change (MDC) scores for each outcome measure. Performance differences between groups with mild to moderate AD and moderately severe to severe AD (as determined by the Functional Assessment Staging [FAST] scale) were studied. Design: This was a prospective, nonexperimental, descriptive methodological study. Methods: Background data collected for 51 people with AD included: use of an assistive device, Mini-Mental Status Examination scores, and FAST scale scores. Each participant engaged in 2 test sessions, separated by a 30- to 60-minute rest period, which included 2 TUG trials, 1 6MWT trial, and 2 gait speed trials using a computerized gait assessment system. A specific cuing protocol was followed to achieve optimal performance during test sessions. Results: Test-retest reliability values for the TUG, the 6MWT, and gait speed were high for all participants together and for the mild to moderate AD and moderately severe to severe AD groups separately (intraclass correlation coefficients ≥.973); however, individual variability of performance also was high. Calculated MDC scores at the 90% confidence interval were: TUG=4.09 seconds, 6MWT=33.5 m (110 ft), and gait speed=9.4 cm/s. The 2 groups were significantly different in performance of clinical tests, with the participants who were more cognitively impaired being more physically and functionally impaired. Limitations: A single researcher for data collection limited sample numbers and prohibited blinding to dementia level. Conclusions: The TUG, the 6MWT, and gait speed are reliable outcome measures for use with people with AD, recognizing that individual variability of performance is high. Minimal detectable change scores at the 90% confidence interval can be used to assess change in performance over time and the impact of treatment.

Background Women who experience street-involvement are severely underserved in health care. Outreach can address this service gap, but little is known about what constitutes gender-appropriate and effective outreach worker-client relationships in this context. Methods To explore the relational attributes of outreach, qualitative interviews were conducted with women ( n  = 19) enrolled in a pilot study (2017–2020) aimed at designing a gender-specific outreach program in British Columbia and with outreach staff ( n  = 8). Data analysis focused on women’s experiences, supplemented by outreach staffs’ perspectives. Reflexive thematic analysis informed by central tenets of feminist relational theory and harm reduction was used. Results Trust was the overarching theme, conceptualized as a relational, dynamic, and iterative process co-constructed over time. Eight interrelated domains of trust were identified: commitment; consistency; professional boundaries; privacy and confidentiality; empathy; non-judgement; expert knowledge; and “doing with not for”. Relational trust integrated understandings of the impact of gender-based violence, poverty, and drug-related criminalization. When enacted, trust facilitated participants’ engagement with outreach workers, improved care access, and advanced women’s capacities to navigate their general and substance use health care more independently. Conclusions Trust is a critical element of health and social service delivery and distrust remains a major barrier. These findings advance new conceptualizations of trust that consider the interplay between interpersonal and structural features of care delivery such as stigma, discrimination, colonization, ableism, and classism. Outreach programs emphasizing trust-building as a dynamic and socio-structurally embedded process hold significant potential for improving care engagement among women who are chronically underserved. Trial registration Retrospectively registered on February 25, 2025 (NCT06854770) with ClinicalTrials.gov.

The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (or CPA Code), first published in 1986, has established itself as one of the most comprehensive and influential professional codes of ethics. Over the past four decades, a broad body of scholarly literature has focused on the development, structure, and practical applications of the CPA Code. Despite this, there are no existing scoping reviews that have focused on the CPA Code. Our goal was to conduct a scoping review summarizing the existing literature on the CPA Code. This review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodological guidelines, and findings are reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. APA PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Embase were systematically searched from inception to February 2024 for English or French language peer-reviewed articles that analyzed or applied the CPA Code in any context and with any population. Of the 139 search results screened, 97 articles met inclusion criteria. Narrative reviews constituted the majority of articles, followed by commentaries, empirical studies, and theoretical analyses. Overall, the CPA Code literature focuses on a wide range of ethical issues related to psychological practice. Many studies cursorily mentioned ethical principles or standards and their applicability without an in-depth analysis. There is a need for additional empirically supported and cross-cultural studies to validate the CPA Code’s structure and applicability across diverse populations. Future research should also focus on identifying areas for potential CPA Code improvements to reflect the evolving nature of our discipline. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

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.

Digital interventions are increasingly popular for the provision of nonpharmacological pain interventions, but few exist for adolescents with menstrual pain. User-centered design involves incorporating users across phases of digital health intervention design, development, and implementation and leads to improved user engagement and outcomes. A needs assessment is the first step of this approach. The goal of this study was to conduct a needs assessment to understand menstrual pain management needs and preferences and mindfulness experiences, preferences, and knowledge of adolescents with menstrual pain to inform the future development of an app for managing menstrual pain. We used an explanatory sequential mixed method design that included a survey followed by focus groups. Adolescents aged 13-17 years completed a survey (n=111) and participated in focus groups (n=16). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis and synthesized to provide specific recommendations based on adolescent responses. Adolescents (n=111) who completed the survey reported a moderate understanding of mindfulness and menstrual pain. Over three-quarters (n=87, 78%) of participants practiced some form of mindfulness and 87% (n=97) of survey participants used nonpharmacological pain management strategies. Teens had a moderate perception that mindfulness could help their menstrual pain (mean 4.51/10, SD 2.45, with higher scores suggesting more interest). Themes were generated related to mindfulness experiences, menstrual pain knowledge and experiences, and app functionality. These themes underscored adolescents' need for continued support and flexible access to mindfulness activities; their awareness of multiple influences to pain, with potential for further education in this area; and the need for menstrual pain-specific content, along with content relevant to typical day-to-day experiences of adolescents. Adolescents with menstrual pain have an interest in using a mindfulness app for pain but have unique needs that need to be addressed to ensure app engagement and relevance for this population. Concrete recommendations for future app development are provided.

Background Over the past decade, global health issues have become more prominent in foreign policies at the national level. The process to develop state level global health strategies is arguably a form of global health diplomacy (GHD). Despite an increase in the volume of secondary research and analysis in this area, little primary research, particularly that which draws directly on the perspectives of those involved in these processes, has been conducted. This study seeks to fill this knowledge gap through an empirical case study of Health is Global : A UK Government Strategy 2008 – 2013 . It aims to build understanding about how and why health is integrated into foreign policy and derive lessons of potential relevance to other nations interested in developing whole-of-government global health strategies. Methods The major element of the study consisted of an in-depth investigation and analysis of the UK global health strategy. Document analysis and twenty interviews were conducted. Data was organized and described using an adapted version of Walt and Gilson’s policy analysis triangle. A general inductive approach was used to identify themes in the data, which were then analysed and interpreted using Fidler’s health and foreign policy conceptualizations and Kingdon’s multiples streams model of the policymaking process. Results The primary reason that the UK decided to focus more on global health is self-interest - to protect national and international security and economic interests. Investing in global health was also seen as a way to enhance the UK’s international reputation. A focus on global health to primarily benefit other nations and improve global health per se was a prevalent through weaker theme. A well organized, credible policy community played a critical role in the process and a policy entrepreneur with expertise in both international relations and health helped catalyze attention and action on global health when the time was right. Support from the Prime Minister and from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was essential. The process to arrive at a government-wide strategy was complex and time-consuming, but also broke down silos. Significant negotiation and compromise were required from actors with widely varying perspectives on global health and conflicting priorities. Conclusions As primarily an exploratory study, this research sheds significant light on the global health policymaking process at the level of the state. It provides a useful and important starting point for further hypothesis driven empirical research that focuses on the integration of health in foreign policy, how and why this happens and whether or not it makes an impact on improving global health.

INTRODUCTION: Inadequacies in pain assessment and management in long‐term care have been well documented. Insufficient pain education and inaccurate beliefs about the nature of pain and aging have been identified as possible contributors. The present study addresses the need for improved, efficient and feasible continuing pain education through the use of an assessment training video. METHODS: A total of 148 long‐term care staff viewed and evaluated the training video. Knowledge changes and pain beliefs were assessed postvideo and at a four‐week follow‐up. Beliefs about pain, as well as pain and aging, were also examined using multivariate procedures to determine whether these variables influenced participants’ evaluation of the video. Focus groups were also conducted, and transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Pain assessment knowledge improved postvideo and at the four‐week follow‐up. Participants positively evaluated the content and quality of the video. Individuals who held stronger beliefs (at baseline) about the organic nature of pain provided more positive evaluations. Barriers to implementation of practices in the video identified by the focus groups (and qualitative analysis) included time, workload and resistance to change. Facilitators to implementation included continued management support and observing the benefits to implementation. DISCUSSION: The present study provides support for the use of video training. However, based on the focus group results, top‐down implementation approaches with ongoing management involvement throughout the implementation process may be needed to achieve sustained changes in pain assessment practices. A model useful for sustained implementation was proposed and discussed, and is hoped to facilitate future research.

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.