Integrating Knowledge Translation in Research: Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network 3rd Meeting

Ottawa Marriott, 100 Kent, Ottawa, ON

Meeting Report

October 19, 2012


Background

In establishing the collaborative nature of the DSEN structure, the DSEN Coordinating Office holds regular meetings of the DSEN research community twice annually. This facilitates knowledge translation and sharing of best practices amongst Collaborating Centres and research teams. It also provides an opportunity to invite other teams funded by DSEN and relevant stakeholders to expand on the network structure of the program. These recurring network meetings are essential to the function of the teams and the network as a whole. Therefore, broad representation from all the Collaborating Centres and specially funded areas under DSEN's envelop is encouraged. Nominated Principal Investigators or alternates are expected to attend and participate in these meetings to update CIHR/DSEN on their progress, interact with other teams, and share findings and challenges to benefit the DSEN research agenda. The DSEN Coordinating Office makes effort to facilitate interactions between researchers and relevant stakeholders to guarantee good communication and clarify expectations.

DSEN held the 3rd event of the series on October 19, 2012 in Ottawa to bring decision makers, DSEN funded researchers, and trainees together to gain common understanding and to enhance Network functioning.

The main objectives of this meeting were:

  • To provide network-wide interaction between DSEN funded researchers and decision makers
  • To update participants on recent developments and upcoming plans and activities
  • To provide an occasion for discussion on Knowledge Translation (KT) approaches
  • To inform Network members of barriers and facilitators to integrated KT and KT Funding Opportunities
  • To support a culture of knowledge translation within the DSEN program
  • To introduce the DSEN funded New Investigators to the DSEN community

Meeting Summary

This 3rd Network meeting held by DSEN in Ottawa was attended by 56 participants (Agenda is attached in appendix 1, Attendees List in appendix 2, and Break Out Session Templates in appendix 3). After the welcoming remarks, Robert Peterson, DSEN Executive Director gave a brief update on DSEN's integrated Knowledge Translation activities, emphasizing the development of a Science Advisory Committee to engage knowledge users and researchers at the early stages of the Query submission process. He then went on to explain the objectives of the day. The morning session was dedicated to progress report presentations by different teams funded under the DSEN envelope, and a presentation by CIHR Knowledge Translation Senior Advisor Kiera Keown on CIHR's perspective on and funding opportunities in Integrated Knowledge Translation. The lunch break was an opportunity for the newly DSEN-funded New Investigators to make poster presentations of their work. The afternoon was entirely devoted to Knowledge Translation, with a break-out session wherein small groups explored five KT tools/strategies, followed by a reporting and plenary discussion session, and a panel summary.

The AM session

Following the introductory remarks and update, the DSEN funded teams each gave a short progress report. Presentations were given as follows:

CNODES by Pat Martens. Dr. Martens presented CNODES's four pillars, ad hoc teams, and structure. CNODES is holding semi-annual meetings that include KT and training sessions, project specific debriefings, Steering Committee meetings, methods workshops, and analyst sessions. The group has presented at CAPT, ISPE in Spain, and at the International Data Linkage Conference held last May in Australia. Indeed, CNODES is developing important international ties and has more plans for the future. Dr. Martens indicated that the group has been giving interviews in prints and broadcast media-publications in over 50 news media vehicles. CNODES researchers also contributed briefs and consults with Query submitters and decision makers to disseminate research results. A large portion of the group's activities this year revolved around research and dissemination of results (e.g. manuscripts submission, reviews) and assessment of potential studies to conduct. The group also developed its CNODES website that includes information about the team, investigators' bios, current projects, organizational structure, etc.

PREVENT by Colin Ross and Marianne de Gorter. The PREVENT team described work to date on their two demonstration projects:

  1. Identification of Pharmacogenomic Markers of Anthracycline-Induced Heart failure in Children
  2. Implementation of Pharmacogenomics to identify Patients at Risk of Statin-Induced Myopathy

Project number 1 is well under way and genotyping and additional clinical characterization of patients are ongoing. The project is well on track and should lead to identification of novel risk factors of anthracycline-induced heart failure in children.

Project number 2 has a cohort of over 400 patients for whom a statin dosing algorithm has been developed to predict the maximum dosage of statins to reduce the risk of statin-related toxicity. The group also developed an online dosing calculator for future validation and clinical use. The PREVENT team is working closely with SEARCH and has submitted Team Tabled Topics on opioid-induced fatalities, and on the identification of genetic markers of ADRs to the new protease inhibitors boceprevir and telaprevir, for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Together with the SEARCH team, they have submitted an application for the DSEN Knowledge Synthesis competition, aiming at developing clinical decision support tools to facilitate clinical pharmacogenetic testing.

SEARCH by Bruce Carleton. The SEARCH team is working on its demonstration project on the safety of the five inhaled corticosteroids currently approved in Canada in children and pregnant women. This will enable the team to provide recommendations for optimal use in the two study populations. Patient enrollment is ongoing in Ontario and British Columbia. As mentioned above, the SEARCH and PREVENT teams are working collaboratively on a protocol to evaluate protease inhibitors for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C, and accidental death from opioid medications. They submitted, with PREVENT, a protocol for the development of a clinical decision support tool for smartphones and tablet computers.

The SEARCH team has developed a protocol for the Query on cardiac safety of 5-HT3 antagonists for prevention of post-operative or chemotherapy induced nausea in children and will be submitting an application for Rapid Funding.

KSRU by Sharon Straus. The KSRU team has achieved several of their milestones including the publication of the demonstration projects protocols (Cognitive enhancers in Alzheimer's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment), the data charting and preliminary analysis for the systematic reviews of their demonstration projects, the inclusion of trainees in the conduct of reviews, and the submission and implementation of two rapid funding protocols. The have also entered into partnership with HC, CADTH and provinces for application to a PHSI grant. KSRU collaborated with NETMAN on five grant applications. Also in collaboration with NETMAN, they developed an internal peer review and tracking system for grants and reviews. Presentations at conferences include CADTH Workshop 2012, and WHO Health Systems Research Symposium in Beijing, November 2012.

KSRU received funding through the Rapid Funding tool for a Query on 5HT-3 antagonists and combination therapies for diabetes. One of KSRU trainees received a DSEN New Investigator award and KSRU is actively engaging new trainees through their KT Canada Seminar Series and Operations Seminar Series.

NETMAN by Brian Hutton. The NETMAN team is presently working on two Queries (SSRIs and Anti-Hypertensives) funded through the DSEN Rapid Funding tool. They are working in collaboration with KSRU in both cases and have also prepared two successful applications with KSRU:

  1. Comparative safety and effectiveness of medications for type 1 and type 2 diabetes
  2. Safety of 5-HT3 antagonists in surgery/chemotherapy

The NETMAN team recently published, among others, in JAMA, Clinical Epidemiology, and BMJ. The team participated to conferences (e.g. CADTH), local hospital rounds, Cochrane Canada, the Society for Clinical Trials, and AHRQ Webinar Series. Members of the team are currently working on the extension of the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement) and on the development of a meta-analysis free software in collaboration with Brown University.

CCNMA by George Wells. The CCNMA team completed its work on the demonstration project comparing new oral anticoagulants to warfarin in April 2012, using Bayesian Network meta-analysis methods and issued a Therapeutic Review report through CADTH. Two manuscripts were subsequently submitted for publication. Two of CCNMA trainees, Chris Cameron and Shannon Sullivan, were respectively awarded the Vanier Canada Scholarship and the Banting and Best Graduate Scholarship.

The team is currently working on three Queries funded through the DSEN Rapid Funding tool:

  1. Cardio-cerebrovascular risk associated with the anti-Parkinsonian combination of levodopa, carbidopa and entacapone
  2. Combined pharmacologic and behavioural intervention for smoking cessation
  3. Atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia

CCNMA has been working on a two-day hands-on Workshop on Introduction to Meta-Analysis held beginning of November in Ottawa. They also developed the Cloud Infrastructure online platform for data sharing to enhance team collaboration.

DSECT by Lehana Thabane. The DSECT program, which was established under the STIHR program, predates the establishment of DSEN but is now funded under the DSEN program. For fiscal year 2012-2013, DSECT received 23 applications from trainees and was able to award stipends to nine of those applicants. Their curriculum includes mentoring, a face to face symposium to welcome the new trainees and many online integrative course sessions, research skill-building sessions, and basic concepts sessions. The DSECT trainees are also invited to participate to a Book Club and to the Objective Structured Knowledge Translation Experience (OSKTE), pairing two graduate students from different scientific domains. Work is also ongoing for the development of an online series on emerging topics in drug safety and effectiveness. The series will be identified as a "DSECT‐hosted event in collaboration with DSEN".

The DSECT team is working, with the support of the DSEN program partners at Health Canada and CIHR, on developing a dialogue on Drug Safety and Effectiveness National Curriculum that will provide the training necessary to produce competent drug safety and effectiveness researchers.

CDSERN by Chelsea Hellings. CDSERN, which was established under CIHR's Emerging Team Grand Program also predates DSEN, who is supporting its funding until 2013. The team has researchers in five provinces and has published two papers in the CMAJ on the effect of centralized prescription network on inappropriate prescriptions of opioids analgesics and on Fluoroquinolone therapy and idiosyncratic acute liver injury. One manuscript on the association of isotretinoin and inflammatory bowel disease is in press.

They are currently writing / submitting papers on PPIs and the risk of adverse cardiac events, Aliskiren and the risk of hyperkalemia in older patients, and NSAIDs and the risk of hyperkalemia. Their project on PPIs and acute kidney injury is in the analysis phase, as is their study on stimulant use and educational outcomes in Manitoba high school students. The team is presently developing new protocols on GERD drugs, codeine, and the cost of adverse drug reactions.

CAN-AIM by Sasha Bernatsky. The team is currently working on its demonstration project "Comparative Effectiveness of anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor agents versus traditional disease-modifying agents in reducing orthopedic surgery in rheumatoid arthritis" which is a prospective study on 17,500 with an eight year follow-up. At the same time, the team has been partnering with the Canadian Arthritis Network to develop "Best Practices" when using administrative data for rheumatic disease research and surveillance. Many of CAN-AIM trainees are working on developing novel approaches to address DSEN-related methodological challenges such as measurement error models for drug exposure, analysis with health information systems, advanced modeling for adverse events detection, and validation methods to control unobserved confounding using linkage of clinical and administrative data.

The CAN-AIM team held a one-day workshop last May in Montreal and brought together 35 participants to discuss goals and progress, methods updates, mentoring, and networking.

After the teams' presentations, Robert Peterson invited the recently funded DSEN New Investigators to introduce their work as displayed on posters, which were arranged around the meeting room. Participants were invited to view and discuss the research projects with the New Investigators during the networking lunch. Their projects are as follows:

  • Kristian Filion: The Cardiovascular Safety of Varenicline: A Population-Based Cohort Study
  • Andrea Furlan: My Opioid Manager: A point of care tool for patients with chronic non-cancer pain considering opioids
  • Corinne Hohl: Validation of a Screening Strategy for Adverse Drug Reactions in the Emergency Department
  • Colin Ross: Drug Safety Pharmacogenetics Evaluation (Drug SAPHE) Initiative
  • Andrea Tricco: Knowledge synthesis methods across multi-disciplinary fields
  • Lisa Hartling: Optimizing evidence synthesis for informed decision-making

The PM Session

After the networking lunch, Sharon Straus introduced the break-out session. Attendees were divided in five groups, each comprised of researchers and decision-makers., each group was given a tool/strategy for discussion, and provided with related questions and a reporting template (see appendix 3 for templates). The following KT tools / strategies were examined each by one of the five groups:

  • Decision Makers Modules (Group 1)
  • Research Report Templates (Group 2)
  • Network Website (Group 3)
  • Dissemination Strategies (Group 4)
  • KT Capacity Building (Group 5)

Following the one-hour break-out session, each group reported its findings and suggestions.

Group 1 (Decision Makers Modules) noted that different decision-makers have different needs and that the notion of "evidence" holds different meaning for decision-makers and researchers. It was felt that the most productive way to adjust for the differing visions and needs was to engage the partners at the beginning of the research, preferably even at the stage of the formulation of the research question/Query. From this early engagement of decision-makers and researchers, the modules can be tailored and adapted. The same can be said in terms of dissemination of the results. The modes of dissemination will vary with the audiences. Dissemination could mean a phone call, a face-to-face meeting, or a paper report, which itself could vary in terms of depth and length.

It was noted that the early engagement of decision-makers and researchers should be an iterative process, although care should be taken not to make the Query process overly burdensome.

Once the research is completed, impact / uptake can be measured by the confirmation that the knowledge provided has contributed formally or informally to the decision-making process or to fill the identified gap / information need.

Group 1 suggested the idea of a "living module" that could be updated to extend the Query into the future, incorporating new evidence and new treatments as they become available.

Group 2 (Research Report Templates) thought that the Research Report Templates should include the original question/Query, the key findings, and the perspective of the particular audience. Group 2, like Group 1, mentioned that result reporting needs will vary by audience, so any templates developed should be easily adaptable. It was suggested that a particular group of persons within the Network should be responsible for designing, creating, and storing Research Reports Templates, and that those templates could reside on the DSEN website. Furthermore it was suggested that there was a need to engage plain language writers.

The 1-3-25 report format was seen to have many merits, but if used should be refined for particular audiences. The decision-maker who submitted the Query should get a short report first and before the researchers arrange for publication. The longer version might identify other evidence found in the process, which is of interest at the researchers' level but may be of less value for decision-makers. Reports submitted to the decision-maker should not be posted publically until articles are published. Ultimately any report produced should link to publications after agreement with the authors.

Further it was noted that issues involving publication and strategies for the dissemination of research results to the target audiences and generating of key messages should be the object of discussion and agreement between decision makers and researchers right at the beginning of the research enterprise. Impact of the reports should be assessed by surveys and focus groups with decision-makers.

Group 3 (Network-wide Website) discussed at length the question of what should be publicly available. This topic generated a lot of discussion during the following plenary session. The guiding principle of transparency (everything should be publicly available) was not of concern; rather discussion focused more on the question of when to release rather than whether to release. In general, the consensus was for a central website that would be publically accessible and without password-protected sections. At the moment, individual teams are developing their own limited website, which takes time and money. Group 3 was of the opinion that a network-wide website should be developed by the DSEN CO and the KT group and that the tools and templates should be standardized across the Network.

The group was not in favor of password-protected sections on DSEN websites as it may create an impression of non-transparency and possibly increase public anxiety.

The posting of names of researchers working on a Query was deemed problematic as researchers may be contacted and deluged with requests from the public.

Another topic of discussion was the need to post Queries that were judged non-feasible and when to post protocols, as well as committee meetings minutes. The example of "Clinicaltrials.gov" was given, where abstracts of protocols are posted once the research is funded.

To Group 3, the sharing of non-publicly available info seemed to point to a need for a team website, as opposed to the DSEN-wide website. Some teams are using Dropbox for internal communications, but nothing exists for communications between teams. The option of an equivalent of ResearchNet without password protection was suggested.

Group 4 (Dissemination Strategies) mentioned several dissemination strategies. It was felt that research teams should be capable to provide a whole range of products, among them: protocol registration, policy briefs, presentations to stakeholders, videos, pod casts, and webinars. Different messages should be produced depending on the audience and on the strength of the signal or severity of the ADRs. A closer association with clinicians was suggested through existing professional associations.

Although it was clear that the general public is not the primary target of information, some research questions on specific drugs could provide valuable information to patients groups and a lay interpretation of the research results should be available.

Face-to-face interviews or electronic questionnaires with decision-makers are of primary importance to measure impact of the research. Impact measures suggested include the number of reported ADRs, the development of clinical guidelines, and the correspondence between research results and the Query submitter's needs. Other, longer term, measures of impact could track the change in prescribing/clinical practice and drug use. Interviews with clinicians and decision-makers were suggested. Resources permitting, the impact could be measured through web-based tools, including counters for visits and number of clicks.

The whole Network should be responsible for measuring impact, however establishment of a cross team KT group could facilitate standardized network KT. The resources needed might include webinars, online tutorials, podcasts, and conferences for lay audiences. To this end, resources should be centralized across the Network but a geographic focus could also work.

Group 5 (KT Capacity Building) suggested that Knowledge users be kept informed of new or completed studies and be provided results via manuscript. This should ideally be done through a website (public or password protected). The particular originator of a Query needs to be involved in the whole process.

Researchers need some enhanced communication tools to disseminate their findings. Some training would also be important for members of the research teams to be able to communicate effectively with the general public and with media.

It was suggested that KT capacity building resources and activities should be coordinated centrally by DSEN with the development of a an integrated KT structure including: research results repository, training activities, coordinated discussions with end-users, practitioners, patient groups, clinical associations, etc. To this end, the resources needed are personnel and money, but the network could tap into existing resources within CIHR especially for training purposes.

The Query originator should commit to help with impact assessment. The Network as a whole has to develop a pragmatic evaluation design; were the results shared, were new policies, guidelines, or directives, implemented?

Panel Summary/Discussion

The meeting panel was composed of:

  • Ingrid Sketris, from CNODES
  • Bruce Carleton, from SEARCH and PREVENT
  • Co Pham, from Health Canada
  • Heidi Liston, from the Government of New Brunswick
  • Janet Crain, from CADTH

Panelists were instructed to speak from personal experience rather than as representatives of their individual organizations. It was recognized that DSEN would benefit from standardized approaches and frameworks, as these would support roll up. However, it is also evident that KT has to be customized.

Panelists agreed that decision makers need the key message, that this message should be usable and implementable. The 1-3-25 format is of interest but most decision makers need a one-pager. Other means of dissemination could be downloads, and policy guidelines. One of the problems identified is that decision makers need definitive research conclusion and definitive outcome measures, which is not often the case in research. Some panelists were of the opinion that the act of publishing in itself is not KT. Selecting the target, then tailoring the publication for this target is KT and preparing KT products for the end-users does not prevent the preparation of manuscripts for the research community. Impact is achieved when the end users can apply information to their own situation.

Successful KT is based on solid relationships, so decision makers need to be kept informed from the inception of the research project and to be able to contact the researchers when needed. The point of contact between decision-makers and the research team should be made clear right at the beginning and the Query submitter should be informed of potential challenges to research work in progress. The coupling of knowledge users and researcher will further assist in avoiding duplication of effort, and identifying potential partnership opportunities. This said, the development of KT tools for targeted users should not be underestimated. It takes time and resources to create products that are adapted to different audiences from complex research results. Ideally, each team should have a knowledge broker and a KT strategy. They also need to maintain an ongoing dialogue with other researchers, decision-makers, clinicians, and the public at large. To this end, the research teams should develop opportunities to share trainees through mentoring, exchange, and offer fellowships. This type of training could be developed in partnership with CADTH and Health Canada.

Once again the specificity of needs of the different types of knowledge users was emphasized by the need or the absence of need for cost effectiveness research. Health Canada does not need cost-effectiveness research whereas it's an important issue for the provinces. There was much discussion around the necessity of making public Queries that were deemed to not be researchable by the Network's researchers (unfeasible Queries). On the one hand, knowing that there may be a potential problem with a drug but no methodology to study it may cause anxiety; on the other hand, posting the Query on the DSEN web site could bring other researchers to propose methods that are not available at this time within the Network.

The issue of who publishes, what product, was seen as important for all. Particularly it was noted that information release at the wrong time, by the wrong party can quickly move evidence based decision making to emotionally based decision making. This shift then can become a significant hurdle to decision makers who then may have to become reactive versus proactive.

Ending Remarks

After hearing a great number of good suggestions, discussions, and potential dissemination tools, Robert Peterson concluded this very fruitful meeting emphasizing that DSEN was ALL OF US. The whole Network should be working on KT as the Coordinating Office is not DSEN. DSEN is a network and as such, all attendees were implicated in the creation of KT products for diverse users. On behalf of the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, Dr. Peterson thanked everybody for their good work during the meeting and announced the next Network Meeting for March 2013.


Appendix 1 - Meeting Agenda

8:00 – Breakfast

8:30 – Welcome and Introductory remarks (Robert Peterson)

8:45 – DSEN Update (Robert Peterson)

9:00 – Update from DSEN funded teams (9 teams x 10 minutes)
(Each team to speak to a short written update, circulated in advance)

10:30 – Break

10:45 – Integrated Knowledge Translation: A CIHR Perspective and CIHR's KT Funding Opportunities (Kiera Keown)

  • Integrated KT versus End of grant KT
  • Collaboration across cultures
  • Continuous engagement of Query requester with research team during study period
  • Barriers/facilitators to integrated knowledge translation approaches

11:45 – Networking lunch and Poster Presentations by DSEN New Investigators

12:45 – Introductory remarks to the Break-Out Session (Sharon Straus)

13:00 – Break-Out Session (All)

  • Group 1 – Decision Makers Modules
  • Group 2 – Research Report Templates
  • Group 3 – Network Website
  • Group 4 – Dissemination Strategies
  • Group 5 – KT Capacity Building

14:00 – Reporting Session and Plenary Discussion (All / Moderated by Sharon Straus)

15:30 – Panel Summary

16:15 – Ending remarks (Robert Peterson)


Appendix 2 - List of Attendees

Randy Allan
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
randya@cadth.ca

Ursula Amstutz
University of British Columbia
uamstutz@popi.ubc.ca

Sasha Bernatsky
McGill University
sasha.bernatsky@mail.mcgill.ca

Sylvie Bouchard
Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux
sylvie.bouchard@inesss.qc.ca

Harold Boudreau
Health Canada
harold.budreau@hc-sc.gc.ca

Christian Brochu
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
christian.brochu@cihr-irsc.gc.ca

Matthew Brougham
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
matthewb@cadth.ca

Danielle Brulé-Brown
Health Canada
danielle.brule-brown@hc-sc.gc.ca

B. Roy Cairns
Government of Prince Edward Island
brcairns@gov.pe.ca

Bruce Carleton
University of British Columbia
bcarleton@popi.ubc.ca

Laurie Chapman
Health Canada
laurie.chapman@hc-sc.gc.ca

Janet Crain
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
janetc@cadth.ca

Marianne De Gorter
University of Western Ontario
mdegorte@uwo.ca

Johanne Delage
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
johanne.delage@cihr-irsc.gc.ca

Michael Dwyer
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Michael.dwyer@cihr-irsc.gc.ca

Kristian Filion
McGill University
kristian.filion@mcgill.ca

Diane Forbes
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
diane.forbes@cihr-irsc.gc.ca

Stuart Forestell
Health Canada
stuart.forestell@hc-sc.gc.ca

Andrea Furlan
University of Toronto
andrea.furlan@uhn.ca

Lucye Galand
Health Canada
lucye.galand@hc-sc.gc.ca

Jenna Griffiths
Health Canada
jenna.griffiths@hc-sc.gc.ca

Frances Hall
Health Canada
frances.hall@hc-sc.gc.ca

Lisa Hartling
University of Alberta
hartling@ualberta.ca

Brenda Hemmelgarn
University of Calgary
brenda.hemmelgarn@calgaryhealthregion.ca

David Henry
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
david.henry@ices.on.ca

Joanne Ho
University of Toronto
Joanne.ho@utoronto.ca

Claudette Hildebrand
University of British Columbia
childebrand@popi.ubc.ca

Corinne Hohl
University of British Columbia
chohl@interchange.ubc.ca

Ricardo Jimenez
University of British Columbia
jimenez@popi.ubc.ca

Shannon Kelly
University of Ottawa
skelly@ottawaheart.ca

Kiera Keown
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Kiera.keown@cihr-irsc.gc.ca

Barbara LeBrun
Health Canada
barbara.LeBrun@hc-sc.gc.ca

Linda Levesque
Queen's University
linda.levesque@queensu.ca

Adrian Levy
Dalhousie University
adrian.levy@dal.ca

Heidi Liston
Government of New Brunswick
heidi.liston@gnb.ca

Patricia Martens
University of Manitoba
pat_martens@cpe.umanitoba.ca

Mireille Mathieu
Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux
mireille.mathieu@inesss.qc.ca

Robert Peterson
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
robert.peterson@cihr-irsc.gc.ca

Co Pham
Health Canada
co.pham@hc-sc.gc.ca

Susan Pierce
Health Canada
susan.pierce@hc-sc.gc.ca

Marc Poitras
Health Canada
marc.poitras@hc-sc.gc.ca

Trevor Richter
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
trevorr@cadth.ca

Colin Ross
University of British Columbia
colinross1@gmail.com

Ingrid Sketris
Dalhousie University
Ingrid.Sketris@dal.ca

Andrew Slot
Health Canada
andrew.slot@hc-sc.gc.ca

Karen Smilski
Government of Alberta
karen.smilski@gov.ab.ca

Anne Smith
University of British Columbia
asmith@popi.ubc.ca

Erin Smith
Health Canada
erin.smith@hc-sc.gc.ca

Sharon Straus
University of Toronto
sharon.straus@utoronto.ca

Samy Suissa
McGill University
samy.suissa@mcgill.ca

Shannon Sullivan
University of Ottawa
sullshan@gmail.com

Lehana Thabane
McMaster University
ThabanL@mcmaster.ca

Andrea Tricco
University of Toronto
triccoa@smh.ca

Jerieta Waltin-James
Health Canada
jerieta.waltin-james@hc-sc.gc.ca

George Wells
University of Ottawa
gawells@ottawaheart.ca

Siham Yasari
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
siham.yasari@cihr-irsc.gc.ca


Appendix 3: Break-Out Session Templates

Objectives of the afternoon session

  1. To outline end of grant KT tools and strategies that would be useful for dissemination of DSEN research to the official DSEN knowledge users (HC/provincial/territorial officials submitting queries), stakeholders (other policy makers, managers, clinicians, public) and researchers involved with DSEN
  2. To develop an approach to creating, sustaining and disseminating these KT tools
  3. To consider what resources are needed to create these KT tools and strategies and support KT amongst DSEN researchers and knowledge users/stakeholders

Small Group 1 – Decision Makers Modules

Develop modules for use by decision makers (including policy makers, clinicians, and health care managers) to describe the results of the DSEN research and to facilitate use of these results in decision making.

Questions for discussion: for each question explore the answers from the researcher and Knowledge User/Stakeholder perspectives.

  1. What should be included in these modules?
  2. What formats (i.e. slide deck, video, etc.) should be considered?
  3. What resources are needed to create them? Who should be responsible for creating these modules?
  4. How should these resources be disseminated? Where should they be stored?
  5. How should we evaluate impact/uptake of these modules?

Small Group 2 – Research Report Templates

Create template / format for the results from the DSEN funded research. Consider the targets for these reports including policy makers, clinicians, and health care / provincial drug plans managers.

  1. What should be included in these reports?
  2. What formats (e.g. 1-3-25 or traditional research manuscript) should be considered?
  3. What resources are needed to create them? Who should be responsible for creating these reports?
  4. How should these reports be disseminated? Where should they be stored?
  5. How should we evaluate impact/uptake of these reports?

Small Group 3 – Network-Wide Website

Create website to include research results, protocols, meeting documents, etc. The network website will act as both a repository and a communications tool.

  1. What information should be publicly available? What should be included on this website? Should sections be password-protected?
  2. What resources are needed to create the network-wide website? Who should be responsible for creating and maintaining the website?
  3. How to ensure coordination of the website so as not to duplicate individual teams' websites?
  4. What are the issues to overcome for sharing non-publicly available information (e.g. embargoed papers, partial results, etc.) within the network?

Small Group 4 – Dissemination Strategies

Consider approaches to disseminating results of the DSEN funded research once projects are completed (e.g. end of grant KT strategies).

  1. What types of activities should be considered?
  2. Who should be the targets for those activities?
  3. How to assess impact of these dissemination activities?
  4. Who should be responsible for organizing these activities?
  5. What are the resources needed?
  6. How can strategies be developed that maximize impact but minimize duplication?

Small Group 5 – KT CAPACITY BUILDING

Consider what resources and strategies are needed to meet the KT needs of the knowledge users and researchers.

  1. What types of resources and activities would be helpful for knowledge users? For researchers?
  2. Who should be responsible for creating/providing access to these resources and activities?
  3. What resources are needed to build capacity in KT?
  4. How will we assess impact?
Date modified: