Co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching: a mixed methods case study within a review.
Engagement
Evaluation
Integrated knowledge translation
Knowledge synthesis
Patient-centered research
Research co-production
Self-study
Study within a review
Systematic reviews
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jun 2024
03 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
18
10
2023
accepted:
16
05
2024
medline:
4
6
2024
pubmed:
4
6
2024
entrez:
3
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching. We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis. We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges. Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38831444
doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02563-8
pii: 10.1186/s13643-024-02563-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
149Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : FRN# PJT-162135
Pays : Canada
Investigateurs
Laura Boland
(L)
Sandra Dun
(S)
Andrew A Dwyer
(AA)
Jeanette Finderup
(J)
Jürgen Kasper
(J)
Simone Kienlin
(S)
Sascha Köpke
(S)
France Légaré
(F)
Krystina Lewis
(K)
Anne Christin Rahn
(AC)
Claudia Rutherford
(C)
Junqiang Zhao
(J)
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). CIHR Strategic Plan 2021–2031: a vision for a Healthier Future. The best health for all, powered by outstanding research [cited August 28, 2023]. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/52331.html .
World Health Organization. Everybody business: strengthening health systems to improve health outcomes: WHO’s framework for action. Geneva: Switzerland; 2007.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001.
Hanna TP, King WD, Thibodeau S, Jalink M, Paulin GA, Harvey-Jones E, et al. Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ. 2020;371:m4087.
pubmed: 33148535
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsch SR, Alexandra JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.
pubmed: 19664226
pmcid: 2736161
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
Jull JE, Davidson L, Dungan R, Nguyen T, Woodward KP, Graham I. A review and synthesis of frameworks for engagement in health research to identify concepts of knowledge user engagement. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:211.
pubmed: 31752691
pmcid: 6869315
doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0838-1
Parry D, Salsberg J, Macauley AC. Guide to researcher and knowledge-user collaboration in health research 2015. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44954.html#s2 . Cited 2023 April 17.
Jull J, Giles A, Graham ID. Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge. Implement Science. 2017;12(1):150.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0696-3
Felipe A, Renedo A, Marston C. The coproduction of what? Knowledges, values, and social relations in health care. PLoS Bioly. 2017;15(5):e2001403.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001403
Kothari A, Rycorft-Malone J, McCutcheon C, Graham ID. Chapter 1 Introduction. 2022. In: Research coproduction in healthcare. Wiley.
Ostrom E. Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Dev. 1996;24(6):1073–87.
doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X
Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L, Hilliard TS, Paez KA. The PCORI engagement rubric: promising practices for partnering in research. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(2):165–70.
pubmed: 28289118
pmcid: 5348236
doi: 10.1370/afm.2042
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Patient engagement: what is patient engagement? : Government of Canada; 2018. Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45851.html .
Tetroe J. Knowledge Translation at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: a primer. Focus Technical Brief. 2007;18:1–8.
Van De Ven AH, Johnson PE. Knowledge for theory and practice. Acad Manag Rev. 2006;31(4):802–21.
doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.22527385
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Guide to knowledge translation planning at CIHR: integrated and end-of-grant approaches 2015 Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45321.html .
Filipe ARA, Marston C. The coproduction of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(5): e2001403.
pubmed: 28467412
pmcid: 5414996
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001403
Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice. UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2009.
doi: 10.1002/9781444311747
The University of Brtitish Columbia. IKT Guiding Principles UBC Available from: https://ikt.ok.ubc.ca/ .
Verschuere B, Brandsen T, Pestoff V. Co-production: the state of the art in research and the future agenda. VOLUNTAS. 2012;23(4):1083–101.
doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8
Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N. The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):33.
pubmed: 30922339
pmcid: 6437844
doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3
Kothari A, Wathen NC. A second critical look at knowledge translation. Health Policy. 2013;109(2):187–91.
pubmed: 23228520
doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.11.004
SPOR Evidence Alliance. Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Alliance: a Canadian Modeul to Build Learning Health Systems 2023. Available from: https://sporevidencealliance.ca .
Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane framework for engagement and involvement of patients, carers, and the public 2023. Available from: https://www.cochrane.org/news/cochrane-framework-engagement-and-involvement-patients-carers-and-public .
Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Morris J, Watts C, Morely R. Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019;24(4):245–55.
pubmed: 30997859
doi: 10.1177/1355819619841647
Pollock A, Ccampbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Morris J, Watts C, Morley R. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2018;7:208.
pubmed: 30474560
pmcid: 6260873
doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0
Pollock A, Campbell P, Synnot A, Smith M, Morley R. Patient and public involvement in systematic reviews. GIN; 2021.
Devane D, Burke NN, Treweek S, Clarke S, Thomas J, Booth A, Tricco AC, Saif-Ur-Rahman KM. Study within a review (SWAR). Journal of Evidence Based Medicine. 2022;15:328–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12505 .
doi: 10.1111/jebm.12505
pubmed: 36513956
pmcid: 10107874
Coulter A, Collins A. Making shared decision-making a reality: no decision about me, without me. London: The King’s Fund; 2011.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Shared decision making 2024. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/nice-guidelines/shared-decision-making .
Jull J, Kopke S, Boland L, Coulter A, Dunn S, Graham ID, Hutton B, Kasper J, Kienlin SM, Légaré F, Lewis KB, Lyddiatt A, Osaka W, Rader T, Rahn AC, Rutherford C, Smith M, Stacey D. Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;7:CD013385.
Woods J. Self-study: a method for continuous professional learning and a methodology for knowledge transfer. Qual Advance Nurs Educ. 2021;7(2):7.
Pitthouse-Morgan K. Self-study in teaching and teacher education: characteristics and contributions. Teaching Teach Educ. 2022;119:103880.
doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103880
Miles MB, Huberman A, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2014.
Yin R. Case study research design: design and methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2018.
Walton JB, Plano Clark VL, Foote LA, Johnson CC. Navigating intersecting roads in a mixed methods case study: a dissertation journey. J Mixed Methods Res. 2020;14(4):436–55.
doi: 10.1177/1558689819872422
Jull J, Giles A, Boyer Y, Stacey D, Minwaashin Lodge - The Aboriginal Women’s Support Centre. Development of a collaborative research framework: an example of a study conducted by and with a first nations, inuit and métis women’s community and its research partners. ACME. 2018;17(3):671–86.
Jull J, Giles A, Boyer Y, Stacey D. Cultural adaptation of a shared decision making tool with Aboriginal women: a qualitative study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15:1.
pubmed: 25889846
pmcid: 4320550
doi: 10.1186/s12911-015-0129-7
Funnell S, Jull J, Mbuagbaw L, Welch V, Dewidar O, et al. Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline. Int J Equity Health. 2023;22(1):55.
pubmed: 36991403
pmcid: 10060140
doi: 10.1186/s12939-023-01854-1
Jull J, Graham ID, Kristjansson E, Moher D, Petkovic J, Yoganathan M, Tugwell P, Welch VA, Members of the, Consort-Equity Boston Equity, Symposium. Taking an integrated knowledge translation approach in research to develop the CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting guideline: an observational study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e026866.
pubmed: 31366641
pmcid: 6678066
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026866
Jull J, Crispo J, Welch V, MacDonald H, Brascoupe S, Boyer Y, et al. Interventions for indigenous peoples making health decisions: a systematic review. Pimatisiwin. 2013;11(3):539–54.
Jull J, Fairman K, Oliver S, Hesmer B, Pullattayil AK, The Not Deciding Alone Team. Interventions for Indigenous Peoples making health decisions: a systematic review. Arch Public Health. 2023;81:174.
pubmed: 37759336
pmcid: 10523645
doi: 10.1186/s13690-023-01177-1
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, Altman DG, Moher D, Barber R, Denegri S, Entwistle A, Littlejohns P, Morris C, Suleman R, Thomas V, Tysall C. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. The BMJ. 2017;358:j3453.
pubmed: 28768629
pmcid: 5539518
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3453
O’Brien B, Harris I, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR). Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51.
pubmed: 24979285
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Considerations when paying patient partners in research 2022. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/51466.html .
Morley R, Smith M, Morley K, Meader N, Jull J. Ready, set, go! Consumer involvement in systematic reviews Evidence Synthesis Ireland 2021. Available from: https://evidencesynthesisireland.ie/webinar/webinarcochraneconsumerinvolvement/ .
Jull J, Köpke S, Rahn A, Finderup J, Boland L, Lewis K, et al. Decision coaching for people preparing to make health care decisions: a systematic review using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SMDM 2020; October 6 2020; Virtual conference2020.
Jull J, Köpke S, Smith M, Carley M, Finderup J, Rahn AC, Boland L, Dunn S, Dwyer AA, Kasper J, Kienlin SM, Légaré F, Lewis KB, Lyddiatt A, Rutherford C, Zhao J, Rader T, Graham ID, Stacey D. Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;11(11):CD013385.
pubmed: 34749427
Finderup J. Shared decision making-the cornerstone in person-centred care. J Ren Care. 2021;47(3):144–5.
pubmed: 34355856
doi: 10.1111/jorc.12392
Jull J, Köpke S, Smith M, Carley M, Finderup J, Rahn AC, et al. Cochrane consumers and communication: Cochrane library. 2021. Available from: https://cccrg.cochrane.org/news/new-review-decision-coaching-people-making-healthcare-decisions . Cited 2023.
Jull J, Stacey D, Kopke S. Support and collaboration with health-care providers can help people make health decisions. The Conversation. 2021 September 16 2023. Available from: https://theconversation.com/support-and-collaboration-with-health-care-providers-can-help-people-make-health-decisions-169816 .
International Association for Public Participation (IAP2): Advancing the practice of public participation. IAP2; n.d. Available from: https://www.iap2.org/page/pillars
Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method: John Wiley & Sons. 2014.
doi: 10.1002/9781394260645
Latour JM, Tume L. How to do and report survey results robustly: a helpful mnemonic SURVEY. Nurs Crit Care. 2021;26:313–4.
pubmed: 34053156
doi: 10.1111/nicc.12669
Gunther E. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3): e34.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34
Arnstein S. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc. 1969;35(4):216–24.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for patient-oriented research - patient engagement framework: Government of Canada; 2019. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.html .
PCORI. Ways of Engaging- ENgagement Activity Tool (WE-ENACT) - Patients and Stakeholders 3.0 Item Pool2016 March 2, 2023. Available from: https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-WE-ENACT-3-0-Patients-Stakeholders-Item-Pool-080916.pdf .
PCORI. Evaluating Our Engagement in Research Initiatives: PCORI; 2023 [Available from: https://www.pcori.org/about/evaluating-our-work/evaluating-key-aspects-our-work/evaluating-our-engagement-research-initiatives .
Kothari A, MacLean L, Edwards N, Hobbs A. Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration. Knowl Manag Res Pract. 2011;9:203–14.
doi: 10.1057/kmrp.2011.16
Kothari A, Sibbald S, Wathen N. For the PreVAiL Research Network. PreVAiL Partnership Evaluation Project Phase 1 Final Report. 2013.
Kothari A, Sibbald S, Wathen N. Evaluation of partnerships in a transnational family violence prevention network using an integreated knowledge translation and exchange model: a mixed methods study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:25.
pubmed: 24886489
pmcid: 4035665
doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-12-25
Jull J, CONSORT Equity Team. The value of an integrated knowledge translation approach for developing reporting guidelines: engaging knowledge users interested in equity-relevant decision making. Toronto: Knowledge Translation Canada Scientific Meeting; 2016.
Bowen G. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J. 2009;9(2):27–40.
doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027
Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F. Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1802–11.
pubmed: 27340178
doi: 10.1177/1049732316654870
Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis. Journal of Advance Nursing. 2008;62(1):107–15.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Fetters M, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6):2136–56.
O’Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, Elmslie T, Jolly E, Hollingworth G, McPherson R, Bunn H, Graham I, Drake E. A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;33(3):267–79.
pubmed: 9731164
doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00026-3
Review Manager Web (RevMan Web). Version 4.27.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2023. Available at revman.cochrane.org.
Involve. Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research INVOLVE, Eastleigh 2012. Available from: http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/INVOLVEBriefingNotesApr2012.pdf .
Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability. 2020;3:182–90.
doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2
Jenkins N, Matthews P. When methods meet: coproduction and participatory research Scottish Graduate School of Social Science Sgoil Cheumnaichean Saidheans Sòisealta na h-Alba 2020. Available from: https://www.sgsss.ac.uk/methods-resource/co-production-and-participatory-research/ .
Flinders M, Woods M, Cunningham M. The politics of co-production: risks, limits and pollution. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2016;12(2):261–79.
doi: 10.1332/174426415X14412037949967
Rycroft-Malone Burton CR, Bucknall T, Graham ID, Hutchinson AM, Stacey D. Collaboration and co-production of knowledge in healthcare: opportunities and challenges. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(4):221–3.
pubmed: 27239867
doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.08
Graham ID, Kothari A, McCutcheon C. Moving knowledge into action for more effective practice, programmes and policy: protocol for a research programme on integrated knowledge translation. Implement Sci. 2018;13:22.
pubmed: 29394932
pmcid: 5797415
doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0700-y
NHS England. Co-production n.d. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/always-events/co-production/ .
McLean R, Tucker J. Evaluation of CIHR’s knoweldge translation funding program: Government of Canada; 2013. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/47332.html#a3.1 .
Fisch N, Atherton P, Doyle-Waters MM, MacLeod M, Mallidou A, Sheane V, Ward J, Woodley J. Patient-oriented research competencies in health (PORCH) for researchers, patients, healthcare providers, and decision makers: results of a scoping review. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2020;6 (4): https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-0180-0
Knowles SE, Allen D, Donnelly A, Flynn J, Gallacher K, Lewis A, et al. More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production. Res Involve Engagem. 2021;7:34.
doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00262-5
Witteman O, Dansokho SC, Colquhoun H, Fagerlin A, Giguere AM, Glouberman S, et al. Twelve lessons learned for effective research partnerships between patients, caregivers, clinicians, academic researchers, and other stakeholders. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(4):558–62.
pubmed: 29327211
pmcid: 5880766
doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4269-6
Feldman A. Validity and quality in self study. Educational Researcher. 2003;32(3):26–8.
doi: 10.3102/0013189X032003026
Nordin A, Kjellstrom S, Robert G, Masterson D, Areskoug JK. Measurement and outcomes of co-production in health and social care: a systematic review of empirical studies. BMJ Open. 2023;13: e073808. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073808 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073808
pubmed: 37739472
pmcid: 10533672
Norton MJ. Corproduction and mental health service provision: a protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5): e058428. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058428 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058428
pubmed: 35589357
pmcid: 9121488
Durose C, Needham C, Mangan C, Rees J. Generating ‘good enough’ evidence for co-production. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2017;13(1):135–51.
doi: 10.1332/174426415X14440619792955