Explore the vast range of titles available.

Intersectionality is a widely adopted theoretical orientation in the field of women and gender studies. Intersectionality comes from the work of black feminist scholars and activists. Intersectionality argues identities such as gender, race, sexuality, and other markers of difference intersect and reflect large social structures of oppression and privilege, such as sexism, racism, and heteronormativity. The reach of intersectionality now extends to the fields of public health and knowledge translation. Knowledge translation (KT) is a field of study and practice that aims to synthesize and evaluate research into an evidence base and move that evidence into health care practice. There have been increasing calls to bring gender and other social issues into the field of KT. Yet, as scholars outline, there are few guidelines for incorporating the principles of intersectionality into empirical research. An interdisciplinary, team-based, national health research project in Canada aimed to bring an intersectional lens to the field of knowledge translation. This paper reports on key moments and resulting tensions we experienced through the project, which reflect debates in intersectionality: discomfort with social justice, disciplinary divides, and tokenism. We consider how our project advances intersectionality practice and suggests recommendations for using intersectionality in health research contexts. We argue that while we encountered many challenges, our process and the resulting co-created tools can serve as a valuable starting point and example of how intersectionality can transform fields and practices.

Background The concept of patient engagement in health research has received growing international recognition over recent years. Yet despite some critical advancements, we argue that the concept remains problematic as it negates the very real complexities and context of people’s lives. Though patient engagement conceptually begins to disrupt the identity of “researcher,” and complicate our assumptions and understandings around expertise and knowledge, it continues to essentialize the identity of “patient” as a homogenous group, denying the reality that individuals’ economic, political, cultural, subjective and experiential lives intersect in intricate and multifarious ways. Discussion Patient engagement approaches that do not consider the simultaneous interactions between different social categories (e.g. race, ethnicity, Indigeneity, gender, class, sexuality, geography, age, ability, immigration status, religion) that make up social identity, as well as the impact of systems and processes of oppression and domination (e.g. racism, colonialism, classism, sexism, ableism, homophobia) exclude the involvement of individuals who often carry the greatest burden of illness — the very voices traditionally less heard in health research. We contend that in order to be a more inclusive and meaningful approach that does not simply reiterate existing health inequities, it is important to reconceptualize patient engagement through a health equity and social justice lens by incorporating a trauma-informed intersectional analysis. Summary This article provides key concepts to the incorporation of a trauma-informed intersectional analysis and important questions to consider when developing a patient engagement strategy in health research training, practice and evaluation. In redefining the identity of both “patient” and “researcher,” spaces and opportunities to resist and renegotiate power within the intersubjective relations can be recognized and addressed, in turn helping to build trust, transparency and resiliency — integral to the advancement of the science of patient engagement in health research.

Standing balance is imperative for mobility and avoiding falls. Use of an excessive number of standing balance measures has limited the synthesis of balance intervention data and hampered consistent clinical practice. To develop recommendations for a core outcome set (COS) of standing balance measures for research and practice among adults. A combination of scoping reviews, literature appraisal, anonymous voting and face-to-face meetings with fourteen invited experts from a range of disciplines with international recognition in balance measurement and falls prevention. Consensus was sought over three rounds using pre-established criteria. The scoping review identified 56 existing standing balance measures validated in adult populations with evidence of use in the past five years, and these were considered for inclusion in the COS. Fifteen measures were excluded after the first round of scoring and a further 36 after round two. Five measures were considered in round three. Two measures reached consensus for recommendation, and the expert panel recommended that at a minimum, either the Berg Balance Scale or Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test be used when measuring standing balance in adult populations. Inclusion of two measures in the COS may increase the feasibility of potential uptake, but poses challenges for data synthesis. Adoption of the standing balance COS does not constitute a comprehensive balance assessment for any population, and users should include additional validated measures as appropriate. The absence of a gold standard for measuring standing balance has contributed to the proliferation of outcome measures. These recommendations represent an important first step towards greater standardization in the assessment and measurement of this critical skill and will inform clinical research and practice internationally.

Background A key component of the implementation process is identifying potential barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is one of the most commonly used frameworks for this purpose. When applying the TDF, it is critical to understand the context in which behaviours occur. Intersectionality, which accounts for the interface between social identity factors (e.g. age, gender) and structures of power (e.g. ageism, sexism), offers a novel approach to understanding how context shapes individual decision-making and behaviour. We aimed to develop a tool to be used alongside applications of the TDF to incorporate an intersectionality lens when identifying implementation barriers and enablers. Methods An interdisciplinary Framework Committee ( n  = 17) prioritized the TDF as one of three models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) to enhance with an intersectional lens through a modified Delphi approach. In collaboration with the wider Framework Committee, a subgroup considered all 14 TDF domains and iteratively developed recommendations for incorporating intersectionality considerations within the TDF and its domains. An iterative approach aimed at building consensus was used to finalize recommendations. Results Consensus on how to apply an intersectionality lens to the TDF was achieved after 12 rounds of revision. Two overarching considerations for using the intersectionality alongside the TDF were developed by the group as well as two to four prompts for each TDF domain to guide interview topic guides. Considerations and prompts were designed to assist users to reflect on how individual identities and structures of power may play a role in barriers and facilitators to behaviour change and subsequent intervention implementation. Conclusions Through an expert-consensus approach, we developed a tool for applying an intersectionality lens alongside the TDF. Considering the role of intersecting social factors when identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing research evidence may result in more targeted and effective interventions that better reflect the realities of those involved.

Background Collaborations involving partnerships between academic researchers and knowledge users can improve the relevance and potential adoption of evidence in health care practices and decision-making. However, descriptions of partnering practice characteristics are often limited to self-report from the lead academic researcher, with no comparison among team members. The primary objective of this study was to determine the extent to which nominated principal investigator (NPI) respondents of a questionnaire about funded Canadian partnered health research projects agreed with other team researchers and knowledge users (KU) on partnership practices. Methods We conducted secondary analysis of a subset of data from 106 respondents from 53 partnered Canadian health research projects funded between 2011 and 2019. We organized projects into NPI-researcher and NPI-KU dyads, and analyzed 23 binary variables about types of knowledge users involved and approaches for involving knowledge users in the project. We calculated Kappa scores and examined if agreement varied by dyad type and time across three blocks of years of project funding using a two-way ANOVA. We also explored how agreement varied by question type (independent t-test) and by variable (Pearson Chi-Square). Results Overall agreement on partnership practices was minimal (mean Kappa = 0.38, SD 0.27). NPI- researcher dyads had higher Kappa scores than NPI-KU dyads ( p  = 0.03). There were no significant differences across funding year blocks ( p  > 0.05). Agreement on the types of knowledge users engaged in the project was weak (mean Kappa = 0.43, SD 0.32), and there was no difference by dyad type. Agreement was minimal on the approaches for involving knowledge users the project (mean Kappa = 0.28, SD 0.31), and NPI-researcher dyads had significantly higher Kappa scores than NPI-KU dyads ( p  = 0.03). Variable-level agreement ranged between 47 and 98%. Conclusions The overall low level of agreement among team members responding about the same project has implications for the continued study and practice of partnered health research. These findings highlight the caution that must be used in interpreting retrospectively assessed self-report practices. Moving forward, prospective documentation of partnered research practices offers the greatest potential to overcome the limitations of recall-based retrospective analyses.

Background and objective There has been growing emphasis on increasing impacts of academic health research by integrating research findings in healthcare. The concept of knowledge translation (KT) has been widely adopted in Canada to guide this work, although lack of recognition in tenure and promotion (T&P) structures have been identified as barrier to researchers undertaking KT. Our objective was to explore how KT is considered in institutional T&P documentation in Canadian academic health sciences. Methods We conducted content analysis of T&P documents acquired from 19 purposively sampled research-intensive or largest regional Canadian institutions in 2020–2021. We coded text for four components of KT (synthesis, dissemination, exchange, application). We identified clusters of related groups of documents interpreted together within the same institution. We summarized manifest KT content with descriptive statistics and identified latent categories related to how KT is considered in T&P documentation. Results We acquired 89 unique documents from 17 institutions that formed 48 document clusters. Most of the 1057 text segments were categorized as dissemination (n = 851, 81%), which was included in 47 document clusters (98%). 15 document clusters (31%) included all four KT categories, while one (2%) did not have any KT categories identified. We identified two latent categories: primarily implicit recognition of KT; and an overall lack of clarity on KT. Conclusions Our analysis of T&P documents from primarily research-intensive Canadian universities showed a lack of formal recognition for a comprehensive approach to KT and emphasis on traditional dissemination. We recommend that institutions explicitly and comprehensively consider KT in T&P and align documentation and procedures to reflect these values.

The use of theories, models and/or frameworks (TMFs) in implementation research and practice is essential for developing useful and testable implementation strategies. Recommendations and tools exist to aid implementation groups in selecting TMFs, but they do not explicitly outline a systematic method for identifying and selecting TMFs. This paper aimed to (1) propose a systematic consensus-based method to select TMFs to support implementation processes, and to (2) demonstrate the use of this novel method in the context of researching the implementation of hip protectors for fracture prevention in long-term care (LTC). We developed a systematic, consensus-based method for selecting TMFs, referred to as the Implementation Theory Selection Model (ITSM). The ITSM comprises five steps: (1) identify potentially relevant TMFs; (2) narrow the pool of TMFs; (3) appraise the relevance of eligible TMFs; (4) prioritize a short-list of TMFs for further, in-depth consideration; and (5) select TMFs through consensus with investigators and research user partners. We operationalized each step of the ITSM through a project investigating determinants of hip protector use and organizational readiness for implementation in a LTC organization in Ontario, Canada. Using the ITSM in our case example, we identified 66 TMFs (Step 1). Of these, 23 met our eligibility criteria (Step 2) and were appraised twice, by five appraisers (Step 3). Six TMFs (Step 4) advanced to the consensus meeting, which was attended by nine investigators and three research users, including two organizational partners and one older adult. Three rounds of voting yielded a tie between the TMFs the group felt would be most appropriate. Research users from our partner LTC organization made the final selection preferring the combination of the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Step 5). The ITSM offers a step-by-step guide for implementation groups to adopt a rigorous, transparent and reproducible method for TMF selection. Although we have demonstrated the feasibility of operationalizing each step of the ITSM in our case example, continued research is needed to evaluate and refine the ITSM to ensure it is appropriate for a wide variety of implementation contexts.

National consensus recommendations have recently been developed to standardize colorectal tumour localization and documentation during colonoscopy. In this qualitative semi-structured interview study, we identified and contrast the perceived barriers and facilitators to using these new recommendations according to gastroenterologists and surgeons in a large central Canadian city. Interviews were analyzed according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) through directed content analysis. Solutions were categorized using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) framework. Eleven gastroenterologists and ten surgeons participated. Both specialty groups felt that the new recommendations were clearly written, adequately addressed current care practice tensions, and offered a relative advantage versus existing practices. The new recommendations appeared appropriately complex, applicable to most participants, and could be trialed and adapted prior to full implementation. Major barriers included a lack of relevant external or internal organizational incentives, non-existing formal feedback processes, and a lack of individual familiarity with the evidence behind some recommendations. With application of the ERIC framework, common barriers could be addressed through accessing new funding, altering incentive structures, changing record systems, educational interventions, identifying champions, promoting adaptability, and employing audit/feedback processes. Future research is needed to test strategies for feasibility and effectiveness.

Background Fall prevention recommendations include mobility or balance testing to identify older adults with high fall risk who require further intervention. However, there is no consensus on the best tests or optimal cut-off values. The Initial Test for Fall RIsk Assessment in The Elderly (INITIATE) study was designed to determine the optimal screening test(s) for predicting falls among community-dwelling older adults. Here we describe the study protocol, sample characteristics, and baseline differences between participants with and without a history of falling. Methods We undertook a 1-year prospective cohort study of community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years) able to walk 10 m without assistance at baseline and living in Ontario, Canada. Participants underwent a 2-hour baseline visit where 7 validated balance and mobility tests (Timed up and go (TUG) usual pace, TUG fast pace, TUG with a cognitive dual task, Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), 5 times sit-to-stand (5TSTS), single leg stance, gait speed) were administered. Falls were tracked for 12 months using monthly diaries and follow-up calls for context. Participants received quarterly calls to monitor general wellbeing, healthcare utilization, and changes to mobility. Descriptive statistics were calculated and differences by 12-month fall history were tested using t-tests, chi square tests, and Wilcox Rank Sum tests as appropriate. Results From 3211 contacted older adults, 514 (19%) consented. The mean age was 76.4 years (SD 6.7), 64% were female, 68% had a postsecondary degree/diploma, and 231(45%) reported a fall in the last 12 months. Means(SD) for the performance-based tests were as follows: TUG = 11.8s(4.0), TUG fast pace = 9.2s(3.4), TUG cog = 14.2s(5.9), Brief BESTest = 15.9 score(5.3), 5TSTS = 12.5s(4.3), single leg stance = 14.1s(16.3), gait speed = 1.14 m/s(0.28). Comparisons between baseline fallers and non-fallers showed no differences in age, sex, income, or education( p  > 0.05) but did show differences in all 7 tests( p  < 0.05). Conclusions Participants are representative of community-dwelling older adults with fall risk. Balance and mobility test differences between fallers and non-fallers support the need for prospective comparisons of their predictive validity. Follow-up results, expected in late 2025, will help inform future updates to fall risk assessment and prevention guidelines.

Background Models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) provide the foundation for a cumulative science of implementation, reflecting a shared, evolving understanding of various facets of implementation. One under-represented aspect in implementation MTFs is how intersecting social factors and systems of power and oppression can shape implementation. There is value in enhancing how MTFs in implementation research and practice account for these intersecting factors. Given the large number of MTFs, we sought to identify exemplar MTFs that represent key implementation phases within which to embed an intersectional perspective. Methods We used a five-step process to prioritize MTFs for enhancement with an intersectional lens. We mapped 160 MTFs to three previously prioritized phases of the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework. Next, 17 implementation researchers/practitioners, MTF experts, and intersectionality experts agreed on criteria for prioritizing MTFs within each KTA phase. The experts used a modified Delphi process to agree on an exemplar MTF for each of the three prioritized KTA framework phases. Finally, we reached consensus on the final MTFs and contacted the original MTF developers to confirm MTF versions and explore additional insights. Results We agreed on three criteria when prioritizing MTFs: acceptability (mean = 3.20, SD = 0.75), applicability (mean = 3.82, SD = 0.72), and usability (median = 4.00, mean = 3.89, SD = 0.31) of the MTF. The top-rated MTFs were the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care for the ‘Identify the problem’ phase (mean = 4.57, SD = 2.31), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for the ‘Assess barriers/facilitators to knowledge use’ phase (mean = 5.79, SD = 1.12), and the Behaviour Change Wheel for the ‘Select, tailor, implement interventions’ phase (mean = 6.36, SD = 1.08). Conclusions Our interdisciplinary team engaged in a rigorous process to reach consensus on MTFs reflecting specific phases of the implementation process and prioritized each to serve as an exemplar in which to embed intersectional approaches. The resulting MTFs correspond with specific phases of the KTA framework, which itself may be useful for those seeking particular MTFs for particular KTA phases. This approach also provides a template for how other implementation MTFs could be similarly considered in the future. Trial registration Open Science Framework Registration: osf.io/qgh64.