"We all see things through a different lens based on our life experiences": co-production of a web-based implementation toolkit with stakeholders across the health and social care system.

Background: Implementing new innovations across the health and social care system is complex, involving many factors that in recent years have been compounded by Covid-19. While a plethora of implementation tools and frameworks are available, there are limitations in terms of their design and accessibility. Co-production is a valuable mechanism for developing tools that have utility and accessibility for those tasked with using them in health and social care organisations and there is growing acknowledgement of increasing the role of co-production in implementation science. This paper provides novel insight into co-production practices and relevance to implementation science by reporting findings from a study to co-produce a web-based implementation toolkit (WIT) that is accessible, usable and designed to support adaptive implementation across health and social care systems. Key themes relating to the process of co-production are outlined and the value of using co-production in implementation processes are discussed. Methods: A web-based survey (n = 36) was conducted with a range of stakeholders across health and social care. Findings identified a need for WIT. Survey respondents were invited to express interest in becoming part of a co-production group and to take part in three online interactive workshops to co-produce WIT. Workshops took place with the group (n = 12) and focused on key developmental stages of WIT. Results: Online co-production workshops were integral to the development and refinement of WIT. Benefits of using this process identified three interrelated themes: (i) Co-designing key features of the toolkit, (ii) Co-producing a toolkit with utility for users across health and social care settings, (iii) Co-producing a toolkit to support the implementation journey. Our approach of undertaking co-production as a dialogic process enabled generation of these themes. To illuminate discussion of these themes we draw upon iterative co-development of the "active ingredients" of key components (e.g., interactive Implementation Wheel) and functions (e.g., interactive "pop-up" definitions of keyword) and features (e.g., case studies) of WIT. Conclusion: Using a co-production approach with a range of end-users across health and social care systems, highlights the benefits of understanding implementation processes for users in these settings. User-centred design and processes for ensuring accessibility readily support the translation of implementation into rapidly changing health and social care systems to benefit outcomes for patients, their families, carers, service users and practitioners.

Evaluating the impact of a polypharmacy Action Learning Sets tool on healthcare practitioners' confidence, perceptions and experiences of stopping inappropriate medicines.

BACKGROUND: Issues of medication adherence, multimorbidity, increased hospitalisation risk and negative impact upon quality of life have led to the management of polypharmacy becoming a national priority. Clinical guidelines advise a patient-centred approach, involving shared decision-making and multidisciplinary team working. However, there have been limited educational initiatives to improve healthcare practitioners' management of polypharmacy and stopping inappropriate medicines. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a polypharmacy Action Learning Sets (ALS) tool across five areas: i. healthcare practitioners' confidence and perceptions of stopping medicines; ii. knowledge and information sources around stopping medicines; iii. perception of patients and stopping medicines; iv. perception of colleagues and stopping medicines and v. perception of the role of institutional factors in stopping medicines. METHODS: The ALS tool was delivered to a multi-disciplinary group of healthcare practitioners: GPs [n = 24] and pharmacy professionals [n = 9]. A pre-post survey with 28 closed statements across five domains relating to the study aims [n = 32] and a post evaluation feedback survey with 4 open-ended questions [n = 33] were completed. Paired pre-post ALS responses [n = 32] were analysed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Qualitative responses were analysed using a simplified version of the constant comparative method. RESULTS: The ALS tool showed significant improvement in 14 of 28 statements in the pre-post survey across the five domains. Qualitative themes (QT) from the post evaluation feedback survey include: i. awareness and management of polypharmacy; ii. opportunity to share experiences; iii. usefulness of ALS as a learning tool and iv. equipping with tools and information. Synthesised themes (ST) from analysis of pre-post survey data and post evaluation feedback survey data include: i. awareness, confidence and management of inappropriate polypharmacy, ii. equipping with knowledge, information, tools and resources and iii. decision-making and discussion about stopping medicines with colleagues in different settings. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation contributes to developing understanding of the role of educational initiatives in improving inappropriate polypharmacy, demonstrating the effectiveness of the ALS tool in improving healthcare practitioners' awareness, confidence and perceptions in stopping inappropriate medicines. Further evaluation is required to examine impact of the ALS tool in different localities as well as longer-term impact.

Tracking the impact of research on policy and practice: investigating the feasibility of using citations in clinical guidelines for research evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of using research papers cited in clinical guidelines as a way to track the impact of particular funding streams or sources. SETTING: In recent years, medical research funders have made efforts to enhance the understanding of the impact of their funded research and to provide evidence of the 'value' of investments in particular areas of research. One of the most challenging areas of research evaluation is around impact on policy and practice. In the UK, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provide clinical guidelines, which bring together current high-quality evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of clinical problems. Research referenced in these guidelines is an indication of its potential to have real impact on health policy and practice. DESIGN: This study is based on analysis of the authorship and funding attribution of research cited in two NICE clinical guidelines: dementia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. RESULTS: Analysis identified that around a third of papers cited in the two NICE guidelines had at least one author based in the UK. In both cases, about half of these UK attributed papers contained acknowledgements which allowed the source of funding for the research to be identified. The research cited in these guidelines was found to have been supported by a diverse set of funders from different sectors. The study also investigated the contribution of research groups based in universities, industry and the public sector. CONCLUSIONS: The study found that there is great potential for guidelines to be used as sources of information on the quality of the research used in their development and that it is possible to track the source of the funding of the research. The challenge is in harnessing the relevant information to track this in an efficient way.

Healthcare Technology Co-Operatives: Filling a Niche in the English R&D Landscape.

The Department of Health (England) commissioned this evaluation of the pilot Health Technology Cooperatives (HTCs), which are part of its research infrastructure. Its purpose is to explore how this initiative has affected relationships between clinical, industrial and academic partners; how the HTCs fit into the current health innovation landscape; and the alignment of HTC activities to the goals set out in the NIHR strategy. Since the HTC scheme was intended to focus on medical devices, this review investigated how medical device development is being pursued by other similar entities in England, Australia and the USA. The key question was whether the institutional relationships initiated by the HTCs are contributing to the health research system in England and if this scheme is the most effective way of pursuing these relationships. This review had no specific theory or hypothesis to test, so information was gathered so as to allow key conclusions to be drawn and linked to existing theories. This review used documented evidence from the institutions involved as well as interviews. The pilot HTCs have shown that there are different, but equally legitimate, management approaches to the clinician-industry-patient relationship. These different approaches are reflections both of the disease field and the host institution culture. Neither HTC has concluded how best to sustain activities in the long term, particularly core management facilities such as supporting initial meetings with potential partners and early development of technologies from non-commercial sources. Recommendations focused on how best to support core HTC activities in the future.