Knowledge user survey and Delphi process to inform development of a new risk of bias tool to assess systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (RoB NMA tool).

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis (NMA) is increasingly used in guideline development and other aspects of evidence-based decision-making. We aimed to develop a risk of bias (RoB) tool to assess NMAs (RoB NMA tool). An international steering committee recommended that the RoB NMA tool to be used in combination with the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool (i.e. because it was designed to assess biases only) or other similar quality appraisal tools (eg, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 [AMSTAR 2]) to assess quality of systematic reviews. The RoB NMA tool will assess NMA biases and limitations regarding how the analysis was planned, data were analysed and results were presented, including the way in which the evidence was assembled and interpreted. OBJECTIVES: Conduct (a) a Delphi process to determine expert opinion on an item's inclusion and (b) a knowledge user survey to widen its impact. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and Delphi process. METHODS: Delphi panellists were asked to rate whether items should be included. All agreed-upon item were included in a second round of the survey (defined as 70% agreement). We surveyed knowledge users' views and preferences about the importance, utility and willingness to use the RoB NMA tool to evaluate evidence in practice and in policymaking. We included 12 closed and 10 open-ended questions, and we followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks. RESULTS: 22 items were entered into a Delphi survey of which 28 respondents completed round 1, and 22 completed round 2. Seven items did not reach consensus in round 2. A total of 298 knowledge users participated in the survey (14% respondent rate). 75% indicated that their organisation produced NMAs, and 78% showed high interest in the tool, especially if they had received adequate training (84%). Most knowledge users and Delphi panellists preferred a tool to assess both bias in individual NMA results and authors' conclusions. Response bias in our sample is a major limitation as knowledge users working in high-income countries were more represented. One of the limitations of the Delphi process is that it depends on the purposive selection of experts and their availability, thus limiting the variability in perspectives and scientific disciplines. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi process and knowledge user survey informs the development of the RoB NMA tool.

Supporting researchers in knowledge translation and dissemination of their research to increase usability and impact.

PURPOSE: One of the key areas of delivery of the 'Action Plan for Health Research 2019-2029', for the Health Service Executive (HSE) in Ireland, is adding value and using data and knowledge, including health-related quality of life (HRQoL), for improved health care, service delivery and better population health and wellbeing. The development of governance, management and support framework and mechanisms will provide a structure for ensuring research is relevant to the organisation's service plan, well designed, has a clear plan for dissemination and translation of knowledge, and minimises research waste. Developing a process for the translation, dissemination and impact of research is part of the approach to improving translation of research into practice and aligning it with knowledge gaps. A project was undertaken to develop a clear, unified, universally applicable approach for the translation, dissemination, and impact of research undertaken by HSE staff and commissioned, sponsored, or hosted by the organisation. This included the development of guidance, training, and information for researchers. METHODS: Through an iterative process, an interdisciplinary working group of experts in knowledge translation (KT), implementation science, quality improvement and research management, identified KT frameworks and tools to form a KT, dissemination, and impact process for the HSE. This involved a literature review, screening of 247 KT theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs), review of 18 TMFs selected as usable and applicable to the HSE, selection of 11 for further review, and final review of 6 TMFs in a consensus workshop. An anonymous online survey of HSE researchers, consisting of a mixture of multiple choice and free text questions, was undertaken to inform the development of the guidance and training. RESULTS: A pilot of the KT process and guidance, involving HSE researchers testing its use at various stages of their research, demonstrated the need to guide researchers through planning, stakeholder engagement, and disseminating research knowledge, and provide information that could easily be understood by novice as well as more experienced researchers. A survey of all active researchers across the organisation identified their support and knowledge requirements and led to the development of accompanying guidance to support researchers in the use of the process. Researchers of all levels reported that they struggled to engage with stakeholders, including evidence users and policy makers, to optimise the impact of their research. They wanted tools that would support better engagement and maximise the value of KT. As a result of the project a range of information, guidance, and training resources have been developed. CONCLUSION: KT is a complex area and researchers need support to ensure they maximise the value of their research. The KT process outlined enables the distilling of a clear message, provides a process to engage with stakeholders, create a plan to incorporate local and political context, and can show a means to evaluate how much the findings are applied in practice. This is a beneficial application of KT in the field of patient reported outcomes. In implementing this work, we have reinforced the message that stakeholder engagement is crucial from the start of the research study and increases engagement in, and ownership of, the research knowledge.

The usability and applicability of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks for research in the context of a national health service.

BACKGROUND: Translating research findings into service improvements for patients and/or policy changes is a key challenge for health service organizations. The Health Service Executive (HSE) in Ireland launched the Action Plan for Health Research 2019-2029, as reported by Terrés (HSE, Dublin, 2019), one of the goals of which is to maximize the impact of the research that takes place within the service to achieve improvements in patient care, services, or policy change. The purpose of this research is to review the literature on knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) and to assess the suitability of the TMFs for HSE use, selecting one or more for this purpose. The aim is to produce guidance for HSE researchers and other health services staff, validate the usability of the framework(s) with researchers, and review and implement the guidance. It was hoped that identifying a suitable methodology would provide the means to increase the uptake and application of research findings, and reduce research wastage. This paper reports on the first part of the study: the review, assessment, and selection of knowledge translation TMFs for a national health service. METHODS: An interdisciplinary working group of academic experts in implementation science, research wastage, and knowledge translation, along with key representatives from research funders (Health Research Board) and HSE personnel with expertise in quality improvement and research management, undertook a three-stage review and selection process to identify a knowledge translation TMF that would be suitable and usable for HSE purposes. The process included a literature review, consensus exercise, and a final consensus workshop. The review group adopted the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST) developed by Birken et al. (Implement Sci 13: 143, 2018) to review knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks. RESULTS: From 247 knowledge translation TMFs initially identified, the first stage of the review identified 18 that met the criteria of validity, applicability, relevance, usability, and ability to be operationalized in the local context. A further review by a subgroup of the working group reduced this number to 11. A whole-group review selected six of these to be reviewed at a facilitated consensus workshop, which identified three that were suitable and applicable for HSE use. These were able to be mapped onto the four components of the HSE knowledge translation process: knowledge creation, knowledge into action, transfer and exchange of knowledge, and implementation and sustainability. CONCLUSION: The multiplicity of knowledge translation TMFs presents a challenge for health service researchers in making decisions about the appropriate methods for disseminating their research. Building a culture that uses research knowledge and evidence is important for organizations seeking to maximize the benefits from research. Supporting researchers with guidance on how to disseminate and translate their research can increase the uptake and application of research findings. The use of robust selection criteria enabled the HSE to select relevant TMFs and develop a process for increasing the dissemination and translation of research knowledge. The guidance developed to inform and educate researchers and knowledge users is expected to increase organizational capacity to promote a culture of research knowledge and evidence use within the HSE.

The legal, governance and ethical implications of involving service users and carers in research.

PURPOSE: Service user and carer involvement in all aspects of the health and care research process, from co-applicant on funding applications to active engagement in a research study, is now a requirement for most research funders. However, as co-production increases and service users and carers take on more responsibilities, this involvement has legal, governance and ethical implications. The purpose of this paper is to raise awareness of the issues and consider potential solutions. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Experiences of engagement as co-applicants in research funding applications, of involvement as research study team members, and as co-researchers were gathered from a range of service user and carer experts. Consultation and a workshop gathered further evidence from a range of stakeholders across the research management community. FINDINGS: Service users and carers, who contribute to the research protocol and process, feel a strong sense of responsibility to ensure the high quality of a research study. However, they may be new to their roles, status and key responsibilities when acting as project team members, co-researchers or co-applicants engaging in funding applications. The responsibility of sponsors, grant holding organisations, funders and other members of the research community is to communicate with and support service users and carers in those roles. More needs to be done to understand the contractual, a legal and governance issues and responsibilities that are specific to service user and carer co-applicants, project team members and co-researchers, from both an organisational and individual service user and carer perspective. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The implications of the findings are to raise awareness of the practical, legal and ethical issues arising from this type of involvement and the potential risks arising from lack of cohesion or understanding. The review also highlights the concerns and barriers service users and carers may find in becoming involved. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The findings highlight a range of issues for research regulators, sponsors and investigators to consider to ensure service users and carers can fulfil their responsibilities and be supported in doing so.

Reviewing progress in public involvement in NIHR research: developing and implementing a new vision for the future.

OBJECTIVES: To review the progress of public involvement (PPI) in NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) research, identify barriers and enablers, reflect on the influence of PPI on the wider health research system in the UK and internationally and develop a vision for public involvement in research for 2025. The developing evidence base, growing institutional commitment and public involvement activity highlight its growth as a significant international social movement. DESIGN: The 'Breaking Boundaries Review' was commissioned by the Department of Health. An expert advisory panel was convened. Data sources included: an online survey, international evidence sessions, workshop events, open submission of documents and supporting materials and existing systematic reviews. Thematic analysis identified key themes. NVivo was used for data management. The themes informed the report's vision, mission and recommendations, published as 'Going the Extra Mile-Improving the health and the wealth of the nation through public involvement in research'. The Review is now being implemented across the NIHR. RESULTS: This paper reports the Review findings, the first of its type internationally. A range of barriers and enablers to progress were identified, including attitudes, resources, infrastructure, training and support and leadership. The importance of evidence to underpin practice and continuous improvement emerged. Co-production was identified as a concept central to strengthening public involvement in the future. The Vision and Mission are supported by four suggested measures of success, reach, refinement, relevance and relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The NIHR is the first funder of its size and importance globally to review its approach to public involvement. While significant progress has been made, there is a need to consolidate progress and accelerate the spread of effective practice, drawing on evidence. The outcomes of the Review are being implemented across the NIHR. The findings and recommendations have transferability for other organisations, countries and individuals.

Patient and public involvement in reducing health and care research waste.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: As much as 85 % of health research is believed to be wasted because it is not published or reported, the design is poor or does not consider what is already known in the topic area. Although a great deal of work has been done in the UK to reduce research waste, the role of patients and the public has not been discussed.This paper describes a survey, on the role of patients in reducing research waste, which was carried out as part of a larger piece of work on reducing waste in healthcare. The study found that patients were interested in reducing research waste. The key roles they play in research, for example being co-applicants for funding, members of project teams, co-researchers, means they have some shared responsibility for making sure the quality of research is high. This includes finding out what is already known about a topic and getting the study design right before seeking funding, publishing and reporting the results when the study is finished. Recognising where waste happens is part of good management of a research study. ABSTRACT: Background Eighty five per cent of health research expenditure is potentially wasted due to failure to publish research, unclear reporting of research that is published, and the failure of new research studies to systematically review previous research in the same topic area, poor study design and conduct. A great deal of progress has been made to address this issue but the role of patients and the public has not been considered.Main A small survey was undertaken, as part of a larger programme of work on reducing health and care waste, to understand the role of patients in reducing research waste. The study showed that patients are interested in this issue particularly in relation to the prioritisation of research and patient and public involvement.Conclusions Patients undertake key roles in the research process including co-applicancy, project management, or as co-researchers. This brings responsibility for ensuring high quality research and value for money. Responsibility for recognition of the potential for wasteful practices is part of the conduct and operation of research studies.

Developing a training package.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to outline the development of a training package for service users and carers with an interest in NHS health and social care research. It demonstrates how the developers used their unique experience and expertise as service users and carers to inform their work. Design/methodology/approach Service users and carers, NHS Research and Development Forum working group members, supported by health professionals, identified a need for research training that was tailored to other service user and carer needs. After reviewing existing provision and drawing on their training and support experience, they developed a training package. Sessions from the training package were piloted, which evaluated positively. In trying to achieve programme accreditation and training roll-out beyond the pilots, the group encountered several challenges. Findings The training package development group formed good working relationships and a co-production model that proved sustainable. However, challenges were difficult to overcome owing to external factors and financial constraints. Practical implications Lessons learnt by the team are useful for other service users and carer groups working with health service professionals. Training for service users and carers should be designed to meet their needs; quality and consistency are also important. The relationships between service user and carer groups, and professionals are important to understanding joint working. Recognising and addressing challenges at the outset can help develop strategies to overcome challenges and ensure project success. Originality/value The training package was developed by service users and carers for other service users and carers. Their unique health research experience underpinned the group's values and training development.

Understanding the working relationships between National Health Service clinicians and finance staff.

Purpose The Department of Health and the National Health Service (NHS) Future Focused Finance (FFF) programme promotes effective engagement between clinical and finance staff. Surveys undertaken by the Department of Health between 2013 and 2015 found few NHS Trusts reported high levels of engagement. The purpose of this paper is to gain a better understanding of current working relationships between NHS clinical and finance professionals and how they might be supported to become more effective. Design/methodology/approach Ipsos MORI were commissioned by the NHS FFF programme to undertake an online survey of NHS clinical and finance staff between June and August 2015. Findings The majority of clinicians had a member of a finance team linked to their speciality or directorate. Clinical and finance professionals have a positive view of joint working preferring face-to-face contact. Clinician's confidence in their understanding of finance was generally good and finance staff felt they had a good understanding of clinical issues. Effective working relationships were facilitated by face-to-face contact, a professional relationship, and the availability of clear, well presented finance and activity data. Research limitations/implications Data protection issues limited the accessibility of the survey team to NHS staff resulting in a relatively low-response rate. Other forms of communication, including social media, were utilised to increase access to the survey. Originality/value The FFF programme is a unique programme aimed at making the NHS finance profession fit for the future. The close partnering work stream brings together the finance and clinical perspective to share knowledge, evidence, training, and to develop good practice and engagement.

The governing body nurse as a clinical commissioning group nurse leader.

Aim The aim of this study was to understand governing body nurses' perspective of their effect on, and leadership of, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). Method Semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of governing body nurses, CCG chairs and regional chief nurses. A total of 23 individuals were interviewed. Findings Governing body nurses were overwhelmingly positive about their role and believed they had a positive effect on the CCG governing body. Specifically, they provided leadership for the quality agenda and compassionate practice. Challenges experienced by some governing body nurses related to their capacity to undertake the role where this was on a part-time basis, time restraints and difficulties working with colleagues. Conclusion The role of the governing body nurse was not well defined when it was introduced, and as a result its development across CCGs has varied. Governing body nurses have used their leadership skills to advance important agendas for their profession, such as workforce redesign, new integrated care pathways and co-commissioned services.

Reducing waste in the NHS: an overview of the literature and challenges for the nursing profession.

Waste in the NHS is estimated to account for 20% of health expenditure. This article examines the literature on reducing waste, analyses some approaches to waste reduction, and identifies the role that nurses and other health professionals can play in developing a sustainable NHS. For the purposes of the article, and to inform nursing practice, the definition of, and discussion about, waste is broader than that outlined by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) controlled waste regulations, and the Royal College of Nursing classification. It includes clinical waste, waste arising out of clinical practice, service delivery and care, infrastructure, and carbon emissions.

Managing resources and reducing waste in healthcare settings.

The NHS is under pressure to increase its effectiveness and productivity. Nurses are tasked with delivering effective and efficient care, as well as improving patient safety, experiences and results. The reduction of waste in service delivery, care and treatment can release time and resources for nurses to engage in direct patient care. Nurses have an important role in reducing waste and influencing other professionals in the healthcare environment to increase their efficiency and productivity.

Role of the CCG nurse in commissioning services.

This article explores the changing landscape of commissioning, the commissioning nurse role within clinical commissioning groups and how the role has evolved as a result of the NHS organisational changes. It uses the results from two surveys undertaken by the Commissioning Nurse Leaders network, run by NHS England, to gauge the confidence of nurses in commissioning and leadership roles.

Building capacity for service user and carer involvement in research: the implications and impact of best research for best health.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of service user and carer involvement in NHS research and describe the nature of this involvement in three specialist mental health Trusts. It also aims to discuss the value of service user and carer involvement and present the perspective of the service user and research manager. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The paper reviews patient and public involvement policy and practice in the NHS and NHS research. It examines the effectiveness of involvement activity and utilises a case example to demonstrate the impact of patient/service user involvement on the NHS and the individuals who take part. FINDINGS: The paper concludes that service user involvement is essential if research is to support the development of health services that clearly reflect the needs of the service user and impact positively on service quality. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Service user involvement is an established element of NHS research and development at both national and local level. The Department of Health strategy for research, Best Research for Best Health, reiterates both the importance of research that benefits the patient and the involvement of the service user in the research process. Despite this, the changes in Department of Health support funding for research, introduced by the strategy, may inadvertently lead to some NHS Trusts experiencing difficulty in resourcing this important activity. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper illustrates the effectiveness of successful patient and public involvement in research. It also identifies how involvement has developed in a fragmented and uncoordinated way and how it is threatened by a failure to embed it more consistently in research infrastructure.

The impact of service user involvement in research.

PURPOSE: There are many examples of consumer involvement in NHS research but few studies have examined the impact of this on service development or the research process. This study, involving service user and carer researchers working alongside professional researchers, aimed to examine the development of one service user and carer research group in a mental health Trust. DERSIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The research involved a review of existing literature on consumer involvement in research, a review of user involvement in research in South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust, a survey of consumers and NHS staff in the Trust, and a skills audit and training needs analysis of consumers. FINDINGS: The study identified the range and extent of consumer involvement and the impact of this on consumers and the Trust. Service users and carers were involved in a range of projects, mainly on the level of consultation or collaboration. The benefits for consumers were principally on a personal level and included gaining knowledge and experience, improved sense of well-being, self esteem, and confidence. The benefit for the Trust was in having a service user perspective and focus. However, there is a tendency to omit service users from planning and setting priorities. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The study pointed to the need to build the evidence base on consumer involvement in research, particularly in terms of how consumers can impact on setting research priorities and selecting appropriate methods. It identifies the need for more training for consumers and for NHS staff and for a more coherent strategy. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This article will be of value to anyone who is at the start or in the early stages of their journey of consumer involvement. It identifies some of the practical issues faced by consumers and staff in working collaboratively, but also points to the benefits for all the stakeholders.