Identifying candidate quality indicators of tools that support the practice of knowledge translation: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify and characterize relevant knowledge translation methods tools (those that provide guidance for optimized knowledge translation practice) to uncover candidate quality indicators to inform a future quality assessment tool for knowledge translation strategies. INTRODUCTION: Knowledge translation strategies (defined as including knowledge translation interventions, tools, and products) target various knowledge users, including patients, clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers. The development and use of strategies that support knowledge translation practice have been rapidly increasing, making it difficult for knowledge users to decide which to use. There is limited evidence-based guidance or measures to help assess the overall quality of knowledge translation strategies. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Empirical and non-empirical documents will be considered if they explicitly describe a knowledge translation methods tool and its development, evaluation or validation, methodological strengths or limitations, and/or use over time. The review will consider a knowledge translation methods tool if it falls within at least one knowledge translation domain (ie, implementation, dissemination, sustainability, scalability, integrated knowledge translation) in the health field. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic search of relevant electronic databases and gray literature. The search strategy will be developed iteratively by an experienced medical information specialist and peer-reviewed with the PRESS checklist. The search will be limited to English-only documents published from 2005 onward. Documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by 2 researchers. Data will be analyzed and summarized descriptively, including the characteristics of the included documents, knowledge translation methods tools, and candidate quality indicators. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/chxvq ).

Implications of nocebo in anaesthesia care.

Nocebo refers to non-pharmacological adverse effects of an intervention. Well-intended procedural warnings frequently function as a nocebo. Both nocebo and placebo are integral to the generation of 'real' treatment effects and their associated 'real' side-effects. They are induced or exacerbated by: context; negative expectancy; and negative conditioning surrounding treatment. Since the late 1990s, the neuroscience literature has repeatedly demonstrated that the nocebo effect is mediated by discrete neurobiological mechanisms and specific physiological modulations. Although no single biological mechanism has been found to explain the nocebo effect, nocebo hyperalgesia is thought to initiate from the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex subsequently triggering the brain's descending pain modulatory system and other pain regulation pathways. Functional magnetic resonance imaging shows that expectation of increased pain is accompanied by increased neural activity in the hippocampus and midcingulate cortex which is not observed when analgesia is expected. Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have shown that the anterior cingulate cortex is pivotal in the perception of affective pain evoked by nocebo words. Research has also explored neurotransmitters which mediate the nocebo effect. The neuropeptide cholecystokinin appears to play a key role in the modulation of pain by nocebo. Hyperalgesia generated by nocebo also increases the activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis as indicated by increases in plasma cortisol. The avoidance or mitigation of nocebo needs to be recognised as a core clinical skill in optimising anaesthesia care. Embracing the evidence around nocebo will allow for phrases such as 'bee sting' and 'sharp scratch' to be thought of as clumsy verbal relics of the past. Anaesthesia as a profession has always prided itself on practicing evidence-based medicine, yet for decades anaesthetists and other healthcare staff have communicated in ways counter to the evidence. The premise of every interaction should be 'primum non nocere' (first, do no harm). Whether the context is research or clinical anaesthesia practice, the nocebo can be ignored no longer.

High-Intensity vs Low-Intensity Knowledge Translation Interventions for Surgeons and Their Association With Process and Outcome Measures Among Patients Undergoing Rectal Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Surgeon-directed knowledge translation (KT) interventions for rectal cancer surgery are designed to improve patient measures, such as rates of permanent colostomy and in-hospital mortality, and to improve survival. Objective: To evaluate the association of sustained, iterative, integrated KT rectal cancer surgery interventions directed at all surgeons with process and outcome measures among patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in a geographic region. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study used administrative data from patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery from April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2015, in 14 health regions in Ontario, Canada. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2020. Exposures: Surgeons in 2 regions were offered intensive KT interventions, including annual workshops, audit and feedback sessions, and, in 1 of the 2 regions, operative demonstrations, from 2006 to 2012 (high-intensity KT group). Surgeons in the remaining 12 regions did not receive these interventions (low-intensity KT group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Among patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery, proportions of preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), preoperative radiotherapy, and type of surgery were evaluated, as were in-hospital mortality and overall survival. Logistic regression models with an interaction term between group and year were used to assess whether process measures and in-hospital mortality differed between groups over time. Results: A total of 15 683 patients were included in the analysis (10 052 [64.1%] male; mean [SD] age, 65.9 [12.1] years), of whom 3762 (24.0%) were in the high-intensity group (2459 [65.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 66.4 [12.0] years) and 11 921 (76.0%) were in the low-intensity KT group (7593 [63.7%] male; mean [SD] age, 65.7 [12.1] years). A total of 1624 patients (43.2%) in the high-intensity group and 4774 (40.0%) in the low-intensity KT group underwent preoperative MRI (P < .001); 1321 (35.1%) and 4424 (37.1%), respectively, received preoperative radiotherapy (P = .03); and 967 (25.7%) and 2365 (19.8%), respectively, received permanent stoma (P < .001). In-hospital mortality was 1.6% (59 deaths) in the high-intensity KT group and 2.2% (258 deaths) in the low-intensity KT group (P = .02). Differences remained significant in multivariable models only for permanent stoma (odds ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.24-2.24; P < .001) and in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.87; P = .003). In both groups over time, significant increases in the proportion of patients undergoing preoperative MRI (from 6.3% to 67.1%) and preoperative radiotherapy (from 16.5% to 44.7%) occurred, but there were no significant changes for permanent stoma (25.4% to 25.3% in the high-intensity group and 20.0% to 18.3% in the low-intensity group) and in-hospital mortality (0.8% to 0.8% in the high-intensity group and 2.2% to 1.8% in the low-intensity group). Time trends were similar between groups for measures that did or did not change over time. Patient overall survival was similar between groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11; P = .99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, between-group differences were found in only 2 measures (permanent stoma and in-hospital mortality), but these differences were stable over time. High-intensity KT group interventions were not associated with improved patient measures and outcomes. Proper evaluation of KT or quality improvement interventions may help avoid opportunity costs associated with ineffective strategies.

Practical publication metrics for academics.

Research organizations are becoming more reliant on quantitative approaches to determine how to recruit and promote researchers, allocate funding, and evaluate the impact of prior allocations. Many of these quantitative metrics are based on research publications. Publication metrics are not only important for individual careers, but also affect the progress of science as a whole via their role in the funding award process. Understanding the origin and intended use of popular publication metrics can inform an evaluative strategy that balances the usefulness of publication metrics with the limitations of what they can convey about the productivity and quality of an author, a publication, or a journal. This paper serves as a brief introduction to citation networks like Google Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Microsoft Academic, and Dimensions. It also explains two of the most popular publication metrics: the h-index and the journal impact factor. The purpose of this paper is to provide practical information on using citation networks to generate publication metrics, and to discuss ideas for contextualizing and juxtaposing metrics, in order to help researchers in translational science and other disciplines document their impact in as favorable a light as may be justified.