Creation of a theoretically rooted workbook to support implementers in the practice of knowledge translation.

BACKGROUND: Few training opportunities or resources for non-expert implementers focus on the "practice" as opposed to the "science" of knowledge translation (KT). As a guide for novice implementers, we present an open-access, fillable workbook combining KT theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) that are commonly used to support the implementation of evidence-based practices. We describe the process of creating and operationalizing our workbook. METHODS: Our team has supported more than 1000 KT projects and 300 teams globally to implement evidence-based interventions. Our stakeholders have consistently highlighted their need for guidance on how to operationalize various KT TMFs to support novice implementers in "practising" KT. In direct response to these requests, we created a pragmatic, fillable KT workbook. The workbook was designed by KT scientists and experts in the fields of adult education, graphic design, and usability and was piloted with novice implementers. It is rooted in an integrated KT approach and applies an intersectionality lens, which prompts implementers to consider user needs in the design of implementation efforts. RESULTS: The workbook is framed according to the knowledge-to-action model and operationalizes each stage of the model using appropriate theories or frameworks. This approach removes guesswork in selecting appropriate TMFs to support implementation efforts. Implementers are prompted to complete fillable worksheets that are informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the Behaviour Change Wheel, the Effective Practice and Organization of Care framework, Proctor's operationalization framework, the Durlak and DuPre process indicators, and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. As they complete the worksheets, users are guided to apply theoretically rooted approaches in planning the implementation and evaluation of their evidence-based practice. CONCLUSIONS: This workbook aims to support non-expert implementers to use KT TMFs to select and operationalize implementation strategies to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practices. It provides an accessible option for novice implementers who wish to use KT methods to guide their work.

Embedding rapid reviews in health policy and systems decision-making: Impacts and lessons learned from four low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Demand for rapid evidence-based syntheses to inform health policy and systems decision-making has increased worldwide, including in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To promote use of rapid syntheses in LMICs, the WHO's Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (AHPSR) created the Embedding Rapid Reviews in Health Systems Decision-Making (ERA) Initiative. Following a call for proposals, four LMICs were selected (Georgia, India, Malaysia and Zimbabwe) and supported for 1 year to embed rapid response platforms within a public institution with a health policy or systems decision-making mandate. METHODS: While the selected platforms had experience in health policy and systems research and evidence syntheses, platforms were less confident conducting rapid evidence syntheses. A technical assistance centre (TAC) was created from the outset to develop and lead a capacity-strengthening program for rapid syntheses, tailored to the platforms based on their original proposals and needs as assessed in a baseline questionnaire. The program included training in rapid synthesis methods, as well as generating synthesis demand, engaging knowledge users and ensuring knowledge uptake. Modalities included live training webinars, in-country workshops and support through phone, email and an online platform. LMICs provided regular updates on policy-makers' requests and the rapid products provided, as well as barriers, facilitators and impacts. Post-initiative, platforms were surveyed. RESULTS: Platforms provided rapid syntheses across a range of AHPSR themes, and successfully engaged national- and state-level policy-makers. Examples of substantial policy impact were observed, including for COVID-19. Although the post-initiative survey response rate was low, three quarters of those responding felt confident in their ability to conduct a rapid evidence synthesis. Lessons learned coalesced around three themes - the importance of context-specific expertise in conducting reviews, facilitating cross-platform learning, and planning for platform sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: The ERA initiative successfully established rapid response platforms in four LMICs. The short timeframe limited the number of rapid products produced, but there were examples of substantial impact and growing demand. We emphasize that LMICs can and should be involved not only in identifying and articulating needs but as co-designers in their own capacity-strengthening programs. More time is required to assess whether these platforms will be sustained for the long-term.

The web-based "Right Review" tool asks reviewers simple questions to suggest methods from 41 knowledge synthesis methods.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of simple questions for recommending knowledge synthesis methods suitable for their research question. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used findings from previous work to structure a set of questions along key dimensions of different knowledge synthesis methods. We developed the tool using four steps: (1) designing the tool, (2) conducting usability testing, (3) disseminating the tool, and (4) evaluating its real-world use. Steps 1-3 were conducted iteratively, and the tool was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. RESULTS: The "Right Review" tool separates quantitative reviews and qualitative evidence synthesis (QES). Five questions are asked to select from among 26 methods for quantitative reviews, and 10 questions to select methods from among 15 QES. Conduct/reporting guidance and open-access examples are provided for each recommended method. The tool was disseminated to >4,600 users worldwide within 12 months. Evaluation results showed that the tool was fit-for-purpose and easy to use. CONCLUSION: The proliferation of knowledge synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the "right" method. "Right Review" is a free, practical decision support tool that helps reviewers choose an appropriate method from 41 alternatives.

Evaluation of the partners in research course: a patient and researcher co-created course to build capacity in patient-oriented research.

BACKGROUND: In the past decade, patient-oriented research (POR) has been at the forefront of healthcare research in Canada because it has the potential to make research more meaningful and relevant to patient needs. Despite this growing emphasis on and expectation to conduct POR, there is limited guidance about how to apply POR in practice. To address this capacity building need, the Knowledge Translation (KT) Program and patient partners co-designed, delivered, and evaluated Partners in Research (PiR), a 2-month online course for patients and researchers to collectively learn how to conduct and engage in POR. METHODS: PiR was delivered to 4 cohorts of patients and researchers between 2017 and 2018. For each cohort, we evaluated the impact of the course on participants' knowledge, self-efficacy, intentions, and use of POR using surveys at 3 time points: baseline, post-course and 6-months post-course. We also monitored the process of course design and delivery by assessing implementation quality of the PiR course. Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with course format, course materials, quality of delivery and their level of engagement via a 7-point Likert scale in the post-course survey. RESULTS: A total of 151 participants enrolled in the PiR course throughout the 4 cohorts. Of these, 49 patients and 33 researchers (n = 82 participants) consented to participate in the course evaluation. Process and outcome evaluations collected over a 9-month period indicated that participation in the PiR course increased knowledge of POR concepts for patients (p < .001) and for researchers (p < .001) from pre-course to post-course timepoints. Likewise, self-efficacy to engage in POR increased from baseline to post-course for both patients (p < .001) and researchers (p < .001). Moreover, participants reported high levels of satisfaction with content, delivery and interactive components of the course. CONCLUSIONS: The PiR course increased capacity in POR for both researchers and patients. This work enhances our understanding of how to design useful and engaging education opportunities to increase patient and researcher capacity in POR.

Patient-oriented research (POR) is the meaningful inclusion of patients as active contributing partners in research. In meaningful POR, patients are engaged and valued as contributory members of the research team throughout the research process, from developing research questions, participating in research activities, to sharing new research findings. In Canada, POR is recognized as an important component of research and many healthcare institutions aim to engage patients in their work. However, there is little guidance on how patients and researchers can effectively participate as equal partners in research activities. To address the need for POR education opportunities, we launched Partners in Research (PiR), a 2­month online course for patients and researchers to learn how to conduct and engage in POR. This paper describes the design, delivery, and evaluation of the PiR course, with a focus on the following objectives: (1) To assess the impact of the PiR course on participant knowledge, confidence, intentions and use of POR (2) To determine the quality of course design and delivery and its ability to achieve learning objectives (3) To identify factors that limit and facilitate participation in POR The findings from the evaluation show that the PiR course was effective in increasing knowledge of, and confidence in POR concepts. In addition, the course was well-received, with participants reporting a high level of engagement in course content and activities. Overall, this work supports our understanding of how to design useful and engaging opportunities to increase patient and researcher capacity in POR.