Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Better use of research evidence (one form of “knowledge”) in health systems requires partnerships between researchers and those who contend with the real-world needs and constraints of health systems. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and integrated knowledge translation (IKT) are research approaches that emphasize the importance of creating partnerships between researchers and the people for whom the research is ultimately meant to be of use (“knowledge users”). There exist poor understandings of the ways in which these approaches converge and diverge. Better understanding of the similarities and differences between CBPR and IKT will enable researchers to use these approaches appropriately and to leverage best practices and knowledge from each. The co-creation of knowledge conveys promise of significant social impacts, and further understandings of how to engage and involve knowledge users in research are needed. Main text We examine the histories and traditions of CBPR and IKT, as well as their points of convergence and divergence. We critically evaluate the ways in which both have the potential to contribute to the development and integration of knowledge in health systems. As distinct research traditions, the underlying drivers and rationale for CBPR and IKT have similarities and differences across the areas of motivation, social location, and ethics; nevertheless, the practices of CBPR and IKT converge upon a common aim: the co-creation of knowledge that is the result of knowledge user and researcher expertise. We argue that while CBPR and IKT both have the potential to contribute evidence to implementation science and practices for collaborative research, clarity for the purpose of the research—social change or application—is a critical feature in the selection of an appropriate collaborative approach to build knowledge. Conclusion CBPR and IKT bring distinct strengths to a common aim: to foster democratic processes in the co-creation of knowledge. As research approaches, they create opportunities to challenge assumptions about for whom, how, and what is defined as knowledge, and to develop and integrate research findings into health systems. When used appropriately, CBPR and IKT both have the potential to contribute to and advance implementation science about the conduct of collaborative health systems research.

Background Despite increasing interest in research on how to translate knowledge into practice and improve healthcare, the accumulation of scientific knowledge in this field is slow. Few substantial new insights have become available in the last decade. Main body Various problems hinder development in this field. There is a frequent misfit between problems and approaches to implementation, resulting in the use of implementation strategies that do not match with the targeted problems. The proliferation of concepts, theories and frameworks for knowledge transfer – many of which are untested – has not advanced the field. Stakeholder involvement is regarded as crucial for successful knowledge implementation, but many approaches are poorly specified and unvalidated. Despite the apparent decreased appreciation of rigorous designs for effect evaluation, such as randomized trials, these should remain within the portfolio of implementation research. Outcome measures for knowledge implementation tend to be crude, but it is important to integrate patient preferences and the increased precision of knowledge. Conclusions We suggest that the research enterprise be redesigned in several ways to address these problems and enhance scientific progress in the interests of patients and populations. It is crucially important to establish substantial programmes of research on implementation and improvement in healthcare, and better recognize the societal and practical benefits of research.

Acceleration in discovery of rare genetic variants possibly linked with disease may mean an increased risk of false-positive reports of causality; this Perspective proposes guidelines to distinguish disease-causing sequence variants from the many potentially functional variants in a human genome, and to assess confidence in their pathogenicity, and highlights priority areas for development. Gene variation and human disease The wide-scale availability of high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies means that data on genetic variation in human diseases are accumulating rapidly. In this Perspective, Daniel MacArthur and colleagues sound a note of caution, pointing out that up to a quarter of reported disease-linked mutations have been found to either be common polymorphisms or have lacked sufficient evidence for pathogenicity. The authors discuss the key challenges associated with assessing sequence variants in human disease and propose guidelines for the robust differentiation between disease-causing genetic variants and other variants present in the human genome. They highlight several areas where research and resource development are urgently needed if genomic research findings are to be successfully translated into the clinical diagnostic setting. The discovery of rare genetic variants is accelerating, and clear guidelines for distinguishing disease-causing sequence variants from the many potentially functional variants present in any human genome are urgently needed. Without rigorous standards we risk an acceleration of false-positive reports of causality, which would impede the translation of genomic research findings into the clinical diagnostic setting and hinder biological understanding of disease. Here we discuss the key challenges of assessing sequence variants in human disease, integrating both gene-level and variant-level support for causality. We propose guidelines for summarizing confidence in variant pathogenicity and highlight several areas that require further resource development.

Despite Canada's investment of hundreds of millions of dollars into researching coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), contributions from other countries have greatly exceeded Canada's research productivity. Additional research funds in Canada have been leveraged during the pandemic, and more may be needed. However, it will take more than just funding to fulfill Canada's health research potential; a culture change is required, along with the will to forge a partnership among the provincial and territorial health systems and the various research institutes and organizations. Here, Lamontagne et al discuss the limitations of the existing clinical research infrastructure in Canada, describe the mechanisms implemented to successfully embed clinical research in the UK health system and provide a roadmap to a Canadian version of the UK system.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) induces secondary biochemical changes that contribute to delayed neuroinflammation, neuronal cell death, and neurological dysfunction. Attenuating such secondary injury has provided the conceptual basis for neuroprotective treatments. Despite strong experimental data, more than 30 clinical trials of neuroprotection in TBI patients have failed. In part, these failures likely reflect methodological differences between the clinical and animal studies, as well as inadequate pre-clinical evaluation and/or trial design problems. However, recent changes in experimental approach and advances in clinical trial methodology have raised the potential for successful clinical translation. Here we critically analyze the current limitations and translational opportunities for developing successful neuroprotective therapies for TBI.

The reproducibility of biomedical research on novel drug targets has become suspect. Here, we highlight how drug discovery centres embedded in academic institutions, but with a translational imperative, can help address this reproducibility crisis. The reproducibility of biomedical research on novel drug targets has become suspect. Here, we highlight how drug discovery centres embedded in academic institutions, but with a translational imperative, can help address this reproducibility crisis.

Background In healthcare and allied healthcare settings, leadership that supports effective implementation of evidenced-based practices (EBPs) is a critical concern. However, there are no empirically validated measures to assess implementation leadership. This paper describes the development, factor structure, and initial reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of a very brief measure of implementation leadership: the Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS). Methods Participants were 459 mental health clinicians working in 93 different outpatient mental health programs in Southern California, USA. Initial item development was supported as part of a two United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) studies focused on developing implementation leadership training and implementation measure development. Clinician work group/team-level data were randomly assigned to be utilized for an exploratory factor analysis (n = 229; k = 46 teams) or for a confirmatory factor analysis (n = 230; k = 47 teams). The confirmatory factor analysis controlled for the multilevel, nested data structure. Reliability and validity analyses were then conducted with the full sample. Results The exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 12-item scale with four subscales representing proactive leadership, knowledgeable leadership, supportive leadership, and perseverant leadership. Confirmatory factor analysis supported an a priori higher order factor structure with subscales contributing to a single higher order implementation leadership factor. The scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability as well as convergent and discriminant validity. Conclusions The ILS is a brief and efficient measure of unit level leadership for EBP implementation. The availability of the ILS will allow researchers to assess strategic leadership for implementation in order to advance understanding of leadership as a predictor of organizational context for implementation. The ILS also holds promise as a tool for leader and organizational development to improve EBP implementation.

Phagotherapy, the use of bacteriophages to fight bacterial infections as an alternative to antibiotic treatments, has become of increasing interest in the last years. This is mainly due to the diffusion of multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacterial infections that constitute a serious issue for public health. Phage therapy is gaining favor due to its success in agriculture and veterinary treatments and its extensive utilization for human therapeutic protocols in the Eastern world. In the last decades, some clinical trials and compassionate treatments have also been performed in the Western world, indicating that phage therapy is getting closer to its introduction in standard therapy protocols. However, several questions concerning the use of phages in human therapeutic treatments are still present and need to be addressed. In this review, we illustrate the state of art of phage therapy and examine the role of animal models to translate these treatments to humans.