Evidence-based decision-making 7: Knowledge translation

Integration of geriatric assessment into clinical oncology practice: A scoping review

Sixty percent of newly diagnosed cancers occur in older adults and more complex planning is required to sustain quality care for older populations. Individualized care incorporating geriatric assessment can predict early mortality and treatment toxicity for older cancer patients. We mapped and summarized the available evidence on the integration of geriatric assessment into clinical oncology practice, and ascertained which domains have been implemented. We systematically searched bibliographic databases and trial registries for reports of clinical studies, clinical practice guidelines, systematic and non-systematic reviews, and grey literature published in English. We gathered data on study characteristics, geriatric domains and strategies evaluated, and relevant study objectives and findings. From a total of 10,124 identified citations, 38 articles met our eligibility criteria, 3 of which were clinical practice guidelines. Nearly half of these articles came from the United States. Domains of the geriatric assessment implemented in studies ranged from 1 to 12, with varied combinations. We identified 27 studies on strategies for implementing geriatric assessment and 24 studies on feasibility of implementing geriatric assessment, into clinical oncology practice. We also identified 3 main geriatric assessment models: 2 from the United States and 1 from Australia. Furthermore, we identified 2 reviews that reported varied components of geriatric assessment models. There is increasingly robust evidence to implement formal geriatric assessment in oncology practice. There remains a great deal of variation in the tools recommended to address each of the domains in a geriatric assessment, with only 1 guideline (American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline) settling on a specific best practice. Protocol registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/mec93.

Getting the most out of knowledge and innovation transfer agents in health care: a qualitative study

Background

Knowledge and innovation transfer (KIT) is recognised internationally as a complex, dynamic process that is difficult to embed in organisations. There is growing use of health service–academic–industry collaborations in the UK, with knowledge brokers linking producers with the users of knowledge and innovation.

Aim

Focusing on KIT ‘agent’ roles within Academic Health Science Networks in England and Partnerships in Wales, we show how individual dispositions, processes and content contribute to desired outcomes.

Methods

We studied the KIT intentions of all Academic Health Science Networks in England, and the South East Wales Academic Health Science Partnership. Using a qualitative case study design, we studied the work of 13 KIT agents purposively sampled from five networks, by collecting data from observation of meetings, documentation, KIT agent audio-diaries, and semistructured interviews with KIT agents, their line managers and those they supported (‘Links’). We also used a consensus method in a meeting of experts (nominal group technique) to discuss the measurement of outcomes of KIT agent activity.

Findings

The case study KIT agents were predominantly from a clinical background with differing levels of experience and expertise, with the shared aim of improving services and patient care. Although outside of recognised career structures, the flexibility afforded to KIT agents to define their role was an enabler of success. Other helpful factors included (1) time and resources to devote to KIT activity; (2) line manager support and a team to assist in the work; and (3) access and the means to use data for improvement projects. The organisational and political context could be challenging. KIT agents not only tackled local barriers such as siloed working, but also navigated shifting regional and national policies. Board-level support for knowledge mobilisation together with a culture of reflection (listening to front-line staff), openness to challenges and receptivity to research all enabled KIT agents to achieve desired outcomes. Nominal group findings underscored the importance of relating measures to specific intended outcomes. However, the case studies highlighted that few measures were employed by KIT agents and their managers. Using social marketing theory helped to show linkages between processes, outcomes and impact, and drew attention to how KIT agents developed insight into their clients’ needs and tailored work accordingly.

Limitations

Level of KIT agent participation varied; line managers and Links were interviewed only once; and outcomes were self-reported.

Conclusions

Social marketing theory provided a framework for analysing KIT agent activity. The preparatory work KIT agents do in listening, understanding local context and building relationships enabled them to develop ‘insight’ and adapt their ‘offer’ to clients to achieve desired outcomes.

Future work

The complexity of the role and the environment in which it is played out justifies more research on KIT agents. Suggestions include (1) longitudinal study of career pathways; (2) how roles are negotiated within teams and how competing priorities are managed; (3) how success is measured; (4) the place of improvement methodologies within KIT work; (5) the application of social marketing theory to comparative study of similar roles; and (6) patients as KIT agents.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.