Search

The need for effective primary healthcare to address social and structural determinants of health and to mitigate health inequalities has been well established. Here, we report on the international forum of the 2023 NAPCRG (formerly known as North American Primary Care Research Group) Annual Meeting. The aim of the forum was to develop principles for action for the primary healthcare research community on addressing social and structural determinants of health. From this forum, 10 key recommendations for the primary care research community were identified., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LH, ES, AT, DB, RM and ToH are members of the NAPCRG International Committee. ToH is the incoming President of NAPCRG., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In 2023, the White House included the implementation and improvement of assisted outpatient treatment in a list of under-researched strategies to support recovery and long-term treatment engagement for people with serious mental illness. Assisted outpatient treatment is a community-based, court-ordered, mental health treatment program for a subset of individuals with serious mental illness who have a history of difficulty adhering to treatment and staying well while living in the community. There is research supporting the use of assisted outpatient treatment for this specific population, however, the majority focuses on limited geographic regions, specific program organizations, and is outdated. Meanwhile, assisted outpatient treatment programs have increasingly been adopted by counties and states across the country. More research is needed to ensure that assisted outpatient treatment programs are being implemented in the most effective and equitable way possible. In this paper, the authors identify several key gaps in the current literature base relating to the effectiveness and implementation of assisted outpatient treatment., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Despite recognized need and reasonable demand, health systems and rehabilitation communities keep working in silos, independently with minimal recognition to the issues of those who require rehabilitation services. Consolidated effort by health systems and rehabilitation parties, recognizing the value, power and promise of each other, is a need of the hour to address this growing issue of public health importance. In this paper, the importance and the need for integration of rehabilitation into health system is emphasized. The efforts being made to integrate rehabilitation into health systems and the potential challenges in integration of these efforts were discussed. Finally, the strategies and benefits of integrating rehabilitation in health systems worldwide is proposed. Health policy and systems research (HPSR) brings a number of assets that may assist in addressing the obstacles discussed above to universal coverage of rehabilitation. It seeks to understand and improve how societies organize themselves to achieve collective health goals; considers links between health systems and social determinants of health; and how different actors interact in policy and implementation processes. This multidisciplinary lens is essential for evidence and learning that might overcome the obstacles to the provision of rehabilitation services, including integration into health systems. Health systems around the world can no longer afford to ignore rehabilitation needs of their populations and the World Health Assembly (WHA) resolution marked a global call to this effect. Therefore, national governments and global health community must invest in setting a priority research agenda and promote the integration of rehabilitation into health systems. The context-specific, need-based and policy-relevant knowledge about this must be made available globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries. This could help integrate and implement rehabilitation in health systems of countries worldwide and also help achieve the targets of Rehabilitation 2030, universal health coverage and Sustainable Development Goals., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts., Methods: A multifaceted, iterative approach, including three steps, was undertaken to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The systematic overview of reviews included relevant papers published between 2000 and 2022. OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched for papers that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. Extracted data was inductively analysed and evaluation themes were identified. Review findings were presented to a stakeholder panel, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers, to interpret and critique. A consensus meeting, including a nominal group technique, was applied to agree upon the Co-design Evaluation Framework., Results: A total of 51 reviews were included in the systematic overview of reviews. Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and grouped into the following seven clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. If evaluation methods were mentioned, they mainly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers' reflections. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework used a tree metaphor to represent the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground), underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree., Conclusions: The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has been collaboratively developed with various stakeholders to be used prospectively (planning for evaluation), concurrently (making adjustments during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future activities)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The use of participatory design (PD) provides a framework for involving users in the process of developing healthcare technologies. Within PD, theoretical and methodological decisions need to be made. However, these decisions are often not adequately described or justified. This can lead to limited interpretability of the results. This paper has three objectives: First, to provide an overview of the key theoretical and methodological decisions that must be made in PD from the perspective of health services research; second, to describe the associated challenges and third, to describe action requirements for the future development of PD in health services research., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

The Medical Informatics Initiative (MII) funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) 2016-2027 is successfully laying the foundations for data-based medicine in Germany. As part of this funding, 51 new professorships, 21 junior research groups, and various new degree programs have been established to strengthen teaching, training, and continuing education in the field of medical informatics and to improve expertise in medical data sciences. A joint decentralized federated research data infrastructure encompassing the entire university medical center and its partners was created in the form of data integration centers (DIC) at all locations and the German Portal for Medical Research Data (FDPG) as a central access point. A modular core dataset (KDS) was defined and implemented for the secondary use of patient treatment data with consistent use of international standards (e.g., FHIR, SNOMED CT, and LOINC). An officially approved nationwide broad consent was introduced as the legal basis. The first data exports and data use projects have been carried out, embedded in an overarching usage policy and standardized contractual regulations. The further development of the MII health research data infrastructures within the cooperative framework of the Network of University Medicine (NUM) offers an excellent starting point for a German contribution to the upcoming European Health Data Space (EHDS), which opens opportunities for Germany as a medical research location., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Intended for researchers and clinical leaders, this article suggests that embedded program evaluation is a good fit with the desired features of practice-oriented research. The systematic nature of evaluation that is built into the operational workflow of a practice setting may increase the diversity of methods available to explore processes and outcomes of interest. We propose a novel conceptual framework that uses a human-centered systems lens to foster such embedded evaluation in clinical routine. This approach emphasizes the evaluator-practitioner partnership to build confidence in the bi-directional learning of practice-based evidence with evidence-based practice. The iterative cycles inherent to design thinking are aimed at developing better evaluation questions. The attention to structure and context inherent to systems thinking is intended to support meaningful perspectives in the naturally complex world of health care. Importantly, the combined human-centered systems lens can create greater awareness of the influence of individual and systemic biases that exist in any endeavor or institution that involves people. Recommended tools and strategies include systems mapping, program theory development, and visual facilitation using a logic model to represent the complexity of mental health treatment for communication, shared understanding, and connection to the broader evidence base. To illustrate elements of the proposed conceptual framework, two case examples are drawn from routine outcome monitoring (ROM) and progress feedback. We conclude with questions for future collaboration and research that may strengthen the partnership of evaluators and practitioners as a community of learners in service of local and system-level improvement., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

There has been a growing emphasis on dissemination of empirically supported treatments. Dissemination, however, should not be restricted to treatment. It can and, in the spirit of the scientific-practitioner model, should also involve research. Because it focuses on the investigation of clinical routine as it takes place in local settings and because it can involve the collaboration of several stakeholders, practice-oriented research (POR) can be viewed as an optimal research method to be disseminated. POR has the potential of addressing particularly relevant gaps of knowledge and action when implemented in regions of the world that have limited resources for or experiences with empirical research, and/or in clinical settings that are serving clinical populations who are not typically receiving optimal mental care services - specifically, individuals in rural and inner cities that have limited economic and social resources. The establishment and maintenance of POR in such regions and/or settings, however, come with specific obstacles and challenges. Integrating the experiences acquired from research conducted in various continents (Africa, Europe, Latin America, and North America), the goal of this paper is to describe some of these challenges, strategies that have been implemented to address them, as well as new possible directions to facilitate the creation and growth of POR. It also describes how these challenges and ways to deal with them can provide helpful lessons for already existing POR infrastructures., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Aimed at understanding and improving psychological therapies as they are conducted in clinical routine, practice-oriented research (POR) is now a well-established approach to the scientific foundations of mental health care services. Resting on the accumulation of a wide range of practice-based evidence related to treatment outcome and process, as well as factors associated with the participants of psychotherapy and its context, POR is ripe for new developments - regarding what to investigate and how to investigate it. This paper is the introduction of a series devoted to recent advances and future directions of POR as their pertained to routine outcome monitoring, technologies and artificial intelligence, the integration of constructs and methods from program evaluation and implementation science, and the investigation of populations with limited financial resources across various regions of the world. The series also includes commentaries from two leaders of POR., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Implementation science is the scientific study of methods to promote the uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices in routine care, with the goal of improving the quality and effectiveness of health services (Bauer et al., 2015). In addition to this common goal, practice-oriented psychotherapy research (and researchers) and implementation science (and scientists) share a common focus on the people and the places where treatment happens. Thus, there exists strong potential for combining these two approaches. In this article, we provide a primer on implementation science for psychotherapy researchers and highlight important areas and examples of convergence and complementarity between implementation science and practice-oriented psychotherapy research. Specifically, we (a) define and describe the core features of implementation science; (b) discuss similarities and areas of complementarity between implementation science and practice-oriented psychotherapy research; (c) discuss a case example that exemplifies the integration of implementation science and practice-oriented research; and (d) propose directions for future research and collaborations that leverage both implementation science and practice-oriented research., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

At the centre of POR is the concept of collaboration between patients, therapists, agencies, and third-party payers. For this commentary, I review the articles of the special issue with attention to both the opportunities and challenges offered by practice-oriented research (POR). I also reviewed some previous research on practice-research networks and how that research might inform POR. The use of routine outcome monitoring (ROM), artificial intelligence (AI), and program evaluation (PE) models show promise for advancing POR. However, each comes with its challenges. The use of ROM to improve patient outcomes has research support. However, researchers have identified problems with implementing ROM because of low uptake by clinicians and because clinicians may see ROM as a potential intrusion. AI shows promise to improve patient outcomes by potentially providing therapists with immediate and nuanced data to inform interventions and interpersonal stances specific to each patient. However, the scaling up of AI runs the risk of dehumanizing psychological interventions. PE may provide a context for allowing therapists to engage in POR to address real-world processes and outcomes of mental health interventions. However, like ROM PE faces the challenge of trust among clinicians and patients who may be reluctant to participate. Despite these challenges, and because of efforts to nurture and maintain respectful collaborations, articles in this special issue highlight how POR can play a pivotal role in bridging the gap between theory and practice., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

We present a detailed argument for how to integrate, or bridge, systems science thinking and methods with implementation science. We start by showing how fundamental systems science principles of structure, dynamics, information, and utility are relevant for implementation science. Then we examine the need for implementation science to develop and apply richer theories of complex systems. This can be accomplished by emphasizing a causal mechanisms approach. Identifying causal mechanisms focuses on the "cogs and gears" of public health, clinical, and organizational interventions. A mechanisms approach focuses on how a specific strategy will produce the implementation outcome. We show how connecting systems science to implementation science opens new opportunities for examining and addressing social determinants of health and conducting equitable and ethical implementation research. Finally, we present case studies illustrating successful applications of systems science within implementation science in community health policy, tobacco control, health care access, and breast cancer screening.

In view of the demographic change, the need for intersectoral care of the aging population has already been identified. The strategies for implementation are diverse and address different approaches, each of which requires different sectors to overlap. This article provides an overview of already completed and ongoing projects for the care of geriatric patients. It becomes apparent that the development of networks as an indispensable basis for intersectoral care cannot be measured in terms of direct intervention effects and therefore makes it difficult to prove the cost-benefit. It is also evident that some research projects fail to be implemented into standard care due to financial and staff shortages.Do we need a rethinking in Germany or less innovation-related funding lines for better implementation and research of existing concepts? International role models such as Japan show that cost reduction for the care of the aging population should be considered in the long term, which requires increased financial volumes in the short term. For a sustainable implementation of cross-sectoral approaches into everyday life, research should therefore reorganize tight and/or entrenched structures, processes, and financing. By linking the countless existing projects and integrating ideas from different sectors, future demands of intersectoral geriatric care may be achieved., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Primary care is considered essential for the sustainability of the Health System. Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRN) play a strategic role in translation of primary care research into practice. Research Capacity Building in primary care requires a improvement and development strategy and well-developed research infrastructures to support physicians., Methods: We used the system development methodology referring to the Lean Thinking to create and support a research team in primary and pediatric care. In particular a "cascade" deployment model and the X-Matrix, a framework used in management studies to support strategy definition and management process., Results: A research unit in primary and pediatric care has been created, by sharing vision, mission, core values, long-term strategies. The definition of a annual planning led to monitoring actions to guarantee the expected goals., Conclusions: Lean methodology is useful to adapt to various managerial and operational contexts, including healthcare. In our case it allowed team members to spread the culture of research, its importance and role to improve the health of patients, thank to the organizational support of a hospital IR, the Research and Innovation Department.

Background: Addressing perinatal health inequities is the joint responsibility of professionals working for local governments, the medical, social, and public health sector. Cross-sectoral collaboration between these professionals is challenging. For such collaborations to succeed, a transition, ie, a fundamental shift in the dominant structure, culture, and practices at the systems level, is necessary. We investigated facilitators and barriers for cross-sectoral collaborations, when addressing perinatal health inequities in the Netherlands. Additionally, we studied how cross-sectoral collaborations can be facilitated by action research., Methods: We used interview and questionnaire data of the Healthy Pregnancy 4 All-3 (HP4All-3) program, which resulted from action research in six Dutch municipalities. All interviews were coded using open codes related to facilitators and barriers for cross-sectoral collaboration and categorized into three subgroups: structural, cultural, or practical. The answers to the questionnaire were analyzed and summarized quantitatively., Results: We conducted 53 interviews with a total of 81 professionals. The most important ingredients for cross-sectoral collaborations mentioned by the interviewees were: (1) structural: having a solid network with a clear overview of professionals working in the different sectors, (2) cultural: having a joint vision/goal, and (3) practical: short lines of communication and timely sharing of information. A total of 85 professionals filled in (parts of) the questionnaire. Two-thirds to over 80 percent replied that the HP4All-3 program had an added value in building cross-sectoral collaborations., Conclusion: Our research shows that cross-sectoral collaborations in the context of perinatal health are hampered by structural, cultural, and practical barriers. Analyzing facilitators and barriers at these three levels helps to identify bottlenecks in cross-sectoral collaboration. Action researchers can be of great advantage in facilitating collaboration, as they can offer an open setting for reflection and instigate a sense of urgency for building collaborations., (© 2024 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Objectives: The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the distribution of and context of the recruitment strategies used, (2) explore the facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies, (3) distinguish the varying terminology for involvement (ie, panels, boards, individual) and (4) determine if the individual recruitment strategies used were to address issues of representation or bias., Design: A scoping review., Setting: This scoping review follows the framework by Peters et al . Seven electronic databases were explored including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO (conducted July 2021). The search strategy was codeveloped among the research team, PPI research experts and a faculty librarian. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract and then at full text based on predetermined criteria., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Explore recruitment strategies used, facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies. Identify terminology for involvement. Explore recruitment strategies used to address issues of representation or bias., Results: The final sample was from 51 sources. A large portion of the extracted empirical literature had a clinical focus (37%, n=13) but was not a randomised control trial. The most common recruitment strategies used were human networks (78%, n=40), such as word of mouth, foundation affiliation, existing networks, clinics or personal contacts. Within the reviewed literature, there was a lack of discussion pertaining to facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical considerations of recruitment strategies was apparent. Finally, 41% (n=21) of studies employed or proposed recruitment strategies or considerations to address issues of representation or bias., Conclusion: We conclude with four key recommendations that researchers can use to better understand appropriate routes to meaningfully involve patients, carers and members of the public to cocreate the evidence informing their care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: British Pakistani women have exceptionally high rates of obesity and yet are seldom heard in a research priority setting concerning weight management. The objectives of this study were (i) to ascertain what multisectoral professionals perceive to be the most pressing unmet obesity needs or topic areas that need more research in relation to Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford and (ii) to determine the top 10 obesity health priorities for this group to develop an obesity research agenda., Methods: A two-step process was adopted using the following: (i) a survey of a wide range of multisectoral professional stakeholders (n = 159) and (ii) a ranking exercise involving Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford (n = 32) to select and prioritize their top 10 obesity health concerns and unmet needs from a list of 31 statements identified in the survey and previous research. Survey data were analysed using inductive content analysis and themes were identified. Themes were translated into statements to be ranked by Pakistani women. The ranking exercise was conducted by telephone either via voice or video call. Data were analysed using a reverse scoring system., Results: Survey responses were grouped into statements reflecting the following three categories: education needs; healthy behaviour barriers and mental well-being. The highest rankings were given by Pakistani women to statements on mental health and the need for education. The top 10 prioritized statements were developed with members of the public into an obesity research agenda that reflected the target population., Conclusion: Actively engaging British Pakistani women in setting research priorities provided a unique opportunity to understand the key areas they think are important for future research. The culminating research agenda can be used by researchers to advance the field of obesity research in Pakistani communities, thus producing research outputs that are relevant to and have impact in this population., Patient or Public Contribution: Participants in the ranking exercise collected data. Public contributors were involved in developing the prioritized statements into a research agenda., (© 2022 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Context: The Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) was designed to engage previously passive stakeholders in the research process to ensure that the most urgent health challenges are addressed with evidence-based solutions that are feasible and scalable. The Primary and Integrated Health Care Innovations Network (PIHCIN), one of multiple SPOR entities, is rooted in community-based primary health care and meant to support transformation of primary and integrated care to improve patient experiences and health. Objective: To describe key components of building the foundation for a cross-jurisdictional, practice-based research network. Design: Cross-sectional survey and PIHCI network documentation review. Setting: SPOR PIHCI networks within British Columbia; Alberta; Saskatchewan; Manitoba; Ontario; Quebec; New Brunswick; Nova Scotia; Prince Edward Island; Newfoundland and Labrador; and the Northwest Territories. Participants: Responses were received from 11 networks who completed a template asking about their governance, capacity building, stakeholder engagement and patient partners. Responses were also received from the SPOR PIHCIN Pan-Canadian Patient Council. Outcome Measures: Thematic analysis across responses and documents for key components foundational to PIHCIN: types of stakeholders engaged, types of capacity building activities, knowledge translation and exchange activities. Results: Tripartite (clinician, scientist, decision-maker) leadership was used to align more closely with provincial and territorial needs in bringing practice and research closer together. PIHCIN enabled a unique pan-Canadian forum for government staff responsible for primary care. Individual networks and the PIHCIN patient-partners were actively engaged in research and governance on all levels including leading their own research. PIHCIN built research capacity by partnering with the Transdisciplinary Understanding and Training on Research Primary Health Care (TUTOR-PHC) and embedding fellows within the network. The PIHCI network undertook two separate learning series featuring patients, policy makers and scientists that were open to the public and demonstrated clear impact. Conclusion: Foundational components of embedded patients-partners, tripartite leadership, capacity building and knowledge translation and exchange have led to the formation of the PIHCI network providing an excellent base to build a pan-Canadian practice-based research and learning platform., Competing Interests: Authors report none., (2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Much of health services and policy research is applied. We offer four provocations to stimulate thinking about the relationship between research and the "systems" it aims to influence. We conclude that a focus on partnership implies that researchers need to be empathetic to the timelines and needs of policy makers, while true relationships are bidirectional. Focusing on the priorities of "systems" will emphasize short-term issues. This leads to researchers often conducting post-implementation evaluation, where they have had little involvement in policy or intervention design. Finally, a focus on single-project return of investment will tend to undervalue riskier - but also potentially more rewarding - research., (Copyright © 2022 Longwoods Publishing.)

For more than 30 years, the network of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded Prevention Research Centers (PRCs) has worked with local communities and partners to implement and evaluate public health interventions and policies for the prevention of disease and promotion of health. The COVID-19 pandemic tested the PRC network's ability to rapidly respond to multiple, simultaneous public health crises. On April 28, 2020, to assess the network's engagement with activities undertaken in response to the early phase of the pandemic, PRC network leadership distributed an online survey to the directors of 34 currently or formerly funded PRCs, asking them to report their PRCs' engagement with predetermined activities across 9 topical areas and provide case studies exemplifying that engagement. We received responses from 24 PRCs, all of which reported engagement with at least 1 of the 9 topical areas (mean, 5). The topical areas with which the greatest number of PRCs reported engagement were support of frontline agencies (21 of 24, 88%) and support of activities related to health care (21 of 24, 88%). The mean number of activities with which PRCs reported engagement was 11. The PRCs provided more than 90 case studies exemplifying their work. The results of the survey indicated that the PRCs mobilized their personnel and resources to support the COVID-19 response in less than 6 weeks. We posit that the speed of this response was due, in part, to the broad and diverse expertise of PRC personnel and long-standing partnerships between PRCs and the communities in which they work.

Objective: To examine whether the correlation between a provider's effect on one population of patients and the same provider's effect on another population is underestimated if the effects for each population are estimated separately as opposed to being jointly modeled as random effects, and to characterize how the impact of the estimation procedure varies with sample size., Data Sources: Medicare claims and enrollment data on emergency department (ED) visits, including patient characteristics, the patient's hospitalization status, and identification of the doctor responsible for the decision to hospitalize the patient., Study Design: We used a three-pronged investigation consisting of analytical derivation, simulation experiments, and analysis of administrative data to demonstrate the fallibility of stratified estimation. Under each investigation method, results are compared between the joint modeling approach to those based on stratified analyses., Data Collection/extraction Methods: We used data on ED visits from administrative claims from traditional (fee-for-service) Medicare from January 2012 through September 2015., Principal Findings: The simulation analysis demonstrates that the joint modeling approach is generally close to unbiased, whereas the stratified approach can be severely biased in small samples, a consequence of joint modeling benefitting from bivariate shrinkage and the stratified approach being compromised by measurement error. In the administrative data analyses, the estimated correlation of doctor admission tendencies between female and male patients was estimated to be 0.98 under the joint model but only 0.38 using stratified estimation. The analogous correlations for White and non-White patients are 0.99 and 0.28 and for Medicaid dual-eligible and non-dual-eligible patients are 0.99 and 0.31, respectively. These results are consistent with the analytical derivations., Conclusions: Joint modeling targets the parameter of primary interest. In the case of population correlations, it yields estimates that are substantially less biased and higher in magnitude than naive estimators that post-process the estimates obtained from stratified models., (© 2021 Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Background: The 2016 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine call for a national integrated, military-civilian trauma action plan to achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury included a proposal to establish a National Trauma Research Action Plan to "strengthen trauma research and ensure that the resources available for this research are commensurate with the importance of injury and the potential for improvement in patient outcomes." The Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma/burn care from prehospital to rehabilitation. The Burn/Reconstructive Surgery group represents one focus area for this research agenda development., Methods: Experts in burn and reconstructive surgery research identified gaps in knowledge, generated research questions and prioritized questions using a consensus driven Delphi survey approach. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability with military and civilian representatives. Literature reviews informed the panel. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: Patient/Population; Intervention; Compare/Control; Outcome. Participants ranked the priority of each question on a nine-point Likert scale, which was categorized to represent low, medium, and high priority items. Consensus was defined based on ≥60% panelist agreement., Results: Subject matter experts generated 949 research questions in 29 Burn & 26 Reconstruction topics. Five hundred ninety-seven questions reached consensus. Of these, 338 (57%) were high-priority, 180 (30%), medium-priority, and 78 (13%) low-priority questions., Conclusion: Many high-priority questions translate to complex wound management and outcomes. Panel recognition that significant gaps in knowledge exist in understanding functional outcomes after injury underscores the importance of long-term recovery metrics even when studying acute injury or interventions such as resuscitation or inhalation injury. Funding agencies and burn/reconstructive surgery researchers should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research., Level of Evidence: Expert consensus, Level IV., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

In view of limited resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need to create novel programs to meet the changing demands of trainees towards developing and strengthening their skills in healthcare research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, digital learning has become an invaluable tool by providing more learning opportunities. Through the use of platforms available for distant learning, we made our pre-existing online research program more interactive. Through collaboration in small groups, the trainees developed their research and mentorship skills and were able to meet the goal of submitting their research projects as abstracts. All of the abstracts were accepted for publication.

Sweeping reviews will be conducted once the COVID-19 pandemic concludes to support public health system strengthening. Unfortunately, these reviews will find what past reviews on public health in Canada have found: limited evidence on the organization, financing, and delivery of public health services. This is due to inattention to the field of public health services and systems research (PHSSR) in Canada. To avoid this pandemic becoming "just another public health crisis," PHSSR must be prioritized by public health and health service research associations, funders, and scholars.

Objectives: The Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) was launched in 2009 with the intent for existing national and regional research networks in pediatric emergency care to organize globally for the conduct of collaborative research across networks., Methods: The Pediatric Emergency Research Network has grown from 5- to 8-member networks over the past decade. With an executive committee comprising representatives from all member networks, PERN plays a supportive and collaborative rather than governing role. The full impact of PERN's facilitation of international collaborative research, although somewhat difficult to quantify empirically, can be measured indirectly by the observed growth of the field, the nature of the increasingly challenging research questions now being addressed, and the collective capacity to generate and implement new knowledge in treating acutely ill and injured children., Results: Beginning as a pandemic response with a high-quality retrospective case-controlled study of H1N1 influenza risk factors, PERN research has progressed to multiple observational studies and ongoing global randomized controlled trials. As a recent example, PERN has developed sufficient network infrastructure to enable the rapid initiation of a prospective observational study in response to the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. In light of the ongoing need for translation of research knowledge into equitable clinical practice and to promote health equity, PERN is committed to a coordinated international effort to increase the uptake of evidence-based management of common and treatable acute conditions in all emergency department settings., Conclusions: The Pediatric Emergency Research Network's successes with global research, measured by prospective observational and interventional studies, mean that the network can now move to improve its ability to promote the implementation of scientific advances into everyday clinical practice. Achieving this goal will involve focus in 4 areas: (1) expanding the capacity for global randomized controlled trials; (2) deepening the focus on implementation science; (3) increasing attention to healthcare disparities and their origins, with growing momentum toward equity; and (4) expanding PERN's global reach through addition of sites and networks from resource-restricted regions. Through these actions, PERN will be able to build on successes to face the challenges ahead and meet the needs of acutely ill and injured children throughout the world., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc / John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Objective: To document dementia-relevant state assisted living regulations and their changes over time as they pertain to licensed care settings., Data Sources: For all states, current directories of licensed assisted living communities and state regulations for each year, 2007-2018, were obtained from state agency websites and Nexis Uni, respectively., Study Design: We identified multiple types of regulatory classifications for each state and documented the presence or absence of specific dementia care provisions in the regulations for each type by study year. Maps and summary statistics were used to compare results to previous research and document change longitudinally., Data Collection/extraction Methods: We used a policy analysis approach to connect communities listed in directories to applicable regulatory text. Then, we employed policy surveillance and question-based coding to record the presence or absence of specific policies for each classification and study year., Principal Findings: Our team empirically documented provisions requiring dementia-specific training for administrators and direct care staff, and cognitive impairment screening for each study year. We found that 23 states added one or more of these requirements for one or more license types, but the states that had these provisions for all types of licensed assisted living declined from four to two., Conclusions: We identified significant, previously undocumented, within-state policy variation for assisted living licensed settings between 2007 and 2018. Using the regulatory classification instead of the state as the unit of analysis revealed that many policy adoptions were limited to dementia-designated settings. This suggests that people living with dementia in general assisted living are not afforded the same protections. We call our approach health services regulatory analysis and argue that it has the potential to identify gaps in existing policies, an important endeavor for health services research in assisted living and other care settings., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Observational studies in critical care medicine offer a popular and practical approach to questions of treatment effectiveness. Although observational research is widely understood to be susceptible to design and interpretation challenges, one well-described source of bias-immortal time bias (ITB)-is frequently present yet often overlooked. ITB may be introduced by study design oversights or mishandled during data analysis. When present, ITB can create inappropriate estimates of the benefit or harm of an exposure or intervention. Studies examining treatments in critically ill patients may be particularly susceptible to ITB, with consequences for clinical adoption and design and initiation of randomized trials. In this Critical Care Perspective, we illustrate the persistent problem of ITB in observational research using recent studies of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine therapy in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Of the eight studies examined, none contained enough design or reporting elements to rule out the presence of ITB. To mitigate the influence of ITB in future observational studies, we present a novel checklist to help readers assess the features of study design, analysis, and reporting that introduce ITB or obscure its presence. We recommend that commonly used tools designed to evaluate observational research studies should include an ITB assessment.

Personalized medicine (PM) moves at the same pace of data and technology and calls for important changes in healthcare. New players are participating, providing impulse to PM. We review the conceptual foundations for PM and personalized healthcare and their evolution through scientific publications where a clear definition and the features of the different formulations are identifiable. We then examined PM policy documents of the International Consortium for Personalised Medicine and related initiatives to understand how PM stakeholders have been changing. Regional authorities and stakeholders have joined the race to deliver personalized care and are driving toward what could be termed as the next personalized healthcare. Their role as a key stakeholder in PM is expected to be pivotal.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

The purpose of this project was to identify gaps in the current evidence base and to identify research priorities in the local context during the Covid-19 pandemic. This paper reports on the application and adaptation of the CHNRI methodology which follows a series of criteria setting, filtering and scoring exercises. The views of maternity care professionals, midwifery managers and leaders, women and families were continually sought throughout the project stages. We found the CHNRI methodology to be a useful framework to highlight topics with greater or smaller consensus within a relatively short time frame and with minimal burden to participants. The criteria were defined to focus on research topics where no existing or on-going studies were identified and topics likely to lead to improvements in care with relevance beyond the Covid-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No conflict of interest has been declared by the authors., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

This paper reflects concerns that funding and attention should be expanded from the important focus on those suffering and dying from COVID-19, and the safety and resources of healthcare professionals, to address wider questions on the (unequal) health and well-being impacts of COVID-19 and associated response measures. While immediate priorities such as those outlined in the WHO research agenda are undoubtedly important, additional urgent questions must be addressed. These include questions focused on (1) the non-virus impacts of preparing health and social care systems to cope with COVID-19 and (2) the health effects mediated by the educational, economic and social injuries sustained during the pandemic. Long-term, sustained and co-ordinated interdisciplinary research funding will be needed to address the long-lasting impacts of COVID-19 and its response measures., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare. SS is part funded by NIHR ARC West Midlands, the NIHR HPRU Gastrointestinal Infections, and the NIHR HPRU Genomics and Enabling Data, and SD is a member of the Allies Group of the Co-Production Collective.