Search

Background: The implementation science literature acknowledges a need for engagement of key stakeholders when designing, delivering and evaluating implementation work. To date, the literature reports minimal or focused stakeholder engagement, where stakeholders are engaged in either barrier identification and/or barrier prioritisation. This paper begins to answer calls from the literature for the development of tools and guidance to support comprehensive stakeholder engagement in implementation research and practice. The paper describes the systematic development of the Implementation‐STakeholder Engagement Model (I‐STEM) in the context of an international, large‐scale empirical implementation study (ImpleMentAll) aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a tailored implementation toolkit. The I‐STEM is a sensitising tool that defines key considerations and activities for undertaking stakeholder engagement activities across an implementation process. Methods: In‐depth, semistructured interviews and observations were conducted with implementers who were tailoring implementation strategies to integrate and embed internet‐based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) services in 12 routine mental health care organisations in nine countries in Europe and Australia. The analytical process was informed by principles of first‐ and third‐generation Grounded Theory, including constant comparative method. Results: We conducted 55 interviews and observed 19 implementation‐related activities (e.g., team meetings and technical support calls). The final outcome of our analysis is expressed in an initial version of the I‐STEM, consisting of five interrelated concepts: engagement objectives, stakeholder mapping, engagement approaches, engagement qualities and engagement outcomes. Engagement objectives are goals that implementers plan to achieve by working with stakeholders in the implementation process. Stakeholder mapping involves identifying a range of organisations, groups or people who may be instrumental in achieving the engagement objectives. Engagement approaches define the type of work that is undertaken with stakeholders to achieve the engagement objectives. Engagement qualities define the logistics of the engagement approach. Lastly, every engagement activity may result in a range of engagement outcomes. Conclusion: The I‐STEM represents potential avenues for substantial stakeholder engagement activity across key phases of an implementation process. It provides a conceptual model for the planning, delivery, evaluation and reporting of stakeholder engagement activities. The I‐STEM is nonprescriptive and highlights the importance of a flexible, iterative approach to stakeholder engagement. It is developmental and will require application and validation across a range of implementation activities. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient contribution to ImpleMentAll trial was facilitated by GAMIAN‐Europe at all stages—from grant development to dissemination. GAMIAN‐Europe brings together a wide variety of patient representation organisations (local, regional and national) from almost all European countries. GAMIAN‐Europe was involved in pilot testing the ItFits‐toolkit and provided their views on the various aspects, including stakeholder engagement. Patients were also represented in the external advisory board providing support and advice on the design, conduct and interpretation of the wider project, including the development of the ItFits‐toolkit. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652883. Retrospectively registered on 29 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data about the regulatory approaches to donor human milk (DHM) in European countries are lacking. The aim of this study is to describe the various regulations of DHM within European countries, to assess its legislative context and its impact in relation to donor milk banking. We performed a cross‐sectional survey using a semistructured online questionnaire addressing 29 national European milk‐banking representatives from June 2020 to February 2021. Representatives of 26 national DHM services participated in this study. The legal classification and regulatory status of DHM were defined in 9 out of 26 areas of jurisdiction (35%) as either food product (n = 6), product of human origin according to a blood, tissue, cell regulation (n = 2), or medicinal product (n = 1). In the remainder, DHM remains unclassified. Most legislations did not provide a comprehensive framework concerning DHM and costs to cover milk bank operations were rarely reimbursed. In general, the lack of national legislative governance and the actual legislative regulations in place do not support the use of DHM in European countries. National medical guidelines for the use of DHM have been issued in only 11 countries. The current number and distribution of milk banks (n = 239) within participating countries may not provide an equitable access to DHM for eligible infants. These findings could guide stakeholders aiming to establish a regulatory framework for DHM. Key messages: There is a lack of a legislative framework concerning the use of donor human milk in the majority of European countries.Available national legislative frameworks differed widely with gaps in the regulation of safety and quality of donor human milk, protection of donors and recipients, and cost recovery.Despite clearly demonstrated benefits and unequivocal recommendations for the use of donor human milk there is a lack of national guidance in many European countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Pandemics of new and emerging infectious diseases are unpredictable, recurrent events that rapidly threaten global health and security. We aimed to identify public views regarding provision of information and consent to participate in primary and critical care clinical research during a future influenza-like illness pandemic. Methods Descriptive-interpretive qualitative study, using focus groups (n = 10) and semi-structured interviews (n = 16), with 80 members of the public (>18 years) in Belgium, Spain, Poland and the UK. Local qualitative researchers followed a scenario-based topic guide to collect data. Data were transcribed verbatim, translated into English and subject to framework analysis. Results Public understandings of pandemics were shaped by personal factors (illness during the previous H1N1 pandemic, experience of life-threatening illness) and social factors (historical references, media, public health information). Informants appreciated safeguards provided by ethically robust research procedures, but current enrolment procedures were seen as a barrier. They proposed simplified enrolment processes for higher risk research and consent waiver for certain types of low-risk research. Decision making about research participation was influenced by contextual, research and personal factors. Informants generally either carefully weighed up various approaches to research participation or responded instinctively. They supported the principle of using routinely collected, anonymized clinical biological samples for research without explicit consent, but regarded this as less acceptable if researchers were motivated primarily by commercial gain. Conclusions This bottom-up approach to ascertaining public views on pandemic clinical research has identified support for more proportionate research protection procedures for publically funded, low-risk studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]