Person:
Lavis, John N.

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Lavis

First Name

John N.

Name

Lavis, John N.
Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.991cf623-19a2-46fa-a6e1-520ebd52bf0e

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 26
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue
    (BioMed Central, 2015) Wilson, Michael G; Lavis, John N.; Gauvin, Francois-Pierre
    Background: There is currently no mechanism in place outside of government to provide rapid syntheses of the best available research evidence about problems, options and/or implementation considerations related to a specific health system challenge that Canadian health system decision-makers need to address in a timely manner. A ‘rapid-response’ program could address this gap by providing access to optimally packaged, relevant and high-quality research evidence over short periods of time (i.e. days or weeks). Methods: We prepared an issue brief that describes the best available research evidence related to the problem, three broad features of a program that addresses the problem and implementation considerations. We identified systematic reviews by searching for organization-targeted implementation strategies in Health Systems Evidence (www.healthsystemsevidence.org) and drew on an existing analytical framework for how knowledge-brokering organizations can organize themselves to operationalize the program features. The issue brief was then used to inform a half-day stakeholder dialogue about whether and how to develop a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada. We thematically synthesized the deliberations. Results: We found very few relevant systematic reviews but used frameworks and examples from existing programs to 1) outline key considerations for organizing a rapid-response program,, 2) determine what can be done in timelines ranging from 3 to 10 and 30 business days, and 3) define success and measure it. The 11 dialogue participants from across Canada largely agreed with the content presented in the brief, but noted two key challenges to consider: securing stable, long-term funding and finding a way to effectively and equitably manage the expected demand. Recommendations and suggestions for next steps from dialogue participants included taking an ‘organic’ approach to developing a pan-Canadian network and including jurisdictional scans as a type of product to deliver through the program (rather than only syntheses of research evidence). Conclusions: Dialogue participants clearly signalled that there is an appetite for a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada. To ‘organically’ build such a program, we are currently engaging in efforts to build partnerships and secure funding to support the creation of a pan-Canadian network for conducting rapid syntheses for health system decision-makers in Canada. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0009-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Supporting chronic pain management across provincial and territorial health systems in Canada: Findings from two stakeholder dialogues
    (Pulsus Group Inc, 2015) Wilson, Michael G; Lavis, John N.; Ellen, Moriah E
    BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a serious health problem given its prevalence, associated disability, impact on quality of life and the costs associated with the extensive use of health care services by individuals living with it. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the research evidence and elicit health system policymakers’, stakeholders’ and researchers’ tacit knowledge and views about improving chronic pain management in Canada and engaging provincial and territorial health system decision makers in supporting comprehensive chronic pain management in Canada. METHODS: For these two topics, the global and local research evidence regarding each of the two problems were synthesized in evidence briefs. Three options were generated for addressing each problem, and implementation considerations were assessed. A stakeholder dialogue regarding each topic was convened (with 29 participants in total) and the deliberations were synthesized. RESULTS: To inform the first stakeholder dialogue, the authors found that systematic reviews supported the use of evidence-based tools for strengthening chronic pain management, including patient education, self-management supports, interventions to implement guidelines and multidisciplinary approaches to pain management. While research evidence about patient registries/treatment-monitoring systems is limited, many dialogue participants argued that a registry/system is needed. Many saw a registry as a precondition for moving forward with other options, including creating a national network of chronic pain centres with a coordinating ‘hub’ to provide chronic pain-related decision support and a cross-payer, cross-discipline model of patient-centred primary health care-based chronic pain management. For the second dialogue, systematic reviews indicated that traditional media can be used to positively influence individual health-related behaviours, and that multistakeholder partnerships can contribute to increasing attention devoted to issues on policy agendas. Dialogue participants emphasized the need to mobilize behind an effort to build a national network that would bring together existing organizations and committed individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Developing a national network and, thereafter, a national pain strategy are important initiatives that garnered broad-based support during the dialogues. Efforts toward achieving this goal have been made since convening the dialogues.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Identifying and characterising health policy and system-relevant documents in Uganda: a scoping review to develop a framework for the development of a one-stop shop
    (BioMed Central, 2017) Mutatina, Boniface; Basaza, Robert; Obuku, Ekwaro; Lavis, John N.; Sewankambo, Nelson
    Background: Health policymakers in low- and middle-income countries continue to face difficulties in accessing and using research evidence for decision-making. This study aimed to identify and provide a refined categorisation of the policy documents necessary for building the content of a one-stop shop for documents relevant to health policy and systems in Uganda. The on-line resource is to facilitate timely access to well-packaged evidence for decision-making. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of Uganda-specific, health policy, and systems-relevant documents produced between 2000 and 2014. Our methods borrowed heavily from the 2005 Arksey and O’Malley approach for scoping reviews and involved five steps, which that include identification of the research question; identification of relevant documents; screening and selection of the documents; charting of the data; and collating, summarising and reporting results. We searched for the documents from websites of relevant government institutions, non-governmental organisations, health professional councils and associations, religious medical bureaus and research networks. We presented the review findings as numerical analyses of the volume and nature of documents and trends over time in the form of tables and charts. Results: We identified a total of 265 documents including policies, strategies, plans, guidelines, rapid response summaries, evidence briefs for policy, and dialogue reports. The top three clusters of national priority areas addressed in the documents were governance, coordination, monitoring and evaluation (28%); disease prevention, mitigation, and control (23%); and health education, promotion, environmental health and nutrition (15%). The least addressed were curative, palliative care, rehabilitative services and health infrastructure, each addressed in three documents (1%), and early childhood development in one document. The volume of documents increased over the past 15 years; however, the distribution of the different document types over time has not been uniform. Conclusion: The review findings are necessary for mobilising and packaging the local policy-relevant documents in Uganda in a one-stop shop; where policymakers could easily access them to address pressing questions about the health system and interventions. The different types of available documents and the national priority areas covered provide a good basis for building and organising the content in a meaningful way for the resource.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    What supports do health system organizations have in place to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making? a qualitative study
    (BioMed Central, 2013) Ellen, Moriah E; Léon, Gregory; Bouchard, Gisèle; Lavis, John N.; Ouimet, Mathieu; Grimshaw, Jeremy M
    Background: Decisions regarding health systems are sometimes made without the input of timely and reliable evidence, leading to less than optimal health outcomes. Healthcare organizations can implement tools and infrastructures to support the use of research evidence to inform decision-making. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to profile the supports and instruments (i.e., programs, interventions, instruments or tools) that healthcare organizations currently have in place and which ones were perceived to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making. Methods: In-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals in three different types of positions (i.e., a senior management team member, a library manager, and a ‘knowledge broker’) in three types of healthcare organizations (i.e., regional health authorities, hospitals and primary care practices) in two Canadian provinces (i.e., Ontario and Quebec). The interviews were taped, transcribed, and then analyzed thematically using NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software. Results: A total of 57 interviews were conducted in 25 organizations in Ontario and Quebec. The main findings suggest that, for the healthcare organizations that participated in this study, the following supports facilitate evidence-informed decision-making: facilitating roles that actively promote research use within the organization; establishing ties to researchers and opinion leaders outside the organization; a technical infrastructure that provides access to research evidence, such as databases; and provision and participation in training programs to enhance staff’s capacity building. Conclusions: This study identified the need for having a receptive climate, which laid the foundation for the implementation of other tangible initiatives and supported the use of research in decision-making. This study adds to the literature on organizational efforts that can increase the use of research evidence in decision-making. Some of the identified supports may increase the use of research evidence by decision-makers, which may then lead to more informed decisions, and hopefully to a strengthened health system and improved health.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    The global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking
    (BioMed Central, 2013) Wilson, Michael G; Moat, Kaelan A; Lavis, John N.
    Background: Policymakers and stakeholders need immediate access to many types of research evidence to make informed decisions about the full range of questions that may arise regarding health systems. Methods: We examined all types of research evidence about governance, financial and delivery arrangements, and implementation strategies within health systems contained in Health Systems Evidence (HSE) (http://www.healthsystemsevidence.org). The research evidence types include evidence briefs for policy, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews of effects, systematic reviews addressing other questions, systematic reviews in progress, systematic reviews being planned, economic evaluations, and health reform and health system descriptions. Specifically, we describe their distribution across health system topics and domains, trends in their production over time, availability of supplemental content in various languages, and the extent to which they focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as (for systematic reviews) their methodological quality and the availability of user-friendly summaries. Results: As of July 2013, HSE contained 2,629 systematic reviews of effects (of which 501 are Cochrane reviews), 614 systematic reviews addressing other questions, 283 systematic reviews in progress, 186 systematic reviews being planned, 140 review-derived products (evidence briefs and overviews of systematic reviews), 1,669 economic evaluations, 1,092 health reform descriptions, and 209 health system descriptions. Most systematic reviews address topics related to delivery arrangements (n = 2,663) or implementation strategies (n = 1,653) with far fewer addressing financial (n = 241) or governance arrangements (n = 231). In addition, 2,928 systematic reviews have been quality appraised with moderate AMSTAR ratings found for reviews addressing governance (5.6/11), financial (5.9/11), and delivery (6.3/11) arrangements and implementation strategies (6.5/11); 1,075 systematic reviews have no independently produced user-friendly summary and only 737 systematic reviews have an LMIC focus. Literature searches for half of the systematic reviews (n = 1,584, 49%) were conducted within the last five years. Conclusions: Greater effort needs to focus on assessing whether the current distribution of systematic reviews corresponds to policymakers’ and stakeholders’ priorities, updating systematic reviews, increasing the quality of systematic reviews, and focusing on LMICs.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Advancing the field of health systems research synthesis
    (BioMed Central, 2015) Langlois, Etienne V.; Ranson, Michael K.; Bärnighausen, Till; Bosch-Capblanch, Xavier; Daniels, Karen; El-Jardali, Fadi; Ghaffar, Abdul; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Haines, Andy; Lavis, John N.; Lewin, Simon; Meng, Qingyue; Oliver, Sandy; Pantoja, Tomás; Straus, Sharon; Shemilt, Ian; Tovey, David; Tugwell, Peter; Waddington, Hugh; Wilson, Mark; Yuan, Beibei; Røttingen, John-Arne
    Those planning, managing and working in health systems worldwide routinely need to make decisions regarding strategies to improve health care and promote equity. Systematic reviews of different kinds can be of great help to these decision-makers, providing actionable evidence at every step in the decision-making process. Although there is growing recognition of the importance of systematic reviews to inform both policy decisions and produce guidance for health systems, a number of important methodological and evidence uptake challenges remain and better coordination of existing initiatives is needed. The Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, housed within the World Health Organization, convened an Advisory Group on Health Systems Research (HSR) Synthesis to bring together different stakeholders interested in HSR synthesis and its use in decision-making processes. We describe the rationale of the Advisory Group and the six areas of its work and reflects on its role in advancing the field of HSR synthesis. We argue in favour of greater cross-institutional collaborations, as well as capacity strengthening in low- and middle-income countries, to advance the science and practice of health systems research synthesis. We advocate for the integration of quasi-experimental study designs in reviews of effectiveness of health systems intervention and reforms. The Advisory Group also recommends adopting priority-setting approaches for HSR synthesis and increasing the use of findings from systematic reviews in health policy and decision-making.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Activity-Based Funding of Hospitals and Its Impact on Mortality, Readmission, Discharge Destination, Severity of Illness, and Volume of Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    (Public Library of Science, 2014) Palmer, Karen S.; Agoritsas, Thomas; Martin, Danielle; Scott, Taryn; Mulla, Sohail M.; Miller, Ashley P.; Agarwal, Arnav; Bresnahan, Andrew; Hazzan, Afeez Abiola; Jeffery, Rebecca A.; Merglen, Arnaud; Negm, Ahmed; Siemieniuk, Reed A.; Bhatnagar, Neera; Dhalla, Irfan A.; Lavis, John N.; You, John J.; Duckett, Stephen J.; Guyatt, Gordon H.
    Background: Activity-based funding (ABF) of hospitals is a policy intervention intended to re-shape incentives across health systems through the use of diagnosis-related groups. Many countries are adopting or actively promoting ABF. We assessed the effect of ABF on key measures potentially affecting patients and health care systems: mortality (acute and post-acute care); readmission rates; discharge rate to post-acute care following hospitalization; severity of illness; volume of care. Methods: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the worldwide evidence produced since 1980. We included all studies reporting original quantitative data comparing the impact of ABF versus alternative funding systems in acute care settings, regardless of language. We searched 9 electronic databases (OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Business Source), hand-searched reference lists, and consulted with experts. Paired reviewers independently screened for eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed study credibility according to a pre-defined scoring system, resolving conflicts by discussion or adjudication. Results: Of 16,565 unique citations, 50 US studies and 15 studies from 9 other countries proved eligible (i.e. Australia, Austria, England, Germany, Israel, Italy, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland). We found consistent and robust differences between ABF and no-ABF in discharge to post-acute care, showing a 24% increase with ABF (pooled relative risk = 1.24, 95% CI 1.18–1.31). Results also suggested a possible increase in readmission with ABF, and an apparent increase in severity of illness, perhaps reflecting differences in diagnostic coding. Although we found no consistent, systematic differences in mortality rates and volume of care, results varied widely across studies, some suggesting appreciable benefits from ABF, and others suggesting deleterious consequences. Conclusions: Transitioning to ABF is associated with important policy- and clinically-relevant changes. Evidence suggests substantial increases in admissions to post-acute care following hospitalization, with implications for system capacity and equitable access to care. High variability in results of other outcomes leaves the impact in particular settings uncertain, and may not allow a jurisdiction to predict if ABF would be harmless. Decision-makers considering ABF should plan for likely increases in post-acute care admissions, and be aware of the large uncertainty around impacts on other critical outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Barriers, facilitators and views about next steps to implementing supports for evidence-informed decision-making in health systems: a qualitative study
    (BioMed Central, 2014) Ellen, Moriah E; Léon, Grégory; Bouchard, Gisèle; Ouimet, Mathieu; Grimshaw, Jeremy M; Lavis, John N.
    Background: Mobilizing research evidence for daily decision-making is challenging for health system decision-makers. In a previous qualitative paper, we showed the current mix of supports that Canadian health-care organizations have in place and the ones that are perceived to be helpful to facilitate the use of research evidence in health system decision-making. Factors influencing the implementation of such supports remain poorly described in the literature. Identifying the barriers to and facilitators of different interventions is essential for implementation of effective, context-specific, supports for evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in health systems. The purpose of this study was to identify (a) barriers and facilitators to implementing supports for EIDM in Canadian health-care organizations, (b) views about emerging development of supports for EIDM, and (c) views about the priorities to bridge the gaps in the current mix of supports that these organizations have in place. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in three types of health-care organizations (regional health authorities, hospitals, and primary care practices) in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec). Fifty-seven in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with senior managers, library managers, and knowledge brokers from health-care organizations that have already undertaken strategic initiatives in knowledge translation. The interviews were taped, transcribed, and then analyzed thematically using NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software. Results: Limited resources (i.e., money or staff), time constraints, and negative attitudes (or resistance) toward change were the most frequently identified barriers to implementing supports for EIDM. Genuine interest from health system decision-makers, notably their willingness to invest money and resources and to create a knowledge translation culture over time in health-care organizations, was the most frequently identified facilitator to implementing supports for EIDM. The most frequently cited views about emerging development of supports for EIDM were implementing accessible and efficient systems to support the use of research in decision-making (e.g., documentation and reporting tools, communication tools, and decision support tools) and developing and implementing an infrastructure or position where the accountability for encouraging knowledge use lies. The most frequently stated priorities for bridging the gaps in the current mix of supports that these organizations have in place were implementing technical infrastructures to support research use and to ensure access to research evidence and establishing formal or informal ties to researchers and knowledge brokers outside the organization who can assist in EIDM. Conclusions: These results provide insights on the type of practical implementation imperatives involved in supporting EIDM.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy
    (BioMed Central, 2014) Lavis, John N.; Boyko, Jennifer A; Gauvin, Francois-Pierre
    Background: Deliberative dialogues have recently captured attention in the public health policy arena because they have the potential to address several key factors that influence the use of research evidence in policymaking. We conducted an evaluation of three deliberative dialogues convened in Canada by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy in order to learn more about deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy. Methods: The evaluation included a formative assessment of participants’ views about and experiences with ten key design features of the dialogues, and a summative assessment of participants’ intention to use research evidence of the type that was discussed at the dialogue. We surveyed participants immediately after each dialogue was completed and again six months later. We analyzed the ratings using descriptive statistics and the written comments by conducting a thematic analysis. Results: A total of 31 individuals participated in the three deliberative dialogues that we evaluated. The response rate was 94% (N = 29; policymakers (n = 9), stakeholders (n = 18), researchers (n = 2)) for the initial survey and 56% (n = 14) for the follow-up. All 10 of the design features that we examined as part of the formative evaluation were rated favourably by all participant groups. The findings of the summative evaluation demonstrated a mean behavioural intention score of 5.8 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Conclusion: Our findings reinforce the promise of deliberative dialogues as a strategy for supporting evidence-informed public health policies. Additional work is needed to understand more about which design elements work in which situations and for different issues, and whether intention to use research evidence is a suitable substitute for measuring actual behaviour change.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Health systems and policy research evidence in health policy making in Israel: what are researchers’ practices in transferring knowledge to policy makers?
    (BioMed Central, 2014) Ellen, Moriah E; Lavis, John N.; Sharon, Assaf; Shemer, Joshua
    Background: Ensuring the use of research evidence in health system management and policy decisions is an important challenge in this century. Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) has emerged as a paradigm to address the challenges and start closing the ‘know-do’ gap. This area of work is gaining momentum in most developed countries, yet, to date, no work has been performed in Israel within this area. The purpose of this study was to identify which KTE activities health systems and policy researchers in Israel have undertaken. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey of researchers who have conducted health systems and policy research in Israel was developed. The survey consisted of a demographics section, quantitative scales, and open-ended questions. The survey was sent to all health systems and policy researchers in Israel (n = 125). Results: The study response rate (28%) was relatively low as compared to other studies in the same field (range of 42% to 88%). Our survey found that more than a third of the health systems and policy researchers in Israel reported that they were frequently or always involved in the following KTE activities: interactions with target audience through the research process (i.e., during developing a research question or executing the research; 35% to 42%) or through formal or informal meetings during conferences, workshops, or conversations (40%). Less than half of the health systems and policy researchers in Israel are engaged in bridging activities aimed to facilitate target audiences to use research. Conclusions: This is a fairly new area in Israel and therefore the level of engagement of researchers in KTE activities is not very high. The low response rates could be because KTE is a new field in Israel and minimal KTE initiatives have been undertaken. It is preferable to have higher response rates, yet, after several initiatives, this was the outcome. While the findings are relevant, they may not reflect the total population of health system and policy researchers in Israel. Health system and policy researchers in Israel need to be introduced to the benefits and potential advantages of KTE in an organized and systematic way.