Charlene Soobiah1, Sharon E Straus2, Gayle Manley3, Sharon Marr4, Elliot Paus Jenssen3, Sylvia Teare5, Jemila Hamid6, Andrea C Tricco7, Ainsley Moore8. 1. Institute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College St 4th floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6, Canada; Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada. 2. Institute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College St 4th floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6, Canada; Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada; Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C4, Canada. Electronic address: sharon.straus@utoronto.ca. 3. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada. 4. Division of Geriatric Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada. 5. Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada. 6. Clinical Research Unit, Research Institute of Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Research Institute, 401 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L1, Canada. 7. Institute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College St 4th floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6, Canada; Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College St, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada. 8. Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, 100 Main St W, Hamilton, Ontario L8P 1H6, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A systematic review (SR) was conducted to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of geriatrician-led models of care, and an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach facilitated SR relevance. Activities to engage knowledge users (KUs) in the SR were evaluated for perceived level of engagement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: KUs included patients, caregivers, geriatricians, and policymakers from three Canadian provinces. Activities included 1) modified Delphi to select outcomes; 2) cross-sectional survey to select outcome measures, and 3) in-person meeting to discuss SR findings. KU engagement was assessed using the Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PEET) after the second and third activities. KUs rated the extent of successful engagement using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "no extent" to "very large extent." RESULTS: In total, 15 KUs completed the PEET: eight geriatricians, four policymakers, two patients, and one caregiver. Median engagement scores across all activities (median range: 6.00-6.50) indicated that KUs felt engaged. Differences were observed for activity type; perceived engagement at in-person meeting resulted in higher meta-criteria scores for trust (P = 0.005), legitimacy (P = 0.003), fairness (P = 0.013), and competency (P = 0.035) compared with online activities. CONCLUSIONS: KUs can be engaged meaningfully in SR processes. Their perceived engagement was higher for in-person than for online activities.
BACKGROUND: A systematic review (SR) was conducted to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of geriatrician-led models of care, and an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach facilitated SR relevance. Activities to engage knowledge users (KUs) in the SR were evaluated for perceived level of engagement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:KUs included patients, caregivers, geriatricians, and policymakers from three Canadian provinces. Activities included 1) modified Delphi to select outcomes; 2) cross-sectional survey to select outcome measures, and 3) in-person meeting to discuss SR findings. KU engagement was assessed using the Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PEET) after the second and third activities. KUs rated the extent of successful engagement using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "no extent" to "very large extent." RESULTS: In total, 15 KUs completed the PEET: eight geriatricians, four policymakers, two patients, and one caregiver. Median engagement scores across all activities (median range: 6.00-6.50) indicated that KUs felt engaged. Differences were observed for activity type; perceived engagement at in-person meeting resulted in higher meta-criteria scores for trust (P = 0.005), legitimacy (P = 0.003), fairness (P = 0.013), and competency (P = 0.035) compared with online activities. CONCLUSIONS:KUs can be engaged meaningfully in SR processes. Their perceived engagement was higher for in-person than for online activities.
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Chantelle M Garritty; Leah Boulos; Craig Lockwood; Michael Wilson; Jessie McGowan; Michael McCaul; Brian Hutton; Fiona Clement; Nicole Mittmann; Declan Devane; Etienne V Langlois; Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Catherine Houghton; Claire Glenton; Shannon E Kelly; Vivian A Welch; Annie LeBlanc; George A Wells; Ba' Pham; Simon Lewin; Sharon E Straus Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 6.437