1. Knowledge for Knowledge Translation Jeremy Grimshaw MD, PhD Clinical Epidemiology Program, OHRI Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake

2. Outline Session 1 • Definitions • K for KT Session 2 • Effects of KT strategies • KT for policy makers • KT for clinicians • KT for patients • What can/should researchers do to promote KT? • Putting it together

3. Knowledge translation CIHR definition • Knowledge translation is the exchange, synthesis and ethically-sound application of researcher findings within a complex system of relationships among researchers and knowledge users.

4. Knowledge translation • Knowledge translation is about ensuring that: • stakeholders are aware of and use research evidence to inform their decision making • research is informed by current available evidence and the experiences and information needs of stakeholders

5. Knowledge translation Audiences for KT

6. Knowledge translation Why do we need to think about knowledge translation? • Traditional KT approaches have emphasised publication in peer reviewed journals • Consistent evidence of failure to translate research findings into clinical practice • 30-40% patients do not get treatments of proven effectiveness • 20–25% patients get care that is not needed or potentially harmful Schuster, McGlynn, Brook (1998). Milbank Memorial Quarterly Grol R (2001). Med Care

7. K for KT • Individual studies rarely by themselves provide sufficient evidence for policy or practice changes • Individual studies are often misleading • An additional issue is dealing with the hype from basic science discoveries

8. Don’t believe the hype – likelihood of benefit from basic science discoveries 25, 190 articles (published in 1979-1983 in Nature, Science, Cell, JEM, JCI, JBC) 562 articles (retrieved key word search) 153 potentially eligible articles (full text) 101 original articles that made clear promises for immediate clinical translation Contopoulos-Ioannidis et al. Am J Med 2003 and Ioannidis JP. J Translational Med 2004

9. Don’t believe the hype – likelihood of benefit from basic science discoveries RCT Positive RCT

10. Don’t believe the hype: publication and outcome bias • Consistent evidence of publication bias – positive studies more likely to be published and more likely to be published earlier. • Growing evidence of outcome bias in randomised trials – changes in primary outcome in randomised trials (if primary outcome shows no or modest effect) to outcome showing positive changes.

11. Don’t believe the hype: early highly positive results often contradicted

12. Don’t believe the hype: early highly positive results often contradicted • Analyzed 115 articles published in 1990-2003 in the 3majorgeneral medical journals (NEJM, JAMA, Lancet) and specialty journals that had received over 1000 citations each by August 2004 • 49 reported evaluations of health care interventions; 45 claimed that the interventions were effective. • By 2004 5/6 non randomised studies and 9/39 randomised trials were already contradicted or found to be exaggerated Ioannidis JP. JAMA 2005

13. Don’t believe the hype: early highly positive results often contradicted Ioannidis et al, Nature Genetics 2001

14. K for KT • The results of individual studies need to be interpreted alongside the totality of evidence (ie systematic reviews) • Emphasis on KT of individual studies may distract the stakeholder group (increasing the noise to signal) • ‘Don’t believe the hype’ • ‘Don’t generate the hype’

15. K for KT Problems of information management • Over 20,000 medical journals published per year • Published research of variable quality and relevance • Users often poorly trained in critical appraisal skills • Users often have limited time (average time professionals have available to read = <1 hour/week)

16. K for KT Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature ‘We now recommend that resolving a clinical problem begins with a search for a valid systematic review or practice guideline as the most efficient method of deciding on the best patient care.’ Guyatt GH, Rennie D (1994). JAMA.

17. K for KT • Systematic reviews are a generic methodology used to synthesise evidence from a broad range of research methods addressing different questions.

18. K for KT • The steps involved in undertaking a systematic review include • stating the objectives of the research • defining eligibility criteria for studies to be included • identifying (all) potentially eligible studies • applying eligibility criteria • assembling the most complete dataset feasible • analysing this dataset, using statistical synthesis and sensitivity analyses, if appropriate and possible • preparing a structuredreport of the research.

19. K for KT • Systematic reviews are a generic methodology used to synthesise evidence from a broad range of research methods addressing different questions. • Effectiveness of health care interventions • Diagnostic and screening tests • Determinants of health • Aetiological epidemiological studies • Genetic epidemiological studies • Health system issues (eg quality of discharge coding) • Qualitative methods – consumers’ experiences of health care

20. Systematic reviews of ‘what works’ questions

21. K for KT Clinical practice guidelines ‘Systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances’. Institute of Medicine (1992). Guidelines for clinical practice: from development to use.

22. K for KT Factors influencing validity of CPGs • Composition of guideline development group • Multidisciplinary group • Methods of identifying and synthesising evidence • Sytematic review • Methods of developing guidelines • Explicit method linking recommendations to strength of evidence Grimshaw, Russell (1993). Quality in Health Care.

23. K for KT • Increasing availability of high quality guidelines and systematic reviews available to support practice: • Cochrane Collaboration • AHRQ evidence based practice reports • HUGENet • Multiple guideline development agencies

24. K for KT – buyer beware • Quality of systematic reviews and CPGs highly variable. Need to appraise prior to use: • Systematic reviews – Oxman and Guyatt • Guideline appraisal – AGREE instrument

25. Summary • Knowledge translation is about ensuring that stakeholders are aware of and use research evidence to inform their decision making • KT should be based on mature K base.

26. Contact details • Jeremy Grimshaw - jgrimshaw@ohri.ca • EPOC – epoc@uottawa.ca