Supporting collaborative use of the diabetes population risk tool (DPoRT) in health-related practice: a multiple case study research protocol

Implementation Science

David Mowat²  Charles Gardner⁵  Carla Ens¹  Patricia Caetano⁶  Patricia Martens¹  Randy Fransoo¹  Michael Lebenbaum³  Kathy Kotnowski³  Catherine Bornbaum³  Leslea Peirson⁷  Laura Rosella⁴ 

[1] Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Room S113–750 Bannatyne Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0W3, Canada;Region of Peel Health Services, Peel Public Health, 7120 Hurontario Street, P.O. Box 667, RPO Streetsville Mississauga, ON L5M 2C2, Canada;Public Health Ontario, Santé publique Ontario, 480 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, ON M5G 1V2, Canada;Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), G1 06, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada;Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit, 15 Sperling Avenue, Barrie, ON L4M 6K9, Canada;Provincial Drugs Program, Manitoba Health, 300 Carlton Street, Winnipeg, MB R3B 3M9, Canada;McMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, 1280 Main St. W., DTC Room 319, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada

关键词: Chronic disease;    Risk tool;    Public health;    Knowledge broker;    Partnership;    Knowledge-to-action;    Knowledge translation;    Diabetes;    Diabetes population risk tool;   

Others  :  805218
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-9-35

 received in 2014-01-22, accepted in 2014-03-17,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Health policy makers have stated that diabetes prevention is a priority; however, the type, intensity, and target of interventions or policy changes that will achieve the greatest impact remains uncertain. In response to this uncertainty, the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT) was developed and validated to estimate future diabetes risk based on routinely collected population data. To facilitate use of DPoRT, we partnered with regional and provincial health-related decision makers in Ontario and Manitoba, Canada. Primary objectives include: i) evaluate the effectiveness of partnerships between the research team and DPoRT users; ii) explore strategies that facilitate uptake and overcome barriers to DPoRT use; and iii) implement and evaluate the knowledge translation approach.

Methods

This protocol reflects an integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach and corresponds to the action phase of the Knowledge-to-Action (KtoA) framework. Our IKT approach includes: employing a knowledge brokering team to facilitate relationships with DPoRT users (objective 1); tailored training for DPoRT users; assessment of barriers and facilitators to DPoRT use; and customized dissemination strategies to present DPoRT outputs to decision maker audiences (objective 2). Finally, a utilization-focused evaluation will assess the effectiveness and impact of the proposed KtoA process for DPoRT application (objective 3). This research design utilizes a multiple case study approach. Units of analyses consist of two public health units, one provincial health organization, and one provincial knowledge dissemination team whereby we will connect with multiple regional health authorities. Evaluation will be based on analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data collected from passive (e.g., observer notes) and active (e.g., surveys and interviews) methods.

Discussion

DPoRT offers an innovative way to make routinely collected population health data practical and meaningful for diabetes prevention planning and decision making. Importantly, we will evaluate the utility of the KtoA cycle for a novel purpose – the application of a tool. Additionally, we will evaluate this approach in multiple diverse settings, thus considering contextual factors. This research will offer insights into how knowledge translation strategies can support the use of population-based risk assessment tools to promote informed decision making in health-related settings.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Rosella et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Zimmet P, Alberti KGMM, Shaw J: Global and societal implications of the diabetes epidemic. Nature 2001, 414:782-787.
• [2]Canadian Diabetes Association: Diabetes: Canada at the Tipping Point. Toronto: Canadian Diabetes Association; 2011.
• [3]Lipscombe LL, Hux JE: Trends in diabetes prevalence, incidence, and mortality in Ontario, Canada 1995-2005: a population-based study. Lancet 2007, 369:750-756.
• [4]Fransoo R, Martens P, Prior H, Burchill C, Koseva I, Bailly A, Allegro E, The Need To Know Team: The 2013 RHA Indicators Atlas. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Centre for Health Policy; 2013.
• [5]Beaglehole R, Bonita R, Horton R, Adams C, Alleyne G, Asaria P, Baugh V, Bekedam H, Billo N, Casswell S, Cecchini M, Colagiuri R, Colagiuri S, Collins T, Ebrahim S, Engelgau M, Galea G, Gaziano T, Geneau R, Haines A, Hospedales J, Jha P, Keeling A, Leeder S, Lincoln P, McKee M, Mackay J, Magnusson R, Moodie R, Mwatsama M, et al.: Priority actions for the non-communicable disease crisis. Lancet 2011, 377:1438-1447.
• [6]Noble D, Mathur R, Dent T, Meads C, Greenhalgh T: Risk models and scores for type 2 diabetes: systematic review. Br Med J 2011, 343:d7136.
• [7]Weed DL, Mink PJ: Roles and responsibilities of epidemiologists. Ann Epidemiol 2002, 12:67-72.
• [8]Brownson RS: Epidemiology and Health Policy. In Applied Epidemiology: Theory to Practice. 2nd edition. Edited by Brownson RS, Petitti DB. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006:260-288.
• [9]Manuel DG, Rosella LC, Hennessy D, Sanmartin C, Wilson K: Predictive risk algorithms in a population setting: an overview. J Epidemiol Community Health 2012, 66:859-865.
• [10]Rosella LC, Manuel DG, Burchill C, Stukel TA: A population-based risk algorithm for the development of diabetes: development and validation of the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT). J Epidemiol Community Health 2011, 65:613-620.
• [11]Rosella LC, Mustard CA, Stukel TA, Corey P, Hux JE, Roos L, Manuel DG: The role of ethnicity in predicting diabetes risk at the population level. Ethn Health 2012, 17:419-437.
• [12]Dobbins M, Davies B, Danseco E, Edwards N, Virani T: Changing nursing practice: evaluating the usefulness of a best-practice guideline implementation toolkit. Nurs Leadersh 2005, 18:34.
• [13]Grol R, Grimshaw J: From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 2003, 362:1225-1230.
• [14]Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J: How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 2003, 81:221-248.
• [15]Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N: Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006, 26:13-24.
• [16]LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Butt M: The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies in public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:751. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Manuel DG, Rosella LC, Tuna M, Bennett C: How many Canadians will be Diagnosed with Diabetes between 2007 and 2017? Assessing Population Risk. ICES Investigative Report. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2010.
• [18]Bowen S, Martens P: Demystifying knowledge translation: learning from the community. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10:203-211.
• [19]Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, Hannah WJ, Vayda E, Singer J: Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. JAMA 1991, 265:2202-2207.
• [20]Oxman AD, Thomson MA, Davis DA, Haynes RB: No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ 1995, 153:1423.
• [21]Dobbins M, Hanna SE, Ciliska D, Manske S, Cameron R, Mercer SL, O’Mara L, DeCorby K, Robeson P: A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies. Implement Sci 2009, 4:61. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82:581-629.
• [23]Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, Seers K, Kitson A, McCormack B, Titchen A: An exploration of the factors that influence the implementation of evidence into practice. J Clin Nurs 2004, 13:913-924.
• [24]Funk SG, Tornquist EM, Champagne MT: Barriers and facilitators of research utilization - an integrative review. Nurs Clin N Am 1995, 30:395-407.
• [25]MacDermid JC, Graham ID: Knowledge translation: putting the “Practice” in evidence-based practice. Hand Clin 2009, 25:125-143.
• [26]Gagliardi AR: Translating knowledge to practice: optimizing the use of guidelines. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 2012, 21:231-236.
• [27]Rosella LC: The influence of measurement error on calibration, discrimination, and overall estimation of a risk prediction model. Popul Health Metrics 2012, 10:20. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T: Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol 2009, 43:267-276.
• [29]Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Lemieux-Charles L, Black NA: The impact of context on evidence utilization: a framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations. Soc Sci Med 2006, 63:1811.
• [30]Jacobson N, Butterill D, Goering P: Development of a framework for knowledge translation: understanding user context. J Health Serv Res Policy 2003, 8:94-99.
• [31]Landry R, Amara N, Pablos-Mendes A, Shademani R, Gold I: The knowledge-value chain: a conceptual framework for knowledge translation in health. Bull World Health Organ 2006, 84:597-602.
• [32]Lomas J: Using research to inform healthcare managers’ and policy makers’ questions: from summative to interpretive synthesis. Healthcare Policy 2005, 1:55-71.
• [33]Peirson L, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Mowat D: Building capacity for evidence informed decision making in public health: a case study of organizational change. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:137. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Hellstrom T, Malmquist U, Mikaelsson J: Decentralizing knowledge: managing knowledge work in a software engineering firm. J High Tech Manag Res 2001, 12:25-38.
• [35]Lomas J: The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ 2007, 334:129.
• [36]Meyer M: The rise of the knowledge broker. Sci Commun 2010, 32:118-127.
• [37]Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO: Using Evidence: How Research can Inform Public Services. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press; 2007.
• [38]Sin CH: The role of intermediaries in getting evidence into policy and practice: some useful lessons from examining consultancyclient relationships. Evidence & Policy 2008, 4:85-103.
• [39]Ward V, House A, Hamer S: Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evidence & Policy 2009, 5:267.
• [40]Dobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, Hanna S, Cameron R, O’Mara L, Decorby K, Mercer S: A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implement Sci 2009, 4:1-9. BioMed Central Full Text
• [41]Ward VL, House AO, Hamer S: Knowledge brokering: exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action. BMC Health Serv Res 2009, 9:12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [42]Jansson SM, Benoit C, Casey L, Phillips R, Burns D: In for the long haul: knowledge translation between academic and nonprofit organizations. Qual Health Res 2010, 20:131-143.
• [43]Lyons R, Warner G, Langille L, Phillips SJ: Piloting knowledge brokers to promote integrated stroke care in Atlantic Canada. In Evidence in Action, Acting on Evidence: A Casebook of Health Services and Policy Research Knowledge Translation Stories. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Institute of Health Services and Policy Research; 2006:57-60.
• [44]Russell DJ, Rivard LM, Walter SD, Rosenbaum PL, Roxborough L, Cameron D, Darrah J, Bartlett DJ, Hanna SE, Avery LM: Using knowledge brokers to facilitate the uptake of pediatric measurement tools into clinical practice: a before-after intervention study. Implement Sci 2010, 5:92. BioMed Central Full Text
• [45]Alkin MC, Christie CA: An evaluation theory tree. In Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences. Edited by Alkin MC. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc; 2004:12-65.
• [46]Patton MQ: Utilization-focused evaluation. In Evaluation Models. Edited by Stufflebeam DL, Madaus GF, Kellaghan T. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002:425-438.
• [47]O’Sullivan RG: Collaborative evaluation within a framework of stakeholder-oriented evaluation approaches. Eval Program Plann 2012, 35:518-522.
• [48]Patton MQ: Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage publications; 1980.
• [49]Stake RE: Qualitative case studies. Handbook Qual Res 2005, 3:443-466.
• [50]Denzin NK: The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine De Gruyter; 2009.
• [51]Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion: Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion Act. S.O., Chapter 10, Schedule K. 2007. [https://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07o10_e.htm webcite]
• [52]Patricia JM: Straw into gold: lessons learned (and Still Being Learned) at the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy. Healthcare Policy 2011, 6:44-54.
• [53]Bowen S, Martens PJ: A model for collaborative evaluation of university-community partnerships. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006, 60:902-907.
• [54]Creswell JW, Miller DL: Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Pract 2000, 39:124-130.
• [55]Center for the Advancement of Collaborative Strategies in Health: Partnership Self-Assessment Tool Questionnaire. 2007. http://www.lmgforhealth.org/node/190 webcite
• [56]Lasker RD, Weiss ES, Miller R: Partnership synergy: a practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. Milbank Q 2001, 79:179-205.
• [57]Graham ID, Logan J: Innovations in knowledge transfer and continuity of care. Can J Nurs Res 2004, 36:89.
• [58]Yin RK: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated; 2008.