Search

Evidence-Based Medicine is built on the premise that clinicians can be more confident when their decisions are grounded in high-quality evidence. Furthermore, evidence from studies involving patient-oriented outcomes is preferred when making decisions about tests or treatments. Ideally, the findings of relevant and valid trials should be stable over time, that is, unlikely to be reversed in subsequent research.To evaluate the stability of evidence from trials relevant to primary healthcare and to identify study characteristics associated with their reversal.We studied synopses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2002 to 2005 as "Daily POEMs" (Patient Oriented Evidence that Matters). The initial evidence (E1) from these POEMs (2002-2005) was compared with the updated evidence (E2) on that same topic in a summary resource (DynaMed 2019). Two physician-raters independently categorized each POEM-RCT as (i) reversed when E1 ≠ E2, or as (ii) not reversed, when E1 = E2. For all "Evidence Reversals" (E1 ≠ E2), we assessed the direction of change in the evidence.We evaluated 408 POEMs on RCTs. Of those, 35 (9%; 95% confidence interval [6-12]) were identified as reversed, 359 (88%) were identified as not reversed, and 14 (3%) were indeterminate. On average, this represents about 2 evidence reversals per annum for POEMs about RCTs.Over 12-17 years, 9% of RCTs summarized as POEMs are reversed. Information alerting services that apply strict criteria for relevance and validity of clinical information are likely to identify RCTs whose findings are stable over time.We studied the extent to which evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relevant to primary care is contradicted in subsequent research. When it was, we identified this event as an evidence reversal. In addition, we sought to identify characteristics of RCTs associated with their reversal. From 408 RCTs published during the period 2002–2005, study characteristics such as sample size were identified and extracted. Subsequently, we compared the evidence reported in each of these RCTs with the evidence on that same topic in an online summary resource in 2019. This allowed us to classify each RCT in one of the following 3 categories: evidence confirmed, reversed, or uncertain if this evidence is confirmed or reversed. Over 12–17 years of follow-up time, the findings of about 9 in 10 RCTs summarized as POEMs are stable. We found no statistically significant associations between trial characteristics and their subsequent reversal. This low rate of evidence reversal is good news for the RCTs that are used to inform decision-making.

Background Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) may lead to reduced physical function and is the most common cause of chronic non-cancer pain. Currently, the pharmacotherapeutic options against CMP are limited and frequently consist of pain management with non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, gabapentinoids, or opioids, which carry major adverse effects. Although the effectiveness of medical cannabis (MC) for CMP still lacks solid evidence, several patients suffering from it are exploring this therapeutic option with their physicians. Objectives Little is known about patients’ perceptions of their MC treatment for CMP. We aimed to increase this knowledge, useful for healthcare professionals and patients considering this treatment, by conducting a scoping literature review, following guidance by Arksey and O’Malley, to describe the views and perceptions of adult patients who had consumed MC to relieve chronic CMP. Methods Databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science) and websites were searched using combinations of controlled and free vocabulary. All studies and study designs reporting on patients’ perceptions regarding MC against CMP were considered. Studies had to include adult patients reporting qualitatively or quantitatively, i.e., through questionnaires, on MC use to treat CMP or other non-cancer pain, since studies reporting exclusively on perceptions regarding CMP were very rare. Study characteristics were extracted and limitations of the study quality were assessed. The review includes patients’ demographic characteristics, patterns of MC use, perceived positive and negative effects, use of alcohol or other drugs, reported barriers to CM use, and funding sources of the studies. Results Participants of the 49 included studies reported that MC use helped them to reduce CMP and other chronic non-cancer pain, with only minor adverse effects, and some reported improved psychological well-being. In the included studies, men represent between 18 and 88% of the subjects. The mean age of participants in these studies (42/49) varied between 28.4 and 62.8 years old. The most common route of administration is inhalation. Conclusion MC users suffering from CMP or other chronic non-cancer pain perceived more benefits than harms. However, the information from these studies has several methodological limitations and results are exploratory. These user-reported experiences must thus be examined by well-designed and methodologically sound clinical or observational studies, particularly regarding CMP, where reports are very scarce.

Background Vaccination is a common painful procedure for children. Parents’ concern regarding vaccination pain is a significant driver of vaccine hesitancy. Despite the wealth of evidence-based practices available for managing vaccination pain, parents lack knowledge of, and access to, these strategies. Knowledge translation (KT) tools can communicate evidence-based information to parents, however little is known about what factors influence parents’ use of these tools. A two-page, electronic KT tool on psychological, physical, and pharmacological vaccination pain management strategies for children, was shared with parents as part of a larger mixed methods study, using explanatory sequential design, exploring factors related to uptake of this KT tool. The aim of this qualitative study was to understand what influenced parents’ perceptions of the relevance of the KT tool, as well as their decision as to whether to use the tool. Methods A qualitative descriptive design was used. A total of 20 parents of children aged 0–17 years (n = 19 mothers) reviewed the KT tool ahead of their child’s upcoming vaccination and participated in a semi-structured interview at follow-up. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed with reflexive thematic analysis using an inductive approach. Results The analysis generated three interrelated themes which described factors related to parents’ use of the KT tool: (1) Relevance to parents’ needs and circumstances surrounding their child’s vaccination; (2) Alignment with parents’ personal values around, and experiences with, vaccination pain management (e.g., the importance of managing pain); and (3) Support from the clinical environment for implementing evidence-based strategies (e.g., physical clinical environment and quality of interactions with the health care provider). Conclusions Several factors were identified as central to parents’ use of the KT tool, including the information itself and the clinical environment. When the tool was perceived as relevant, aligned with parents’ values, and was supported by health care providers, parents were more inclined to use the KT tool to manage their children’s vaccination pain. Future research could explore other factors related to promoting engagement and uptake when creating parent-directed KT tools for a range of health-related contexts.

BACKGROUND Diabetes is a prevalent chronic condition that poses a major burden for patients and the health care system. Evidence suggests that patient engagement in self-care improves diabetes control and reduces the risk of complications. To provide effective interventions that aim to improve empowerment processes relating to diabetes, a comprehensive and valid measure of empowerment is needed. This article details the development and validation of the McGill Empowerment Assessment–Diabetes (MEA-D). METHODS The development and validation of the MEA-D questionnaire comprised three steps: item generation, qualitative face validation, and factorial content validation. An initial version was created by combining existing items and inductively generated items. Items were mapped to an empowerment framework with four domains: attitude, knowledge, behavior, and relatedness. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 adults living with diabetes to assess face validity. The questionnaire was revised by a team of clinicians, researchers, and patient-partners. Factorial content validation was then performed using responses from 300 adult Canadians living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. RESULTS The final version of the MEA-D contained 28 items. A moderately good item-domain correlation was found between the individual items within the four domains. Cronbach’s α was 0.81 (95% CI 0.78–0.85) for attitude, 0.73 (95% CI 0.67–0.79) for knowledge, 0.84 (95% CI 0.81–0.87) for behavior, and 0.81 (95% CI 0.77–0.84) for relatedness. CONCLUSION The evaluation of diabetes programs demands a validated measure of empowerment. We developed the MEA-D to address this need. The MEA-D may be adapted to measure patients’ empowerment regarding other chronic health conditions.

PURPOSE Case management (CM) is a promising intervention for frequent users of health care services. Our research question was how and under what circumstances does CM in primary care work to improve outcomes among frequent users with chronic conditions? METHODS We conducted a realist synthesis, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO (1996 to September 2017) for articles meeting the following criteria: (1) population: adult frequent users with chronic disease, (2) intervention: CM in a primary care setting with a postintervention evaluation, and (3) primary outcomes: integration of services, health care system use, cost, and patient outcome measures. Academic and gray literature were evaluated for relevance and robustness. Independent reviewers extracted data to identify context, mechanism, and outcome (CMO) configurations. Analysis of CMO configurations allowed for the modification of an initial program theory toward a refined program theory. RESULTS Of the 9,295 records retrieved, 21 peer-reviewed articles and an additional 89 documents were retained. We evaluated 19 CM interventions and identified 11 CMO configurations. The development of a trusting relationship fostering patient and clinician engagement in the CM intervention was recurrent in many CMO configurations. CONCLUSION Our refined program theory proposes that in the context of easy access to an experienced and trusted case manager who provides comprehensive care while maintaining positive interactions with patients, the development of this relationship fosters the engagement of both individuals and yields positive outcomes when the following mechanisms are triggered: patients and clinicians feel supported, respected, accepted, engaged, and committed; and patients feel less anxious, more secure, and empowered to self-manage.

Background Chronic conditions such as diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common and burdensome diseases primarily managed in primary care. Yet, evidence points to suboptimal quality of care for these conditions in primary care settings. Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are organized, multifaceted interventions that can be effective in improving chronic disease care processes and outcomes. In Quebec, Canada, the Institut national d’excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS) has developed a large-scale QIC province-wide program called COMPAS+ that aims to improve the prevention and management of chronic diseases in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for our study, which aims to evaluate implementation and impact of COMPAS+ QICs on the prevention and management of targeted chronic diseases like diabetes and COPD. Methods This is a mixed-methods, integrated knowledge translation study. The quantitative component involves a controlled interrupted time series involving nine large integrated health centres in the province. Study sites will receive one of two interventions: the multifaceted COMPAS+ intervention (experimental condition) or a feedback only intervention (control condition). For the qualitative component, a multiple case study approach will be used to achieve an in-depth understanding of individual, team, organizational and contextual factors influencing implementation and effectiveness of the COMPAS+ QICs. Discussion COMPAS+ is a QI program that is unique in Canada due to its integration within the governance of the Quebec healthcare system and its capacity to reach many primary care providers and people living with chronic diseases across the province. We anticipate that this study will address several important gaps in knowledge related to large-scale QIC projects and generate strong and useful evidence (e.g., on leadership, organizational capacity, patient involvement, and implementation) having the potential to influence the design and optimisation of future QICs in Canada and internationally.

Background Mixed methods (MM) are common in community-based primary health care (CBPHC) research studies. Several strategies have been proposed to integrate qualitative and quantitative components in MM, but they are seldom well conceptualized and described. The purpose of the present review was to identify and describe practical MM strategies and combinations of strategies used to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in CBPHC research. Methods A methodological review with qualitative synthesis (grouping) was performed. Records published in English in 2015 were retrieved from the Scopus bibliographic database. Eligibility criteria were: CBPHC empirical study, MM research with detailed description of qualitative and quantitative methods and their integration. Data were extracted from included studies and grouped using a conceptual framework comprised of three theoretical types of MM integration, the seven combinations of these types and nine practical strategies (three per type of integration) and multiple combinations of strategies. Results Among the 151 articles reporting CBPHC and MM studies retrieved, 54 (35.7%) met the inclusion criteria for this review. The included studies provided examples of the three theoretical types of MM integration, the seven combinations of these types as well as the nine practical strategies. Overall, 15 combinations of these strategies were observed. No emerging strategy was observed that was not predicted by the conceptual framework. Conclusions This review can provide guidance to CBPHC researchers for planning, conducting and reporting practical strategies and combinations of strategies used for integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in MM research.

Given the limits of human memory, clinicians have trouble recalling therapeutic recommendations, even when the clinician previously judged that the information relevant for the care of a specific patient. To tackle this problem, we present a knowledge-based recommender system prototype that links the electronic patient records to clinical information, previously delivered to the target physician and judged to be potentially beneficial. We developed this prototype within the context of RxTx, a Canadian continuing medical education program. We apply a constraint-based recommendation strategy as follows: (1) clinical experts (taggers) map a set of therapeutic recommendations (called Highlights) to a requirement statement built from the standard clinical codes and supplementary demographic information, when applicable; (2) a matching system identifies patient-Highlights recommendation pairs through requirement satisfaction; and (3) given a patient record being examined, the recommended Highlights can be retrieved online at the point of care. We tested this prototype using electronic medical records from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network and 87 therapeutic Highlights from the RxTx collection, evaluating the system's performance against a gold standard consisting of a two-expert consolidated patient-Highlight matching set for 150 patient records. The requirements-based recommendation system exhibits very high precision (mode: 1.0, 89% of the time; average precision: 0.95) and moderate recall (mode 1.0, 48.7% of the time; average recall: 0.61). The near-perfect precision minimizes the possibility of generating alert fatigue in physicians using the system. We note that more than half of the false negative results from the information being available in the text of the electronic medical records, but unavailable as a clinical code. The near-perfect precision over the tested patient set suggests that the system has the potential to deliver high-quality recommendations of clinical information at the point of care while being easily integrated within a continuing medical education program and the clinician's workflow.

Introduction: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly used but diversely implemented in primary care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of IPC in primary care settings. Methods: An overview (review of systematic reviews) was carried out. We searched nine databases and employed a double selection and data extraction method. Patient-related outcomes were categorized, and results coded as improvement (+), worsening (–), mixed results (?) or no change (0). Results: 34 reviews were included. Six types of IPC were identified: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 8), physician-nurse in primary care (n = 1), primary care physician (PCP)-specialty care provider (n = 5), PCP-pharmacist (n = 3), PCP-mental healthcare provider (n = 15), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 2). In general, IPC in primary care was beneficial for patients with variation between types of IPC. Whereas reviews about IPC in primary care (large scope) showed better processes of care and higher patient satisfaction, other types of IPC reported mixed results for clinical outcomes, healthcare use and patient-reported outcomes. Also, reviews focusing on interventions based on pre-existing and well-defined models, such as collaborative care, overall reported more benefits. However, heterogeneity between the included primary studies hindered comparison and often led to the report of mixed results. Finally, professional- and organizational-related outcomes were under-reported, and cost-related outcomes showed some promising results for IPC based on pre-existing models; results were lacking for other types. Conclusions: This overview suggests that interprofessional collaboration can be effective in primary care. Better understanding of the characteristics of IPC processes, their implementation, and the identification of effective elements, merits further attention.

To develop and validate a questionnaire assessing barriers faced by Saudi Arabian female dentists in the progression of their career. We developed a three-part questionnaire based on a literature review, semi-structured interviews, and consultation with 3 panels of experts. The instrument was sent to a convenience sample of 150 female dentists who were faculty members at different university hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Cronbach’s alpha was used to test reliability. Exploratory factor analysis was used to evaluate construct validity. A total of 62 dentists returned the questionnaire (response rate 41.3%), 55 of which were useable for the pilot testing of the measure. The final instrument included 20 items divided into four subscales: Family Challenges, Environment Challenges, Interpersonal Challenges, and Sociocultural Challenges. Cronbach’s α for the total questionnaire was 0.899. Exploratory factor analysis on the questionnaire led to a set of subscales differing from those defined beforehand (KMO = 0.784 very good). A new valid and reliable questionnaire has been developed that measures barriers to female dentists’ career progression in Saudi Arabia.

Globally, there is an upward trend in the number of women applying to dental schools and entering the profession of dentistry. Women dentists aim to advance their careers; however, differences exist between men and women dentists regarding leadership positions and work titles. For example, in Saudi Arabia, women usually occupy lower ranked positions than men in the Saudi public sector, and they are, therefore, paid less than their male counterparts. This study aimed to explore the possible barriers to Saudi women dentists’ professional advancement using a qualitative descriptive study design. Specifically, semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted with 13 women practicing dentistry in the Makkah region of Saudi Arabia. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and the data were interpreted using qualitative content analysis (NVivo 11; QRS International). The results revealed 4 challenges that might delay the participants’ career development. These include family-related challenges, sociocultural challenges, workplace challenges, and transportation issues. From this perspective, some perceived barriers to the professional development of women dentists were found that might not be unique to Saudi Arabia, and the article’s suggestions and recommendations aim to minimize the effects of these barriers impeding women’s advancement in dentistry in Saudi Arabia. Knowledge Transfer Statement: This study makes an important contribution to knowledge on this topic. These results will aid policy makers’ efforts to create supportive work environments through gender-specific incentives that meet the current professional and family needs of women dentists, particularly those in Saudi Arabia.

Introduction Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is one of the most common causes of chronic pain that leads to reduced physical function. Currently, the pharmacotherapeutic options against CMP are ...

Purpose: The importance of patient-oriented research (POR) has been recognized by the scientific community and governmental agencies, and its development is exponential across most health-related disciplines. The current Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) definition of POR is overly broad and hinders the reliable selection of POR-related publications from bibliographic databases. The present study was aimed to adapt CIHR’s definition of POR into an operational definition that can be used by stakeholders for selecting POR publications. Methods: Eighteen POR experts in Québec, Canada, were invited to participate in a modified e-Delphi study. Two rounds of Delphi surveys were undertaken to reach consensus. Round-1 sought consensus on clarity and indispensability of POR characteristics. Round-2 included modifications planned in POR characteristics and obtained final consensus leading to an adapted POR definition. Finally, POR experts across Canada were consulted to assess generalizability of this adapted POR definition. Results: The item that achieved 75% of consensus was removal of the POR characteristic “POR can be conducted in partnership with relevant stakeholders,” because it was considered redundant and confusing. Additionally, participants suggested defining unclear concepts such as “continuum,” “direct impact,” and “patient.” Finally, based on results of Round-1 and Round-2 and the consultation with POR experts across Canada, an operational POR definition was developed. Conclusions: This study was a novel attempt to adapt an operational POR definition to help patients and POR stakeholders have a common understanding of what POR is, focus on important outcomes that matter to patients, and improve care quality.

Researchers examining the influence of the built environment on health are increasingly using mixed methods approaches. The use of more than one type of methodology to address a single research question is compelling in this field because researchers investigating the impact of the built environment on health have been faced with proposing solutions to a complex societal problem involving interacting systems and social uncertainties. Mixed methods studies can help researchers to gain a better understanding of the relationships that exist between humans and their environment by drawing on qualitative and quantitative methods. Mixed methods studies could also be instrumental for providing effective policy solutions. This is because they allow researchers to identify built environment determinants of health in a population of interest and to understand the social and cultural factors that might influence the uptake of an intervention by this population. The objective of this paper is to assist those conducting research on the built environment and health who may have little background in mixed methods. We provide an overview of mixed methods research designs and provide concrete techniques for the integration of diverse methods. We also discuss the recommendations for mixed methods research in the field of built environment - health research, drawing on specific examples from published studies. Reporting a research design and an integration strategy in mixed methods studies could help to strengthen our ability to gain new insights into the multidimensional nature of the relationship between the built environment and health.

PURPOSE Case management (CM) interventions are effective for frequent users of health care services, but little is known about which intervention characteristics lead to positive outcomes. We sought to identify characteristics of CM that yield positive outcomes among frequent users with chronic disease in primary care. METHODS For this systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative studies, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO (1996 to September 2017) and included articles meeting the following criteria: (1)population: adult frequent users with chronic disease, (2)intervention: CM in a primary care setting with a postintervention evaluation, and (3)primary outcomes: integration of services, health care system use, cost, and patient outcome measures. Independent reviewers screened abstracts, read full texts, appraised methodologic quality (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool), and extracted data from the included studies. Sufficient and necessary CM intervention characteristics were identified using configurational comparative methods. RESULTS Of the 10,687 records retrieved, 20 studies were included; 17 quantitative, 2 qualitative, and 1 mixed methods study. Analyses revealed that it is necessary to identify patients most likely to benefit from a CM intervention for CM to produce positive outcomes. High-intensity intervention or the presence of a multidisciplinary/interorganizational care plan was also associated with positive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Policy makers and clinicians should focus on their case-finding processes because this is the essential characteristic of CM effectiveness. In addition, value should be placed on high-intensity CM interventions and developing care plans with multiple types of care providers to help improve patient outcomes.

Background Organizational Participatory Research (OPR) seeks organizational learning and/or practice improvement. Previous systematic literature reviews described some OPR processes and outcomes, but the link between these processes and outcomes is unknown. We sought to identify and sequence the key processes of OPR taking place with and within healthcare organizations and the main outcomes to which they contribute, and to define ideal-types of OPR. Methods This article reports a participatory systematic mixed studies review with qualitative synthesis A specialized health librarian searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, Social Work Abstracts and Business Source Complete, together with grey literature data bases were searched from inception to November 29, 2012. This search was updated using forward citation tracking up to June 2014. Reporting quality was appraised and unclear articles were excluded. Included studies clearly reported OPR where the main research related decisions were co-constructed among the academic and healthcare organization partners. Included studies were distilled into summaries of their OPR processes and outcomes, which were subsequently analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. All summaries were analysed; that is, data analysis continued beyond saturation. Results Eighty-three studies were included from the 8873 records retrieved. Eight key OPR processes were identified. Four follow the phases of research: 1) form a work group and hold meetings, 2) collectively determine research objectives, 3) collectively analyse data, and 4) collectively interpret results and decide how to use them. Four are present throughout OPR: 1) communication, 2) relationships; 3) commitment; 4) collective reflection. These processes contribute to extra benefits at the individual and organizational levels. Four ideal-types of OPR were defined. Basic OPR consists of OPR processes leading to achieving the study objectives. This ideal-type and may be combined with any of the following three ideal-types: OPR resulting in random additional benefits for the individuals or organization involved, OPR spreading to other sectors of the organization and beyond, or OPR leading to subsequent initiatives. These results are illustrated with a novel conceptual model. Conclusion The model provides operational guidance to help OPR stakeholders collaboratively address organizational issues and achieve desired outcomes and more. Review registration As per PROSPERO inclusion criteria, this review is not registered. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3775-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionExtension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (Project ECHO©) is an innovative model for continuing professional development that uses videoconferencing technology to support and train general practitioners remotely. The model has been replicated to a variety of settings and locations for capacity building in healthcare professionals caring for patients with chronic and complex health conditions. Limited research has been conducted so far on the impact of ECHO in the field of concurrent mental health and substance use disorders (ie, concurrent disorders (CDs)). Therefore, this mixed methods study aims to develop a comprehensive understanding of an ECHO programme impact for CD management on nurses’ competency development and clinical practice.Methods and analysisThe proposed mixed methods study, based on a convergent parallel design, will be conducted in the province of Quebec, Canada, to collect, analyse and interpret quantitative (QUAN) and qualitative (QUAL) data from a specific ECHO Program on CDs. In the QUAN component, an observational prospective cohort study will be conducted over a 12-month period. All nurses who participated in the programme between 2018 and 2020 and who consent to research will be recruited to collect data on the extent of their learning and practice outcomes at three time points. Alongside the surveys, nurses will be invited to participate in individual semistructured interviews. In-depth QUAL data will be subjected to a thematic analysis and will assist in exploring how and in which conditions nurses developed and mobilised their competencies in clinical practice. A comparison-of-results strategy will be used in the final integration component of the study.Ethics and disseminationThis study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Université de Montréal Hospital Center (#19.295) and the Université de Montréal Ethics Committee (CERSES-20–017 R). We aim to disseminate the findings through international academic conferences, international peer-reviewed journals and professional media.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. The relevance of KT tools, and parents' confidence in using them, was related to uptake of vaccination pain management strategies for children., Introduction: Although several evidence-based strategies for managing children's vaccination pain exist, many parents report being unaware of them. Knowledge translation (KT) tools present evidence-based information in plain language. Objectives: This two-phase study assessed parents/caregivers' uptake of evidence-based pain management strategies via a KT tool and considered factors related to parents' planned, actual, and future use of these strategies. Methods: In phase 1, parents were exposed to an online KT tool on physical, psychological, and pharmacological vaccination pain management strategies, and their impressions were assessed by questionnaires including the Information Assessment Method for Parents. In phase 2, after vaccination, parents completed a follow-up survey on their uptake and experiences using the information. Results: A total of 312 participants reported their plans for KT tool use. Parents who found the KT tool relevant were more likely to plan to use it at their child's upcoming vaccination. A total of 128 parents (93% mothers) completed both surveys. Nearly all parents who planned to use the information did so during their child's subsequent vaccination (90%). When the KT tool was relevant to their needs, parents were more likely to use the information during their child's vaccination. Parents who felt confident using the tool were significantly more likely to report plans for future tool use. Discussion: This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a KT tool that was relevant to parents' needs and built confidence to increase parent-reported uptake of evidence-based strategies. Proper pain management could positively impact parents' uptake of vaccinations for children.

INTRODUCTION Primary care providers (PCP) will need to be integrally involved in the delivery of genomic medicine. The GenetiKit trial demonstrated effectiveness of a knowledge translation intervention on family physicians' (FP) genetics referral decision-making. Most wanted to continue receiving Gene Messengers (GM), evidence-based summaries of new genetic tests with primary care recommendations. Our objective was to determine the value of GMs as a continuing education (CE) strategy in genomic medicine for FPs. METHODS Using a "push" model, we invited 19,060 members of the College of Family Physicians of Canada to participate. Participants read GMs online, receiving 12 emailed topics over 6 months. Participants completed an online Information Assessment Method questionnaire evaluating GMs on four constructs: cognitive impact, relevance, intended use of information for a patient, and expected health benefits. RESULTS One thousand four hundred two FPs participated, 55% rated at least one GM. Most (73%) indicated their practice would be improved after reading GMs, with referral to genetics ranked highly. Of those who rated a GM relevant, 94% would apply it to at least one patient and 79% would expect health benefits. This method of CE was found useful for genetics by 88% and 94% wanted to continue receiving GMs. DISCUSSION FPs found this novel CE strategy, brief individual reflective e-learning, to be valuable for learning about genetics. This method of information delivery may be an especially effective method for CE in genomic medicine where discoveries occur at a rapid pace and lack of knowledge is a barrier to integration of genetic services.

The purpose of this research brief is to describe the expected health benefits of e-Therapeutics Highlights,* as evaluated by Canadian pharmacists and family physicians. The Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA), the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) and the Information Technology Primary Care Research Group (McGill University) collaborated to create an innovative continuing education program, called e-Therapeutics Highlights. Highlights are key treatment recommendations from e-Therapeutics+.** CPhA produces and maintains e-Therapeutics+, a web portal comprising clinical topic summaries that are authored and peer reviewed by subject matter experts (www.e-therapeutics.ca). Once a week, CPhA and CFPC members receive an e-Therapeutics Highlight delivered by e-mail, which they have the option of evaluating by means of a reflective learning activity based on the Information Assessment Method (IAM).1 For each rated Highlight, pharmacists receive continuing education units, and family physicians receive Mainpro credits. We present the aggregated results of IAM ratings as a way of summarizing the wisdom of the crowd of Highlight raters. Crowdsourcing is a force multiplier, defined as the release of online material to a crowd of users who may be interested in contributing ideas or performing a task such as rating a Highlight (voting) and submitting their work to a platform or an organization such as the CPhA, for the profit of the entire community.2,3 Large groups can be collectively wise in identifying relevant information.4 This principle of “crowdsourcing” has been applied to the development of innovative learning network approaches such as those seen in Wikipedia and various voting systems.5,6 Crowdsourcing allows the traditional “ask-the-user” approach to reach a wider audience.7,8

OBJECTIVE: To verify whether an intervention based on disseminating health evidence summaries by e-mail to health professionals increases access to health evidence databases, and whether health professionals intend to apply the evidence received by e-mail in their clinical practice. METHODS: This quantitative study started with a survey to collect demographic data and patterns of access to health evidence databases. It was followed by a longitudinal intervention, over 48 weeks, that disseminated 143 health evidence summaries to 339 health professionals with higher education degree who work in the Brazilian Unified Health System. In the longitudinal intervention phase, health professionals voluntarily assessed the received health evidence summaries using the information assessment method. Finally, the study concluded with a survey to identify changes in accessing health evidence databases. RESULTS: Of the 339 Brazilian health professionals participating in this research, 90 (26.5%) answered the initial and final surveys. After 48 weeks, there was an increase in the use of health evidence databases; 186 (54.9%) participants submitted 7,942 assessments of health evidence summaries, which were relevant for patient care in 5,409 (68%) assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The dissemination of health evidence summaries by e-mail to health professionals in Brazil increases the reported use of evidence in clinical practice.

Promoting the use of online consumer health information is critical to achieving the democratic right to know and cannot be separated from facilitating the process of finding and understanding this information. In addition, being informed and being able to share information with a clinician are fundamental principles enabling patient engagement in health care and shared decision making. Online consumer health information may contribute to positive patient outcomes such as improved knowledge, and even better health, while in some situations it also leads to increased worry. This type of negative outcome represents a common experience. Our health is important and therefore anything that touches our health can increase anxiety. In our view, worrying is not a disorder; only occasionally it is an incapacitating cyberchondria. Since 2005, our research has been exploring health information outcomes from the consumers’ viewpoint. We are particularly interested in information outcomes such as the types of informat...

Objective: We propose a method of identifying clinical topics for campaigns like Choosing Wisely. Methods: In the context of an ongoing continuing medication education program, we analyzed ratings on every patient-oriented evidence that matters (POEM) synopsis delivered in 2012 and 2013. Given the objective of the Choosing Wisely campaign, we focused this analysis on 1 specific item in the validated questionnaire used by physicians to rate POEMs. This questionnaire item is about “avoiding an unnecessary diagnostic test or treatment.” For each POEM, we calculated frequencies and proportions for this item, then we identified the 20 POEMs that were most commonly associated with this item in 2012 and 2013. Finally, we determined whether the clinical topic of each of these POEMs was mentioned in the Choosing Wisely master list. Results: In 2012 and 2013 we received 506,809 completed questionnaires (or ratings) linked to 530 POEMs, for an average of 956 ratings per POEM. In 59% of these POEMs (n = 312), the most commonly expected type of health benefit was “avoiding an unnecessary diagnostic test or treatment.” We then identified the top 20 POEMs most commonly associated with this item in each year by ranking all 312 POEMs from the top down. The clinical topic addressed by 29 of these 40 POEMs was not addressed in the Choosing Wisely master list. These topics fell into 3 categories: diagnostic tests, medical interventions, and surgical interventions. Conclusion: “Big data” can identify clinical topics relevant to campaigns such as Choosing Wisely. This process represents a new way to inform the expert panel approach.

Background In health, organizational participatory research (OPR) refers to health organization members participating in research decisions, with university researchers, throughout a study. This non-academic partner contribution to the research may take the form of consultation or co-construction. A drawback of OPR is that it requires more time from all those involved, compared to non-participatory research approaches; thus, understanding the added value of OPR, if any, is important. Thus, we sought to assess whether the OPR approach leads to benefits beyond what could be achieved through traditional research. Methods We identified, selected, and appraised OPR health literature, and at each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used quantitative content analysis to transform textual data into reliable numerical codes and conducted a logistic regression to test the hypothesis that a co-construction type OPR study yields extra benefits with a greater likelihood than consultation-type OPR studies. Results From 8873 abstracts and 992 full text papers, we distilled a sample of 107 OPR studies. We found no difference between the type of organization members’ participation and the likelihood of exhibiting an extra benefit. However, the likelihood of an OPR study exhibiting at least one extra benefit is quadrupled when the impetus for the study comes from the organization, rather than the university researcher(s), or the organization and the university researcher(s) together (OR = 4.11, CI = 1.12–14.01). We also defined five types of extra benefits. Conclusions This review describes the types of extra benefits OPR can yield and suggests these benefits may occur if the organization initiates the OPR. Further, this review exposes a need for OPR authors to more clearly describe the type of non-academic partner participation in key research decisions throughout the study. Detailed descriptions will benefit others conducting OPR and allow for a re-examination of the relationship between participation and extra benefits in future reviews. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0648-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: The benefits of “spaced education” have been documented for residents in highly focused specialties. We found no published studies of spaced education in family medicine. In this study, we report on the feasibility of delivering weekly alerts from a mobile application (app) developed for exam preparation, to increase the reading of clinical information in the family medicine residency. Methods Design: This is a 2-phase mixed methods study. Phase one is a quasi-experimental study of resident reading of information related to priority topics in family medicine. Reading was documented by page views in a noncommercial mobile app. Participants: All incoming first-year residents at two university training programs in Canada. The intervention group received one alert per week to priority topics on the app, beginning in their second month of residency. The control group was given access to the same app, but received no alerts. Results: In this paper, we report the phase one preliminary findings. In the intervention group, 81 of 96 first year residents consented. At the control site, 79 of 85 residents consented. After 100 days, intervention group residents had viewed more pages of clinical information across all 99 priority topics (1,546 versus 900) and per topic (15.7 versus 9.1 pages, P < 0.0003). On average, each increase of one visit to the app following a weekly alert was associated with an increase of 3.2 visits to pages of clinical information in the app. Conclusion: A weekly alert delivered via mobile app shows promise with respect to reading in the family medicine residency.

Background: The McGill Primary Health Care Research Network (the Network) is a Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN) that promotes the collaboration between researchers and clinicians in research. The Network follows an approach called Organizational Participatory Research (OPR).Purpose: To discover the processes and outcomes associated with the Network, to learn about researcher and clinician collaboration within the Network and to propose recommendations and a revised questionnaire.Methods: A thematic qualitative data analysis was conducted. The data that was analyzed consisted of the diaries of two diaries of two Network coordinators, email correspondence between the core group members and the coordinators, and the minutes of 12 core group meetings. The data were interpreted according to the Capacity Building Framework. Then, codes were organized according to 10 framework-based meta-themes (5 domain-related processes, and 5 domain-related outcomes) and grouped in 24 key-themes (key processes and outcomes).Results: A leadership process was researchers promoting communication within the Network which resulted in clinicians becoming project leaders. An organizational development outcome was members' research projects being completed. Partnership processes involved researchers and clinicians identifying their respective challenges to partnerships. The main outcome was collaboration. Resource allocation processes included time and funding management, with accommodation to time constraints as an outcome. Workforce development processes included researchers educating clinicians, which resulted in networking core group members and positive learning experiences. Conclusions: The results suggested practice and policy recommendations. Based on the results, an improved mailing policy, a wiki/blog, a more humble approach for researchers and a questionnaire were proposed.

Background Systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence can provide a rich understanding of complex phenomena. This type of review is increasingly popular, has been used to provide a landscape of existing knowledge, and addresses the types of questions not usually covered in reviews relying solely on either quantitative or qualitative evidence. Although several typologies of synthesis designs have been developed, none have been tested on a large sample of reviews. The aim of this review of reviews was to identify and develop a typology of synthesis designs and methods that have been used and to propose strategies for synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence. Methods A review of systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence was performed. Six databases were searched from inception to December 2014. Reviews were included if they were systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. The included reviews were analyzed according to three concepts of synthesis processes: (a) synthesis methods, (b) sequence of data synthesis, and (c) integration of data and synthesis results. Results A total of 459 reviews were included. The analysis of this literature highlighted a lack of transparency in reporting how evidence was synthesized and a lack of consistency in the terminology used. Two main types of synthesis designs were identified: convergent and sequential synthesis designs. Within the convergent synthesis design, three subtypes were found: (a) data-based convergent synthesis design, where qualitative and quantitative evidence is analyzed together using the same synthesis method, (b) results-based convergent synthesis design, where qualitative and quantitative evidence is analyzed separately using different synthesis methods and results of both syntheses are integrated during a final synthesis, and (c) parallel-results convergent synthesis design consisting of independent syntheses of qualitative and quantitative evidence and an interpretation of the results in the discussion. Conclusions Performing systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence is challenging because of the multiple synthesis options. The findings provide guidance on how to combine qualitative and quantitative evidence. Also, recommendations are made to improve the conducting and reporting of this type of review.

Background: The Information Assessment Method (IAM) allows clinicians to report the cognitive impact, clinical relevance, intention to use, and expected patient health benefits associated with clinical information received by email. More than 15,000 Canadian physicians and pharmacists use the IAM in continuing education programs. In addition, information providers can use IAM ratings and feedback comments from clinicians to improve their products. Objective: Our general objective was to validate the IAM questionnaire for the delivery of educational material (ecological and logical content validity). Our specific objectives were to measure the relevance and evaluate the representativeness of IAM items for assessing information received by email. Methods: A 3-part mixed methods study was conducted (convergent design). In part 1 (quantitative longitudinal study), the relevance of IAM items was measured. Participants were 5596 physician members of the Canadian Medical Association who used the IAM. A total of 234,196 ratings were collected in 2012. The relevance of IAM items with respect to their main construct was calculated using descriptive statistics (relevance ratio R). In part 2 (qualitative descriptive study), the representativeness of IAM items was evaluated. A total of 15 family physicians completed semistructured face-to-face interviews. For each construct, we evaluated the representativeness of IAM items using a deductive-inductive thematic qualitative data analysis. In part 3 (mixing quantitative and qualitative parts), results from quantitative and qualitative analyses were reviewed, juxtaposed in a table, discussed with experts, and integrated. Thus, our final results are derived from the views of users (ecological content validation) and experts (logical content validation). Results: Of the 23 IAM items, 21 were validated for content, while 2 were removed. In part 1 (quantitative results), 21 items were deemed relevant, while 2 items were deemed not relevant (R=4.86% [N=234,196] and R=3.04% [n=45,394], respectively). In part 2 (qualitative results), 22 items were deemed representative, while 1 item was not representative. In part 3 (mixing quantitative and qualitative results), the content validity of 21 items was confirmed, and the 2 nonrelevant items were excluded. A fully validated version was generated (IAM-v2014). Conclusions: This study produced a content validated IAM questionnaire that is used by clinicians and information providers to assess the clinical information delivered in continuing education programs. [JMIR Med Educ 2017;3(1):e4]

IntroductionPatients with complex care needs (PCCNs) often suffer from combinations of multiple chronic conditions, mental health problems, drug interactions and social vulnerability, which can lead to healthcare services overuse, underuse or misuse. Typically, PCCNs face interactional issues and unmet decisional needs regarding possible options in a cascade of interrelated decisions involving different stakeholders (themselves, their families, their caregivers, their healthcare practitioners). Gaps in knowledge, values clarification and social support in situations where options need to be deliberated hamper effective decision support interventions. This review aims to (1) assess decisional needs of PCCNs from the perspective of stakeholders, (2) build a taxonomy of these decisional needs and (3) prioritise decisional needs with knowledge users (clinicians, patients and managers).Methods and analysisThis review will be based on the interprofessional shared decision making (IP-SDM) model and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Applying a participatory research approach, we will identify potentially relevant studies through a comprehensive literature search; select relevant ones using eligibility criteria inspired from our previous scoping review on PCCNs; appraise quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; conduct a three-step synthesis (sequential exploratory mixed methods design) to build taxonomy of key decisional needs; and integrate these results with those of a parallel PCCNs’ qualitative decisional need assessment (semistructured interviews and focus group with stakeholders).Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review, together with the qualitative study (approved by the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Service Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean ethical committee), will produce a working taxonomy of key decisional needs (ontological contribution), to inform the subsequent user-centred design of a support tool for addressing PCCNs’ decisional needs (practical contribution). We will adapt the IP-SDM model, normally dealing with a single decision, for PCCNs who experience cascade of decisions involving different stakeholders (theoretical contribution). Knowledge users will facilitate dissemination of the results in the Canadian primary care network.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015020558.

PURPOSE We wanted to describe family physicians’ use of information from an electronic knowledge resource for answering clinical questions, and their perception of subsequent patient health outcomes; and to estimate the number needed to benefit from information (NNBI), defined as the number of patients for whom clinical information was retrieved for 1 to benefit. METHODS We undertook a mixed methods research study, combining quantitative longitudinal and qualitative research studies. Participants were 41 family physicians from primary care clinics across Canada. Physicians were given access to 1 electronic knowledge resource on handheld computer in 2008–2009. For the outcome assessment, participants rated their searches using a validated method. Rated searches were examined during interviews guided by log reports that included ratings. Cases were defined as clearly described searches where clinical information was used for a specific patient. For each case, interviewees described information-related patient health outcomes. For the mixed methods data analysis, quantitative and qualitative data were merged into clinical vignettes (each vignette describing a case). We then estimated the NNBI. RESULTS In 715 of 1,193 searches for information conducted during an average of 86 days, the search objective was directly linked to a patient. Of those searches, 188 were considered to be cases. In 53 cases, participants associated the use of information with at least 1 patient health benefit. This finding suggested an NNBI of 14 (715/53). CONCLUSION The NNBI may be used in further experimental research to compare electronic knowledge resources. A low NNBI can encourage clinicians to search for information more frequently. If all searches had benefits, the NNBI would be 1. In addition to patient benefits, learning and knowledge reinforcement outcomes are frequently reported.

Primary health care practitioners routinely search for information within electronic knowledge resources. We proposed four levels of outcomes of information-seeking: situational relevance, cognitive impact, information use, and patient health outcomes. Our objective was to produce clinical vignettes for describing and testing these levels. We conducted a mixed methods study combining a quantitative longitudinal study and a qualitative multiple case study. Participants were 10 nurses, 10 medical residents, and 10 pharmacists. They had access to an online resource, and did 793 searches for treatment recommendations. Using the Information Assessment Method (IAM), participants rated their searches for each of the four levels. Rated searches were examined in interviews guided by log reports and a think-aloud protocol. Cases were defined as clearly described searches where clinical information was used for a specific patient. For each case, interviewees described the four levels of outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative data were merged into clinical vignettes. We produced 130 clinical vignettes. Specifically, 46 vignettes (35.4%) corresponded to clinical situations where information use was associated with one or more than one type of positive patient health outcome: increased patient knowledge (n = 28), avoidance of unnecessary or inappropriate intervention (n = 25), prevention of disease or health deterioration (n = 9), health improvement (n = 6), and increased patient satisfaction (n = 3). Results suggested information use was associated with perceived benefits for patients. This may encourage clinicians to search for information more often when they feel the need. Results supported the four proposed levels of outcomes, which can be transferable to other information-seeking contexts. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Access to community-based primary health care (hereafter, ‘primary care’) is a priority in many countries. Health care systems have emphasized policies that help the community ‘get the right service in the right place at the right time’. However, little is known about organizational interventions in primary care that are aimed to improve access for populations in situations of vulnerability (e.g., socioeconomically disadvantaged) and how successful they are. The purpose of this scoping review was to map the existing evidence on organizational interventions that improve access to primary care services for vulnerable populations. Scoping review followed an iterative process. Eligibility criteria: organizational interventions in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries; aiming to improve access to primary care for vulnerable populations; all study designs; published from 2000 in English or French; reporting at least one outcome (avoidable hospitalization, emergency department admission, or unmet health care needs). Sources: Main bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL) and team members’ personal files. Study selection: One researcher selected relevant abstracts and full text papers. Theory-driven synthesis: The researcher classified included studies using (i) the ‘Patient Centered Access to Healthcare’ conceptual framework (dimensions and outcomes of access to primary care), and (ii) the classification of interventions of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care. Using pattern analysis, interventions were mapped in accordance with the presence/absence of ‘dimension-outcome’ patterns. Out of 8,694 records (title/abstract), 39 studies with varying designs were included. The analysis revealed the following pattern. Results of 10 studies on interventions classified as ‘Formal integration of services’ suggested that these interventions were associated with three dimensions of access (approachability, availability and affordability) and reduction of hospitalizations (four/four studies), emergency department admissions (six/six studies), and unmet healthcare needs (five/six studies). These 10 studies included seven non-randomized studies, one randomized controlled trial, one quantitative descriptive study, and one mixed methods study. Our results suggest the limited breadth of research in this area, and that it will be feasible to conduct a full systematic review of studies on the effectiveness of the formal integration of services to improve access to primary care services for vulnerable populations.

Seventy six senior academics from 11 countries invite The BMJ ’s editors to reconsider their policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority. They challenge the journal to develop a proactive, scholarly, and pluralist approach to research that aligns with its stated mission

Systematic literature reviews provide best evidence, but are underused by clinicians. Thus, integrating Cochrane reviews into continuing medical education (CME) is challenging. We designed a pilot CME program where summaries of Cochrane reviews (Courriels Cochrane) were disseminated by e-mail. Program participants automatically received CME credit for each Courriel Cochrane they rated. The feasibility of this program is reported (delivery, participation, and participant evaluation).We recruited French-speaking physicians through the Canadian Medical Association. Program delivery and participation were documented. Participants rated the informational value of Courriels Cochrane using the Information Assessment Method (IAM), which documented their reflective learning (relevance, cognitive impact, use for a patient, expected health benefits). IAM responses were aggregated and analyzed.The program was delivered as planned. Thirty Courriels Cochrane were delivered to 985 physicians, and 127 (12.9%) completed at least one IAM questionnaire. Out of 1109 Courriels Cochrane ratings, 973 (87.7%) conta-ined 1 or more types of positive cognitive impact, while 835 (75.3%) were clinically relevant. Participants reported the use of information for a patient and expected health benefits in 595 (53.7%) and 569 (51.3%) ratings, respectively.Program delivery required partnering with 5 organizations. Participants valued Courriels Cochrane. IAM ratings documented their reflective learning. The aggregation of IAM ratings documented 3 levels of CME outcomes: participation, learning, and performance. This evaluation study demonstrates the feasibility of the Courriels Cochrane as an approach to further disseminate Cochrane systematic literature reviews to clinicians and document self-reported knowledge translation associated with Cochrane reviews.

Item does not contain fulltext RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Following increased interest in having inter-professional (IP) health care teams engage patients in decision making, we developed a conceptual model for an IP approach to shared decision making (SDM) in primary care. We assessed the validity of the model with stakeholders in Canada. METHODS: In 15 individual interviews and 7 group interviews with 79 stakeholders, we asked them to: (1) propose changes to the IP-SDM model; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to the model's implementation in clinical practice; and (3) assess the model using a theory appraisal questionnaire. We performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts and a descriptive analysis of the questionnaires. RESULTS: Stakeholders suggested placing the patient at its centre; extending the concept of family to include significant others; clarifying outcomes; highlighting the concept of time; merging the micro, meso and macro levels in one figure; and recognizing the influence of the environment and emotions. The most common barriers identified were time constraints, insufficient resources and an imbalance of power among health professionals. The most common facilitators were education and training in inter-professionalism and SDM, motivation to achieve an IP approach to SDM, and mutual knowledge and understanding of disciplinary roles. Most stakeholders considered that the concepts and relationships between the concepts were clear and rated the model as logical, testable, having clear schematic representation, and being relevant to inter-professional collaboration, SDM and primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders validated the new IP-SDM model for primary care settings and proposed few modifications. Future research should assess if the model helps implement SDM in IP clinical practice.

IntroductionSignificant evidence in the literature supports case management (CM) as an effective intervention to improve care for patients with complex healthcare needs. However, there is still little evidence about the facilitators and barriers to CM implementation in primary care setting. The three specific objectives of this study are to: (1) identify the facilitators and barriers of CM implementation in primary care clinics across Canada; (2) explain and understand the relationships between the actors, contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes of the CM intervention; (3) identify the next steps towards CM spread in primary care across Canada.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a multiple-case embedded mixed methods study. CM will be implemented in 10 primary care clinics in five Canadian provinces. Three different units of analysis will be embedded to obtain an in-depth understanding of each case: the healthcare system (macro level), the CM intervention in the clinics (meso level) and the individual/patient (micro level). For each objective, the following strategy will be performed: (1) an implementation analysis, (2) a realist evaluation and (3) consensus building among stakeholders using the Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts method.Ethics and disseminationThis study, which received ethics approval, will provide innovative knowledge about facilitators and barriers to implementation of CM in different primary care jurisdictions and will explain how and why different mechanisms operate in different contexts to generate different outcomes among frequent users. Consensual and prioritised statements about next steps for spread of CM in primary care from the perspectives of all stakeholders will be provided. Our results will offer context-sensitive explanations that can better inform local practices and policies and contribute to improve the health of patients with complex healthcare needs who frequently use healthcare services. Ultimately, this will increase the performance of healthcare systems and specifically mitigate ineffective use and costs.

Rationale and objective The information assessment method (IAM) permits health professionals to systematically document the relevance, cognitive impact, use and health outcomes of information objects delivered by or retrieved from electronic knowledge resources. The companion review paper (Part 1) critically examined the literature, and proposed a ‘Push-Pull-Acquisition-Cognition-Application’ evaluation framework, which is operationalized by IAM. The purpose of the present paper (Part 2) is to examine the content validity of the IAM cognitive checklist when linked to email alerts. Methods A qualitative component of a mixed methods study was conducted with 46 doctors reading and rating research-based synopses sent on email. The unit of analysis was a doctor's explanation of a rating of one item regarding one synopsis. Interviews with participants provided 253 units that were analysed to assess concordance with item definitions. Results and conclusion The content relevance of seven items was supported. For three items, revisions were needed. Interviews suggested one new item. This study has yielded a 2008 version of IAM.

Rationale Methods to systematically assess electronic knowledge resources by health professionals may enhance evaluation of these resources, knowledge exchange between information users and providers, and continuing professional development. We developed the Information Assessment Method (IAM) to document health professional perspectives on the relevance, cognitive impact, potential use and expected health outcomes of information delivered by (push) or retrieved from (pull) electronic knowledge resources. However, little is known about push communication in health sciences, and what we propose to call clinical emailing channels (CECs). CECs can be understood as a communication infrastructure that channels clinically relevant research knowledge, email alerts, from information providers to the inboxes of individual practitioners. Aims In two companion papers, our objectives are to (part 1) explore CEC evaluation in routine practice, and (part 2) examine the content validity of the cognitive component of IAM. Methods The present paper (part 1) critically reviews the literature in health sciences and four disciplines: communication, information studies, education and knowledge translation. Our review addresses the following questions. What are CECs? How are they assessed? Results The review contributes to better define CECs, and proposes a ‘push-pull-acquisition-cognition-application’ evaluation framework, which is operationalized by IAM. Conclusion Compared with existing evaluation tools, our review suggests IAM is comprehensive, generic and systematic.

This systematic review of mixed methods studies focuses on factors that can facilitate or limit the implementation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in clinical settings. Systematic searches of relevant bibliographic databases identified studies about interventions promoting ICT adoption by healthcare professionals. Content analysis was performed by two reviewers using a specific grid. One hundred and one (101) studies were included in the review. Perception of the benefits of the innovation (system usefulness) was the most common facilitating factor, followed by ease of use. Issues regarding design, technical concerns, familiarity with ICT, and time were the most frequent limiting factors identified. Our results suggest strategies that could effectively promote the successful adoption of ICT in healthcare professional practices.

We conducted a prospective observational study to (1) determine usage and construct validity of a method to gauge the cognitive impact of information derived from daily e-mail, and (2) describe self-reported impacts of research-based synopses ( InfoPOEMs ) delivered as e-mail. Ratings of InfoPOEMs using an Impact assessment scale provided (a) data on usage of the impact assessment method, (b) reports of impact by InfoPOEM and by doctor and (c) data for analysis of construct validity of the scale. Participants were family physicians or general practitioners who rated at least five InfoPOEMs delivered on e-mail. For each InfoPOEM rated, 0.1 continuing education credit was awarded by the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Use of the impact assessment scale linked to a daily InfoPOEM was sustained during the 150-day study period. 1,007 participants submitted 61,493 reports of ‘cognitive impact’ by rating on average 61 InfoPOEMs (range 5–111). ‘ I learned something new ’ was most frequently reported. ‘ I was frustrated as there was not enough information or nothing useful ’ was the most frequently reported negative type of impact. The proportion of reports of ‘No Impact’ varied substantially across individual InfoPOEMs . Impact patterns suggested an 8 or 9-factor solution. Our Impact assessment method facilitates knowledge transfer by promoting two-way exchange between providers of health information and family doctors. Providers of health information can use this method to better understand the impact of research-based synopses. Sustaining current practice and increasing knowledge about new developments in medicine are important outcomes arising from research-based synopses delivered as e-mail, in addition to practice change.