1
00:00:01,740 --> 00:00:05,040
My name is Janet Harris, and I work at the University of Sheffield.

2
00:00:05,640 --> 00:00:09,250
And one of the things I'm working on is real estate reviews.

3
00:00:09,300 --> 00:00:18,570
So I'm part of a team of people that set up a new international centre in Liverpool for a real estate evaluation and synthesis.

4
00:00:18,570 --> 00:00:21,510
And we're organising our first international conference this autumn.

5
00:00:23,250 --> 00:00:28,410
I'm also a member of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Research Methods Group,

6
00:00:29,040 --> 00:00:37,140
which has been working for the last 15 years to try to get qualitative evidence included in Cochrane reviews.

7
00:00:37,920 --> 00:00:40,710
And there has been some success lately.

8
00:00:41,040 --> 00:00:46,630
There's just a review published now that mixed methods, qualitative and quantitative and a couple more on the way.

9
00:00:46,650 --> 00:00:50,430
So I have this a bit of a background, a mixed background.

10
00:00:51,300 --> 00:00:56,010
I originally think it might be fair to say I was quantitative. I managed public health programs.

11
00:00:56,100 --> 00:01:00,870
I worked for Centres for Disease Control. So I supervised a team of epidemiologists.

12
00:01:01,440 --> 00:01:03,510
And then HIV AIDS came along.

13
00:01:03,720 --> 00:01:10,080
And when that happened, we were having a terrible time trying to attract people into HIV counselling and testing services.

14
00:01:10,560 --> 00:01:19,310
And at that point we became quite interested in something called community based, participatory approaches to designing interventions.

15
00:01:19,320 --> 00:01:25,080
I don't know if anyone's heard of those or not, which is basically involving the people who are going to be the recipient of

16
00:01:25,080 --> 00:01:28,799
the intervention and the people who provide it in the design of the research.

17
00:01:28,800 --> 00:01:39,060
So I'm explaining that because we're at an interesting point now, I think with systematic reviewing where there's some issues coming up.

18
00:01:39,060 --> 00:01:41,370
And I know you've been working on mixed methods this week,

19
00:01:41,370 --> 00:01:48,660
so I thought it might be really interesting to hear what some of your thoughts are about what's cropping up in these mixed methods reviews.

20
00:01:49,170 --> 00:01:58,860
So this is basically a story rather than a formal presentation with completed study results from from a real estate review.

21
00:01:59,850 --> 00:02:04,660
But the story is kind of a pattern of what we found over the last three reviews that we've been working on.

22
00:02:04,680 --> 00:02:07,940
So I'll start going through it, and this is informal.

23
00:02:07,950 --> 00:02:12,540
So if you have questions, just wave your hand or jump in and and ask me.

24
00:02:12,900 --> 00:02:22,230
Okay. So there is kind of a picture behind this which you might not be able to see very well, but it's the picture of a river delta,

25
00:02:22,830 --> 00:02:29,130
which is going into Lake Superior, which is one of the Great Lakes, which forms the border between Canada and the United States.

26
00:02:29,700 --> 00:02:34,500
And I put this picture up here because I'm going to use the research that was done in this area,

27
00:02:35,280 --> 00:02:39,210
which was research done with a Native American Indian population,

28
00:02:40,350 --> 00:02:47,400
to illustrate some of the challenges that we're running into when we try to use qualitative and quantitative research in a systematic review.

29
00:02:47,880 --> 00:02:53,340
So that's why the picture's up there. Now, this is a really quick PowerPoint.

30
00:02:53,340 --> 00:02:56,910
Just set the overview, which is originally we had effectiveness reviews.

31
00:02:57,570 --> 00:03:01,140
They were mainly done using study designs of randomised controlled trials.

32
00:03:02,120 --> 00:03:09,000
In the late 1990s. There was interest in looking at introducing qualitative research into effectiveness reviews,

33
00:03:09,360 --> 00:03:12,720
so people started working on systematic reviews that use mixed methods,

34
00:03:13,260 --> 00:03:18,060
so including quantitative studies in the review as well as qualitative studies.

35
00:03:18,570 --> 00:03:25,770
And the method we're developing now is we'll assess reviews using mixed methods and explain a little bit what the difference is between those.

36
00:03:27,120 --> 00:03:37,169
So if you're just doing a systematic review of effectiveness and you're including qualitative and quantitative research,

37
00:03:37,170 --> 00:03:41,400
this is a typical review question which you might recognise the format of it.

38
00:03:42,000 --> 00:03:45,540
So when most people do mixed methods reviews right now,

39
00:03:45,870 --> 00:03:49,979
basically what they're doing is they're starting with the effectiveness side of the

40
00:03:49,980 --> 00:03:54,390
question and they're saying what is the effectiveness of a particular intervention?

41
00:03:55,110 --> 00:03:58,499
And for that side of the review, the selection, quantitative studies,

42
00:03:58,500 --> 00:04:03,630
usually randomised controlled trials or controlled trials, and then they're adding on to that.

43
00:04:04,260 --> 00:04:09,899
The second question, which is qualitative and usually has to do with something to do with behaviour, you know,

44
00:04:09,900 --> 00:04:15,210
what are people's attitudes or their their perspectives towards something or the reactions towards something.

45
00:04:15,780 --> 00:04:21,210
And they're extracting the quantitative studies separately from the qualitative.

46
00:04:21,600 --> 00:04:25,620
They're analysing what all of the quantitative data says about effectiveness.

47
00:04:26,010 --> 00:04:26,760
Then in this time,

48
00:04:26,760 --> 00:04:34,500
they're analysing what all the qualitative data says about people's experiences of receiving an intervention or perhaps providing an intervention.

49
00:04:35,610 --> 00:04:38,999
And after they've done the separate analysis, they're bringing them together.

50
00:04:39,000 --> 00:04:42,240
And what you see up here is the cross study synthesis.

51
00:04:42,780 --> 00:04:47,339
And they're using the qualitative as a way of answering the final question,

52
00:04:47,340 --> 00:04:50,820
which is what factors actually influence the effectiveness of the intervention?

53
00:04:51,480 --> 00:04:54,780
So that's the typical way right now of doing a mixed methods review.

54
00:04:55,110 --> 00:04:59,250
And there's a number of them being published nowadays.

55
00:05:00,220 --> 00:05:05,710
And the data sources for this, as I've said, are effective two studies that have been published and qualitative research that's been published.

56
00:05:06,010 --> 00:05:13,419
Now, there's a couple of issues coming up with doing this, and I want to see if I can try and illustrate them today.

57
00:05:13,420 --> 00:05:19,960
Like I said, this is very much a work in progress. But one of the issues that's coming up is which kind of data is dominant.

58
00:05:20,740 --> 00:05:28,420
Have you talked about dominance this week in the data? And the reason that's coming up is because in some of these mixed methods reviews,

59
00:05:28,420 --> 00:05:35,920
they're getting quantitative results that are saying that an intervention is effective, but it's not unequivocally effective.

60
00:05:36,490 --> 00:05:42,790
It's effective some of the time, but they don't know why. It's only effective some of the time or it's effective for some people and not for others.

61
00:05:43,720 --> 00:05:50,200
And when they go into the qualitative research, sometimes they're getting an explanation for why it's effective or not.

62
00:05:50,440 --> 00:05:53,740
They can find factors that are influencing the effectiveness of it.

63
00:05:54,970 --> 00:05:57,549
But sometimes when they go into the qualitative research,

64
00:05:57,550 --> 00:06:05,590
they're finding other things that have that that are not necessarily directly related to the intervention, but people think they're really important.

65
00:06:06,080 --> 00:06:10,660
Okay. So for example, in diabetes research, which is what we're looking at now in this review,

66
00:06:11,950 --> 00:06:16,689
a typical effectiveness question might be what's the effectiveness of a short

67
00:06:16,690 --> 00:06:21,580
course in diabetes in terms of being able to control your blood glucose level?

68
00:06:22,480 --> 00:06:31,720
And so the intervention is a course, and they look at the qualitative research to see what people's experiences are of diabetes.

69
00:06:32,170 --> 00:06:37,860
And a lot of the qualitative research is not necessarily the patient side valuing the education course itself.

70
00:06:37,870 --> 00:06:42,069
There are other things they're saying are effective in terms of helping them control their diabetes,

71
00:06:42,070 --> 00:06:46,780
which is totally outside the original intervention. So we've got this kind of mismatch.

72
00:06:47,440 --> 00:06:53,620
And I think you talked a little bit about this, about paradigms and worldviews, about what's important in terms of an outcome.

73
00:06:53,980 --> 00:07:02,440
And what started to come up in this research is that the people that designed the intervention are deciding that one kind of outcome is important,

74
00:07:03,220 --> 00:07:08,950
but the people that are actually experiencing the condition have a different idea about what the important outcome is.

75
00:07:09,580 --> 00:07:13,240
So we have an issue coming up about whether you can compare these studies or not.

76
00:07:14,470 --> 00:07:23,680
And so this is where we're starting now when we go on to realist reviews, realist reviews have a different sort of question,

77
00:07:23,680 --> 00:07:28,060
and it doesn't necessarily start by focusing all of the attention on the intervention.

78
00:07:28,750 --> 00:07:36,190
So a realist review does ask what works, which is the intervention, but they're saying who does it work for?

79
00:07:36,880 --> 00:07:41,020
Because the assumption is that the intervention might work better or not as well,

80
00:07:41,020 --> 00:07:46,600
depending on what group you're in, what culture you know, whether you're male or female your age.

81
00:07:47,260 --> 00:07:54,820
And it's also saying that the circumstances surrounding the intervention may influence whether it's effective or not.

82
00:07:54,850 --> 00:07:59,800
So, for example, someone who stayed diagnosed with diabetes over the last month,

83
00:08:00,220 --> 00:08:05,770
an educational intervention may be more or less effective for them than it is for somebody who's had diabetes for ten years.

84
00:08:06,610 --> 00:08:14,890
So they're saying you need to take this factor into account of time, which if you look at individual studies, they very rarely talk about that at all.

85
00:08:15,790 --> 00:08:19,240
And then the third thing that they talk about is the circumstances.

86
00:08:19,750 --> 00:08:24,490
So it's not just at what point in time that you're diagnosed, but it's also what kind of family do you live in?

87
00:08:24,500 --> 00:08:29,440
You know, does your family support healthy eating or not? She live in a family that exercises regularly or not.

88
00:08:29,710 --> 00:08:34,300
So the circumstances are about the context that actually surrounds the fact that you may have

89
00:08:34,300 --> 00:08:38,260
been diagnosed with diabetes and you're going on an education course to learn how to control it.

90
00:08:38,830 --> 00:08:43,360
So a realist perspective, which is pragmatic, I think you've talked about that a little bit this week,

91
00:08:43,780 --> 00:08:47,470
is coming at this from the point of view of will things be effective?

92
00:08:47,650 --> 00:08:48,910
Yes, they'll be effective,

93
00:08:48,910 --> 00:08:57,970
but the relative effectiveness is dependent on the surrounding context around the intervention and a number of other factors.

94
00:08:58,660 --> 00:09:03,730
So they're saying it all depends. Rather than a typical effectiveness review,

95
00:09:04,090 --> 00:09:10,270
which would say what works and what they're trying to come out with is what works all the time for everybody,

96
00:09:10,780 --> 00:09:14,050
for the general, for the general population or the or the population of interest.

97
00:09:14,590 --> 00:09:20,800
So when you're looking for information and realist reviews, yes, you look for qualitative studies that have been published.

98
00:09:21,280 --> 00:09:28,750
You look for quantitative studies, too, that have been published. But because you're wanting to look at the it all depends side of it.

99
00:09:29,170 --> 00:09:34,450
You're also looking for a range of other information sources, for example, evaluation reports.

100
00:09:35,050 --> 00:09:40,750
Often big reports are written on programs, but they aren't necessarily published in a peer reviewed journal.

101
00:09:41,350 --> 00:09:49,600
Policy papers, great literature. And those are the main sources of data in in a realist review.

102
00:09:50,020 --> 00:09:59,230
Now, what I put down here at the bottom is these other sources, and I put them here because the last realist review we did was.

103
00:09:59,310 --> 00:10:05,310
A realist review of does peer support work to help people in terms of increasing their health literacy?

104
00:10:06,090 --> 00:10:15,030
And when we did this review, we suspected that there was another source of information, which is the providers themselves, the workers,

105
00:10:15,030 --> 00:10:23,190
the volunteers, you know, unpaid people in the community that are providing peer support every day but aren't necessarily part of a research study.

106
00:10:23,580 --> 00:10:30,300
And so we wanted to find out in the published literature what's effective with a peer support intervention.

107
00:10:30,990 --> 00:10:36,570
But also when you go out and you ask providers and patients and clients who are receiving peer support,

108
00:10:36,930 --> 00:10:44,070
what works and what circumstances is what they're saying matching up to what you see in the published literature.

109
00:10:44,790 --> 00:10:50,309
And to make a long story short, like in two sentences or less, at the end of the process,

110
00:10:50,310 --> 00:10:57,180
it was obvious that there was a big disconnect between what the literature said

111
00:10:57,210 --> 00:11:01,340
about effective peer support and what the people said who actually provided it.

112
00:11:02,400 --> 00:11:05,880
So this is about complex interventions, you know, the components of an intervention.

113
00:11:06,360 --> 00:11:10,979
And one of the things that was most noticeable is that the researchers who've who've done extensive

114
00:11:10,980 --> 00:11:16,140
research on peer support say that there are certain types of peer support that are used in health care.

115
00:11:16,680 --> 00:11:20,430
One is giving people information what is giving them emotional support,

116
00:11:21,300 --> 00:11:25,710
affirmation or kind of cheering them on, telling them that they can achieve something that's difficult.

117
00:11:26,460 --> 00:11:31,050
But the reviews and health care have said that a type of peer support that's never offered in health

118
00:11:31,050 --> 00:11:35,910
is the practical kind of showing people how to do things or showing them how to get somewhere.

119
00:11:36,390 --> 00:11:41,820
But when we went out and we talked to patients and providers and we had over 200 involved in the review,

120
00:11:42,420 --> 00:11:49,899
they said that's actually the most important type of peer support. So what's happening here is something that's really essential to the providers,

121
00:11:49,900 --> 00:11:52,830
that's something important and something that's important to the recipients.

122
00:11:53,130 --> 00:11:56,730
It's not considered something important when the researchers are constructing the intervention.

123
00:11:57,750 --> 00:12:03,450
So we have something strange going on here. So that was the last review that was finished, that was published,

124
00:12:04,830 --> 00:12:08,660
and we moved on to the next review, which is this diabetes one that we're looking at now.

125
00:12:08,670 --> 00:12:18,810
So in diabetes, we're asking whether public and patient involvement is is influential in terms of designing and offering diabetes support programs.

126
00:12:20,370 --> 00:12:28,530
And we're finding something which to me anyway, looks kind of similar to what we found in the peer support review.

127
00:12:29,340 --> 00:12:36,600
So what's happened here and I've picked out one study out of we found 135 studies.

128
00:12:38,430 --> 00:12:43,379
I've chosen one study and I've chosen this study because this wasn't just one study.

129
00:12:43,380 --> 00:12:52,590
This was a big programme of work which was sat in northern Wisconsin on Lake Superior with a Native American tribe up there.

130
00:12:52,590 --> 00:12:56,430
And Alexandra Adams, who's the her name's up at the top there.

131
00:12:57,510 --> 00:13:04,320
She and her team have actually published, we've so far found ten publications on this on this program of work.

132
00:13:04,620 --> 00:13:08,879
And what this ten publications have enabled us to do is to look at kind of the story of the

133
00:13:08,880 --> 00:13:14,130
development of a large research project rather than just looking at one published paper.

134
00:13:15,210 --> 00:13:25,620
So way back in 2004, the initiative started because they noticed that there was, you know, a high rate of prevalence in children.

135
00:13:25,740 --> 00:13:29,580
And the children they were interested in were children that were between the age of two and five.

136
00:13:30,390 --> 00:13:34,340
So they realised there was some kind of problem here and something needed to be done.

137
00:13:34,980 --> 00:13:39,240
And this is where it kicked off. They went to the government, they got national funding for this.

138
00:13:40,350 --> 00:13:43,380
The funding was long term, which doesn't doesn't always happen.

139
00:13:46,600 --> 00:13:55,330
Now along the way, rather than researchers coming in to this community and saying, we know what works with diabetes education.

140
00:13:57,390 --> 00:14:02,340
The tribes, the Native American tribes in North America are actually viewed as autonomous states.

141
00:14:02,880 --> 00:14:10,020
So they aren't they aren't they don't necessarily come under the federal government and they have rights in terms of what research is done on them.

142
00:14:10,030 --> 00:14:18,720
So the Community Advisory Board here is actually a group of people who are members of the tribe who decide what's going to happen in their community.

143
00:14:19,440 --> 00:14:22,649
So immediately from the point of view of doing research in a community,

144
00:14:22,650 --> 00:14:25,459
there's a different dynamic here than you'd have in many different communities.

145
00:14:25,460 --> 00:14:29,700
So researchers from the University of Wisconsin had to work with this community

146
00:14:29,700 --> 00:14:33,749
advisory board to get access to the community in order to do the research.

147
00:14:33,750 --> 00:14:36,900
So this is how this is how the research started out.

148
00:14:40,990 --> 00:14:43,570
Now knowing that they have this high prevalence rate.

149
00:14:43,720 --> 00:14:48,549
And I know you've been doing this all week, so I don't know if you're tired of this right now, but,

150
00:14:48,550 --> 00:14:53,440
you know, they have a high prevalence rate of children between the ages of two and five are at risk.

151
00:14:54,730 --> 00:14:59,410
Where do you start in terms of designing an intervention? Any ideas?

152
00:15:08,430 --> 00:15:19,120
Because. Because I am, I guess I, I should say the parents need to context of the children because you educated.

153
00:15:24,180 --> 00:15:28,980
Okay. So adding nail clippers could be one place fight. Any other ideas?

154
00:15:30,630 --> 00:15:34,200
Where to start? And you're saying with that it would be education?

155
00:15:36,210 --> 00:15:43,260
Nutrition. Yeah. Yeah.

156
00:15:45,540 --> 00:15:54,570
Cooking classes. It's of the show stopper.

157
00:15:56,400 --> 00:15:59,690
Community food supplies. Yep.

158
00:16:06,130 --> 00:16:09,400
Yep. So there's something here about the environment, right?

159
00:16:11,970 --> 00:16:17,620
Which fits into the realist view. To take that into account.

160
00:16:20,880 --> 00:16:24,600
Has anybody worked with Native American Indians before? Okay.

161
00:16:25,020 --> 00:16:31,410
So this is one of the things that we find quite often when we first start designing a research project,

162
00:16:32,040 --> 00:16:37,620
if we know very little about the topic area, we have to go back to what we know our own frame of reference, right?

163
00:16:38,460 --> 00:16:48,210
And there's nothing wrong with that. But we need to keep in mind that our frame of reference is going to influence the design of the intervention.

164
00:16:49,290 --> 00:16:54,870
And if we aren't including the people who are actually going to receive the intervention in the design of it,

165
00:16:55,140 --> 00:17:00,720
then there's a risk that we're going to choose something that may not necessarily be appropriate for the community.

166
00:17:02,070 --> 00:17:05,370
And I can see people nodding because this isn't rocket science. It's common sense.

167
00:17:05,370 --> 00:17:12,359
Right. But the strange thing is that when you look at this research and I'm not saying in the just in the diabetes study,

168
00:17:12,360 --> 00:17:21,569
because we found this in the peer support, the peer support study actually looked at peer support across breastfeeding, HIV,

169
00:17:21,570 --> 00:17:30,710
safer sex, diabetes, nutrition, lifestyle, physical activity, cardiovascular disease.

170
00:17:30,720 --> 00:17:36,030
So we had a number of different health issues that people received peer support with.

171
00:17:36,660 --> 00:17:40,440
And in every single one of those health issues, we found this disjuncture.

172
00:17:41,310 --> 00:17:46,230
The people who were designing the peer support programs were not the people that were going to provide the peer support,

173
00:17:46,230 --> 00:17:48,360
and they weren't the people, including the peer support.

174
00:17:49,320 --> 00:17:53,490
So we started to wonder whether this was important or not, which is why we're doing the review we are now.

175
00:17:54,000 --> 00:18:00,780
So these are some some ways that you can come at it. And where would you start with quantitative or qualitative or.

176
00:18:01,020 --> 00:18:05,070
Where would you start? You just got a clue, didn't you?

177
00:18:07,440 --> 00:18:10,230
Yeah, I talked to some people, which is incredibly difficult for researchers.

178
00:18:11,760 --> 00:18:15,419
And it's coming up now in the in the review that we're doing, it's tough for researchers.

179
00:18:15,420 --> 00:18:16,920
It's a different different world for them.

180
00:18:18,210 --> 00:18:26,250
And researchers have already have ideas about works, especially if they've been working in a field for certain length of time.

181
00:18:26,700 --> 00:18:31,530
And if you go and you talk to other people and you're getting their opinions about works, what works?

182
00:18:32,400 --> 00:18:35,400
Then you're having to take account of those opinions.

183
00:18:35,400 --> 00:18:37,740
And in some cases you're having to change the study design.

184
00:18:37,740 --> 00:18:42,569
And the research is in some of these qualitative studies are saying that is a scary thing for us.

185
00:18:42,570 --> 00:18:49,020
It feels like we're losing control of the study. And if we include all these opinions about what the intervention ought to look like,

186
00:18:49,380 --> 00:18:55,140
then at the end of the day, is the study going to be just as scientifically rigorous if we're including,

187
00:18:55,320 --> 00:19:01,290
for example, lay people's opinions and what it should look like, as it would be if it's just if it's designed by people who are academics.

188
00:19:01,800 --> 00:19:08,770
So there's this kind of tension going on here about appropriateness of study design and how do you how do you come out that.

189
00:19:11,460 --> 00:19:19,290
Community. I mean, you identify people who are community leaders and often women in those roles

190
00:19:20,370 --> 00:19:23,909
and have a little bit more different interests and then sometimes against men.

191
00:19:23,910 --> 00:19:29,309
But it's true that rather than why, when you go to those opinions later,

192
00:19:29,310 --> 00:19:36,140
I'm sure there's people who will trust in the community and try to immerse yourself a bit in what's going on.

193
00:19:36,150 --> 00:19:40,510
It might take a while, but it does qualitative work that way to identify from.

194
00:19:40,740 --> 00:19:46,799
You can see for yourself what's going on and superficial and get at what's going on at the community level.

195
00:19:46,800 --> 00:19:50,700
Maybe they don't have fathers around and maybe there is no mother.

196
00:19:51,000 --> 00:19:57,300
Yeah, it is. The other thing, is this a genetic predisposition or it's just all these kids not being active?

197
00:19:57,900 --> 00:20:00,750
Yeah. On the television with a parent. Yeah.

198
00:20:02,700 --> 00:20:10,260
So that might actually help you because then when they have see it as a community, it's not just about the kids.

199
00:20:10,300 --> 00:20:14,830
It's seeing the broader picture. Mm hmm. Multiple programs.

200
00:20:14,860 --> 00:20:18,550
Mm hmm. Yeah. Yeah. So bigger picture, right?

201
00:20:19,030 --> 00:20:22,810
What's the bigger picture around this? What might cause it?

202
00:20:24,820 --> 00:20:28,120
And then, depending on what causes that, maybe it's not a single intervention.

203
00:20:28,330 --> 00:20:33,430
Right. Maybe it's more than one intervention, which would be a community view.

204
00:20:33,460 --> 00:20:39,280
Usually toward the Himalayas in Darjeeling.

205
00:20:39,310 --> 00:20:46,390
Mm hmm. Of, uh, thing up there where they were trying to get in and hit mothers, nutrition and pregnant women.

206
00:20:46,760 --> 00:20:51,250
What they realised was they actually had to feed everybody, including the father.

207
00:20:51,550 --> 00:20:56,530
Yeah. Was a first rate. And then they developed a program to teach women to weave.

208
00:20:57,160 --> 00:21:02,110
Right, so that they can sell their products in Canada and then there a whole nutritional educational program.

209
00:21:02,500 --> 00:21:06,730
And so that's how they actually got to, you know, better nutrition for moms.

210
00:21:07,000 --> 00:21:11,470
Yeah, man, I'm going, baby. It's looking upstream from the intervention.

211
00:21:11,740 --> 00:21:19,580
Yeah. Which is not something that we always do in academia and the kind of sense I have.

212
00:21:20,230 --> 00:21:23,260
Well, I could say that I was. I came to academia very late in life.

213
00:21:25,600 --> 00:21:29,950
But there's another reason we don't do it in academia, and that's because we're not funded to do it.

214
00:21:30,940 --> 00:21:38,380
And we're not only not funded to do it, but if you look at the career track in academia, people don't get points for doing this kind of research.

215
00:21:38,440 --> 00:21:45,640
It's not considered scientific. And also, I mean, you've just done a wonderful kind of account of doing the research.

216
00:21:46,120 --> 00:21:47,860
The problem is it takes time.

217
00:21:48,910 --> 00:21:56,530
And in academia, there's a pressure on you to be publishing something every single year from your research, at least one thing, if not two or three.

218
00:21:56,950 --> 00:22:04,300
And this kind of research and to it, like you say, going in and becoming more of an insider and developing an understanding of the community.

219
00:22:04,780 --> 00:22:10,150
A lot of times when people are doing that, it doesn't look like anything's happening because you're not actually doing the research.

220
00:22:10,270 --> 00:22:13,270
You're setting up the relationship for designing an appropriate intervention.

221
00:22:13,660 --> 00:22:18,819
And most of the places in the world don't find us to design appropriate interventions.

222
00:22:18,820 --> 00:22:21,280
They find us to get in there and produce some results within a year.

223
00:22:21,280 --> 00:22:28,270
And if you look at most of the funding and if you read most of the research articles, you'll see that the duration of the study was 12 to 18 months.

224
00:22:29,380 --> 00:22:34,390
And at that, at the 18 month mark, they're starting to publish results because that's the pressure to publish results,

225
00:22:35,350 --> 00:22:37,389
which is a big issue when something like diabetes,

226
00:22:37,390 --> 00:22:44,140
because it takes longer than 12 to 18 months for most people to show a health outcome, which is better control of blood sugar.

227
00:22:44,500 --> 00:22:50,320
So because that's like one of the last outcomes in the line, you know, after all sorts of other things, the eating, the activity, whatever.

228
00:22:50,710 --> 00:22:56,920
So there's, there's a there's a, I think a big issue here about about what we're finding, to be honest.

229
00:22:56,920 --> 00:23:01,270
And I think that some of what we're finding, maybe we could be producing better evidence.

230
00:23:01,690 --> 00:23:04,900
I'm arguing. So I put this up here.

231
00:23:05,920 --> 00:23:09,280
I think you've talked about some of these things this week, right? I'm not sure.

232
00:23:09,760 --> 00:23:16,390
But just from the ideas that you've given me so far, some of the ideas here, some of the ideas that you've brought up.

233
00:23:16,810 --> 00:23:22,480
When we're designing something, what usually happens at the very beginning is what you saw a couple of PowerPoints ago.

234
00:23:22,480 --> 00:23:28,900
Someone publishes some statistics or they do some screening, and so they raising a red flag that something's wrong.

235
00:23:29,230 --> 00:23:34,430
And the initial red flag is usually something statistical in the world of health research.

236
00:23:34,450 --> 00:23:41,140
That's where it starts. So the phenomenon of interest to begin with for a lot of health research is epidemiological

237
00:23:42,010 --> 00:23:46,090
because we have statistics that show that something's not working properly or people are at risk.

238
00:23:46,480 --> 00:23:52,270
Now, based on what that phenomenon of interest is, people take an epistemological stance.

239
00:23:52,270 --> 00:23:56,170
So in other words, they say this is the problem as we see it.

240
00:23:56,290 --> 00:24:03,400
So the problem is that let's say 26% of children are showing are at risk for diabetes.

241
00:24:04,360 --> 00:24:07,989
Since this is the problem that this looks like there's there's a high prevalence

242
00:24:07,990 --> 00:24:13,090
rate or or a high prevalence for being at risk of diabetes in the population here.

243
00:24:13,450 --> 00:24:19,570
Then the answer to this problem, the way we're framing this problem is to get the rate down, to get the prevalence rate down.

244
00:24:20,230 --> 00:24:26,080
And so the solution that they design is directly linked to the definition of the problem.

245
00:24:26,530 --> 00:24:35,229
Now, if you looked at this different way, like you were just describing and said the problem is community food,

246
00:24:35,230 --> 00:24:41,470
healthy choices, if you start there, then your epistemological stance is different, isn't it?

247
00:24:41,950 --> 00:24:48,370
Because it's about saying, I'm framing the problem as a community problem, as a problem where maybe people can't make healthy choices.

248
00:24:48,610 --> 00:24:49,809
And when I look at it that way,

249
00:24:49,810 --> 00:24:55,930
my intervention is going to be different than it might be if I if I come up with another problem definition, if you see what I mean.

250
00:24:56,440 --> 00:25:01,329
So one of the things we're arguing for here is that people need to be aware at the very beginning

251
00:25:01,330 --> 00:25:05,380
of the design of a study that there are different ways of defining what the problem is.

252
00:25:05,650 --> 00:25:08,290
And the way that I might define it as the research researcher could be very

253
00:25:08,290 --> 00:25:12,970
different from the way that people in the community see the problem themselves. And it's one of the first things.

254
00:25:13,130 --> 00:25:20,540
We should be asking when we read a research study who was involved actually in defining what the problem was, because it's like a domino effect.

255
00:25:21,170 --> 00:25:28,310
You can end up with a study design down here. That was one that that was based on on my view of the problem as a researcher, it's a problem.

256
00:25:29,150 --> 00:25:36,260
So why don't we do an A realist review? One of the ways that realist reviews and realist research in general is different from other

257
00:25:36,260 --> 00:25:40,580
types of research is that context is one of the most important things in the research.

258
00:25:40,970 --> 00:25:49,730
So if you look at a typical quantitative effectiveness study, the emphasis is on the intervention and the population and the outcome.

259
00:25:50,720 --> 00:25:54,890
And the assumption is that the intervention will always be delivered the same.

260
00:25:55,280 --> 00:26:01,640
And if you deliver it in the same way to the same population, you're going to be able to achieve a similar outcome, right?

261
00:26:01,650 --> 00:26:08,000
So it's all based on generalisability transferability and what the realist point of view is arguing for.

262
00:26:08,300 --> 00:26:13,790
The kind of circumstantial evidence we talked about earlier is I could have an excellent intervention,

263
00:26:13,790 --> 00:26:19,249
but if the context is different than the intervention is either going to be more supported

264
00:26:19,250 --> 00:26:23,510
or more constrained depending on what's happening in the in the surrounding environment.

265
00:26:23,840 --> 00:26:32,510
So if we take this this bit about the community food here as an example, if I do the diabetes intervention in Boston, Massachusetts,

266
00:26:32,540 --> 00:26:40,640
in one of the well-off areas of the city, big urban area, tons of food choices, lots of food competition in terms of cheap prices.

267
00:26:41,510 --> 00:26:46,520
And I offer the same intervention to the Bad River tribe. It looks like the same intervention.

268
00:26:46,520 --> 00:26:49,549
They're both getting education. They're both being taught how to make healthy choices.

269
00:26:49,550 --> 00:26:56,480
They both have cooking classes. They're both they they both learn how to read the labels on on food before they buy it.

270
00:26:57,140 --> 00:27:00,469
They both show that they become very well educated. We could do a knowledge test.

271
00:27:00,470 --> 00:27:04,430
They could become well-educated about what type of food they should be buying, what they should be eating.

272
00:27:04,610 --> 00:27:09,319
And at the end of the day, it's going to be less successful in the Bad River area than it is going to be in the Boston area,

273
00:27:09,320 --> 00:27:14,000
because there's a big context factor there, which is money. It could also be time.

274
00:27:14,990 --> 00:27:18,260
The map that I showed you earlier, you may have noticed there were no roads there.

275
00:27:18,800 --> 00:27:22,940
I mean, this is a really isolated, really isolated community.

276
00:27:23,300 --> 00:27:26,360
It's right out there on a piece of land in the Great Lakes.

277
00:27:27,290 --> 00:27:33,170
To get to that to get to anything beyond the small community store is going to be about an hour's drive.

278
00:27:33,200 --> 00:27:38,330
You need to have money for petrol. You need to have transportation so they don't have a lot of choices.

279
00:27:39,310 --> 00:27:43,480
So can I ask you to put in a lot of choices and there's no roads with these.

280
00:27:43,790 --> 00:27:46,879
So where is the the junk food, so to speak?

281
00:27:46,880 --> 00:27:56,050
I mean, is it it's it's more what sort of food is it? Is it more sort of not as nutritious and sort of pre-packaged separately?

282
00:27:56,060 --> 00:28:03,470
What sort of foods are there? I mean, I would have thought more rural, perhaps there might have been a bit more subsistence in terms of,

283
00:28:03,770 --> 00:28:08,250
you know, in growing some of your own stuff. That's cool.

284
00:28:08,690 --> 00:28:17,820
Mm. So what are the, you know, what are they unhealthy food or they're bringing in the unhealthy food.

285
00:28:18,410 --> 00:28:27,260
So that's one of the problems because there isn't a good level of awareness in the community store about what foods should be brought in the stores.

286
00:28:27,260 --> 00:28:32,480
Green. Yes. The community store says that the residents like that,

287
00:28:32,520 --> 00:28:41,299
they expect that the unhealthy food is cheaper than the healthy food because fresh fruit and veg can be quite expensive in terms of growing food.

288
00:28:41,300 --> 00:28:43,970
There's actually a limited amount of arable land there.

289
00:28:44,210 --> 00:28:52,640
I mean, it's hard to see on this on this map, but if we go back to the site, you might be able to see a little bit of this.

290
00:28:53,750 --> 00:28:57,800
It says bad river stuff over here. So this is a marsh area.

291
00:28:58,430 --> 00:29:03,709
In this area, they used to grow wild rice, which is actually a gourmet food.

292
00:29:03,710 --> 00:29:08,630
And, you know, you can, you know, in the United States, anywhere in Canada, people pay a lot of money for it.

293
00:29:09,950 --> 00:29:19,970
But they had industry come into the area, polluted the water problems, growing the wild rice so that as a cash crop started to disappear.

294
00:29:20,300 --> 00:29:24,550
They've been complaining about that for a number of years. So they lost a food staple there.

295
00:29:24,560 --> 00:29:28,670
They also had a number of local berries in the area, fish, same kind of thing.

296
00:29:28,670 --> 00:29:35,330
Industry moved in and they've had problems with pollution, so they're trying to fix that, which is another big contextual barrier.

297
00:29:35,840 --> 00:29:42,020
And they're looking at establishing cranberry bogs because cranberries is a good cash crop and it's something that would definitely grow there,

298
00:29:42,410 --> 00:29:48,680
but very boggy areas. And not only boggy, but the kind of bog area shifts, if you see what I mean.

299
00:29:48,680 --> 00:29:56,270
So it's like marshland. You don't know from, you know, one month to the next where it's going to be safe to be walking, for example.

300
00:29:57,560 --> 00:30:05,750
So they have a real challenge in terms of the in terms of the food supply, but they could get the healthy food in.

301
00:30:06,230 --> 00:30:10,190
So these kind of contextual things are the things that you need to think about when you're designing the intervention.

302
00:30:10,700 --> 00:30:13,410
The other thing is people, their attitudes and their behaviour. Of course.

303
00:30:13,680 --> 00:30:16,830
What are their attitudes going to be if you change the food in the community store?

304
00:30:17,130 --> 00:30:25,080
Will they feel like they have any control over that and those things can influence how you actually get your outcomes at the end of the day.

305
00:30:25,560 --> 00:30:28,650
And that's what was happening in this in this area.

306
00:30:29,640 --> 00:30:38,710
So we talked about this, the physical environment. So they went out and they interviewed people in the Bad River community.

307
00:30:39,180 --> 00:30:44,190
They interviewed parents, community leaders, children.

308
00:30:45,270 --> 00:30:47,230
And they looked.

309
00:30:47,280 --> 00:30:54,300
They wanted to know what are the issues, not just about food, but about other typical advice that you would give people who are at risk for diabetes.

310
00:30:55,050 --> 00:31:02,250
Healthy lifestyle, staying active. And the mother said it's not safe for our kids to play outside.

311
00:31:02,790 --> 00:31:10,260
And there were a couple of different reasons for that. One was that they have terrible weather, terrible blizzards in the winter.

312
00:31:11,490 --> 00:31:14,700
You've seen the lack of roads, very few paved areas.

313
00:31:15,420 --> 00:31:19,620
And another reason that it's unsafe to play outside is because there's now a high

314
00:31:19,620 --> 00:31:24,719
level of unemployment rate in the community and there is drinking and there's drugs.

315
00:31:24,720 --> 00:31:26,190
And so there's crime also.

316
00:31:26,730 --> 00:31:34,230
So parents are concerned about their children being safe and being able to supervise them and see them so that they're playing nearby.

317
00:31:34,830 --> 00:31:39,240
So that's an issue. There are some play areas, but they're far away, like it says up here.

318
00:31:39,840 --> 00:31:42,030
They like transport or they like the money for that,

319
00:31:42,030 --> 00:31:47,640
for the petrol to take their children there where they lack the time if they're working to stay with the kids.

320
00:31:48,480 --> 00:31:54,030
We talked about the supermarkets, but they also had an attitude toward health and what they were saying was they

321
00:31:54,030 --> 00:31:58,379
didn't define health as somebody who was the right way or physically active.

322
00:31:58,380 --> 00:32:07,650
They defined healthy as their children being happy and happiness meant things like they like watching TV, they like playing media games.

323
00:32:07,830 --> 00:32:12,720
You know, some of this was about inactivity, not necessarily activity.

324
00:32:13,170 --> 00:32:17,100
And so their priorities were keeping the children safe and making sure that they were happy.

325
00:32:17,700 --> 00:32:19,079
And this is the way that they framed it.

326
00:32:19,080 --> 00:32:28,559
And it didn't occur to them to frame healthy eating or physical activity as something that would make children happy or families happy.

327
00:32:28,560 --> 00:32:31,160
It wasn't part of part of the way that they conceptualised things.

328
00:32:31,200 --> 00:32:35,760
So if you put all this together and you think about typical interventions for diabetes,

329
00:32:36,150 --> 00:32:41,700
there were many reasons why they weren't going to be acceptable in the community, if that makes sense.

330
00:32:41,760 --> 00:32:47,280
Yeah. So can I just ask? I know it must have a school there somewhere where they have a gym.

331
00:32:47,520 --> 00:32:52,860
They do some kind of protected place. They do.

332
00:32:54,150 --> 00:32:59,070
And the teachers and the curriculum were set up so that they had maybe 15 minutes

333
00:32:59,070 --> 00:33:04,350
in the morning for physical activity and the rest of the day was spent on other,

334
00:33:04,530 --> 00:33:12,150
other things. So there was a lack of awareness on the adult level that was affecting this as well.

335
00:33:12,930 --> 00:33:22,380
If you see what I mean. So there wasn't a lot of playtime or a lot of a lot of activity time in general, even in the school and wasn't happening.

336
00:33:22,950 --> 00:33:27,120
One interesting thing is this is not rocket science. Not to change it.

337
00:33:27,540 --> 00:33:33,090
It's just so difficult because we have exactly the same problems with our own Indigenous people in Australia.

338
00:33:33,990 --> 00:33:38,700
I mean, there's multiple problems, but to fix them shouldn't be that hard.

339
00:33:38,730 --> 00:33:41,950
But I think. Yeah.

340
00:33:42,580 --> 00:33:47,190
And it's not rocket science. Anybody with half a brain could see.

341
00:33:47,960 --> 00:33:51,600
Yeah. That an individual person couldn't fix it.

342
00:33:51,740 --> 00:33:57,470
But we need to do to get the political support and the finances to do this.

343
00:33:58,340 --> 00:34:05,059
Yeah. So we keep putting Band-Aids on it. Mm hmm. And is it because they want to fund one intervention rather than this?

344
00:34:05,060 --> 00:34:08,240
Kind of. Yeah. Yeah.

345
00:34:08,240 --> 00:34:14,389
It's the same for this kind of thing. And the only reason this get funded is because there was a policy window.

346
00:34:14,390 --> 00:34:15,620
A window of opportunity.

347
00:34:16,100 --> 00:34:26,600
And the window of opportunity was that there's epidemiological data now on all indigenous people in North America that has to do with diabetes.

348
00:34:26,990 --> 00:34:31,250
There's a really strong case for it being a risk factor across all of the tribes.

349
00:34:32,960 --> 00:34:36,770
Politically, the history goes way back.

350
00:34:36,770 --> 00:34:43,670
But, you know, a lot of the ill health problems in the tribe were caused or contributed to by people losing their land.

351
00:34:44,360 --> 00:34:51,260
So there was a political will to put money into this as a long term solution, not just a short term Band-Aid.

352
00:34:52,100 --> 00:35:01,190
And they funded these programs, not just here, but in I think if I remember, 53 locations in the United States,

353
00:35:01,520 --> 00:35:06,860
and it was funding for ten years, and they basically said, we don't know how to fix this.

354
00:35:07,280 --> 00:35:11,180
So you get you'll have longitudinal funding to go in and figure out what needs to be done.

355
00:35:11,190 --> 00:35:16,950
So it's kind of a luxury program from that point of view that they got to do this problem,

356
00:35:16,970 --> 00:35:22,670
that we being paternalistic because we do have a problem of being seen as being

357
00:35:22,670 --> 00:35:28,220
paternalistic if we were trying to make some major changes like changing community.

358
00:35:29,380 --> 00:35:37,360
It's such a criticism that we want people coming in and being deterministic to the Indigenous community.

359
00:35:38,050 --> 00:35:43,030
Well, the first thing that happened and I didn't work in this community and I've been in England for a long time now,

360
00:35:43,030 --> 00:35:46,750
like 20 years, but I did work in indigenous communities and in British Columbia.

361
00:35:47,200 --> 00:35:51,970
The first thing that happened was Centres for Disease Control realised that there was a problem with this paternalism.

362
00:35:51,980 --> 00:35:58,780
So Centres for Disease Control had a condition on this funding which said you have to use participatory approaches to design the research.

363
00:35:59,710 --> 00:36:04,900
They also said there is no way that we are going to fund any kind of research intervention unless it's been approved by the tribe.

364
00:36:06,100 --> 00:36:10,149
We want demonstrated demonstrated evidence that you've involved the tribe at

365
00:36:10,150 --> 00:36:16,040
every single step of the design of the interventions the tribe gets to sign off.

366
00:36:16,060 --> 00:36:19,780
They had contracts, so the tribe controlled the money, not the researchers.

367
00:36:20,290 --> 00:36:22,389
And the researchers were co applicants for the money.

368
00:36:22,390 --> 00:36:28,420
But the application actually came from the tribe itself with the researchers skilling them up a bit.

369
00:36:28,960 --> 00:36:33,940
So they had to start co-producing an intervention before they could even just apply for the money.

370
00:36:34,630 --> 00:36:38,920
And they had to set up a good enough relationship so that they were all happy about the interventions before they applied.

371
00:36:38,950 --> 00:36:44,860
Otherwise it was they weren't going to get the money. So the tribe came up with some ideas for interventions.

372
00:36:45,760 --> 00:36:49,629
They were initiated by them, but the researchers contributed by coming in and saying,

373
00:36:49,630 --> 00:36:53,410
based on what we know about diabetes research, these are things that have worked in other places.

374
00:36:54,400 --> 00:36:57,840
Now they might not work for you, but it is what's worked in other places.

375
00:36:57,850 --> 00:37:01,060
So they went through this process of giving them the ideas from other places.

376
00:37:01,390 --> 00:37:06,350
The tribal council getting together and saying, I think that will work. I don't think that well, I think we could do this quicker.

377
00:37:06,370 --> 00:37:11,620
This might take a lot longer. And so they kind of developed a stage programme of work and they started picking off

378
00:37:11,620 --> 00:37:16,000
what looked like the things that the community would agree to the most easily first.

379
00:37:16,510 --> 00:37:20,229
And they also didn't couch it as an intervention, like a diabetes intervention.

380
00:37:20,230 --> 00:37:28,750
So, you know, you're mentioning the school. They they did a survey and asked at the school whether the kids wanted more games and activities.

381
00:37:28,750 --> 00:37:36,430
Of course, people were saying yes. So they worked with the teachers and framed it out as being, you know, having more games and activities at school.

382
00:37:36,670 --> 00:37:41,830
And of course, one of the side effects was that they said measuring the levels of physical activity to see if they went up.

383
00:37:42,290 --> 00:37:49,449
So I guess you could say it's kind of an indirect intervention in a way. And with the healthy eating part of it, yes, they had cooking classes,

384
00:37:49,450 --> 00:37:53,830
but they were things where they got the parents and the children together and they did crafts.

385
00:37:54,670 --> 00:37:59,290
They had games for kids to play where they were running around in the gymnasium while they were doing the cooking class.

386
00:37:59,290 --> 00:38:03,340
So they were active and they were showing them how to cook things together that people like to eat.

387
00:38:03,790 --> 00:38:11,050
So it was it was all about more of a group activity or family activity orientation rather than an intervention.

388
00:38:11,770 --> 00:38:18,100
And they were things that the tribe wanted to do. Did they actually have sports teams there because they didn't have to do something that.

389
00:38:21,440 --> 00:38:23,599
Yeah. And they had them.

390
00:38:23,600 --> 00:38:29,450
But it was the the thing of the kids who were good were on the team and then the ones that were overweight were kind of at the sidelines.

391
00:38:29,450 --> 00:38:34,370
So they had to work on changing that, too. Yeah, it's critical that.

392
00:38:35,070 --> 00:38:48,020
Well know. So to deliver that, they live it up and it was a requirement of the funding.

393
00:38:48,500 --> 00:38:56,270
So every time that they wrote an article or did a presentation, they had to go back to the tribal elders and say, this is what we think we're finding.

394
00:38:56,420 --> 00:38:59,330
This is how we think we should disseminate the results. What do you think?

395
00:38:59,720 --> 00:39:07,550
And then they got comments from the Community Advisory Board, and they had to show in writing how they'd addressed each one of the comments.

396
00:39:08,390 --> 00:39:15,469
So then the reason they did that is because in participatory research there's what's called levels of participation,

397
00:39:15,470 --> 00:39:19,460
and the bottom level is informing. And the second level up is consulting.

398
00:39:19,790 --> 00:39:23,930
And a lot of what happens is we say that we consulted with people, but really what I've done,

399
00:39:24,500 --> 00:39:30,170
I hope not me personally, but is I've asked your opinion and I've nodded and I've said Yes, thank you very much.

400
00:39:30,170 --> 00:39:34,610
And I've gone off and designed a study. But when you look at it, you can't see anywhere where I've used your opinion.

401
00:39:34,820 --> 00:39:37,960
But I say I consulted you and they wanted to avoid that.

402
00:39:37,970 --> 00:39:45,020
So they said, you need to document in your meeting minutes what the suggestions have been from the Community Advisory Board,

403
00:39:45,020 --> 00:39:51,740
and then you either need to include them in both a research design and the way you implement the intervention and the way you write it up.

404
00:39:52,370 --> 00:39:54,860
Or if you're not going to include it, you need to give a reason why.

405
00:39:55,580 --> 00:40:00,500
And that was about maintaining trust with the community, because if you destroy that kind of trust,

406
00:40:00,500 --> 00:40:06,980
then they're not going to let the researchers in anyway. And then the whole thing is scuppered in those situations where you have.

407
00:40:07,980 --> 00:40:11,730
I guess, teaches history between two populations. And you're trying to.

408
00:40:13,210 --> 00:40:17,710
It's critical that. Body or person is seen as someone.

409
00:40:18,180 --> 00:40:21,660
Inside of the commission. I thoroughly understand.

410
00:40:23,330 --> 00:40:27,250
Because the intervention could be connected with that population. Yeah, it's coming.

411
00:40:29,090 --> 00:40:35,430
Potential threat to be rejected outright. You know, it's called deliberate because it can be seen as a tainted.

412
00:40:35,830 --> 00:40:38,830
Yeah. And that was one of the big concerns.

413
00:40:40,520 --> 00:40:50,810
Yeah. Just about anything you can do.

414
00:40:51,620 --> 00:40:55,970
Yeah, but, um, those would.

415
00:40:58,180 --> 00:41:01,350
And that's what they used here. Mm hmm.

416
00:41:02,680 --> 00:41:08,160
Mm hmm. A lot of it's about credibility. I think it links to what you're saying about whether you're an insider or an outsider.

417
00:41:08,790 --> 00:41:15,239
So if you get the community approving the idea, then the community gives you, as the outside researcher,

418
00:41:15,240 --> 00:41:20,850
more credibility than you would have normally, because they've given that their stamp of approval.

419
00:41:21,780 --> 00:41:25,410
But it's even easier if you have some insiders who are on your research team.

420
00:41:25,830 --> 00:41:29,160
Absolutely. That are actually in the community. And there were two doctors.

421
00:41:29,370 --> 00:41:35,250
One of the doctors was from this tribe and the other one was from this tribe that had worked with the tribe for decades.

422
00:41:35,940 --> 00:41:40,530
And they both of them raised the red flag in the first place about the risk and the children.

423
00:41:41,550 --> 00:41:48,090
So everyone paid attention to it and then they supported the ideas for the research and it made it go faster than it would normally.

424
00:41:49,860 --> 00:41:54,180
So yeah, it started with the community part and went on from there.

425
00:41:54,840 --> 00:42:04,889
I wanted to put this one up because this is one of the issues if you're trying to do a review of this because a systematic review,

426
00:42:04,890 --> 00:42:12,120
you're normally including individual studies. So if I was doing an effectiveness review on a diabetes intervention,

427
00:42:12,840 --> 00:42:21,240
I probably would find the randomised controlled trial, this one here by Alexandria Adams and her co-authors,

428
00:42:21,690 --> 00:42:27,239
and I'd include that in the review if I was doing a mixed method systematic review, not a realist one,

429
00:42:27,240 --> 00:42:39,360
but just a mixed methods review, then I might find the RC T by Adams and I might find this one because it's qualitative.

430
00:42:39,660 --> 00:42:41,680
And then I would include those two in the vignette.

431
00:42:42,570 --> 00:42:48,240
But the question we have and there isn't an answer for this yet, but the question is how many of these studies do you include?

432
00:42:48,240 --> 00:42:53,280
If it's a realist review and your question is about what works, at what point in time?

433
00:42:53,800 --> 00:43:00,150
Any ideas about that? I don't have an answer. I mean, we're trying now to include them all.

434
00:43:01,680 --> 00:43:05,400
And we've actually invented a different way of searching for studies as a result of this.

435
00:43:05,550 --> 00:43:08,940
And as Cheryl and I are trying it out with that with someone on another project.

436
00:43:08,940 --> 00:43:17,070
So and and the case that we're making is if I only see the T, I don't have the history of how it was developed.

437
00:43:17,910 --> 00:43:20,280
So what if that I asked, for example,

438
00:43:21,040 --> 00:43:28,919
reported that it had problems with recruitment or what if the asked said we met our recruitment target of 200 families,

439
00:43:28,920 --> 00:43:34,410
but over the two years that we ran the randomised controlled trial we had a dropout rate of 21%.

440
00:43:35,490 --> 00:43:41,100
You know, should I be worried about that? I mean normally when you appraise one ICG, you would, you would make one decision about it.

441
00:43:41,100 --> 00:43:45,310
But you know, is there a problem in terms of that dropout rate?

442
00:43:45,330 --> 00:43:51,480
Who is it that dropped out? And are they the people that are really important in terms of looking at the effectiveness of the intervention?

443
00:43:52,230 --> 00:44:00,030
So we decided that we would include all of these, and it looks like it's a lot of extra work to do that,

444
00:44:00,270 --> 00:44:02,970
which means it's also, from a research point of view, a lot of extra money.

445
00:44:03,450 --> 00:44:06,419
So when we included them, we said to ourselves, we're going to include them,

446
00:44:06,420 --> 00:44:11,460
but we're going to ask ourselves whether there's any added value in looking at the entire family of studies.

447
00:44:11,940 --> 00:44:19,530
We call called a cluster of studies to reconstruct the picture of the entire research project or is there not enough added value in it?

448
00:44:19,950 --> 00:44:27,660
And what we actually found was that some of the things that actually were quite important to the act weren't reported in the paper.

449
00:44:29,070 --> 00:44:33,300
They were reported in this one, this one, this one.

450
00:44:34,320 --> 00:44:40,139
So that's about having a limited number of words that you can you can use in a journal article.

451
00:44:40,140 --> 00:44:43,770
And what are you going to include as important information and what are you going to leave out?

452
00:44:44,670 --> 00:44:53,010
And this study at the end, which we thought, oh, it's just the story of how the project was set up, it's not going to tell us anything new.

453
00:44:53,640 --> 00:45:00,450
But because they wrote it after ten years of working with this tribe and they were looking back and kind of reflecting what they've learned,

454
00:45:00,450 --> 00:45:07,440
they actually said some things that were quite important about why some of these interventions worked well and some of them didn't.

455
00:45:08,220 --> 00:45:16,230
So we've left them all in. But now that we found this, that there's only partial reporting of important things in each one of these studies,

456
00:45:17,640 --> 00:45:21,719
the question that we're left with is, is this happening in other areas of research?

457
00:45:21,720 --> 00:45:28,890
And if it is, then are our systematic reviews really good quality or are they just giving us a snapshot of the research?

458
00:45:29,370 --> 00:45:34,529
And the snapshot might not necessarily be telling us why it works, I guess.

459
00:45:34,530 --> 00:45:38,370
Could you include the grant application in your view? Because it's essentially a to.

460
00:45:39,530 --> 00:45:43,609
This could be essentially reconstructing you.

461
00:45:43,610 --> 00:45:47,080
Are you reconstructing a program theory?

462
00:45:47,090 --> 00:45:51,380
I hope you guys talked about program theories, because just to go over that really quickly,

463
00:45:51,860 --> 00:45:57,139
when people start out designing a research study, they have an assumption, a set of assumptions.

464
00:45:57,140 --> 00:46:02,720
And the set of assumptions are that this ought to work.

465
00:46:02,930 --> 00:46:08,030
Okay, so you offer the intervention, let's say it's diabetes education,

466
00:46:08,870 --> 00:46:15,230
and you're saying I'm assuming the diabetes education is going to work, because when I give it to this group of people,

467
00:46:16,010 --> 00:46:20,180
their knowledge about diabetes is going to increase about diabetes,

468
00:46:20,180 --> 00:46:29,479
risk their skills in terms of managing it are going to increase and their attitudes about it are going to change.

469
00:46:29,480 --> 00:46:33,710
So a change in attitude. So these are your assumptions here, right, when you design it.

470
00:46:35,420 --> 00:46:42,590
But what happens is you start out with these assumptions when you write the original research protocol, right, for what you want to measure.

471
00:46:42,920 --> 00:46:47,810
But sometimes while you're going through the study, you end up with a learning curve because you're learning a lot more about these people.

472
00:46:48,500 --> 00:46:53,180
And as you learn more about them, you're realising that some of your original assumptions maybe weren't quite right.

473
00:46:54,200 --> 00:47:00,590
So your program theory starts to change. Even during the lifetime of offering the intervention and measuring it.

474
00:47:01,100 --> 00:47:05,390
There's a shift in theory of change in what works and why it ought to work.

475
00:47:06,260 --> 00:47:13,700
And we're thinking that in one single study that's published, you don't get the whole picture that go to those changes.

476
00:47:13,760 --> 00:47:19,760
I think it's pretty depressing the research for that kind of changes. Go back to the grant reports.

477
00:47:21,770 --> 00:47:25,460
Sometimes in this case they did because they had really comprehensive annual reports.

478
00:47:25,880 --> 00:47:30,500
But some funding organisations don't ask for those. So, you know, it depends.

479
00:47:30,530 --> 00:47:33,580
It depends on the kind of funding. Yeah. Yeah.

480
00:47:33,590 --> 00:47:37,940
So it really just reflects the fact that so much research is so much is so compartmentalised.

481
00:47:37,970 --> 00:47:41,480
Yes, it is. Especially, I mean, in this sort of work.

482
00:47:41,500 --> 00:47:46,489
And you can imagine umpteen dozen studies looking at separate little areas.

483
00:47:46,490 --> 00:47:50,340
And you're right. Certainly. And I have certainly. In response, rice.

484
00:47:52,680 --> 00:47:59,250
But I mean, your first question, your first comments really sort of I mean, keep an eye on this sort of work in that.

485
00:48:00,380 --> 00:48:04,730
It's knowing academic units and are encouraged now to follow through.

486
00:48:05,520 --> 00:48:09,390
You're encouraged to do the and the funding. That's right.

487
00:48:09,660 --> 00:48:17,390
Really? I mean, they yeah, they do have to find, you know, grants and a lot of personal studies to.

488
00:48:20,220 --> 00:48:28,880
Grants from small grant. Want and need to find a study that they want to bring up that really, you know.

489
00:48:30,390 --> 00:48:34,260
It's true. And it's a waste. A waste of money. How do you change it?

490
00:48:34,710 --> 00:48:44,550
Changed it? We'll be talking about it in just. I think we change it the same way that we manage to change some things with Cochran,

491
00:48:44,760 --> 00:48:51,270
because the Cochran Colloquium managed to point out that I don't know how many researchers,

492
00:48:51,270 --> 00:48:56,760
thousands were basically doing the same study in different places, and no one was building on what was known before.

493
00:48:57,360 --> 00:49:00,810
So the idea of systematic reviews came out of that and it's become a big industry.

494
00:49:01,170 --> 00:49:08,280
I think we could change this by pointing out that or going back to some systematic reviews, I'm not saying all of them,

495
00:49:09,210 --> 00:49:13,230
but going back to systematic reviews where they're reviewing interventions which were about

496
00:49:13,230 --> 00:49:18,990
attitudes and behaviours where attitudes and behaviours are key and cultural acceptability,

497
00:49:18,990 --> 00:49:27,930
appropriateness and re analysing some of what's in the review, using some of these perspectives to see if we can try and explain the variation.

498
00:49:28,980 --> 00:49:31,139
And I think if we put together enough of those cases,

499
00:49:31,140 --> 00:49:39,390
we could make a convincing argument for putting some more requirements on the funding in terms of what they'll find.

500
00:49:39,870 --> 00:49:44,220
And I think we'll get there because the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence here in England, now,

501
00:49:44,640 --> 00:49:51,660
they want to start funding realist review and they want to start funding it because they're concerned about about some of this.

502
00:49:52,260 --> 00:49:56,549
And it's not just coming from places like the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence.

503
00:49:56,550 --> 00:50:02,940
There are well, I can where I work in CHAS, there's a big randomised controlled trial unit and these people just churn out trials.

504
00:50:02,940 --> 00:50:11,190
They've been doing it for decades and the people in this trial unit are saying, can we please have workshops on realist methods and mixed methods?

505
00:50:11,190 --> 00:50:14,940
Because we're doing our trials and we know that we have problems with them.

506
00:50:15,330 --> 00:50:18,690
And one of the huge problems is recruiting people into the trial.

507
00:50:19,530 --> 00:50:26,459
And everybody knows that it's a big problem and they also know that it ends up being a major expenditure on some of your some of your assets because

508
00:50:26,460 --> 00:50:33,480
it's difficult to get people to join and they're starting to realise that if you use some of these methods it's quite easy or not quite easy,

509
00:50:33,480 --> 00:50:38,580
but it's easier to get involvement in the trial than you would have originally.

510
00:50:39,270 --> 00:50:44,640
So I think that there's going to be some opportunity to go back and look at some of these things.

511
00:50:45,750 --> 00:50:51,960
And the other the other driver, I think, is and I chose diabetes as the example of on purpose.

512
00:50:52,830 --> 00:50:56,159
If you go in and you search for diabetes interventions, there are thousands.

513
00:50:56,160 --> 00:50:59,250
There are hundreds and thousands of them around the world.

514
00:51:00,000 --> 00:51:05,490
And if you bothered to do a mapping exercise and categorise them by the type of intervention,

515
00:51:06,210 --> 00:51:10,740
there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands that are all the same diabetes, education intervention.

516
00:51:11,550 --> 00:51:17,580
So it's like people are taking the same educational program and reproducing it in very

517
00:51:17,580 --> 00:51:22,979
different places and nada and not saying it works in some places and not working in others,

518
00:51:22,980 --> 00:51:26,969
but they're not putting those results together to look at why it's working in some places and not others.

519
00:51:26,970 --> 00:51:33,210
So. So it's obvious that something needs to be done in terms of managing the money more effectively, I think.

520
00:51:33,390 --> 00:51:37,950
And it is now the problem that successful ones get published in the others.

521
00:51:38,280 --> 00:51:44,130
Yes, it is. And that was the other. I'm glad you brought that up, because that was the other reason I put this up here,

522
00:51:44,580 --> 00:51:51,210
because when we first searched for these, we use kind of traditional methods for searching for articles.

523
00:51:51,870 --> 00:51:57,120
And of course, we found the ones that were published in the big peer reviewed journals like this one.

524
00:51:58,710 --> 00:52:09,790
And we found this one because there's surveys here and and this one here came into the realm of quantitative clinical type research.

525
00:52:09,790 --> 00:52:18,360
And so they were published in well-recognized journals. But then we started using this method of searching where you're looking for

526
00:52:19,170 --> 00:52:23,190
what these articles referenced both forwards in time and backwards in time.

527
00:52:23,850 --> 00:52:30,330
And we also looked for any mention that they had in any article of doing any kind of research,

528
00:52:31,440 --> 00:52:35,880
you know, and in another part of this project, which again, takes time.

529
00:52:36,030 --> 00:52:40,589
But when you look at the order in which they're published, they weren't published in this order, even though this was the order of activity.

530
00:52:40,590 --> 00:52:44,160
And the reason they weren't is because the journals aren't interested in some of this stuff.

531
00:52:44,520 --> 00:52:47,100
So this thing really should have been published a lot earlier.

532
00:52:48,330 --> 00:52:52,050
You know, this was the account of how they set up the relationship with the tribal council,

533
00:52:52,800 --> 00:52:57,660
how they got ideas from the Tribal Council about about what kind of interventions to have in the community,

534
00:52:57,870 --> 00:53:03,629
the kind of how they establish an equal power balance in terms of relationships and working together that

535
00:53:03,630 --> 00:53:10,830
should have come up here somewhere instead of way down there and the perceptions of the environment.

536
00:53:10,830 --> 00:53:15,780
Again, that work was done a lot earlier and it was key down here.

537
00:53:15,780 --> 00:53:21,570
It actually happened down here and helped them decide what interventions to have. But it was qualitative, so it wasn't published until years later.

538
00:53:23,070 --> 00:53:29,879
So the publication pathway was was interesting and it's I think it's a form of bias and some of them were in very obscure journals.

539
00:53:29,880 --> 00:53:32,430
So anything that had to do with the participatory approach,

540
00:53:33,060 --> 00:53:38,880
we had to order those those articles on interlibrary loan even though we have access to a huge library.

541
00:53:39,760 --> 00:53:44,860
You couldn't get them. So, yeah, it's.

542
00:53:46,410 --> 00:53:50,340
The war hasn't changed.

543
00:53:50,490 --> 00:53:56,080
It's gotten better. But not all the journals are open access yet, and some of them are not.

544
00:53:56,100 --> 00:54:03,150
They just don't set up as open access. You know, these were in journals like The Journal of the Poor and Underserved, for example.

545
00:54:04,140 --> 00:54:08,790
And, you know, it's just not a big journal, so a challenge.

546
00:54:09,780 --> 00:54:16,109
So that's our challenge right now. And we are going to include other studies this time because we think that there's there's

547
00:54:16,110 --> 00:54:19,980
it's a worthwhile exercise in terms of looking at whether it should be done before.

548
00:54:20,610 --> 00:54:23,070
I don't know whether it would do it for everything, but we will for this.

549
00:54:23,910 --> 00:54:33,120
So the kind of round up the story, once we looked at this and found a whole family of articles, we said, well, maybe we have some other families.

550
00:54:33,540 --> 00:54:42,300
So we went back to the 135 articles that we thought were relevant for the review, and we found nine other families.

551
00:54:42,810 --> 00:54:48,720
So there are nine other pilot projects out there that have published between three and ten articles on their work.

552
00:54:49,050 --> 00:54:54,390
So we have we can reconstruct what happened in the in them.

553
00:54:54,900 --> 00:55:02,490
So the point that we learned and this is something that we've learned with the last peer support review, but it's actually coming up here, too.

554
00:55:03,690 --> 00:55:06,780
There's a couple of authors in health promotion called Townsend Green,

555
00:55:07,320 --> 00:55:13,550
and they've said that you can find two different types of intervention in health, and you find this in public health, too.

556
00:55:13,950 --> 00:55:18,720
And they call them authoritarian and negotiated. And they don't necessarily mean that in a negative way.

557
00:55:19,140 --> 00:55:24,930
I mean, if you think of, for example, disaster relief situations, you wouldn't want to negotiate what you intervention was.

558
00:55:24,930 --> 00:55:28,740
You just need to take an authoritarian stance and go in there and use your expertise and do something.

559
00:55:29,340 --> 00:55:32,309
But basically, the authoritarian intervention, for whatever reason,

560
00:55:32,310 --> 00:55:36,620
gets designed by experts outside of a community, and then it's brought into a community.

561
00:55:37,140 --> 00:55:40,910
Sometimes it's called community based, but it isn't actually community based.

562
00:55:40,920 --> 00:55:46,230
It's brought in and it's done to people try to reduce risk or improve health, whatever.

563
00:55:46,740 --> 00:55:55,440
And the other side is the negotiated ones, which is what this bad river tribe one was, where the community itself is designing what needs to happen,

564
00:55:55,440 --> 00:56:01,320
and then they're doing it on themselves or with themselves rather than having the outsiders come in and do it.

565
00:56:01,890 --> 00:56:09,030
Now, I said that one wasn't necessarily worse than the other, depending on the situation, but for the peer support review,

566
00:56:09,300 --> 00:56:14,459
we actually found a pattern because peer support is about getting people connected to other people,

567
00:56:14,460 --> 00:56:19,230
getting them connected to the community, helping them build social networks so they can manage their own condition.

568
00:56:19,770 --> 00:56:23,550
So it's very much a kind of behavioural and emotional type of support.

569
00:56:24,060 --> 00:56:33,240
And in that review, the interventions that were authoritarian were less effective than the ones that were negotiated.

570
00:56:33,330 --> 00:56:37,500
And we we questioned that. We said, maybe we're looking for that.

571
00:56:38,100 --> 00:56:43,559
So then we looked at them by stage because first you have the design, the intervention stage,

572
00:56:43,560 --> 00:56:47,430
and then you have recruits to the intervention, and then you have actually delivery and you have it.

573
00:56:47,880 --> 00:56:53,220
And there were some interventions that started out really authoritarian, so outsiders designed them,

574
00:56:54,090 --> 00:57:00,300
but then they went into the communities to do them to the community and they realised they were going to have a problem commuting, recruiting.

575
00:57:00,930 --> 00:57:08,220
So they changed to a more negotiated stance and got the community to help them recruit and it started to become more successful.

576
00:57:08,700 --> 00:57:12,209
And then they got to the point where they had the right number of people in the study and

577
00:57:12,210 --> 00:57:17,420
they took the control back from the community and told them how to deliver the intervention.

578
00:57:17,640 --> 00:57:22,470
The people dropped out and became less successful, so there was a pattern there, no matter how you looked at it.

579
00:57:23,250 --> 00:57:26,909
So we're also suggesting that this is something you probably have to look at with some

580
00:57:26,910 --> 00:57:32,940
interventions because it affects them all the way through the audience that that you mentioned.

581
00:57:33,780 --> 00:57:38,310
It was Tones and green.

582
00:57:39,690 --> 00:57:41,270
They wrote a health promotion book.

583
00:57:41,580 --> 00:57:51,600
I can't remember the exact title of it right now, but it was actually reissued with the authors in the opposite order.

584
00:57:52,680 --> 00:57:58,620
And I think that the last edition was 2010, if I remember right.

585
00:57:59,010 --> 00:58:04,800
So this is one of the interventions they ended up with at the end of the day. And just to finish off the story, what did they do for interventions?

586
00:58:05,970 --> 00:58:10,020
Because it was swampy land, difficult for the children to play outside.

587
00:58:10,020 --> 00:58:19,170
They built boardwalks above the ground. So they had like marsh walks, forest walks, and they built them like like exercise or activity trail.

588
00:58:19,210 --> 00:58:22,980
So that was one thing they did. They negotiated with the teachers.

589
00:58:23,430 --> 00:58:28,440
They built more physical activity into the day. The teachers were concerned about them losing some of their study time,

590
00:58:28,440 --> 00:58:35,900
so they came up with activities where they were learning at the same time as they were doing something active with the healthy eating.

591
00:58:35,910 --> 00:58:45,810
They negotiated with the community store to get different foods in and the council elders talked to people in the community and decided how they.

592
00:58:45,860 --> 00:58:49,499
Wanted to shift the balance between the unhealthy and the healthy food that was coming into the community.

593
00:58:49,500 --> 00:58:54,950
We kind of agreed on changing some of the food that was brought in, in that kind of culture.

594
00:58:54,950 --> 00:59:01,070
They really respect what the elders are saying. So if the elders said something was going to be a certain way people are, people would tend to try it.

595
00:59:01,500 --> 00:59:04,010
And they started putting out newsletters with recipes in them.

596
00:59:04,910 --> 00:59:13,100
And in each one of the newsletters, the elders had recommendations that said the elders are saying and they have some ideas for people to try.

597
00:59:13,970 --> 00:59:21,170
They didn't call it diabetes. They called it healthy families, strong children as a more neutral kind of kind of set of words.

598
00:59:22,280 --> 00:59:26,060
And the list goes on. I mean, it was multiple interventions at the end of the day.

599
00:59:27,170 --> 00:59:30,230
Was there anything specifically targeted toward conception and how?

600
00:59:32,260 --> 00:59:36,670
Yes. And what they did was they used this study here,

601
00:59:37,480 --> 00:59:49,600
and the conclusions that came out of it was we have to talk to parents about how activity could fit in with happiness and health.

602
00:59:50,620 --> 00:59:53,800
And so they came at it from the point of view of fine of being together.

603
00:59:54,820 --> 01:00:00,729
So they reframed it that way and they kind of used the and they found this in the research, actually.

604
01:00:00,730 --> 01:00:06,220
They said, if you're telling people children to eat healthy food because it's good for them right away, you're putting them off.

605
01:00:06,670 --> 01:00:12,280
So rather than coming at it by telling people to be active because it's good for you, we need to come at it from the point of view of, you know,

606
01:00:12,340 --> 01:00:18,940
what makes them happy, what are enjoyable activities for them, which again, it's not rocket science, but that was the way that they framed it.

607
01:00:19,660 --> 01:00:25,150
So at the end of the day, children aged 2 to 5 are now on the way.

608
01:00:28,220 --> 01:00:36,260
It went down by 8% and parents lost weight, which wasn't the original intention, but they did.

609
01:00:36,260 --> 01:00:40,610
And the parents have maintained the weight loss now over five years. So it's working.

610
01:00:41,570 --> 01:00:46,490
It's slow. I mean, you were saying that. But but it is working.

611
01:00:46,490 --> 01:00:50,900
It's you know, it's there's a downward trend in that part of the world and.

612
01:00:51,230 --> 01:01:01,640
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, change it.

613
01:01:02,150 --> 01:01:06,830
And the other clusters we found, the other studies that had families of studies together,

614
01:01:07,370 --> 01:01:13,790
they used the same approach and they're coming up with the same thing. So if you look across them, it's working.

615
01:01:14,300 --> 01:01:19,190
So that's the story of one one controversial thing about mixed methods.

616
01:01:19,190 --> 01:01:27,860
And how do you and I guess what I'm saying is when you're combining them, I think we need to question where the study ideas originally came from,

617
01:01:28,760 --> 01:01:33,650
because if I'm combining a study that has that authoritarian stance here,

618
01:01:34,820 --> 01:01:41,870
if I'm bringing that into my review and I'm bringing in another study that seems to have the same intervention,

619
01:01:41,870 --> 01:01:45,860
how am I going to know whether they both or I'm not being very clear here.

620
01:01:46,850 --> 01:01:53,509
If I bring two diabetes education studies into my review, they both said they did the same educational program,

621
01:01:53,510 --> 01:01:57,650
but they have nothing about the kind of stance they used. How do I know that with the same intervention?

622
01:01:58,850 --> 01:02:03,110
I don't. And I think that they are there might be an issue there.

623
01:02:03,110 --> 01:02:05,209
You know, one of them might be more acceptable than the other.

624
01:02:05,210 --> 01:02:14,540
But we have no way of knowing, so that the intervention has other trappings that are actually more important than the intervention,

625
01:02:14,570 --> 01:02:18,740
the context, because there's an interaction between the context and the intervention.

626
01:02:18,740 --> 01:02:21,319
And that interaction is how was it designed in the first place and what was

627
01:02:21,320 --> 01:02:26,000
the process of of offering it and implementing it and making your job easier?

628
01:02:26,000 --> 01:02:29,180
To do this we need to be ensuring that is.

629
01:02:29,570 --> 01:02:33,800
Insistence that contextual information is included.

630
01:02:33,920 --> 01:02:38,330
Yeah, online, not necessarily printed version.

631
01:02:38,750 --> 01:02:45,630
But at the moment we're so restrictive with words that really important contextual information just cannot make it into Python.

632
01:02:46,190 --> 01:02:51,230
More post about which statistic can be used in the really important stuff.

633
01:02:53,400 --> 01:02:55,800
Well, I would say they're both. They're both important.

634
01:02:56,670 --> 01:03:02,500
But maybe there's something about changing the guidelines a little bit, the criteria for what you're reporting in your study.

635
01:03:04,500 --> 01:03:10,230
Because right now, when we look at articles, you have an introduction or a background section to the article.

636
01:03:10,800 --> 01:03:16,800
And that background section traditionally talks about research that's been done somewhere else,

637
01:03:17,220 --> 01:03:21,540
and you use that to justify your approach and also to identify the gap in the research.

638
01:03:21,840 --> 01:03:29,399
But maybe there's some way of asking people to make that fit a little shorter so that you can use some of the word count

639
01:03:29,400 --> 01:03:37,320
there to describe the context so that the introduction would actually look like research has been done that says so-and-so,

640
01:03:38,760 --> 01:03:41,669
there was a gap in this research and this is what I think we need to do.

641
01:03:41,670 --> 01:03:47,100
But then follow that before you get to the research question with this is the context we'll be working in.

642
01:03:47,100 --> 01:03:52,620
And based on this context, this is what we think we need to be doing to to adapt the intervention.

643
01:03:53,550 --> 01:04:00,890
I think it needs to be. Published which journal?

644
01:04:01,690 --> 01:04:06,730
All of them, because one part of that debate has started.

645
01:04:07,750 --> 01:04:16,360
So Paul Glasgow and his group in Australia bond they they're doing a big push on describing the intervention.

646
01:04:17,300 --> 01:04:24,130
Okay. So they're doing a big push on actually making, making explicit your interventions because they did a they did a quick,

647
01:04:24,730 --> 01:04:31,450
a quick, quick and dirty systematic review and found that I think don't quote me, but it was almost half of them.

648
01:04:31,480 --> 01:04:37,000
Could it be? Could it be? Couldn't be implemented just by reading the article.

649
01:04:37,040 --> 01:04:42,310
Yeah. And then they went to the author and they got some more information for another sort of 20 or 30% of that.

650
01:04:43,300 --> 01:04:49,450
So they're putting a lot of effort into trying to they've actually developed a framework called the Tidy a framework.

651
01:04:50,440 --> 01:04:54,070
The first author is Tammy Hoffmann, and that's published this year, I think.

652
01:04:54,730 --> 01:05:01,480
And so they they're saying that that should be used alongside the consort guideline for describing the actual intervention,

653
01:05:01,480 --> 01:05:05,950
the behavioural intervention group does it, you know, what training they have,

654
01:05:06,190 --> 01:05:11,590
where they're getting a little bit into context, but it's predominantly on the intervention,

655
01:05:11,890 --> 01:05:17,260
but they're starting to think about, yeah, who does it, how much training and what tools are used, what resources.

656
01:05:17,710 --> 01:05:20,920
So that that's one step, but it's not.

657
01:05:21,130 --> 01:05:28,060
The universal contract negotiating stuff is really important because one of the reasons I understand

658
01:05:28,060 --> 01:05:35,200
that Australia was very successful with the HIV AIDS epidemic was that the whole program for what do

659
01:05:35,200 --> 01:05:42,409
we do about this was done at the level of we saw in in association with the most at risk community was

660
01:05:42,410 --> 01:05:47,950
as I understand in the US it was more of an authoritative approach to an intervention and we had,

661
01:05:48,680 --> 01:05:54,800
we did really well really quickly. And I think so I think that that is very important.

662
01:05:55,990 --> 01:06:00,730
We do really know there is some kind of barrier to it.

663
01:06:01,720 --> 01:06:08,740
I don't know if it's about too much challenging the way things are done right now.

664
01:06:09,490 --> 01:06:14,830
Um, and I'm saying that cause there's something in England called the Schools for Public Health Research,

665
01:06:15,550 --> 01:06:20,050
and it's a consortia that's was set up by the government of seven universities in the

666
01:06:20,050 --> 01:06:23,020
UK because they said we have to start working together on public health research.

667
01:06:23,020 --> 01:06:32,319
So we had a meeting in Sheffield about a month ago and I brought this up and I described what we were finding out and the people in this,

668
01:06:32,320 --> 01:06:37,690
in this group are international researchers, so they have long track records.

669
01:06:37,690 --> 01:06:41,919
And the only one of these people was saying we should make this a priority for the school.

670
01:06:41,920 --> 01:06:44,229
And the rest of them were just, you know,

671
01:06:44,230 --> 01:06:52,240
it's not not fitting in with the funding priorities or it's almost like it's it's it needs to be introduced more gradually, I guess.

672
01:06:53,410 --> 01:07:01,090
I mean, none of us want to think are the interventions we set so high designing are inappropriately authoritarian, you know?

673
01:07:01,090 --> 01:07:06,850
So I think it's a hard thing to get your head around and I think up to something here,

674
01:07:06,850 --> 01:07:13,270
but there's been a huge push towards transparency in research and you're trying to grab that from the context.

675
01:07:13,510 --> 01:07:19,480
You need very sophisticated to find out and even to measure, you know, exactly what you're going to do at any stage.

676
01:07:20,020 --> 01:07:23,520
And then you get to say, well, this has to allow flexibility.

677
01:07:23,700 --> 01:07:30,670
Yeah. And then the transparency becomes a very difficult thing to achieve because you're introducing complexity,

678
01:07:31,000 --> 01:07:36,460
which of course we all know happens in our research project. So we're on the right way.

679
01:07:36,730 --> 01:07:43,389
Yeah, the straight line. But yeah, the kind of conflict it is, it is.

680
01:07:43,390 --> 01:07:46,990
And it's really hard to write the grant applications for that reason because

681
01:07:47,260 --> 01:07:51,639
if you have people that are experienced in reviewing our safety protocols,

682
01:07:51,640 --> 01:07:52,990
reviewing a grant application,

683
01:07:52,990 --> 01:07:59,950
they come back and they tell you you're being too vague and they don't understand that there's a reason that you're doing that.

684
01:08:00,460 --> 01:08:03,430
So it's hard. So yeah, I don't know what direction it will go in.

685
01:08:03,430 --> 01:08:09,520
I know that more of the the community based participatory stuff is being funded than it was before.

686
01:08:10,000 --> 01:08:14,230
So that's good news and more of it is making its way into mainstream health channels.

687
01:08:14,710 --> 01:08:20,760
So that's also good news. But who knows, can we get funding from the actual funding bodies?

688
01:08:21,190 --> 01:08:30,400
Because sometimes we'll top 10% for monitoring purposes and to talk to an academic to come out to do this kind of monitoring.

689
01:08:31,840 --> 01:08:39,890
According to a framework. A new report seems to show that they're targeting the outcomes of their.

690
01:08:42,050 --> 01:08:48,560
And that can lead to papers. Surely the funding would be very much in line with.

691
01:08:50,130 --> 01:08:53,640
Proving. Think so.

692
01:08:54,980 --> 01:08:58,910
I'm thinking about that because that's an idea, isn't it?

693
01:08:59,160 --> 01:09:02,760
So I did this with a few years ago in Scotland.

694
01:09:02,780 --> 01:09:10,040
Yeah. Funded by the European Social Fund. Yeah. Set a target to meet, like, youth engagement and so on.

695
01:09:10,640 --> 01:09:13,790
And then we gave the money to local contacts.

696
01:09:13,790 --> 01:09:23,150
Yeah. Ask for funding. And then the four projects were giving us every year.

697
01:09:23,790 --> 01:09:28,140
And then they were great topic. And I never thought that I created all of these reports.

698
01:09:33,080 --> 01:09:36,130
And that sounds funded by the top.

699
01:09:36,470 --> 01:09:40,810
Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Successful?

700
01:09:40,930 --> 01:09:45,860
Mm hmm. And we didn't have to worry so much about. Research Councils.

701
01:09:46,910 --> 01:09:51,319
Yes, that's a really good idea because then you're in a position to not only it,

702
01:09:51,320 --> 01:09:58,790
but review what they're doing and make some make some observations, like from a methodological point of view too.

703
01:09:59,240 --> 01:10:07,430
The outputs part is interesting because what's coming up with some of these things now is that the outputs and the outcomes, like I said earlier,

704
01:10:07,430 --> 01:10:13,250
the people value or that they're achieving, sometimes they're not the ones that were originally set by the funding body,

705
01:10:13,760 --> 01:10:15,860
but the participants are saying they're more meaningful.

706
01:10:17,210 --> 01:10:22,670
And so I think there's a piece of work that needs to be done there, particularly around social outcomes,

707
01:10:23,540 --> 01:10:28,040
because I know in the peer support review they said for a lot of these health outcomes,

708
01:10:28,040 --> 01:10:31,400
people need to have social outcomes first before they can get to the health outcomes.

709
01:10:31,940 --> 01:10:38,419
You know, people that are isolated need to be more socially connected before they can manage to give up smoking or or be more physically active.

710
01:10:38,420 --> 01:10:44,209
And why aren't we measuring those? And now some of the organisations we're working with are saying we want money

711
01:10:44,210 --> 01:10:47,030
to measure those first and then we'll show how they're linked to the health.

712
01:10:48,050 --> 01:10:55,250
But right now we have this kind of black hole in the middle because those intermediate outcomes are being are being collected anyhow.

713
01:10:55,640 --> 01:10:58,970
So thank you for listening to the challenges that we're having.