Supporting policy and practice in Ontario through ICES’ Applied Health Research Question (AHRQ) Program

ICES upholds a strong reputation for generating high-quality evidence to inform policy and practice through its collaborations with a broad range of health system stakeholders including government policymakers and healthcare providers including clinicians. Supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care, the ICES Applied Health Research Question (AHRQ) Program leverages the data holdings and, scientific and clinical expertise to generate evidence tailored to the information needs of requestors. This paper outlines the approach, process, strengths, challenges and the resulting influence and impact to the healthcare landscape in Ontario.

Co-production scoping review: protocol v1

Background Interest in and use of co-production in healthcare services and research is growing. Previous reviews have summarised co-production approaches in use, collated outcomes and effects of co-production and focused on replicability and reporting, but none have critically reflected on how co-production in applied health research might be evolving and the implications of this for future research. We aim to conduct a scoping review to systematically map recent literature on co-production in applied health research in the UK to inform co-production practice and guide future methodological research. Methods Scoping review using established methods. We will created an evidence map to show the extent and nature of the literature on co-production and applied health research, based on this we described the characteristics of the articles and scope of the literature and summarised conceptualisations of co-production and how it was implemented. We will extract implications for co-production practice or future research and conduct a content analysis of this information to identify lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future methodological research. Results We will report on lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future research on co-production.

The value of involving patients and public in health services research and evaluation: a qualitative study

Background Public and Patient Involvement, Engagement and Participation research encompasses working with patients/service users (people with a medical condition receiving health service treatment), public members, caregivers and communities (who use services or care for patients). The Partner Priority Programme (PPP) was developed by the National Health Service [NHS] and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care [NIHR CLAHRC] NWC to share information and experience on evaluating new services being offered to patients that were seeking to reduce health inequalities, improve people’s health and wellbeing and reduce emergency hospital admissions. This paper seeks to explore an approach developed for involving the public as equal partners within the evaluation and decision-making processes of health and social care services research. The aim of this study was to identify how public advisors were included, the impact of their involvement, and how change occurred within the organisations following their involvement. Methods A qualitative approach using focus group discussions was adopted to explore the experiences of two cohorts of participants involved in PPP project teams. Focus groups were held with public advisors (n = 9), interns (n = 9; staff or public who received a funded internship for a PPP project), NHS and Local Authority initiative leads (n = 10), and academic facilitators (n = 14). These were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. Results Thirty-two public advisors were recruited to support 25 PPP projects across the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and CLAHRC North West Coast [NWC] partner organisations. Three inter-related themes were conceptualised: 1)“Where it all started - involving public advisors” identified the varying journeys to recruitment and experiences of becoming a public advisor; 2)“Steps toward active involvement and engagement” related to public advisors becoming core team members; and 3) “Collaborative working to enhance public and patient involvement” relayed how projects identified the benefits of working jointly with the public advisors, particularly for those who had not experienced this style of working before. Conclusions The findings indicate that the PPP model is effective for embedding Public and Patient Involvement [PPI] within health services research, and recommends that PPI is integrated at the earliest opportunity within research projects and service evaluations through the use of support-led and facilitative programmes.

From fringe to centre-stage: experiences of mainstreaming health equity in a health research collaboration

Background Action to address the structural determinants of health inequalities is prioritized in high-level initiatives such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and many national health strategies. Yet, the focus of much local policy and practice is on behaviour change. Research shows that whilst lifestyle approaches can improve population health, at best they fail to reduce health inequalities because they fail to address upstream structural determinants of behaviour and health outcomes. In health research, most efforts have been directed at three streams of work: understanding causal pathways; evaluating the equity impact of national policy; and developing and evaluating lifestyle/behavioural approaches to health improvement. As a result, there is a dearth of research on effective interventions to reduce health inequalities that can be developed and implemented at a local level. Objective To describe an initiative that aimed to mainstream a focus on health equity in a large-scale research collaboration in the United Kingdom and to assess the impact on organizational culture, research processes and individual research practice. Methods The study used multiple qualitative methods including semi-structured interviews, focus groups and workshops (n = 131 respondents including Public Advisers, university, National Health Service (NHS), and local and document review. Results utilizing Extended Normalization Process Theory (ENPT) and gender mainstreaming theory, the evaluation illuminated (i) the processes developed by Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast to integrate ways of thinking and acting to tackle the upstream social determinants of health inequities (i.e. to mainstream a health equity focus) and (ii) the factors that promoted or frustrated these efforts. Conclusions Findings highlight the role of contextual factors and processes aimed at developing and implementing a robust strategy for mainstreaming health equity as building blocks for transformative change in applied health research.

Use of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to identify confounders in applied health research: review and recommendations

Background Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are an increasingly popular approach for identifying confounding variables that require conditioning when estimating causal effects. This review examined the use of DAGs in applied health research to inform recommendations for improving their transparency and utility in future research. Methods Original health research articles published during 1999–2017 mentioning ‘directed acyclic graphs’ (or similar) or citing DAGitty were identified from Scopus, Web of Science, Medline and Embase. Data were extracted on the reporting of: estimands, DAGs and adjustment sets, alongside the characteristics of each article’s largest DAG. Results A total of 234 articles were identified that reported using DAGs. A fifth (n = 48, 21%) reported their target estimand(s) and half (n = 115, 48%) reported the adjustment set(s) implied by their DAG(s). Two-thirds of the articles (n = 144, 62%) made at least one DAG available. DAGs varied in size but averaged 12 nodes [interquartile range (IQR): 9–16, range: 3–28] and 29 arcs (IQR: 19–42, range: 3–99). The median saturation (i.e. percentage of total possible arcs) was 46% (IQR: 31–67, range: 12–100). 37% (n = 53) of the DAGs included unobserved variables, 17% (n = 25) included ‘super-nodes’ (i.e. nodes containing more than one variable) and 34% (n = 49) were visually arranged so that the constituent arcs flowed in the same direction (e.g. top-to-bottom). Conclusion There is substantial variation in the use and reporting of DAGs in applied health research. Although this partly reflects their flexibility, it also highlights some potential areas for improvement. This review hence offers several recommendations to improve the reporting and use of DAGs in future research.

Prevalence of Blood-Borne Viral Infections (HIV, HBV, HCV) Among People Seeking Fertility Services in Ontario, Canada

IntroductionThe Applied Health Research Question (AHRQ) portfolio is an initiative funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health. Knowledge users submit AHRQ requests to use administrative health data to inform their planning, policy and program development. Objectives and ApproachA request to estimate prevalence and incidence of blood-borne viral infections (BBVI) among individuals seeking fertility treatment services was approved by the ICES AHRQ team. To determine whether current BBVI testing guidelines are effective for timely identification of BBVI among individuals undergoing fertility treatment, this AHRQ sought to estimate: a) the testing prevalence for BBVI (using viral hepatitis as a proxy for all BBVI including HIV), and b) BBVI incidence over a five-year follow-up period. We used infertility codes billed by gynecologists and urologists to identify individuals seeking fertility treatment between April 1, 2002 and March 31, 2013. We looked forward five years from a first BBVI test billed by a physician and assessed annual and cumulative testing prevalence and incidence of viral hepatitis and HIV using rule-based administrative algorithms. ResultsIn total, 184,328 individuals (61.6% female) were included. The five-year BBVI testing prevalence was 45.5% and the median number of tests was 2 (interquartile range: 2-3). An estimated 949 new cases (48% diagnosed within 12 months of first BBVI test) of viral hepatitis were identified in the five-year follow-up with a cumulative incidence of 522 (95%CI 489-556) per 100,000 population. There were 57 new HIV cases (68% diagnosed within 12 months of first BBVI test) with a cumulative incidence of 31.4 (95%CI 23.7-40.6) per 100,000. The median times from first BBVI test to hepatitis and HIV diagnoses were 13.0 months (IQR 2.33-32.2) and 3.0 months (IQR 1.34-20.0), respectively. Conclusion / ImplicationsThese findings can be used to develop evidence-based BBVI testing guidelines for individuals seeking fertility treatment services.

Making authentic: exploring boundary objects and bricolage in knowledge mobilisation through National Health Service-university partnerships

Background: In healthcare, bridging the research-to-practice gap is a top priority. Knowledge mobilisation scholars suggest that this gap can be closed through collaboration between knowledge users and producers. The concept of boundary objects ‐ shared things and ideas that enable communication ‐ has gained popularity across various collaborative work practices, but their potential within knowledge mobilisation in health care is understudied. An ongoing challenge for designers of boundary objects is how to create objects that are valued and shared both in principle and in practice.Aims and objectives: This paper reports on a study of boundary objects used during knowledge mobilisation through NHS-university partnerships called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). The distinction is investigated between boundary objects-in-theory and boundary objects-in-use, considering whether the latter possess specific characteristics which make them more effective during knowledge mobilisation.Methods: A qualitative case study of three CLAHRCs was conducted. Twenty-one people employed as ‘boundary spanners’ were interviewed to explore whether boundary objects played a role in knowledge mobilisation.Findings: The most effective boundary objects-in-use were co-produced through a process of bricolage. These possessed high levels of meaningfulness and resonance, and reconciled multiple user perspectives. Together these properties contributed to the overall authenticity of boundary objects-in-use.Discussion and conclusion: This paper helps to explain why designated boundary objects frequently fail in practice, and why there is a need to focus on understanding boundary objects based on symbolic, rather than structural, dimensions.

Interdisciplinarity in medical education research: myth and reality

The medical education (Med Ed) research community characterises itself as drawing on the insights, methods, and knowledge from multiple disciplines and research domains (e.g. Sociology, Anthropology, Education, Humanities, Psychology). This common view of Med Ed research is echoed and reinforced by the narrative used by leading Med Ed departments and research centres to describe their activities as “interdisciplinary.” Bibliometrics offers an effective method of investigating scholarly communication to determine what knowledge is valued, recognized, and utilized. By empirically examining whether knowledge production in Med Ed research draws from multiple disciplines and research areas, or whether it primarily draws on the knowledge generated internally within the field of Med Ed, this article explores whether the characterisation of Med Ed research as interdisciplinary is substantiated. A citation analysis of 1412 references from research articles published in 2017 in the top five Med Ed journals was undertaken. A typology of six knowledge clusters was inductively developed. Findings show that the field of Med Ed research draws predominantly from two knowledge clusters: the Applied Health Research cluster (made of clinical and health services research), which represents 41% of the references, and the Med Ed research cluster, which represents 40% of the references. These two clusters cover 81% of all references in our sample, leaving 19% distributed among the other knowledge clusters (i.e., Education, disciplinary, interdisciplinary and topic centered research). The quasi-hegemonic position held by the Applied Health and Med Ed research clusters confines the other sources of knowledge to a peripheral role within the Med Ed research field. Our findings suggest that the assumption that Med Ed research is an interdisciplinary field is not convincingly supported by empirical data and that the knowledge entering Med Ed comes mostly from the health research domain.