Culture-Fair Cognitive Screening Tools for Assessment of Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review.

Background: Cognitive screening tools are important in the detection of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease; however, they may contain cultural biases. Objective: This review examines culture-fair cognitive screening tools and evaluates their screening accuracy, strengths, and limitations. Methods: Medline, Embase, PsychINFO and CINAHL were searched. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021288776). Included studies used a culture-fair tool to assess cognition in older adults from varying ethnicities. Narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: 28 studies were included assessing eleven different tools. The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) was as accurate as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (AUC 0.62-0.93), with a similar sensitivity (52-94%) and better specificity (70-98%), and the Multicultural Cognitive Examination (MCE) had improved screening accuracy (AUC 0.99) compared to RUDAS (AUC 0.92). The Visual Cognitive Assessment Test (VCAT) was equivalent to MMSE (AUC 0.84-0.91). The Kimberley Indigenous Cognitive Assessment tool (KICA) had AUC of 0.93-0.95; sensitivity of 90.6%, specificity 92.6%. Conclusions: The RUDAS, KICA and VCAT were superior to MMSE for screening dementia in ethnic minorities. Other tools also showed good screening accuracy. Further research should be done to validate tools in different populations.

Evaluation of 28-day estradiol and progesterone vaginal rings in a phase 1 clinical pharmacokinetic study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to develop a combination of 17ß-estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4) in a single-dose intravaginal ring (IVR) for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and genitourinary syndrome of menopause while providing endometrial protection. The objective of this study was to evaluate DARE-HRT1, a 28-day IVR that continuously delivers E2 and P4, in a phase 1 clinical trial to assess its pharmacokinetics. METHODS: This was an open-label, three-arm (group) study. Thirty-two (32) healthy postmenopausal women were recruited at two Australian sites. The average age was 57.2 years (47-69 y). The first arm received one ring for 28 days designed to release E2 at a rate of 80 µg/d and P4 at 4 mg/d (80/4 IVR); the second arm received a ring releasing E2 at 160 µg/d and P4 at 8 mg/d (160/8 IVR). The third arm received oral Estrofem (1 mg E2) and Prometrium (100 mg P4) both daily for 29 days. Blood samples were taken predose then intensively over the first day (day 1) and periodically thereafter over the remaining 27 days. After removal of the rings on the morning of day 29, intensive samples were collected. Similar procedures were conducted with women enrolled in the oral group. The plasma samples were analyzed for E2, estrone (E1), and P4 using validated bioanalytical methods. RESULTS: The baseline-adjusted steady-state plasma levels of E2 and P4 from 80/4 IVR were 20.4 ± 17.1 pg/mL and 1.32 ± 0.19 ng/mL (n = 10), respectively. The baseline-adjusted steady-state plasma levels of E2 and P4 from 160/8 IVR were 30.9 ± 8.7 pg/mL and 2.08 ± 0.50 ng/mL (n = 10), respectively. The baseline-adjusted average plasma concentrations of E2 and P4 at day 29 of the oral group were 35.4 ± 11.2 pg/mL and 0.79 ± 0.72 ng/mL (n = 11), respectively. The baseline-adjusted steady state of E1 from the 80/4 IVR and the 160/8 IVR were 22.1 ± 16.6 pg/mL (n = 10) and 25.2 ± 12.3 pg/mL (n = 10), respectively. The baseline-adjusted concentration of E1 in the oral arm was 209 ± 67.7 ng/mL (n = 11). The IVR were well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The 80/4 IVR and 160/8 IVR gave similar steady-state concentrations of E2 as seen with drug products approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of VMS and genitourinary symptoms of menopause. The E2 concentrations of this study support the potential of DARE-HRT1, a promising new option for hormone therapy for treatment of VMS and vaginal symptoms associated with menopause.

A continuity of care programme for women at risk of preterm birth in the UK: Process evaluation of a hybrid randomised controlled pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: The development and evaluation of specific maternity care packages designed to address preterm birth remains a public health priority. We aim to evaluate the implementation, context, and potential mechanisms of action, of a new care pathway that combined midwifery continuity of care with a specialist obstetric clinic for women at risk of preterm birth (POPPIE) in London (UK). METHODS: We did a multiphase mixed method triangulation evaluation nested within a hybrid type 2, randomised controlled trial in London (United Kingdom). Pregnant women with identified risk factors for preterm birth were eligible for trial participation and randomly assigned (1:1) to either midwifery continuity of care linked to a specialist obstetric clinic (POPPIE group) or standard maternity care. The primary outcome was a composite of appropriate and timely interventions for the prevention and/or management of preterm labour and birth, analysed according to intention to treat. Clinical and process outcome data were abstracted from medical records and electronic data systems, and coded by study team members, who were masked to study group allocation. Implementation data were collected from meeting records and key documents, postnatal surveys (n = 164), semi-structured interviews with women (n = 30), healthcare providers and stakeholders (n = 24) pre-, mid and post implementation. Qualitative and quantitative data from meeting records and key documents were examined narratively. Qualitative data from interviews were analysed using three thematic frameworks: Proctor's (for implementation outcomes: appropriateness, adoption, feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, penetration, sustainability), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (for determinants of implementation), and published program theories of continuity models (for potential mechanisms). Data triangulation followed a convergent parallel and pragmatic approach which brought quantitative and qualitative data together at the interpretation stage. We averaged individual implementation measures across all domains to give a single composite implementation strength score which was compared to the primary outcome. RESULTS: Between May 9, 2017, and Sep 30, 2018, 553 women were assessed for eligibility and 334 were enrolled with less than 6% of loss to follow up (169 were assigned to the POPPIE group; 165 were to the standard group). There was no difference in the primary outcome (POPPIE group 83·3% versus standard group 84·7%; risk ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·90 to 1·08]). Appropriateness and adoption: The introduction of the POPPIE model was perceived as a positive fundamental change for local maternity services. Partnership working and additional funding were crucial for adoption. Fidelity: More than 75% of antenatal and postnatal visits were provided by a named or partner midwife, and a POPPIE midwife was present in more than 80% of births. Acceptability: Nearly 98% of women who responded to the postnatal survey were very satisfied with POPPIE model. Quantitative fidelity and acceptability results were supported by the qualitative findings. Penetration and sustainability: Despite delays (likely associated with lack of existing continuity models at the hospital), the model was embedded within established services and a joint decision was made to sustain and adapt the model after the trial (strongly facilitated by national maternal policy on continuity pathways). Potential mechanisms of impact identified included e.g. access to care, advocacy and perceptions of safety and trust. There was no association between implementation measures and the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The POPPIE model of care was a feasible and acceptable model of care that was implemented with high fidelity and sustained in maternity services. Larger powered trials are feasible and needed in other settings, to evaluate the impact and implementation of continuity programmes in other communities affected by preterm birth and women who experience social disadvantage and vulnerability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UKCRN Portfolio Database (prospectively registered, 24 April 2017): 31951. ISRCTN registry (retrospectively registered, 21 August 2017): ISRCTN37733900.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Implementation Science Research Project Appraisal Criteria (ImpResPAC) tool: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The need for quantitative criteria to appraise the quality of implementation research has recently been highlighted to improve methodological rigour. The Implementation Science Research development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide provide methodological guidance and recommendations on how to design high-quality implementation research. This protocol reports on the development of the Implementation Science Research Project Appraisal Criteria (ImpResPAC) tool, a quantitative appraisal tool, developed based on the structure and content of the ImpRes tool and supplementary guide, to evaluate the conceptual and methodological quality of implementation research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study employs a three-stage sequential mixed-methods design. During stage 1, the research team will map core domains of the ImpRes tool, guidance and recommendations contained in the supplementary guide and within the literature, to ImpResPAC. In stage 2, an international multidisciplinary expert group, recruited through purposive sampling, will inform the refinement of ImpResPAC, including content, scoring system and user instructions. In stage 3, an extensive psychometric evaluation of ImpResPAC, that was created in stage 1 and refined in stage 2, will be conducted. The scaling assumptions (inter-item and item-total correlations), reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater) and validity (construct and convergent validity) will be investigated by applying ImpResPAC to 50 protocols published in Implementation Science. We envisage developing ImpResPAC in this way will provide implementation research stakeholders, primarily grant reviewers and educators, a comprehensive, transparent and fair appraisal of the conceptual and methodological quality of implementation research, increasing the likelihood of funding research that will generate knowledge and contribute to the advancement of the field. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will involve human participants. This study has been registered and minimal risk ethical clearance granted by The Research Ethics Office, King's College London (reference number MRA-20/21-20807). Participants will receive written information on the study via email and will provide e-consent if they wish to participate. We will use traditional academic modalities of dissemination (eg, conferences and publications).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of digital application use in clinical research in pain medicine.

Importance: Pain is a silent global epidemic impacting approximately a third of the population. Pharmacological and surgical interventions are primary modes of treatment. Cognitive/behavioural management approaches and interventional pain management strategies are approaches that have been used to assist with the management of chronic pain. Accurate data collection and reporting treatment outcomes are vital to addressing the challenges faced. In light of this, we conducted a systematic evaluation of the current digital application landscape within chronic pain medicine. Objective: The primary objective was to consider the prevalence of digital application usage for chronic pain management. These digital applications included mobile apps, web apps, and chatbots. Data sources: We conducted searches on PubMed and ScienceDirect for studies that were published between 1st January 1990 and 1st January 2021. Study selection: Our review included studies that involved the use of digital applications for chronic pain conditions. There were no restrictions on the country in which the study was conducted. Only studies that were peer-reviewed and published in English were included. Four reviewers had assessed the eligibility of each study against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Out of the 84 studies that were initially identified, 38 were included in the systematic review. Data extraction and synthesis: The AMSTAR guidelines were used to assess data quality. This assessment was carried out by 3 reviewers. The data were pooled using a random-effects model. Main outcomes and measures: Before data collection began, the primary outcome was to report on the standard mean difference of digital application usage for chronic pain conditions. We also recorded the type of digital application studied (e.g., mobile application, web application) and, where the data was available, the standard mean difference of pain intensity, pain inferences, depression, anxiety, and fatigue. Results: 38 studies were included in the systematic review and 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The digital interventions were categorised to web and mobile applications and chatbots, with pooled standard mean difference of 0.22 (95% CI: -0.16, 0.60), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.60) and -0.02 (95% CI: -0.47, 0.42) respectively. Pooled standard mean differences for symptomatologies of pain intensity, depression, and anxiety symptoms were 0.25 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.46), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.43) and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.69), respectively. A sub-group analysis was conducted on pain intensity due to the heterogeneity of the results (I 2 = 82.86%; p = 0.02). After stratifying by country, we found that digital applications were more likely to be effective in some countries (e.g., United States, China) than others (e.g., Ireland, Norway). Conclusions and relevance: The use of digital applications in improving pain-related symptoms shows promise, but further clinical studies would be needed to develop more robust applications. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021228343.

Defining, conceptualizing and evaluating pragmatic qualities of quantitative instruments measuring implementation determinants and outcomes: a scoping and critical review of the literature and recommendations for future research.

The pragmatic (i.e., practical) quality of quantitative implementation measures has received increased attention in the implementation science literature in recent years. Implementation measures that are judged to be pragmatic by implementation stakeholders are thought to be more likely to be applied in research and practice. Despite the need for pragmatic implementation measures, ambiguity and uncertainty regarding what constitutes a pragmatic measure remains. This study sought to identify and critically appraise the published literature to understand (i) how pragmatism is defined as a measurement construct/quality of implementation determinants and outcome instruments; (ii) how pragmatic qualities of instruments are evaluated; (iii) identify key gaps and limitations of the current evidence-base and (iv) identify recommendations for future research. We conducted a scoping review of the literature also employing methods of critical review. PubMed and PsycINFO databases, using the OVID interface, were searched for relevant articles published between January 2010 and September 2020. Articles that contained a definition and/or described characteristics of "pragmatism" as a measurement construct of quantitative implementation outcomes (as defined by Proctor's Implementation Outcomes taxonomy) and/or implementation determinants were eligible for inclusion. Nine articles met inclusion criteria. A degree of overlap in definitions and terms used to describe the pragmatic qualities of quantitative implementation determinant and outcome instruments were found. The most frequently cited descriptors of pragmatism were "not burdensome", "brief", "reliable", "valid" and "sensitive to change". 3 of the 9 included articles involved international implementation stakeholders in defining and conceptualizing pragmatism and employed specific methods to do so, including a systematic literature review, stakeholder interviews, concept mapping, and a Delphi process. All other articles defined pragmatism, with or without citing relevant literature. One article objectively assessed the pragmatic qualities, above and beyond the psychometric qualities, of implementation measures, using the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS). The evidence base within the implementation instrumentation literature on what pragmatism is and how it might be assessed is limited. Some of the research identified in the review provides a strong foundation to build upon, by testing its applicability in other settings (including healthcare areas and countries) and among a more diverse group of stakeholders. We discuss directions for further development of the concept of pragmatism relating to the measurement of implementation determinants and outcomes.

The need for pragmatic (i.e., practical) measures to evaluate implementation efforts has been repeatedly called for in the implementation science literature. This literature review focuses on understanding how pragmatism, as a measurement construct and quality of implementation measures, is defined, conceptualized and evaluated. We identified few articles (n = 9) that contribute to our understanding of how pragmatism is defined and evaluated. We found that the most frequently used terms to describe pragmatic qualities of implementation measures include "not burdensome", "brief", "reliable", "valid" and "sensitive to change". We identified one scale, the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS), developed to measure the pragmatic quality, as well as psychometric quality, of implementation measures. We identified several gaps and limitations of the current evidence-base and offer directions to further develop the concept and appraisal of pragmatism. Specifically, we recommend that future research focus on engaging and involving a wider diversity of implementation stakeholders in defining and conceptualizing pragmatism as well as subjecting existing pragmatic assessment measures to more rigorous and extensive evaluation.

Adaptation of the World Health Organization Electronic Mental Health Gap Action Programme Intervention Guide App for Mobile Devices in Nepal and Nigeria: Protocol for a Feasibility Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing global need for scalable approaches to training and supervising primary care workers (PCWs) to deliver mental health services. Over the past decade, the World Health Organization Mental Health Gap Action Programme Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG) and associated training and implementation guidance have been disseminated to more than 100 countries. On the basis of the opportunities provided by mobile technology, an updated electronic Mental Health Gap Action Programme Intervention Guide (e-mhGAP-IG) is now being developed along with a clinical dashboard and guidance for the use of mobile technology in supervision. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the feasibility, acceptability, adoption, and other implementation parameters of the e-mhGAP-IG for diagnosis and management of depression in 2 lower-middle-income countries (Nepal and Nigeria) and to conduct a feasibility cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) to evaluate trial procedures for a subsequent fully powered trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the e-mhGAP-IG and remote supervision with standard mhGAP-IG implementation. METHODS: A feasibility cRCT will be conducted in Nepal and Nigeria to evaluate the feasibility of the e-mhGAP-IG for use in depression diagnosis and treatment. In each country, an estimated 20 primary health clinics (PHCs) in Nepal and 6 PHCs in Nigeria will be randomized to have their staff trained in e-mhGAP-IG or the paper version of mhGAP-IG v2.0. The PHC will be the unit of clustering. All PCWs within a facility will receive the same training (e-mhGAP-IG vs paper mhGAP-IG). Approximately 2-5 PCWs, depending on staffing, will be recruited per clinic (estimated 20 health workers per arm in Nepal and 15 per arm in Nigeria). The primary outcomes of interest will be the feasibility and acceptability of training, supervision, and care delivery using the e-mhGAP-IG. Secondary implementation outcomes include the adoption of the e-mhGAP-IG and feasibility of trial procedures. The secondary intervention outcome-and the primary outcome for a subsequent fully powered trial-will be the accurate identification of depression by PCWs. Detection rates before and after training will be compared in each arm. RESULTS: To date, qualitative formative work has been conducted at both sites to prepare for the pilot feasibility cRCT, and the e-mhGAP-IG and remote supervision guidelines have been developed. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of mobile digital technology has the potential to improve the scalability of mental health services in primary care and enhance the quality and accuracy of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04522453; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04522453. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/24115.

Evaluating the Application of the RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: An Updated Systematic Review and Exploration of Pragmatic Application.

BACKGROUND: RE-AIM is one of the most widely applied frameworks to plan and evaluate the implementation of public health and health behavior change interventions. The objective of this review is to provide an updated synthesis of use of the RE-AIM (Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance) planning and evaluation framework and explore pragmatic use (i.e., partial application of the framework) and how this is reported. METHODS: Systematic review. MEDLINE (R) and PsycINFO were searched, via the Ovid interface, between January 2011 and December 2017. Studies that applied RE-AIM as a planning and/or evaluation framework were included. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven articles met inclusion criteria. One hundred forty-nine reported using RE-AIM for evaluation, three for planning and five for planning and evaluation. Reach was the most frequently reported dimension (92.9%), followed by implementation (90.3%), adoption (89.7%), effectiveness (84.5%), and maintenance (77.4%). One hundred forty-seven/one hundred fifty-seven articles originated from high-income economy countries. Within a sub-set analysis (10% of included articles), 9/15 articles evaluated all dimensions. Of the 6/15 articles that did not evaluate all dimensions, five provided no justification for pragmatic application. CONCLUSIONS: RE-AIM has gained increased use in recent years and there is evidence that it is being applied pragmatically. However, the rationale for pragmatic use is often not reported. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42017054616).

Implementation outcome instruments for use in physical healthcare settings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Implementation research aims to facilitate the timely and routine implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions and services. A glaring gap in this endeavour is the capability of researchers, healthcare practitioners and managers to quantitatively evaluate implementation efforts using psychometrically sound instruments. To encourage and support the use of precise and accurate implementation outcome measures, this systematic review aimed to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings. METHOD: The following data sources were searched from inception to March 2019, with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and the Cochrane library. Studies that evaluated the measurement properties of implementation outcome instruments in physical healthcare settings were eligible for inclusion. Proctor et al.'s taxonomy of implementation outcomes was used to guide the inclusion of implementation outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, penetration, implementation cost and sustainability. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Psychometric quality of the included instruments was assessed using the Contemporary Psychometrics checklist (ConPsy). Usability was determined by number of items per instrument. RESULTS: Fifty-eight publications reporting on the measurement properties of 55 implementation outcome instruments (65 scales) were identified. The majority of instruments assessed acceptability (n = 33), followed by appropriateness (n = 7), adoption (n = 4), feasibility (n = 4), penetration (n = 4) and sustainability (n = 3) of evidence-based practice. The methodological quality of individual scales was low, with few studies rated as 'excellent' for reliability (6/62) and validity (7/63), and both studies that assessed responsiveness rated as 'poor' (2/2). The psychometric quality of the scales was also low, with 12/65 scales scoring 7 or more out of 22, indicating greater psychometric strength. Six scales (6/65) rated as 'excellent' for usability. CONCLUSION: Investigators assessing implementation outcomes quantitatively should select instruments based on their methodological and psychometric quality to promote consistent and comparable implementation evaluations. Rather than developing ad hoc instruments, we encourage further psychometric testing of instruments with promising methodological and psychometric evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017065348.

Effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 trial evaluating two psychoeducational programmes for severe hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: implementation study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Two of the most acute and feared complications in type 1 diabetes (T1D) are hypoglycaemia and severe hypoglycaemia (SH). While impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) can lead to SH with cognitive and motivational barriers implicated, the available education does not integrate behavioural change techniques to address these. A novel Hypoglycaemia Awareness Restoration Programme despite optimised care (HARPdoc) is currently being tested against an established blood glucose awareness training (BGAT) within a parallel, two-arm, group randomised, blinded trial (with its own protocol; NCT02940873) with adults with T1D whose problems with hypoglycaemia and SH have persisted despite otherwise optimised insulin management. While both programmes are aimed at reducing hypoglycaemia, SH and IAH, it is the former that integrates behavioural change techniques.The aim of the current (implementation) study is to evaluate delivery of both HARPdoc and BGAT and explore associations between implementation outcomes and trial endpoints; as well as to develop an evidence-based implementation blueprint to guide implementation, sustainment and scale-up of the effective programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Guided by the implementation science tools, frameworks, methods and principles, the current study was designed through a series of focus groups (n=11) with the key intervention stakeholders (n=28)-including (1) individuals with lived experience of T1D, IAH and a pilot version of the HARPdoc (n=6) and (2) diabetes healthcare professionals (n=22). A mixed-methods approach will be used throughout. Stakeholder engagement has underpinned study design and materials to maximise relevance, feasibility and impact. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been reviewed and received ethical approval by the Harrow Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/1020; 240752) on 1 October 2018. The findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02940873; Pre-results.

Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide.

BACKGROUND: Designing implementation research can be a complex and daunting task, especially for applied health researchers who have not received specialist training in implementation science. We developed the Implementation Science Research Development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide to address this challenge and provide researchers with a systematic approach to designing implementation research. METHODS: A multi-method and multi-stage approach was employed. An international, multidisciplinary expert panel engaged in an iterative brainstorming and consensus-building process to generate core domains of the ImpRes tool, representing core implementation science principles and concepts that researchers should consider when designing implementation research. Simultaneously, an iterative process of reviewing the literature and expert input informed the development and content of the tool. Once consensus had been reached, specialist expert input was sought on involving and engaging patients/service users; and economic evaluation. ImpRes was then applied to 15 implementation and improvement science projects across the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, a research organisation in London, UK. Researchers who applied the ImpRes tool completed an 11-item questionnaire evaluating its structure, content and usefulness. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on ten implementation science domains to be considered when designing implementation research. These include implementation theories, frameworks and models, determinants of implementation, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes and unintended consequences. Researchers who used the ImpRes tool found it useful for identifying project areas where implementation science is lacking (median 5/5, IQR 4-5) and for improving the quality of implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4-5) and agreed that it contained the key components that should be considered when designing implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4-4). Qualitative feedback from researchers who applied the ImpRes tool indicated that a supplementary guide was needed to facilitate use of the tool. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a feasible and acceptable tool, and supplementary guide, to facilitate consideration and incorporation of core principles and concepts of implementation science in applied health implementation research. Future research is needed to establish whether application of the tool and guide has an effect on the quality of implementation research.

Human growth hormone for poor responders: a randomized placebo-controlled trial provides no evidence for improved live birth rate.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the addition of human growth hormone (HGH) to an IVF cycle improve the live birth rate in previously documented poor responders to FSH? DESIGN: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing HGH to placebo in maximal stimulation in an IVF cycle. The study was stopped after 4 years. Women receiving ovarian stimulation in one IVF cycle, having failed to produce more than 5 eggs in a previous cycle with more than 250 IU/day of FSH were included. Basal FSH was ≤15 IU/l, body mass index <33 kg/m2, age <41 years. HGH or placebo were added from the start of the cycle in a double-blinded manner. The primary outcome was live birth rate. MAIN RESULTS: The live birth rates following an IVF cycle were 9/62 (14.5%) for growth hormone and 7/51 (13.7%) for the placebo group (risk difference 0.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -12.1 to 13.7%; odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% CI 0.37-3.10). There was a greater odds of oocyte retrieval with growth hormone (OR 5.67, 95% CI 1.54-20.80) but no better chance of embryo transfer (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.50-4.00). Birth weights were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Planned participant numbers were not reached. It was not possible to demonstrate an increase in live birth rate from the addition of growth hormone in women with a previous poor ovarian response to IVF.

Development of a theoretical framework of factors affecting patient safety incident reporting: a theoretical review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: The development and implementation of incident reporting systems within healthcare continues to be a fundamental strategy to reduce preventable patient harm and improve the quality and safety of healthcare. We sought to identify factors contributing to patient safety incident reporting. DESIGN: To facilitate improvements in incident reporting, a theoretical framework, encompassing factors that act as barriers and enablers ofreporting, was developed. Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and PsycINFO were searched to identify relevant articles published between January 1980 and May 2014. A comprehensive search strategy including MeSH terms and keywords was developed to identify relevant articles. Data were extracted by three independent researchers; to ensure the accuracy of data extraction, all studies eligible for inclusion were rescreened by two reviewers. RESULTS: The literature search identified 3049 potentially eligible articles; of these, 110 articles, including >29 726 participants, met the inclusion criteria. In total, 748 barriers were identified (frequency count) across the 110 articles. In comparison, 372 facilitators to incident reporting and 118 negative cases were identified. The top two barriers cited were fear of adverse consequences (161, representing 21.52% of barriers) and process and systems of reporting (110, representing 14.71% of barriers). In comparison, the top two facilitators were organisational (97, representing 26.08% of facilitators) and process and systems of reporting (75, representing 20.16% of facilitators). CONCLUSION: A wide range of factors contributing to engagement in incident reporting exist. Efforts that address the current tendency to under-report must consider the full range of factors in order to develop interventions as well as a strategic policy approach for improvement.

Implementation outcome assessment instruments used in physical healthcare settings and their measurement properties: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past 10 years, research into methods that promote the uptake, implementation and sustainability of evidence-based interventions has gathered pace. However, implementation outcomes are defined in different ways and assessed by different measures; the extent to which these measures are valid and reliable is unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings, to advance the use of precise and accurate measures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The following databases will be searched from inception to March 2017: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature will be sought via HMIC, OpenGrey, ProQuest for theses and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews will be hand searched. Three search strings will be combined to identify eligible studies: (1) implementation literature, (2) implementation outcomes and (3) measurement properties. Screening of titles, abstracts and full papers will be assessed for eligibility by two reviewers independently and any discrepancies resolved via consensus with the wider team. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. A set of bespoke criteria to determine the quality of the instruments will be used, and the relationship between instrument usability and quality will be explored. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. Researchers and healthcare professionals can use the findings of this systematic review to guide the selection of implementation outcomes instruments, based on their psychometric quality, to assess the impact of their implementation efforts. The findings will also provide a useful guide for reviewers of papers and grants to determine the psychometric quality of the measures used in implementation research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42017065348.

Frailty identification in the emergency department-a systematic review focussing on feasibility.

Introduction: risk-stratifying older people accessing urgent care is a potentially useful first step to ensuring that the most vulnerable are able to access optimal care from the start of the episode. While there are many risk-stratification tools reported in the literature, few have addressed the practical issues of implementation. This review sought evidence about the feasibility of risk stratification for older people with urgent care needs. Methods: medline was searched for papers addressing risk stratification and implementation (feasibility or evaluation or clinician acceptability). All search stages were conducted by two reviewers, and selected papers were graded for quality using the CASP tool for cohort studies. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics only. Results: about 1872 titles of potential interest were identified, of which 1827 were excluded on title/abstract review, and a further 43 after full-text review, leaving four papers for analysis. These papers described nine tools, which took between 1 and 10 minutes to complete for most participants. No more than 52% of potentially eligible older people were actually screened using any of the tools. Little detail was reported on the clinical acceptability of the tools tested. Discussion: the existing literature indicates that commonly used risk-stratification tools are relatively quick to use, but do not cover much more than 50% of the potential population eligible for screening in practice. Additional work is required to appreciate how tools are likely to be used, by whom, and when in order to ensure that they are acceptable to urgent care teams.

International recommendations for national patient safety incident reporting systems: an expert Delphi consensus-building process.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety incident reporting systems (PSRS) have been established for over a decade, but uncertainty remains regarding the role that they can and ought to play in quantifying healthcare-related harm and improving care. OBJECTIVE: To establish international, expert consensus on the purpose of PSRS regarding monitoring and learning from incidents and developing recommendations for their future role. METHODS: After a scoping review of the literature, semi-structured interviews with experts in PSRS were conducted. Based on these findings, a survey-based questionnaire was developed and subsequently completed by a larger expert panel. Using a Delphi approach, consensus was reached regarding the ideal role of PSRSs. Recommendations for best practice were devised. RESULTS: Forty recommendations emerged from the Delphi procedure on the role and use of PSRS. Experts agreed reporting system should not be used as an epidemiological tool to monitor the rate of harm over time or to appraise the relative safety of hospitals. They agreed reporting is a valuable mechanism for identifying organisational safety needs. The benefit of a national system was clear with respect to medication error, device failures, hospital-acquired infections and never events as these problems often require solutions at a national level. Experts recommended training for senior healthcare professionals in incident investigation. Consensus recommendation was for hospitals to take responsibility for creating safety solutions locally that could be shared nationally. CONCLUSIONS: We obtained reasonable consensus among experts on aims and specifications of PSRS. This information can be used to reflect on existing and future PSRS, and their role within the wider patient safety landscape. The role of PSRS as instruments for learning needs to be elaborated and developed further internationally.

Quality of interdisciplinary postsimulation debriefing: 360° evaluation.

Introduction: Debriefing is widely perceived to be the most important component of simulation-based training. This study aimed to explore the value of 360° evaluation of debriefing by examining expert debriefing evaluators, debriefers and learners' perceptions of the quality of interdisciplinary debriefings. Method: This was a cross-sectional observational study. 41 teams, consisting of 278 learners, underwent simulation-based team training. Immediately following the postsimulation debriefing session, debriefers and learners rated the quality of debriefing using the validated Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD) framework. All debriefing sessions were video-recorded and subsequently rated by evaluators trained to proficiency in assessing debriefing quality. Results: Expert debriefing evaluators and debriefers' perceptions of debriefing quality differed significantly; debriefers perceived the quality of debriefing they provided more favourably than expert debriefing evaluators (40.98% of OSAD ratings provided by debriefers were ≥+1 point greater than expert debriefing evaluators' ratings). Further, learner perceptions of the quality of debriefing differed from both expert evaluators and debriefers' perceptions: weak agreement between learner and expert evaluators' perceptions was found on 2 of 8 OSAD elements (learner engagement and reflection); similarly weak agreement between learner and debriefer perceptions was found on just 1 OSAD element (application). Conclusions: Debriefers and learners' perceptions of debriefing quality differ significantly. Both groups tend to perceive the quality of debriefing far more favourably than external evaluators. An overconfident debriefer may fail to identify elements of debriefing that require improvement. Feedback provided by learners to debriefers may be of limited value in facilitating improvements. We recommend periodic external evaluation of debriefing quality.

Implementation Science: A Neglected Opportunity to Accelerate Improvements in the Safety and Quality of Surgical Care.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to emphasize the importance of implementation science in understanding why efforts to integrate evidence-based interventions into surgical practice frequently fail to replicate the improvements reported in early research studies. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Over the past 2 decades, numerous patient safety initiatives have been developed to improve the quality and safety of surgical care. The surgical community is now faced with translating "promising" initiatives from the research environment into clinical practice-the World Health Organization (WHO) has described this task as one of the greatest challenges facing the global health community and has identified the importance of implementation science in scaling up evidence-based interventions. METHODS: Using the WHO surgical safety checklist, a prominent example of a rapidly and widely implemented surgical safety intervention of the past decade, a review of literature, spanning surgery, and implementation science, was conducted to identify and describe a broad range of factors affecting implementation success, including contextual factors, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. RESULTS: Our current approach to conceptualizing and measuring the "effectiveness" of interventions has resulted in factors critical to implementing surgical safety interventions successfully being neglected. CONCLUSION: Improvements in the safety and quality of surgical care can be accelerated by drawing more heavily upon implementation science and that until this rapidly evolving field becomes more firmly embedded into surgical research and implementation efforts, our understanding of why interventions such as the checklist "work" in some settings and appear "not to work" in other settings will be limited.

Mentoring perception, scientific collaboration and research performance: is there a 'gender gap' in academic medicine? An Academic Health Science Centre perspective.

OBJECTIVES: The 'gender gap' in academic medicine remains significant and predominantly favours males. This study investigates gender disparities in research performance in an Academic Health Science Centre, while considering factors such as mentoring and scientific collaboration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Professorial registry-based electronic survey (n=215) using bibliometric data, a mentoring perception survey and social network analysis. Survey outcomes were aggregated with measures of research performance (publications, citations and h-index) and measures of scientific collaboration (authorship position, centrality and social capital). Univariate and multivariate regression models were constructed to evaluate inter-relationships and identify gender differences. RESULTS: One hundred and four professors responded (48% response rate). Males had a significantly higher number of previous publications than females (mean 131.07 (111.13) vs 79.60 (66.52), p=0.049). The distribution of mentoring survey scores between males and females was similar for the quality and frequency of shared core, mentor-specific and mentee-specific skills. In multivariate analysis including gender as a variable, the quality of managing the relationship, frequency of providing corrective feedback and frequency of building trust had a statistically significant positive influence on number of publications (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in healthcare research to investigate the relationship between mentoring perception, scientific collaboration and research performance in the context of gender. It presents a series of initiatives that proved effective in marginalising the gender gap. These include the Athena Scientific Women's Academic Network charter, new recruitment and advertisement strategies, setting up a 'Research and Family Life' forum, establishing mentoring circles for women and projecting female role models.