Capacity building and mentorship among pan-Canadian early career researchers in community-based primary health care

Understanding the training, mentorship, and professional development priorities of early career embedded researchers

INTRODUCTION

Health systems are constantly evolving in response to existing and emerging health challenges and are increasingly adopting the Quintuple Aim to guide transformation and improvement efforts. Addressing health challenges and achieving the Quintuple Aim (enhancing patient experience, improving healthcare provider experience, promoting population health, optimising the value of healthcare services, and advancing health equity) may be enhanced with the use of a Learning Health Systems approach that fosters the real-time use of data and evidence to inform improvement efforts and harnesses embedded researchers to co-produce timely, relevant evidence to address priorities. Training programs have emerged to build embedded research capacity within health system organisations and have focused predominantly on the postdoctoral career stage, with little attention paid to the early career researcher (ECR) stage. The objective of this study was to understand ECR training and mentorship needs in the embedded research context to inform the creation new or adaptation of existing programs to build embedded ECR capacity.

METHODS

This study used a qualitative approach to garner insight from embedded and applied scholars and health systems leaders in Canada from various professional backgrounds and at various career stages using a combination of focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and an online survey. Thematic content analysis was used to examine the responses of study participants within the interview themes.

RESULTS

Twenty-six (26) participants were included in the study. Results were organised according to four key themes: (1) key competencies and skills needed by embedded ECRs; (2) additional training and capacity development needs; (3) training delivery approaches; and (4) enablers and challenges faced by embedded ECRs. Results highlight the importance of supporting ECRs to develop their leadership and organisational management capabilities; their knowledge of and ability to use research approaches that are well-suited to real-world, complex, evolving environments; and their opportunities to learn with and from each other and mentors. Results underscore the perceived importance of context, including being embedded in a supportive environment that values research and evidence and of academic incentives that recognise and value real-world research impact. The challenges of responding to shifting organisational and system priorities were identified. Additional insights from health systems leaders were also highlighted.

CONCLUSION

This study identified the multifaceted needs of embedded ECRs and the challenges they face within healthcare systems. Designing new programs or tailoring existing ones to address these needs would build their capacity, foster career progression, and ensure their impact as leaders of evidence-informed health system improvement which is crucial for achieving the Quintuple Aim.

Complex skills are required for new primary health care researchers: a training program responds

BACKGROUND

Current dimensions of the primary health care research (PHC) context, including the need for contextualized research methods to address complex questions, and the co-creation of knowledge through partnerships with stakeholders - require PHC researchers to have a comprehensive set of skills for engaging effectively in high impact research.

MAIN BODY

In 2002 we developed a unique program to respond to these needs - Transdisciplinary Understanding and Training on Research - Primary Health Care (TUTOR-PHC). The program's goals are to train a cadre of PHC researchers, clinicians, and decision makers in interdisciplinary research to aid them in tackling current and future challenges in PHC and in leading collaborative interdisciplinary research teams. Seven essential educational approaches employed by TUTOR-PHC are described, as well as the principles underlying the curriculum. This program is unique because of its pan-Canadian nature, longevity, and the multiplicity of disciplines represented. Program evaluation results indicate: 1) overall program experiences are very positive; 2) TUTOR-PHC increases trainee interdisciplinary research understanding and activity; and 3) this training assists in developing their interdisciplinary research careers. Taken together, the structure of the program, its content, educational approaches, and principles, represent a complex whole. This complexity parallels that of the PHC research context - a context that requires researchers who are able to respond to multiple challenges.

CONCLUSION

We present this description of ways to teach and learn the advanced complex skills necessary for successful PHC researchers with a view to supporting the potential uptake of program components in other settings.

Research capacity-building for clinicians: understanding how the research facilitator role fosters clinicians' engagement in the research process

Background

There is evidence reporting more positive outcomes from research capacity-building (RCB) programmes that include a research facilitator role. Further, it has been suggested that research facilitator roles can be a useful strategy in building the research capacity of healthcare clinicians. However, until now, little attention has been applied to identifying the characteristics of the research facilitator role and how this role contributes to clinicians’ engagement with the research process. The aim of this present study is to explore the characteristics required of the research facilitator role in the educational workshop phase of an RCB programme.

Methods

This qualitative study employed an inductive approach and utilized face-to-face interviews to gather data from a purposely selected cohort. Professionally transcribed responses were thematically analysed.

Results

The role of the research facilitator emerged as comprising two main themes: (1) facilitating the research process and (2) engaging expert clinicians as novice researchers. Pragmatically, analysis of data led to the development of a table outlining the responsibilities, skills and attributes related to each theme. Conceptually, theme 1 encapsulates the research facilitators’ skills and experience and their role as knowledge brokers and cocreators of knowledge. Theme 2 provides insight into the clinician-centric approach the research facilitators utilized to build and foster relationships and support the clinicians through their research journey.

Conclusion

This study reports on the characteristics of the research facilitator role in one phase of an RCB programme in one regional health service district in Australia and explains how the role fosters clinicians’ engagement with the research process. Findings from this study will inform the development of future RCB programmes, which is important considering that clinicians’ increased engagement with the research process is vital for developing a sound evidence base to support decision-making in practice and leads to higher levels of skills and greater ability to perform useful research.

Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives in health and social services: protocol for a scoping review and Delphi survey

BACKGROUND

The scale-up of evidence-based innovations is required to reduce waste and inequities in health and social services (HSS). However, it often tends to be a top-down process initiated by policy makers, and the values of the intended beneficiaries are forgotten. Involving multiple stakeholders including patients and the public in the scaling-up process is thus essential but highly complex. We propose to identify relevant strategies for meaningfully and equitably involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling up in HSS.

METHODS

We will adapt our overall method from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Following this, we will perform a two-prong study design (knowledge synthesis and Delphi study) grounded in an integrated knowledge translation approach. This approach involves extensive participation of a network of stakeholders interested in patient and public involvement (PPI) in scaling up and a multidisciplinary steering committee. We will conduct a systematic scoping review following the methodology recommended in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. We will use the following eligibility criteria: (1) participants-any stakeholder involved in creating or testing a strategy for PPI; (2) intervention-any PPI strategy proposed for scaling-up initiatives; (3) comparator-no restriction; (4) outcomes: any process or outcome metrics related to PPI; and (5) setting-HSS. We will search electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Web of Science, Sociological Abstract) from inception onwards, hand search relevant websites, screen the reference lists of included records, and consult experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently select and extract eligible studies. We will summarize data quantitatively and qualitatively and report results using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We will conduct an online Delphi survey to achieve consensus on the relevant strategies for PPI in scaling-up initiatives in HSS. Participants will include stakeholders from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We anticipate that three rounds will allow an acceptable degree of agreement on research priorities.

DISCUSSION

Our findings will advance understanding of how to meaningfully and equitably involve patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives for sustainable HSS.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

We registered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on August 19, 2020 ( https://osf.io/zqpx7/ ).

Assessing the scalability of innovations in primary care: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Canadian health funding currently prioritizes scaling up for evidence-based primary care innovations, but not all teams prepare for scaling up. We explored scalability assessment among primary care innovators in the province of Quebec to evaluate their preparedness for scaling up.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional survey from Feb. 18 to Mar. 18, 2019. Eligible participants were 33 innovation teams selected for the 2019 Quebec College of Family Physicians' Symposium on Innovations. We conducted a Web-based survey in 2 sections: innovation characteristics and the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire. The latter includes 16 criteria (scalability components) grouped into 5 dimensions: theory (1 criterion), impact (6 criteria), coverage (4 criteria), setting (3 criteria) and cost (2 criteria). We classified innovation types using the International Classification of Health Interventions. We performed a descriptive analysis using frequency counts and percentages.

RESULTS

Out of 33 teams, 24 participated (72.7%), with 1 innovation each. The types of innovation were management (15/24), prevention (8/24) and therapeutic (1/24). Most management innovations focused on patient navigation (9/15). In order of frequency, teams had assessed theory (79.2%) and impact (79.2%) criteria, followed by cost (77.1%), setting (59.7%) and coverage (54.2%). Most innovations (16/24) had assessed 10 criteria or more, including 10 management innovations, 5 prevention innovations and 1 therapeutic innovation. Implementation fidelity was the least assessed criterion (6/24).

INTERPRETATION

The scalability assessments of a primary care innovation varied according to its type. Management innovations, which were the most prevalent and assessed the most scalability components, appear to be most prepared for primary care scale-up in Canada.