Healthcare research increasingly focuses on interprofessional collaboration and on shared decision making, but knowledge gaps remain about effective strategies for implementing interprofessional collaboration and shared decision-making together in clinical practice. We used Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions to reflect on how an integrated interprofessional shared decision-making approach was developed and implemented over time. In 2007, an interdisciplinary team initiated a new research program to promote the implementation of an interprofessional shared decision-making approach in clinical settings. For this reflective case study, two new team members analyzed the team's four projects, six research publications, one unpublished and two published protocols and organized them into recognizable phases according to Kuhn's theory. The merging of two young disciplines led to challenges characteristic of emerging paradigms. Implementation of interprofessional shared-decision making was hindered by a lack of conceptual clarity, a dearth of theories and models, little methodological guidance, and insufficient evaluation instruments. The team developed a new model, identified new tools, and engaged knowledge users in a theory-based approach to implementation. However, several unresolved challenges remain. This reflective case study sheds light on the evolution of interdisciplinary team science. It offers new approaches to implementing emerging knowledge in the clinical context.

Patient decision aids aim to present evidence relevant to a health decision in understandable ways to support patients through the process of making evidence-informed, values-congruent health decisions. It is recommended that, when developing these tools, teams involve people who may ultimately use them. However, there is little empirical evidence about how best to undertake this involvement, particularly for specific populations of users such as vulnerable populations. To describe and compare the development practices of research teams that did and did not specifically involve members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from a systematic review about the development processes of patient decision aids. Then, to further explain our quantitative results, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 10 teams: 6 that had specifically involved members of vulnerable populations and 4 that had not. Two independent analysts thematically coded transcribed interviews. Out of a total of 187 decision aid development projects, 30 (16%) specifically involved members of vulnerable populations. The specific involvement of members of vulnerable populations in the development process was associated with conducting informal needs assessment activities (73% vs. 40%, OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.18–7.99, P = .02) and recruiting participants through community-based organizations (40% vs. 11%, OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.23–9.83, P = .02). In interviews, all developers highlighted the importance, value and challenges of involving potential users. Interviews with developers whose projects had involved members of vulnerable populations suggested that informal needs assessment activities served to center the decision aid around users’ needs, to better avoid stigma, and to ensure that the topic truly matters to the community. Partnering with community-based organizations may facilitate relationships of trust and may also provide a non-threatening and accessible location for research activities. There are a small number of key differences in the development processes for patient decision aids in which members of vulnerable populations were or were not specifically involved. Some of these practices may require additional time or resources. To address health inequities, researchers, communities and funders may need to increase awareness of these approaches and plan accordingly.

Achieving a successful transition from pediatric to adult care for young adults with special needs, especially rare genetic diseases such as osteogenesis imperfecta (OI), is a prominent issue in healthcare research. This transition represents a challenge for patients with OI, their families, clinicians and healthcare managers because of the complex nature of the process and the lack of evaluation of existing transition programs. We evaluated a transition program for adolescents and young adults with OI from a pediatric orthopedic hospital to adult care. Data were collected by interview, observation, and document review from April 2013 to October 2013. Participants included six patients with OI, four parents, and 15 staff, including administrators, coordinators, social workers, nurses, pediatricians, surgeons, occupational therapists and physiotherapists. A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis was performed. The strengths of the transition program included a solid theoretical approach based on a partnership with parents, and a comprehensive transition model based on fostering independent living and professional integration. The program’s main weaknesses were the successive organizational changes and discontinuation of certain transition activities, and the potential conflict between the transition program and participation in research protocols. Further opportunities include the implementation of a multi-site transition model with cross-site personnel and user evaluations, with the inclusion of second-generation patients. Dissatisfaction reported by some care-team members at the adult care hospital could threaten collaboration among institutions involved in the transition process, whereas dissatisfaction of some former patients may reduce their perceptions of quality of care received during the transition. This study confirmed that a “one-size-fits-all” transition model for patients with OI would be inappropriate across, or even within institutions. Opportunities should be seized to create tailored, theoretically-sound transition programs that reflect patient preferences, especially those of young adults with complex and chronic health conditions. Alignment with other organizational activities should be considered, and ongoing evaluation of transition programming may be required. This SWOT analysis and utilization-focused evaluation has led to a comprehensive new project to improve the transition program for patients with OI and other conditions requiring special follow-up.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: Primary care needs to be patient-centred, integrated and interprofessional to help patients with complex needs manage the burden of medication-related problems. Considering the growing problem of polypharmacy, there is increasing attention on how and when medication-related decisions should be coordinated across multi-disciplinary care teams. Improved knowledge on how integrated EHRs can support interprofessional shared decision-making for medication therapy management is necessary to continue to improve patient care. Objective: This objective of this study was to examine how physicians and pharmacists understand and communicate patient-focused medication information with each other and how this knowledge can influence the design of electronic health records. Methods: This study is part of a broader cross-Canada study between patients and health care providers around how health-related decisions are made and communicated. We visited community pharmacies, team-based primary care clinics, and independent-practice family physician clinics throughout Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and Quebec. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with physician and pharmacists. A modified version of the Multidisciplinary Framework Method was used to analyze the data. Results: Data was collected at 19 pharmacies and 9 medical clinics and we identified six main themes from 34 health care professionals. Interprofessional Shared Decision Making was not occurring and clinicians made decisions based on their understanding of the patient. Physicians and pharmacists reported indirect Communication, incomplete Information specifically missing insight into indication and adherence, and misaligned Processes of Care further compounded by electronic health records not designed to facilitate collaboration. Scope of Practice examined professional and workplace boundaries for pharmacists and physicians that were internally and externally imposed. Physicians decided on the degree of the Physician/Pharmacist Relationship which was often predicated by co-location. Conclusions: When managing medications, there was limited communication and collaboration between primary care providers and pharmacists. Pharmacists were missing key information around reason for use, and physicians required accurate information around adherence. EHRs are a potential tool to help clinicians communicate information to resolve this issue. EHRs need to be designed to facilitate interprofessional medication management, so that pharmacists and physicians move beyond task-based work toward a collaborative approach Clinical Trial: n/a

Background: Patient-oriented research (POR) is a specific application of participatory research that promotes active patient engagement in health research. There is a growing concern that people involved in POR do not reflect the diversity of the population such research aims to serve, but are rather those more ‘easily’ engaged with institutions, organizations and society. Indigenous peoples are among such groups generally underrepresented in POR. The “Indigenous patient partners platform project” was a small-scale initiative aimed to address the issue of the underrepresentation of Indigenous people in patient-oriented research by recruiting, orienting and supporting Indigenous patient partners in Québec (Canada). This article reports on the findings of an evaluation conducted at the end of the project to garner lessons and identify strategies for engaging Indigenous patient partners in patient-oriented research. Methods: The evaluation of this initiative used a case study design hinging on documentary analysis and committee member interviews. Project documents (n = 29) included agendas and meeting minutes, support documents from the orientation workshop and workshop evaluations, and tools the committee developed as part of the project. Interview participants (n = 6) were patients and organizational partners. Thematic analysis was performed by two members of the research team. Patient partners actively contributed to validating the interpretation of result and knowledge translation. Results: Results point to four key components of Indigenous patient partner engagement in POR: initiation of partnership, interest development, capacity building and involvement in research. Specific lessons emphasize the importance of community connections in recruiting, sustaining and motivating patient partners, the need to be flexible in the engagement process, and the importance of consistently valuing patient partner contributions and involvement. Conclusions: There is a need to engage Indigenous patient partners in POR to ensure that healthcare practices, policies and research take their particular needs, stories and culture into account. While results of this evaluation are generally consistent with the existing literature on patient engagement, they offer additional insight into how to effectively engage Indigenous patient partners in research, which might also be relevant to the involvement of other marginalized populations who have been historically and systemically disempowered.

Background: Patient and public engagement (PPE) in research is growing internationally, and with it, the interest for its evaluation. In Canada, the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research has generated national momentum and opportunities for greater PPE in research and health-system transformation. As is the case with most countries, the Canadian research community lacks a common evaluation framework for PPE, thus limiting our capacity to ensure integrity between principles and practices, learn across projects, identify common areas for improvement, and assess the impacts of engagement. Objective: This project aims to build a national adaptable framework for the evaluation of PPE in research, by: Building consensus on common evaluation criteria and indicators for PPE in research; Defining recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to specific populations. Methods: Using a collaborative action-research approach, a national coalition of patient-oriented research leaders, (patient and community partners, engagement practitioners, researchers and health system leaders) will co-design the evaluation framework. We will develop core evaluation domains of the logic model by conducting a series of virtual consensus meetings using a nominal group technique with 50 patient partners and engagement practitioners, identified through 18 national research organizations. We will then conduct two Delphi rounds to prioritize process and impact indicators with 200 participants purposely recruited to include respondents from seldom-heard groups. Six expert working groups will define recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to research with specific populations, including Indigenous communities, immigrants, people with intellectual and physical disabilities, caregivers, and people with low literacy. Each step of framework development will be guided by an equity, diversity and inclusion approach in an effort to ensure that the participants engaged, the content produced, and the adaptation strategies proposed are relevant to diverse PPE. Discussion: The potential contributions of this project are threefold: 1) support a national learning environment for engagement by offering a common blueprint for collaborative evaluation to the Canadian research community; 2) inform the international research community on potential (virtual) methodologies to build national consensus on common engagement evaluation frameworks; and 3) illustrate a shared attempt to engage patients and researchers in a strategic national initiative to strengthen evaluation capacity for PPE.