Background The champion model is increasingly being adopted to improve uptake of guideline-based care in long-term care (LTC). Studies suggest that an on-site champion may improve the quality of care residents’ health outcomes. This review assessed the effectiveness of the champion on staff adherence to guidelines and subsequent resident outcomes in LTC homes. Method This was a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies included residents aged 65 or over and nursing staff in LTC homes where there was a stand-alone or multi-component intervention that used a champion to improve staff adherence to guidelines and resident outcomes. The measured outcomes included staff adherence to guidelines, resident health outcomes, quality of life, adverse events, satisfaction with care, or resource use. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool; evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results After screening 4367 citations, we identified 12 articles that included the results of 1 RCT and 11 cluster-RCTs. All included papers evaluated the effects of a champion as part of a multicomponent intervention. We found low certainty evidence that champions as part of multicomponent interventions may improve staff adherence to guidelines. Effect sizes varied in magnitude across studies including unadjusted risk differences (RD) of 4.1% [95% CI: − 3%, 9%] to 44.8% [95% CI: 32%, 61%] for improving pressure ulcer prevention in a bed and a chair, respectively, RD of 44% [95% CI: 17%, 71%] for improving depression identification and RD of 21% [95% CI: 12%, 30%] for improving function-focused care to residents. Conclusion Champions may improve staff adherence to evidence-based guidelines in LTC homes. However, methodological issues and poor reporting creates uncertainty around these findings. It is premature to recommend the widespread use of champions to improve uptake of guideline-based care in LTC without further study of the champion role and its impact on cost. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42019145579. Registered on 20 August 2019.

IntroductionSubstantial delays in translating evidence to practice mean that many beneficial and vital advances in medical care are not being used in a timely manner. Traditional knowledge translation (KT) strategies have tended to target academics by disseminating findings in academic journals and at scientific conferences. Alternative strategies, such as theatre-based KT, appear to be effective at targeting broader audiences. The purpose of this scoping review is to collate and understand the current state of science on the use of theatre as a KT strategy. This will allow us to identify gaps in literature, determine the need for a systematic review and develop additional research questions to advance the field.Methods and analysisThis review will follow established scoping review methods outlined by Arksey and O’Malley in conjunction with enhanced recommendations made by Levac et al. The search strategy, guided by an experienced librarian, will be conducted in PubMed, CINHAL and OVID. Study selection will consist of three stages: (1) initial title and abstract scan by one author to remove irrelevant articles and create a shortlist for double screening, (2) title and abstract scan by two authors, and (3) full-text review by two authors. Included studies will report specifically on the use of theatre as means of KT of health-related information to any target population. Two reviewers will independently extract and chart the data using a standardised data extraction form. Descriptive statistics will be used to produce numerical summaries related to study characteristics, KT strategy characteristics and evaluation characteristics. For those studies that included an evaluation of the theatre production as a KT strategy, we will synthesise the data according to outcome.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was not required for this study. Results will be published in relevant journals, presented at conferences and distributed via social media.

Rural physicians face many challenges with providing rural health care, which often leads to innovative solutions. Despite their creativity with overcoming barriers, there is a lack of support for rural health research -an area of health care where research makes great impacts on small communities. Rural research capacity building (RRCB) is essential to support rural physicians so that they can conduct relevant research, but RRCB programs are sparse. Thus, our team at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada, has created an RRCB ecosystem through the 6for6 and Rural360 programs, which outline a pathway for rural physicians to make meaningful contributions to their communities through research. This article describes the RRCB ecosystem and explains how the 6for6 and Rural360 programs address the need for RRCB. Designed to train six rural physicians over six sessions per year, 6for6 fosters learning of research practices through a conceptual framework that envelops complexity science, systems thinking, and anchored instruction. The use of this framework allows the learning to be grounded in issues that are locally relevant for each participant and follows guiding principles that enable many types of learning. Rural360 continues the pathway by providing an inhouse funding opportunity with an iterative review process that allows participants to continue developing their research skills and, ultimately, secure funding for their project. This anchored delivery model of RRCB programming is made possible through many support systems including staff, librarians, instructors, the university, and other stakeholders. It has successfully helped form communities of practice, promotes collaboration both between learners and with third parties, encourages self-organization with flexibility for learners outside of the in-house sessions, and ultimately drives social accountability in addressing local healthcare issues.