PrEP Implementation Science: State-of-the-Art and Research Agenda.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Caceres CF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4581083 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
PrEP Implementation Science: State-of-the-Art and Research Agenda.
Cáceres Carlos F CF Mayer Kenneth H KH Baggaley Rachel R O'Reilly Kevin R KR
Journal of the International AIDS Society 20150720 4 Suppl 3
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC2671479 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.
| S-EPMC3302883 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Art therapy in prisons remains widely under-researched in Australia and beyond and represents a major gap in the literature. Despite evidence that art therapy can be a tool for social change, to date, there are no recorded studies in Australia which have investigated the therapeutic benefits of art in prison populations with measured outcomes. Literary analysis suggests that research tends to be hampered by limitations in methodological approaches that are suited to prison environments. By engaging "inside" with inmates over the course of an 8-week art therapy program, this research design addresses this knowledge gap. Building on 5 years of piloting, the research methodological design presented in this paper embodies a prototype that promises to overcome the limitations of previous research approaches. This research agenda promises to facilitate creative interventions through sensitively attuned art therapy delivery. Benefits are expected to accrue to diverse stakeholder groups, including inmates, chaplaincy and parole services, voluntary facilitators, policymakers, criminologists, and taxpayers, among others.
| S-EPMC11610206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) is an aggressive soft tissue sarcoma for which the only effective therapy is surgery. In 2016, an international meeting entitled "MPNST State of the Science: Outlining a Research Agenda for the Future" was convened to establish short- and long-term research priorities. Key recommendations included the: 1) development of standardized, cost-efficient fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging guidelines to evaluate masses concerning for MPNST; 2) development of better understanding and histologic criteria for the transformation of a plexiform neurofibroma to MPNST; 3) establishment of a centralized database to collect genetic, genomic, histologic, immunohistochemical, molecular, radiographic, treatment, and related clinical data from MPNST subspecialty centers in a standardized manner; 4) creation of accurate mouse models to study the plexiform neurofibroma-to-MPNST transition, MPNST metastasis, and drug resistance; 5) use of trial designs that minimize regulatory requirements, maximize availability to patients, consider novel secondary end points, and study patients with newly diagnosed disease. Lastly, in order to minimize delays in developing novel therapies and promote the most efficient use of research resources and patient samples, data sharing should be incentivized.
| S-EPMC6057517 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Graphics are becoming increasingly important for scientists to effectively communicate their findings to broad audiences, but most researchers lack expertise in visual media. We suggest collaboration between scientists and graphic designers as a way forward and discuss the results of a pilot project to test this type of collaboration.
| S-EPMC6684576 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Operational research (OR) is the discipline of using models, either quantitative or qualitative, to aid decision-making in complex implementation problems. The methods of OR have been used in healthcare since the 1950s in diverse areas such as emergency medicine and the interface between acute and community care; hospital performance; scheduling and management of patient home visits; scheduling of patient appointments; and many other complex implementation problems of an operational or logistical nature.To date, there has been limited debate about the role that operational research should take within implementation science. I detail three such roles for OR all grounded in upfront system thinking: structuring implementation problems, prospective evaluation of improvement interventions, and strategic reconfiguration. Case studies from mental health, emergency medicine, and stroke care are used to illustrate each role. I then describe the challenges for applied OR within implementation science at the organisational, interventional, and disciplinary levels. Two key challenges include the difficulty faced in achieving a position of mutual understanding between implementation scientists and research users and a stark lack of evaluation of OR interventions. To address these challenges, I propose a research agenda to evaluate applied OR through the lens of implementation science, the liberation of OR from the specialist research and consultancy environment, and co-design of models with service users. Operational research is a mature discipline that has developed a significant volume of methodology to improve health services. OR offers implementation scientists the opportunity to do more upfront system thinking before committing resources or taking risks. OR has three roles within implementation science: structuring an implementation problem, prospective evaluation of implementation problems, and a tool for strategic reconfiguration of health services. Challenges facing OR as implementation science include limited evidence and evaluation of impact, limited service user involvement, a lack of managerial awareness, effective communication between research users and OR modellers, and availability of healthcare data. To progress the science, a focus is needed in three key areas: evaluation of OR interventions, embedding the knowledge of OR in health services, and educating OR modellers about the aims and benefits of service user involvement.
| S-EPMC4895878 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundImplementation science scholars have made significant progress identifying factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and testing strategies that may modify those factors. However, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom. Studying implementation mechanisms-the processes responsible for change-is crucial for advancing the field of implementation science and enhancing its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a conference series to achieve two aims: (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) actively disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. This article presents the resulting research agenda, including priorities and actions to encourage its execution.MethodBuilding on prior concept mapping work, in a semi-structured, 3-day, in-person working meeting, 23 US-based researchers used a modified nominal group process to generate priorities and actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms. During each of the three 120-min sessions, small groups responded to the prompt: "What actions need to be taken to move this research forward?" The groups brainstormed actions, which were then shared with the full group and discussed with the support of facilitators trained in structured group processes. Facilitators grouped critical and novel ideas into themes. Attendees voted on six themes they prioritized to discuss in a fourth, 120-min session, during which small groups operationalized prioritized actions. Subsequently, all ideas were collated, combined, and revised for clarity by a subset of the authorship team.ResultsFrom this multistep process, 150 actions emerged across 10 priority areas, which together constitute the research agenda. Actions included discrete activities, projects, or products, and ways to shift how research is conducted to strengthen the study of implementation mechanisms.ConclusionsThis research agenda elevates actions to guide the selection, design, and evaluation of implementation mechanisms. By delineating recommended actions to address the challenges of studying implementation mechanisms, this research agenda facilitates expanding the field of implementation science, beyond studying what works to how and why strategies work, in what contexts, for whom, and with which interventions.
| S-EPMC11403843 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10726107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gaps in the implementation of effective interventions impact nearly all cancer prevention and control strategies in the US including Massachusetts. To close these implementation gaps, evidence-based interventions must be rapidly and equitably implemented in settings serving racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and geographically diverse populations. This paper provides a brief overview of The Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control Equity (ISCCCE) and describes how we have operationalized our commitment to a robust community-engaged center that aims to close these gaps. We describe how ISCCCE is organized and how the principles of community-engaged research are embedded across the center. Principles of community engagement have been operationalized across all components of ISCCCE. We have intentionally integrated these principles throughout all structures and processes and have developed evaluation strategies to assess whether the quality of our partnerships reflects the principles. ISCCCE is a comprehensive community-engaged infrastructure for studying efficient, pragmatic, and equity-focused implementation and adaptation strategies for cancer prevention in historically and currently disadvantaged communities with built-in methods to evaluate the quality of community engagement. This engaged research center is designed to maximize the impact and relevance of implementation research on cancer control in community health centers.
| S-EPMC10130842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDelay or failure to consistently adopt evidence-based or consensus-based best practices into routine clinical care is common, including for patients in the PICU. PICU patients can fail to receive potentially beneficial diagnostic or therapeutic interventions, worsening the burden of illness and injury during critical illness. Implementation science (IS) has emerged to systematically address this problem, but its use of in the PICU has been limited to date. We therefore present a conceptual and methodologic overview of IS for the pediatric intensivist.DesignThe members of Excellence in Pediatric Implementation Science (ECLIPSE; part of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators Network) represent multi-institutional expertise in the use of IS in the PICU. This narrative review reflects the collective knowledge and perspective of the ECLIPSE group about why IS can benefit PICU patients, how to distinguish IS from quality improvement (QI), and how to evaluate an IS article.ResultsIS requires a shift in one's thinking, away from questions and outcomes that define traditional clinical or translational research, including QI. Instead, in the IS rather than the QI literature, the terminology, definitions, and language differs by specifically focusing on relative importance of generalizable knowledge, as well as aspects of study design, scale, and timeframe over which the investigations occur.ConclusionsResearch in pediatric critical care practice must acknowledge the limitations and potential for patient harm that may result from a failure to implement evidence-based or professionals' consensus-based practices. IS represents an innovative, pragmatic, and increasingly popular approach that our field must readily embrace in order to improve our ability to care for critically ill children.
| S-EPMC10624111 | biostudies-literature