BackgroundIn health, organizational participatory research (OPR) refers to health organization members participating in research decisions, with university researchers, throughout a study. This non-academic partner contribution to the research may take the form of consultation or co-construction. A drawback of OPR is that it requires more time from all those involved, compared to non-participatory research approaches; thus, understanding the added value of OPR, if any, is important. Thus, we sought to assess whether the OPR approach leads to benefits beyond what could be achieved through traditional research.MethodsWe identified, selected, and appraised OPR health literature, and at each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used quantitative content analysis to transform textual data into reliable numerical codes and conducted a logistic regression to test the hypothesis that a co-construction type OPR study yields extra benefits with a greater likelihood than consultation-type OPR studies.ResultsFrom 8873 abstracts and 992 full text papers, we distilled a sample of 107 OPR studies. We found no difference between the type of organization members’ participation and the likelihood of exhibiting an extra benefit. However, the likelihood of an OPR study exhibiting at least one extra benefit is quadrupled when the impetus for the study comes from the organization, rather than the university researcher(s), or the organization and the university researcher(s) together (OR = 4.11, CI = 1.12–14.01). We also defined five types of extra benefits.ConclusionsThis review describes the types of extra benefits OPR can yield and suggests these benefits may occur if the organization initiates the OPR. Further, this review exposes a need for OPR authors to more clearly describe the type of non-academic partner participation in key research decisions throughout the study. Detailed descriptions will benefit others conducting OPR and allow for a re-examination of the relationship between participation and extra benefits in future reviews.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0648-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Internet has become the first source of consumer health information. Most theoretical and empirical studies are centered on information needs and seeking, rather than on information outcomes. This review's purpose is to explore and explain health outcomes of Online Consumer Health Information (OCHI) in primary care. A participatory systematic mixed studies review with a framework synthesis was undertaken. Starting from an initial conceptual framework, our specific objectives were to (a) identify types of OCHI outcomes in primary care, (b) identify factors associated with these outcomes, and (c) integrate these factors and outcomes into a comprehensive revised framework combining an information theory and a psychosocial theory of behavior. The results of 65 included studies were synthesized using a qualitative thematic data analysis. The themes derived from the literature underwent a harmonization process that produced a comprehensive typology of OCHI outcomes. The revised conceptual framework specifies four individual and one organizational level of OCHI outcomes, while including factors such as consumers' information needs and four interdependent contextual factors. It contributes to theoretical knowledge about OCHI health outcomes, and informs future research, information assessment methods, and tools to help consumers find and use health information.

Primary health care practitioners routinely search for information within electronic knowledge resources. We proposed four levels of outcomes of informationseeking: situational relevance, cognitive impact, information use, and patient health outcomes. Our objective was to produce clinical vignettes for describing and testing these levels. We conducted a mixed methods study combining a quantitative longitudinal study and a qualitative multiple case study. Participants were 10 nurses, 10 medical residents, and 10 pharmacists. They had access to an online resource, and did 793 searches for treatment recommendations. Using the Information Assessment Method (IAM), participants rated their searches for each of the four levels. Rated searches were examined in interviews guided by log reports and a think-aloud protocol. Cases were defined as clearly described searches where clinical information was used for a specific patient. For each case, interviewees described the four levels of outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative data were merged into clinical vignettes. We produced 130 clinical vignettes. Specifically, 46 vignettes (35.4%) corresponded to clinical situations where information use was associated with one or more than one type of positive patient health outcome: increased patient knowledge (n = 28), avoidance of unnecessary or inappropriate intervention (n = 25), prevention of disease or health deterioration (n = 9), health improvement (n = 6), and increased patient satisfaction (n = 3). Results suggested information use was associated with perceived benefits for patients. This may encourage clinicians to search for information more often when they feel the need. Results supported the four proposed levels of outcomes, which can be transferable to other information-seeking contexts.

BackgroundOnline consumer health information addresses health problems, self-care, disease prevention, and health care services and is intended for the general public. Using this information, people can improve their knowledge, participation in health decision-making, and health. However, there are no comprehensive instruments to evaluate the value of health information from a consumer perspective.ObjectiveWe collaborated with information providers to develop and validate the Information Assessment Method for all (IAM4all) that can be used to collect feedback from information consumers (including patients), and to enable a two-way knowledge translation between information providers and consumers.MethodsContent validation steps were followed to develop the IAM4all questionnaire. The first version was based on a theoretical framework from information science, a critical literature review and prior work. Then, 16 laypersons were interviewed on their experience with online health information and specifically their impression of the IAM4all questionnaire. Based on the summaries and interpretations of interviews, questionnaire items were revised, added, and excluded, thus creating the second version of the questionnaire. Subsequently, a panel of 12 information specialists and 8 health researchers participated in an online survey to rate each questionnaire item for relevance, clarity, representativeness, and specificity. The result of this expert panel contributed to the third, current, version of the questionnaire.ResultsThe current version of the IAM4all questionnaire is structured by four levels of outcomes of information seeking/receiving: situational relevance, cognitive impact, information use, and health benefits. Following the interviews and the expert panel survey, 9 questionnaire items were confirmed as relevant, clear, representative, and specific. To improve readability and accessibility for users with a lower level of literacy, 19 items were reworded and all inconsistencies in using a passive or active voice have been solved. One item was removed due to redundancy. The current version of the IAM4all questionnaire contains 28 items.ConclusionsWe developed and content validated the IAM4all in partnership with information providers, information specialists, researchers and representatives of information consumers. This questionnaire can be integrated within electronic knowledge resources to stimulate users’ reflection (eg, their intention to use information). We claim that any organization (eg, publishers, community organizations, or patient associations), can evaluate and improve their online consumer health information from a consumers’ perspective using this method.

Objective. To assess the use of an electronic knowledge resource to document continuing education activities and reveal educational needs of practicing pharmacists. Methods. Over a 38-week period, 67 e-mails were sent to 6,500 Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA) members. Each e-mail contained a link to an e-Therapeutics1 Highlight, a factual excerpt of selected content from an online drug and therapeutic knowledge resource. Participants were then prompted to complete a pop-up questionnaire. Results. Members completed 4,140 questionnaires. Participants attributed the information they learned in the Highlights to practice improvements (50.4%), learning (57.0%), and motivation to learn more (57.4%). Conclusions. Reading Highlight excerpts and completing Web-based questionnaires is an effective method of continuing education that could be easily documented and tracked, making it an effective tool for use with e-portfolios.