Nadia Minian1,2,3,4, Sheleza Ahad1, Anna Ivanova1, Scott Veldhuizen1, Laurie Zawertailo1,3,5, Arun Ravindran6,7, Claire de Oliveira8,9,10, Dolly Baliunas1,11,12, Carol Mulder13, Corneliu Bolbocean8,14, Peter Selby15,16,17,18,19. 1. Nicotine Dependence Service, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1025 Queen St W, Toronto, ON, M6J 1H4, Canada. 2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada. 3. Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 250 College St., 1st floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 1R8, Canada. 4. Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine, 1 King's College Circle, Medical Science Building, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada. 5. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Medical Sciences Building, Room 4207, 1 King's College Circle, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada. 6. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 100 Stokes Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 1P7, Canada. 7. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, 250 College Street 8th floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 1R8, Canada. 8. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 2S1, Canada. 9. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College St, Suite 425, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada. 10. Centre for Health Economics and Hull York Medical School, University of York, Alcuin A Block, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK. 11. School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia. 12. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College St Room 500, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada. 13. Queen's University Department of Family Medicine, 220 Bagot St, Kingston, ON, K7L 3G2, Canada. 14. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 66 N. Pauline Street, Suite 633, Memphis, TN, 3816, USA. 15. Nicotine Dependence Service, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1025 Queen St W, Toronto, ON, M6J 1H4, Canada. peter.selby@camh.ca. 16. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada. peter.selby@camh.ca. 17. Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 250 College St., 1st floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 1R8, Canada. peter.selby@camh.ca. 18. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, 250 College Street 8th floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 1R8, Canada. peter.selby@camh.ca. 19. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College St Room 500, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada. peter.selby@camh.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge brokering is a knowledge translation approach that has been gaining popularity in Canada although the effectiveness is unknown. This study evaluated the effectiveness of generalised, exclusively email-based prompts versus a personalised remote knowledge broker for delivering evidence-based mood management interventions within an existing smoking cessation programme in primary care settings. METHODS: The study design is a cluster randomised controlled trial of 123 Ontario Family Health Teams participating in the Smoking Treatment forOntario Patients programme. They were randomly allocated 1:1 for healthcare providers to receive either: a remote knowledge broker offering tailored support via phone and email (group A), or a generalised monthly email focused on tobacco and depression treatment (group B), to encourage the implementation of an evidence-based mood management intervention to smokers presenting depressive symptoms. The primary outcome was participants' acceptance of a self-help mood management resource. The secondary outcome was smoking abstinence at 6-month follow-up, measured by self-report of smoking abstinence for at least 7 previous days. The tertiary outcome was the costs of delivering each intervention arm, which, together with the effectiveness outcomes, were used to undertake a cost minimisation analysis. RESULTS:Between February 2018 and January 2019, 7175 smokers were screened for depression and 2765 (39%) reported current/past depression. Among those who reported current/past depression, 29% (437/1486) and 27% (345/1277) of patients accepted the mood management resource in group A and group B, respectively. The adjusted generalised estimating equations showed that there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups in patients' odds of accepting the mood management resource or in the patients' odds of smoking abstinence at follow-up. The cost minimisation analysis showed that the email strategy was the least costly option. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants did not accept the resource regardless of remote knowledge broker strategy. In contexts with an existing KT infrastructure, decision-makers should consider an email strategy when making changes to a programme given its lower cost compared with other strategies. More research is required to improve remote knowledge broker strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03130998 . Registered April 18, 2017, (Archived on WebCite at www.webcitation.org/6ylyS6RTe ).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Knowledge brokering is a knowledge translation approach that has been gaining popularity in Canada although the effectiveness is unknown. This study evaluated the effectiveness of generalised, exclusively email-based prompts versus a personalised remote knowledge broker for delivering evidence-based mood management interventions within an existing smoking cessation programme in primary care settings. METHODS: The study design is a cluster randomised controlled trial of 123 Ontario Family Health Teams participating in the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients programme. They were randomly allocated 1:1 for healthcare providers to receive either: a remote knowledge broker offering tailored support via phone and email (group A), or a generalised monthly email focused on tobacco and depression treatment (group B), to encourage the implementation of an evidence-based mood management intervention to smokers presenting depressive symptoms. The primary outcome was participants' acceptance of a self-help mood management resource. The secondary outcome was smoking abstinence at 6-month follow-up, measured by self-report of smoking abstinence for at least 7 previous days. The tertiary outcome was the costs of delivering each intervention arm, which, together with the effectiveness outcomes, were used to undertake a cost minimisation analysis. RESULTS: Between February 2018 and January 2019, 7175 smokers were screened for depression and 2765 (39%) reported current/past depression. Among those who reported current/past depression, 29% (437/1486) and 27% (345/1277) of patients accepted the mood management resource in group A and group B, respectively. The adjusted generalised estimating equations showed that there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups in patients' odds of accepting the mood management resource or in the patients' odds of smoking abstinence at follow-up. The cost minimisation analysis showed that the email strategy was the least costly option. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants did not accept the resource regardless of remote knowledge broker strategy. In contexts with an existing KT infrastructure, decision-makers should consider an email strategy when making changes to a programme given its lower cost compared with other strategies. More research is required to improve remote knowledge broker strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03130998 . Registered April 18, 2017, (Archived on WebCite at www.webcitation.org/6ylyS6RTe ).
Authors: Maureen Dobbins; Lori Greco; Jennifer Yost; Robyn Traynor; Kara Decorby-Watson; Reza Yousefi-Nooraie Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2019-06-20
Authors: Mitchell N Sarkies; Lauren M Robins; Megan Jepson; Cylie M Williams; Nicholas F Taylor; Lisa O'Brien; Jenny Martin; Anne Bardoel; Meg E Morris; Leeanne M Carey; Anne E Holland; Katrina M Long; Terry P Haines Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Nadia Minian; Mathangee Lingam; Rahim Moineddin; Kevin E Thorpe; Scott Veldhuizen; Rosa Dragonetti; Laurie Zawertailo; Valerie H Taylor; Margaret Hahn; Wayne K deRuiter; Osnat C Melamed; Peter Selby Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 7.076