Project description:BackgroundDespite the increasing mobilization of researchers and funding organizations around knowledge translation (KT) in Canada and elsewhere, many questions have been only partially answered, particularly in the field of population health. This article presents the results of a systematic process to draw out possible avenues of collaboration for researchers, practitioners and decision-makers who work in the area of KT. The main objective was to establish a research agenda on knowledge translation in population health.MethodsUsing the Concept Mapping approach, the research team wanted to identify priority themes for the development of research on KT in population health. Mapping is based on multivariate statistical analyses (multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis) in which statements produced during a brainstorming session are grouped in weighted clusters. The final maps are a visual representation of the priority themes of research on KT. Especially designed for facilitating consensus in the understanding and organization of various concepts, the Concept Mapping method proved suitable for achieving this objective.ResultsThe maps were produced by 19 participants from university settings, and from institutions within the health and social services network. Three main perspectives emerge from this operation: (1) The evaluation of the effectiveness of KT efforts is one of the main research priorities; (2) The importance of taking into consideration user contexts in any KT effort; (3) The challenges related to sharing power for decision-making and action-taking among various stakeholder groups. These perspectives open up avenues of collaboration for stakeholders who are involved in research on KT. Besides these three main perspectives, the concept maps reveal three other trends which should be emphasized.ConclusionThe Concept Mapping process reported in this article aimed to provoke collective reflection on the research questions that should be studied, in order to foster coherence in research activities in the field of population health. Based on this, it is appropriate to continue to support the development of research projects in KT and the formation of research teams in this field. Research on KT must lead to concrete outcomes within communities that are interested in the question.
Project description:Recent advances in genomic research have demonstrated a substantial role for genomic factors in predicting response to cancer therapies. Researchers in the fields of cancer pharmacogenomics and pharmacoepidemiology seek to understand why individuals respond differently to drug therapy, in terms of both adverse effects and treatment efficacy. To identify research priorities as well as the resources and infrastructure needed to advance these fields, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored a workshop titled "Cancer Pharmacogenomics: Setting a Research Agenda to Accelerate Translation" on July 21, 2009, in Bethesda, MD. In this commentary, we summarize and discuss five science-based recommendations and four infrastructure-based recommendations that were identified as a result of discussions held during this workshop. Key recommendations include 1) supporting the routine collection of germline and tumor biospecimens in NCI-sponsored clinical trials and in some observational and population-based studies; 2) incorporating pharmacogenomic markers into clinical trials; 3) addressing the ethical, legal, social, and biospecimen- and data-sharing implications of pharmacogenomic and pharmacoepidemiologic research; and 4) establishing partnerships across NCI, with other federal agencies, and with industry. Together, these recommendations will facilitate the discovery and validation of clinical, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and genomic markers related to cancer treatment response and adverse events, and they will improve both the speed and efficiency by which new pharmacogenomic and pharmacoepidemiologic information is translated into clinical practice.
Project description:BackgroundCurrently the health research system in Lao PDR is fragmented and largely donor led. Capacity among national public health institutes is limited to select priority research questions for funding.ObjectiveThe objective of this capacity building and practice-oriented study is to describe the process and outcome of the first National Health Research Agenda for Lao PDR and how the agenda contributes to institutional capacity of the Ministry of Health, in order to contribute to evidence-informed public health policy making.MethodThis activity used a mixed-methods approach. The overall design is based on principles of the interactive Learning and Action approach and consists out of 6 phases: (1) identification of needs, (2) shared analysis and integration, (3) nation-wide prioritization of research domains, (4) exploring specific research questions, (5) prioritization of research avenues, (6) dialogue and planning for action. The process involved interviews with experts in health policy and research (n = 42), telephone-based survey with district, provincial and national health staff (n = 135), a two-round Delphi consultation with experts in health policy and research (n = 33), and a workshop with policymakers, researchers, international organisations and civil society (n = 45) were held to gather data and conduct shared analysis.Results11 research domains were identified and prioritised: Health-seeking behaviour; Health system research; Health service provision; Mother and child health (MCH); Sexual & reproductive health; Health education; Non-communicable diseases (NCDs); Irrational drug use; Communicable diseases (CDs); Road traffic accidents; Mental health. Within these domains over 200 unique research questions were identified.ConclusionOur approach led to a comprehensive, inclusive, public health agenda for Lao PDR to realise better informed health policies. Questions on the agenda are action-oriented, originating in a desire to understand the problem so that immediate improvements can be made. The agenda is used within the MoH as a tool to fund and approve research.
Project description:Social-ecological network (SEN) concepts and tools are increasingly used in human-environment and sustainability sciences. We take stock of this budding research area to further show the strength of SEN analysis for complex human-environment settings, identify future synergies between SEN and wider human-environment research, and provide guidance about when to use different kinds of SEN approaches and models. We characterize SEN research along a spectrum specifying the degree of explicit network representation of system components and dynamics. We then systematically review one end of this spectrum, what we term "fully articulated SEN" studies, which specifically model unique social and ecological units and relationships. Results show more focus on methodological advancement and applied ends. While there has been some development and testing of theories, this remains an area for future work and would help develop SENs as a unique field of research, not just a method. Authors have studied diverse systems, while mainly focused on the problem of social-ecological fit alongside a scattering of other topics. There is strong potential, however, to engage other issues central to human-environment studies. Analyzing the simultaneous effects of multiple social, environmental, and coupled processes, change over time, and linking network structures to outcomes are also areas for future advancement. This review provides a comprehensive assessment of (fully articulated) SEN research, a necessary step that can help scholars develop comparable cases and fill research gaps.
Project description:Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are being championed as scalable ways of involving undergraduates in science research. Studies of CUREs have shown that participating students achieve many of the same outcomes as students who complete research internships. However, CUREs vary widely in their design and implementation, and aspects of CUREs that are necessary and sufficient to achieve desired student outcomes have not been elucidated. To guide future research aimed at understanding the causal mechanisms underlying CURE efficacy, we used a systems approach to generate pathway models representing hypotheses of how CURE outcomes are achieved. We started by reviewing studies of CUREs and research internships to generate a comprehensive set of outcomes of research experiences, determining the level of evidence supporting each outcome. We then used this body of research and drew from learning theory to hypothesize connections between what students do during CUREs and the outcomes that have the best empirical support. We offer these models as hypotheses for the CURE community to test, revise, elaborate, or refute. We also cite instruments that are ready to use in CURE assessment and note gaps for which instruments need to be developed.
Project description:BackgroundLong-term health consequences following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, referred to as post-COVID-19 condition or Long COVID, are increasing, with population-based prevalence estimates for adults at around 20%. Persons affected by Long COVID report various health problems, yet evidence to guide clinical decision making remains scarce.ObjectiveThe present study aimed to identify Long COVID research priorities using a citizen science approach and solely considering the needs of those affected.MethodsThis citizen science study followed an iterative process of patient needs identification, evaluation and prioritisation. A Long COVID Citizen Science Board (21 persons with Long COVID, and seven with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and a Long COVID Working Group (25 persons with Long COVID, four patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and one relative) were formed. The study included four activities: three remote meetings and one online survey. First, Board members identified the needs and research questions. Second, Working Group members and persons affected by Long COVID (241 respondents, 85.5% with Long COVID, 14.5% with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and 7.1% relatives) evaluated the research questions on a 1-5 Likert scale using an online survey. Then the Board gave feedback on this evaluation. Finally, Board members set the priorities for research through voting and discussion.ResultsSixty-eight research questions were generated by the Board and categorised into four research domains (medicine, healthcare services, socioeconomics and burden of disease) and 14 subcategories. Their average importance ratings were moderate to high and varied from 3.41 (standard deviation = 1.16) for sex-specific diagnostics to 4.86 (standard deviation = 0.41) for medical questions on treatment. Five topics were prioritised: "treatment, rehabilitation and chronic care management", "availability of interfaces for treatment continuity", "availability of healthcare structures", "awareness and knowledge among professionals" and "prevalence of Long COVID in children and adolescents".ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study developing a citizen-driven, explicitly patient-centred research agenda with persons affected by Long COVID, setting it apart from existing multi-stakeholder efforts. The identified priorities could guide future research and funding allocation. Our methodology establishes a framework for citizen-driven research agendas, suitable for transfer to other diseases.
Project description:Recent studies find that people in high-income countries now think of climate change impacts, such as flooding or periods of high temperature, as being of immediate relevance and concern. Individuals and households can take adaptation actions to help limit the severity of harm caused when climate impacts occur, for example, they could make adjustments to their homes such as installing flood gates or sun shades, or they could adapt their behavior such as staying indoors during the hottest part of the day. However, so far adaptation is not yet happening at the speed or scale needed to adequately prepare for the climate impacts already being experienced or those projected for the coming decades. Here, we propose an agenda for future social science research that would further our understanding of how best to increase engagement and action in climate change adaptation.
Project description:In October 2006, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of England asked Professor Sir John Tooke to chair a High Level Group on Clinical Effectiveness in response to the chapter 'Waste not, want not' in the CMOs 2005 annual report 'On the State of the Public Health'. The high level group made recommendations to the CMO to address possible ways forward to improve clinical effectiveness in the UK National Health Service (NHS) and promote clinical engagement to deliver this. The report contained a short section on research needs that emerged from the process of writing the report, but in order to more fully identify the relevant research agenda Professor Sir John Tooke asked Professor Martin Eccles to convene an expert group - the Clinical Effectiveness Research Agenda Group (CERAG) - to define the research agenda. The CERAG's terms of reference were 'to further elaborate the research agenda in relation to pursuing clinically effective practice within the (UK) National Health Service'. This editorial presents the summary of the CERAG report and recommendations.
Project description:ObjectivesIndividual-level social needs have been shown to substantially impact emergency department (ED) care transitions of older adults. The Geriatric Emergency care Applied Research (GEAR) Network aimed to identify care transition interventions, particularly addressing social needs, and prioritize future research questions.MethodsGEAR engaged 49 interdisciplinary stakeholders, derived clinical questions, and conducted searches of electronic databases to identify ED discharge care transition interventions in older adult populations. Informed by the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE) framework, data extraction and synthesis of included studies included the degree that intervention components addressed social needs and their association with patient outcomes. GEAR convened a consensus conference to identify topics of highest priority for future care transitions research.ResultsOur search identified 248 unique articles addressing care transition interventions in older adult populations. Of these, 17 individual care transition intervention studies were included in the current literature synthesis. Overall, common care transition interventions included coordination efforts, comprehensive geriatric assessments, discharge planning, and telephone or in-person follow-up. Fourteen of the 17 care transition intervention studies in older adults specifically addressed at least one social need within the PRAPARE framework, most commonly related to access to food, medicine, or health care. No care transition intervention addressing social needs in older adult populations consistently reduced subsequent health care utilization or other patient-centered outcomes. GEAR stakeholders identified that determining optimal outcome measures for ED-home transition interventions was the highest priority area for future care transitions research.ConclusionsED care transition intervention studies in older adults frequently address at least one social need component and exhibit variation in the degree of success on a wide array of health care utilization outcomes.
Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing cross-disciplinary research on the relationship between individuals' social, cultural and community engagement (SCCE) and mental health. SCCE includes engagement in the arts, culture and heritage, libraries and literature, sports and nature activities, volunteering, and community groups. Research has demonstrated the effects of these activities both on the prevention and management of mental illness. However, it remains unclear whether current research is focusing on the research questions that are of most immediate urgency and relevance to policy and practice.AimsThe current project was funded as part of the UK Research and Innovation cross-disciplinary mental health network programme to develop and co-produce a new cross-disciplinary research agenda on SCCE and mental health.MethodEstablished processes and principles for developing health research agendas were followed, with a six-phase design including engagement with over 1000 key stakeholders, consultations, integration of findings and collective prioritisation of key questions.ResultsWe identified four core themes: the mode of engagement, process of engagement, impact of engagement and infrastructure required to facilitate engagement. There were many points of agreement across all stakeholder groups on the priority questions within these themes, but also some specific questions of relevance to different sectors.ConclusionsThis agenda is particularly timely given the extreme pressure on mental health services predicted to follow the current COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify how resources from other sectors can be mobilised, and what research questions are going to be most important to fund to support SCCE for mental health.