Search

Background\ud \ud Shunts, the main treatment for hydrocephalus, are problematic as they frequently malfunction. Identifying shunt malfunction requires parents to recognize its symptoms and health professionals to integrate parents' information about the child's symptoms within the clinical assessment to reach a diagnosis.\ud Aim\ud \ud To investigate parent–professional shared decision making during the diagnosis of suspected shunt malfunction in acute hospital admissions.\ud Design and methods\ud \ud A mixed method study involving audio recordings of admission consultations, a shared decision making questionnaire and interviews 1-week post-consultation, was undertaken. Twenty-eight family members and fourteen health professionals participated. The interactions were analysed using conversational analysis, framework approach for the interview data and descriptive statistics for questionnaire responses.\ud Findings\ud \ud Both parents and professionals focussed on establishing a diagnosis and ruling out shunt malfunction when a child with hydrocephalus was ill. Participants' perceived effective collaboration as central to this task: parents wanted to contribute to the process of diagnosis by providing information about the likely cause of symptoms. Professionals were satisfied with the level of involvement by parents, although parent satisfaction was more variable. The challenge for professionals was to integrate parents' expertise of their child's presenting symptoms within clinical decision making processes.\ud Conclusion\ud \ud In this context, both parents' and professionals' perceived their interactions to be about problem-solving, rather than making decisions about treatments. Although the shared decision-making model can help patients to make better decisions between treatment options, it is unclear how best to support collaboration between professionals and parents to ensure a good problem-solving process.

Background\ud Published research evidence is typically not readily applicable to practice but needs to be actively mobilised.\ud \ud Objectives\ud This paper explores the mechanisms used by information professionals with a specific knowledge mobilisation role to make evidence useful for local decision making and planning of public health interventions.\ud \ud Methods\ud Data are drawn from a NIHR project that studied how, when, where and by whom published research evidence is used in commissioning and planning across two sites (one in England and one in Scotland). Data included 11 in‐depth interviews with information professionals, observations at meetings and documentary analysis.\ud \ud Results\ud Published research evidence is made fit for local commissioning and planning purposes by information professionals through two mechanisms. They localise evidence (relate evidence to local context and needs) and tailor it (present actionable messages).\ud \ud Discussion\ud Knowledge mobilisation roles of information professionals are not recognised and researched. Information professionals contribute to the ‘inform’ and ‘relational’ functions of knowledge mobilisation; however, they are less involved in improving the institutional environment for sustainable knowledge sharing.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud Information professionals are instrumental in shaping what evidence enters local decision making processes. Identifying and supporting knowledge mobilisation roles within health libraries should be the focus of future research and training.