– A proof of concept study –

1. Health and Work Productivity Web-Portal: A knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) platform to facilitate evidence-informed disability prevention and workplace innovation – A proof of concept study – 10th Annual Cochrane Canada Symposium: Health Evidence for ALL9 May 2012, Winnipeg, MB

2. Financial Disclosure This project was supported with funds from WorkSafeBC through the FOCUS ON TOMORROW competitive grant program and Healthcare Benefits Trust

3. HWP Problem Statement Many players involved in addressing workplace absence, employee health, disability prevention and management

4. HWP Problem Statement… • No common core body of credible knowledge resources to support evidence-informed decision-making at various levels • Desire by stakeholders for academic collaboration • Need for efficient and effective vehicles to engage academic researchers and community partners in scientific and stakeholder KTE processes

5. Academic Community Partnership Marc White1, Shannon Wagner S2, Izabela Schultz3, Rick Iverson4 • Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia • School of Health Sciences, University of Northern British Columbia • Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education, University of British Columbia • Faculty of Business, Simon Fraser University, Vernita Hsu5, Lisa McGuire6 Werner Schulz 7 • BC Construction Safety Alliance • The FIOSA-MIOSA Safety Alliance of BC • Healthcare Benefit Trust

6. Academic Community Partnerships (ACPs) “Often suffer from complex conceptual, definitional, methodological, and translational issues that inevitably lead to questions about their scientific merit and societal value. ” 1-4 • Stokols D et al. The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. Am J Prev Med 2008; 35(2 Suppl):S77-S89. • Hall KLet al. Moving the science of team science forward: collaboration and creativity. Am J Prev Med 2008; 35(2 Suppl):S243-S249. • Masse LC et al. Measuring collaboration and transdisciplinary integration in team science. Am J Prev Med 2008; 35(2 Suppl):S151-S160. • Feinberg ME, Bontempo DE, Greenberg MT. Predictors and level of sustainability of community prevention coalitions. Am J Prev Med 2008; 34(6):495-501.

7. Proof of Principle • Pilot-test /refine roles and responsibilities • Assess/ refine metrics of success • Refine processes and workflows • Assess interest and future commitment

8. Background What is the Health and Work Productivity Web-Portal?

9. Engagement of Stakeholders in the Critical Appraisal /KTE Process • Provides a collaborative platform to systematically engage academic researchers across faculties (medicine, health sciences, business) with end users to identify and assess existing resources across different domains of judgment (scientific merit, relevance, perceived value, and usability) • Translates current research into pragmatic guidance to facilitate renewal throughout the continuum of policy, training and practice • Cultivates a sense of ownership and engagement across all parties using the same core evidence-base to inform action

11. Theoretical Framework PRECEDE-PROCEED, Sociocognitive, Maibach’s Framework Figure 1. Using a Public Health Theory-driven Evidence-Informed Approach to Changing Professional and Consumer Behavior Across Sectors (from Maibach EW, Abroms LC, Marosits M. Communication and marketing as tools to cultivate the public's health: a proposed "people and places" framework. BMC Public Health. 2007 May;22(7):88.)

12. Theoretical Framework Maibach’s Framework Communication/ Marketing Strategies Figure 1. Using a Public Health Theory-driven Evidence-Informed Approach to Changing Professional and Consumer Behavior Across Sectors (from Maibach EW, Abroms LC, Marosits M. Communication and marketing as tools to cultivate the public's health: a proposed "people and places" framework. BMC Public Health. 2007 May;22(7):88.)

14. HWP Integrated around Topics / Sub-Topics Toolkits E-learning opportunities Research & Knowledge Topic Sub-topic Service Directory Surveys Audience Group Discussion Forum

15. Scientific / Stakeholder Review Make Scientific Judgment Academic Collaborative Scientific Committee Assess Scientific Merit (QA) Creates Scientific Key Messages Topics/ Subtopic Knowledge Exchange: Stakeholder Key Messages HWP Stakeholders Organization Partners Drafts Stakeholder Key Messages   Make Relevance Judgment

17. Mixed Methods • Qualitative & Quantitative • An iterative process, open-ended discussions (face-to-face/teleconference), draft minutes as working documents, surveys, report back, further discussions, reflection, and consensus • Collaborative report writing to support implementation of knowledge derived from the knowledge synthesis process

18. Stakeholder Activities

19. Stakeholder Activities…

20. Baseline Survey PROJECT EXPECTATIONS • What are your individual expectations for participating in this project? • What are your organization’s expectations? • What do you currently do when you are seeking information on disability prevention and management? • What benefits do you anticipate from participating in an academic community partnership? CURRENT INFORMATION SEEKING APPROACHES • What is your usual first step you take in seeking information on disability prevention and management (i.e. colleague, google, databases, journals)? • What are the challenges you face when seeking credible knowledge, tools and implementation resources? • How much time do you typically spend trying to find credible resources on a single topic? • What would be important evaluative measures to determine whether the HWP portal provided you and your organization with additional value? Please List.

21. Baseline Survey SUCCESS / OUTCOMES • How would you define project success? • What would success look like to you? • What would success look like for your organization? • What do you believe would be barriers to success? COLLABORATION • Briefly describe your experience working on other collaborative projects i.e. level of collaboration, degree of innovation, level of satisfaction. • What key factors do you think led to other collaborative project successes or failures? • From your experience what are some of the downsides of a collaborative approach? • From your experience what are some of the strengths of a collaborative approach? • What recommendations do you have to facilitate collaborative activities on this project?

22. Quality Score Detail (adapted from Health-Evidence.ca, CASP, EBM Checklist, AMSTAR)

23. Systematic Quantitative Review Process

24. Showing Consensus Process (Scientific)

25. Metrics for Success – Benchmarks in KM CoP Evaluation From: Archibald D, McDermott R, Conville P, Parker A. Knowledge & Implementation: Communities of Practice (CoP) Benchmarking Report; Using CoPs to improve individual and organizational performance. 1-73. 2006. Coventry, UK, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick.

26. Stakeholder Survey Forced Scale: Definitely Yes, Yes, Definitely No, No This review: • Is relevant to your role in your organization? • Is relevant to my organization • Contains current information (i.e. date of review/data collection period) • Contains clear, accurate, verifiable information • Will save time spent searching for and retrieving information relevant to my organization • Will assist our organization in developing creative solutions to problems • Will improve learning and/or decision making in our organization • Will contribute to the evidence-base (efficacy) of our programs • Will enhance knowledge transfer to constituents (e.g. identifies individual/organization barriers, etc.) • Should be published on the HWP Portal

27. Stakeholder Review

28. Lessons Learned Stakeholder perspective“Excellent opportunity to gain an understanding/perspective (I believe, by both sides) of the issue at hand. The integrated process helped ensure that study was balanced in its approach i.e. based on sound methodological research methods, while considering practical application to potential end users (e.g. Community Stakeholder group).” Academic Perspective The ACP provided perceived multi-level benefits to all participants and resulted in the identification and translation of credible relevant knowledge derived from a stakeholder-centredsynthesis of systematic reviews. Stakeholders actively participated in a much broader range of activities than anticipated throughout the knowledge synthesis process. The findings from the report have already led to fruitful discussions within their organizations and constituents.

29. Stakeholder perspective on final report “Given contributing factors of the employers’ environment to disability, it is very important for our consultants to engage in a discussion with the employer about their role in managing an employees’ return to work. RTW is not only about managing the physical or mental condition. Early intervention, this does not necessarily mean treatment, is required to avoid long term disability. Our consultants need to focus beyond the mental and physical issues to uncover the disability drivers. Cleary a person’s disability is wrapped up, more than we understand in the psychosocial aspects of their environment. We need to address the clients’ perception of their disability as much as we do need to treat their physical and mental condition.” “One of the most significant factors found to be of value in this review is the number of modifiable workplace factors that evidenced based research indicated to be a strong predictor for work disability.”

30. Project Outcomes The collaborative process • Led to the creation of a stakeholder-centred synthesis of qualitative and quantitative systematic reviews of risk factors contributing to workplace absences across health conditions • Refined and pilot-tested HWP workflows • Expanded our understanding about stakeholders interests in research, their organizational challenges and priorities, and what types of activities they could play in systematic reviews • The enthusiasm for the project resulted in a second successful application to WorkSafeBC and HBT to conduct a stakeholder-centred synthesis of systematic reviews on interventions impacting the identified risk factors contributing disability

31. Project Limitations • The community stakeholders have previously demonstrated interest and commitment to this HWP project and may not be representative of other stakeholders. • Beta-testing the current workflows and instruments will provide additional input into their perceived value and issues related to sustainability. • Additional stakeholder have joined us in the next synthesis of systematic reviews.

32. Do you want to help?? Marc White Ph.D. marc.white@cirpd.org