Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Application of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) is one method for successfully incorporating evidence into clinical care. However, there are multiple KT TMFs and little guidance on which to select. This study sought to identify and describe available full-spectrum KT TMFs to subsequently guide users. Methods A scoping review was completed. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, previous reviews, grey literature, and consultation with KT experts. Search terms included combinations of KT terms and theory-related terms. Included citations had to describe full-spectrum KT TMFs that had been applied or tested. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by two investigators. Each KT TMF was described by its characteristics including name, context, key components, how it was used, primary target audience, levels of use, and study outcomes. Each KT TMF was also categorized into theoretical approaches as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Within each category, KT TMFs were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and unique characteristics. Results Electronic searches yielded 7160 citations. Additional citations were identified from previous reviews ( n = 41) and bibliographies of included full-text articles ( n = 6). Thirty-six citations describing 36 full-spectrum were identified. In 24 KT TMFs, the primary target audience was multi-level including patients/public, professionals, organizational, and financial/regulatory. The majority of the KT TMFs were used within public health, followed by research (organizational, translation, health), or in multiple contexts. Twenty-six could be used at the individual, organization, or policy levels, five at the individual/organization levels, three at the individual level only, and two at the organizational/policy level. Categorization of the KT TMFs resulted in 18 process models, eight classic theories, three determinant frameworks, three evaluation frameworks, and four that fit more than one category. There were no KT TMFs that fit the implementation theory category. Within each category, similarities and unique characteristics emerged through comparison. Conclusions A systematic compilation of existing full-spectrum KT TMFs, categorization into different approaches, and comparison has been provided in a user-friendly way. This list provides options for users to select from when designing KT projects and interventions. Trial registration A protocol outlining the methodology of this scoping review was developed and registered with PROSPERO ( CRD42018088564 ).

Background Implementation theories, models and frameworks offer guidance when implementing and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. However, selection can be challenging given the myriad of potential options. We propose to inform a decision support tool to facilitate the appropriate selection of an implementation theory, model or framework in practice. To inform tool development, this study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice, as well as end-user preferences for features and functions of the proposed tool. Methods We used an interpretive descriptive approach to conduct semi-structured interviews with implementation researchers and practitioners in Canada, the United States and Australia. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data were inductively coded by a single investigator with a subset of 20% coded independently by a second investigator and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Twenty-four individuals participated in the study. Categories of barriers/facilitators, to inform tool development, included characteristics of the individual or team conducting implementation and characteristics of the implementation theory, model or framework. Major barriers to selection included inconsistent terminology, poor fit with the implementation context and limited knowledge about and training in existing theories, models and frameworks. Major facilitators to selection included the importance of clear and concise language and evidence that the theory, model or framework was applied in a relevant health setting or context. Participants were enthusiastic about the development of a decision support tool that is user-friendly, accessible and practical. Preferences for tool features included key questions about the implementation intervention or project (e.g., purpose, stage of implementation, intended target for change) and a comprehensive list of relevant theories, models and frameworks to choose from along with a glossary of terms and the contexts in which they were applied. Conclusions An easy to use decision support tool that addresses key barriers to selecting an implementation theory, model or framework in practice may be beneficial to individuals who facilitate implementation practice activities. Findings on end-user preferences for tool features and functions will inform tool development and design through a user-centered approach.

Background Theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) are useful when implementing, evaluating and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. Yet it can be challenging to identify an appropriate TMF for an implementation project. We developed and tested the usability of an online tool to help individuals who are doing or supporting implementation practice activities to identify appropriate models and/or frameworks to inform their work. Methods We used methods guided by models and evidence on implementation science and user-centered design. Phases of tool development included applying findings from a scoping review of TMFs and interviews with 24 researchers/implementers on barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting TMFs. Based on interview findings, we categorized the TMFs by aim, stage of implementation, and target level of change to inform the tool’s algorithm. We then conducted interviews with 10 end-users to test the usability of the prototype tool and administered the System Usability Scale (SUS). Usability issues were addressed and incorporated into the tool. Results We developed Find TMF , an online tool consisting of 3–4 questions about the user’s implementation project. The tool’s algorithm matches key characteristics of the user’s project (aim, stage, target change level) with characteristics of different TMFs and presents a list of candidate models/frameworks. Ten individuals from Canada or Australia participated in usability testing (mean SUS score 84.5, standard deviation 11.4). Overall, participants found the tool to be simple, easy to use and visually appealing with a useful output of candidate models/frameworks to consider for an implementation project. Users wanted additional instruction and guidance on what to expect from the tool and how to use the information in the output table. Tool improvements included incorporating an overview figure outlining the tool steps and output, displaying the tool questions on a single page, and clarifying the available functions of the results page, including adding direct links to the glossary and to complementary tools. Conclusions Find TMF is an easy-to-use online tool that may benefit individuals who support implementation practice activities by making the vast number of models and frameworks more accessible, while also supporting a consistent approach to identifying and selecting relevant TMFs.

Background Long-term care and retirement homes (LTCH/RH) faced systemic challenges that were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Homes faced three major challenges over the course of the pandemic: implementing infection prevention and control (IPAC) practices, facilitating COVID-19 vaccine uptake and confidence, and addressing staff well-being and burnout. This manuscript describes the use of implementation science methods to design an evidence-based, theoretically-rooted program titled the Wellness Hub to support LTCH and RH to navigate real-time COVID-19 challenges. Methods Challenges facing homes were categorized to theoretical constructs using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Implementation mapping was used to identify strategies to mitigate barriers and leverage facilitators at the individual level using the SELECT tool (rooted in Michie’s Behaviour Change Wheel) and at the organizational level using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) matching tool. A multidisciplinary project team and steering committee reviewed the results and contextualized identified strategies to design the Wellness Hub Program components. Results Twelve TDF domains and 18 CFIR constructs were identified as barriers and/or facilitators to implementation of IPAC protocols, COVID-19 vaccine uptake, and staff well-being programs. Via the SELECT tool, we identified 14 implementation strategies to target individual-level change. An additional four strategies for organizational and systems-level implementation change were identified via the CFIR-ERIC mapping tool. The resulting Wellness Hub Program included: town halls, implementation coaches, promotion for LTCH/RH wellness days, creation of infographics and educational resources (including an open-access resource repository), a weekly newsletter summarizing LTCH/RH directives, a vaccine champions program and e-learning course, modelled change, an IPAC-self-assessment tool, seed funding, vaccine incentives, access to off-site COVID-19 testing, monthly community of practice meetings and use of opinion leaders. Conclusion Use of implementation science methods facilitated the design of a responsive support program to address LTCH and RH’s real-time, evolving COVID-19 challenges. Study registration https://osf.io/hkfae .

COVID-19 exposed long-standing systemic challenges experienced by congregate settings and created a crisis for long-term care homes (LTCHs) and retirement homes (RHs). This study explored the pandemic-related challenges LTCHs and RHs faced and the strategies they used to mitigate them. Ninety-one key informant interviews were held with LTCH and RH leadership across 47 homes (33 LTCHs, 14 RHs) in Ontario, Canada from February 2021 to July 2022. Data were analyzed following the framework method. Findings confirmed evidence of three main challenges. First, leaders were challenged to implement infection prevention and control (IPAC) protocols and measures. Second, leaders required supports to facilitate COVID-19 vaccine access and to promote vaccine acceptance. Finally, LTCH/RH staff experienced well-being and mental health challenges in the face of COVID-19 pressures. Despite widespread attention and efforts to support these congregate settings, challenges persisted over one year into the pandemic. Our findings reveal a plethora of strategies implemented by homes, with ranging reports of perceived success.

Background Serotonin (5-HT 3 ) receptor antagonists are commonly used to decrease nausea and vomiting for surgery patients. We conducted a systematic review on the comparative efficacy of 5-HT 3 receptor antagonists. Methods Searches were done in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies comparing 5-HT 3 receptor antagonists with each other, placebo, and/or combined with other antiemetic agents for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Screening search results, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003564. Results Overall, 450 studies and 80,410 patients were included after the screening of 7,608 citations and 1,014 full-text articles. Significantly fewer patients experienced nausea with any drug relative to placebo, except for ondansetron plus metoclopramide in a NMA including 195 RCTs and 24,230 patients. Significantly fewer patients experienced vomiting with any drug relative to placebo except for palonosetron plus dexamethasone in NMA including 238 RCTs and 12,781 patients. All agents resulted in significantly fewer patients with postoperative nausea and vomiting versus placebo in a NMA including 125 RCTs and 16,667 patients. Conclusions Granisetron plus dexamethasone was often the most effective antiemetic, with the number needed to treat ranging from two to nine.

Background Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have examined the methodological characteristics of rapid reviews. We aimed to examine articles, books, and reports that evaluated, compared, used or described rapid reviews or methods through a scoping review. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, internet websites of rapid review producers, and reference lists were searched to identify articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results and abstracted data from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. Results We included 100 articles plus one companion report that were published between 1997 and 2013. The studies were categorized as 84 application papers, seven development papers, six impact papers, and four comparison papers (one was included in two categories). The rapid reviews were conducted between 1 and 12 months, predominantly in Europe (58 %) and North America (20 %). The included studies failed to report 6 % to 73 % of the specific systematic review steps examined. Fifty unique rapid review methods were identified; 16 methods occurred more than once. Streamlined methods that were used in the 82 rapid reviews included limiting the literature search to published literature (24 %) or one database (2 %), limiting inclusion criteria by date (68 %) or language (49 %), having one person screen and another verify or screen excluded studies (6 %), having one person abstract data and another verify (23 %), not conducting risk of bias/quality appraisal (7 %) or having only one reviewer conduct the quality appraisal (7 %), and presenting results as a narrative summary (78 %). Four case studies were identified that compared the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews. Three studies found that the conclusions between rapid reviews and systematic reviews were congruent. Conclusions Numerous rapid review approaches were identified and few were used consistently in the literature. Poor quality of reporting was observed. A prospective study comparing the results from rapid reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews is warranted.

To conduct a scoping review of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks that have been used to guide dissemination or implementation of evidence-based interventions targeted to prevention and/or management of cancer or other chronic diseases. We used a comprehensive multistage search process from 2000 to 2016, which included traditional bibliographic database searching, searching using names of theories, models and frameworks, and cited reference searching. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and abstracted the data. We found 596 studies reporting on the use of 159 KT theories, models, or frameworks. A majority (87%) of the identified theories, models, or frameworks were used in five or fewer studies, with 60% used once. The theories, models, and frameworks were most commonly used to inform planning/design, implementation and evaluation activities, and least commonly used to inform dissemination and sustainability/scalability activities. Twenty-six were used across the full implementation spectrum (from planning/design to sustainability/scalability) either within or across studies. All were used for at least individual-level behavior change, whereas 48% were used for organization-level, 33% for community-level, and 17% for system-level change. We found a significant number of KT theories, models, and frameworks with a limited evidence base describing their use.

Background Failure to sustain knowledge translation (KT) interventions impacts patients and health systems, diminishing confidence in future implementation. Sustaining KT interventions used to implement chronic disease management (CDM) interventions is of critical importance given the proportion of older adults with chronic diseases and their need for ongoing care. Our objectives are to (1) complete a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sustainability of KT interventions that target CDM for end-users including older patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers on health care outcomes beyond 1 year after implementation or the termination of initial project funding and (2) use the results of this review to complete an economic analysis of the interventions identified to be effective. Methods For objective 1, comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), websites of health care provider organisations and funding agencies will be conducted. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the impact of a KT intervention targeting CDM in adults aged 65 years and older. To examine cost, economic studies (e.g. cost, cost-effectiveness analyses) will be included. Our primary outcome will be the sustainability of the delivery of the KT intervention beyond 1 year after implementation or termination of study funding. Secondary outcomes will include behaviour changes at the level of the patient (e.g. symptom management) and clinician (e.g. physician test ordering) and health system (e.g. cost, hospital admissions). Article screening, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment will be completed independently by two reviewers. Using established methods, if the assumption of transitivity is valid and the evidence forms a connected network, Bayesian random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis will be conducted. For objective 2, we will build a decision analytic model comparing effective interventions to estimate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Discussion Our results will inform knowledge users (e.g. patients, clinicians, policy-makers) regarding the sustainability of KT interventions for CDM. Dissemination plan of our results will be tailored to end-users and include passive (e.g. publications, website posting) and interactive (e.g. knowledge exchange events with stakeholders) strategies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018084810

Theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) are useful when planning, implementing and evaluating healthcare evidence-based interventions and programs, yet it can be challenging to identify an appropriate TMF for an implementation project. This dissertation developed and tested the usability of Find TMF – an online support tool to help knowledge translation (KT) practitioners (who are doing or supporting implementation practice activities) to identify appropriate models and/or frameworks to inform their work. The methods for tool development were guided by models and evidence on implementation science and user-centered design. Phase 1 consisted of a scoping review using the methods outlined by Arksey and O’Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and abstracted the data. The scoping review identified 596 studies reporting on the use of 159 KT TMFs. Phase 2 consisted of 24 semi-structured interviews with KT researchers and practitioners to explore barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting TMFs. To develop the tool, Phase 2 interview findings were used to design and tailor the features and functions of the prototype tool (Find TMF) in Phase 3. This process included mapping, in duplicate, the TMFs from Phase 1 by purpose/aim, implementation stage, and target change level. The tool consisted of 3-4 questions about the user’s implementation project, and its algorithm matched key characteristics of the user’s project with characteristics of different TMFs to produce a list of candidate models or frameworks for consideration. Phase 4 consisted of 10 semi-structured interviews with end-users to test the usability of the prototype tool and administer the System Usability Scale (SUS). Overall, participants found the tool to be simple, user-friendly and visually appealing with a useful output of candidate models/frameworks to consider (mean SUS score 84.5; standard deviation 11.4). Tool improvements included providing additional instruction and guidance on what to expect from the tool and how to use the information in the output table. Find TMF is an easy-to-use online tool that may benefit individuals who support KT practice activities by making the vast number of models/frameworks more accessible, and in doing so, contribute to improving the explicit use of relevant TMFs.