No abstract

BackgroundThe “F-words in Childhood Disability” (Function, Family, Fitness, Fun, Friends, and Future) are an adaptation and an attempt to operationalize the World Health Organization’s (2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Since the paper was published (November 2011), the “F-words” have attracted global attention (>12,000 downloads, January 2018). Internationally, people have adopted the “F-words” ideas, and many families and service providers have expressed a need for more information, tools, and resources on the “F-words”.ObjectiveThis paper reports on the development and pilot evaluation of a Web-based knowledge translation (KT) resource, the “F-words” Knowledge Hub that was created to inform people about the “F-words” and to provide action-oriented tools to support the use of the “F-words” in practice.MethodsAn integrated research team of families and researchers at CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research collaborated to develop, implement, and evaluate the Knowledge Hub. A pilot study design was chosen to assess the usability and utility of the Web-based hub before implementing a larger evaluation study. Data were collected using a brief anonymous Web-based survey that included both closed-ended and open-ended questions, with the closed-ended responses being based on a five-point Likert-type scale. We used descriptive statistics and a summary of key themes to report findings.ResultsFrom August to November 2017, the Knowledge Hub received >6,800 unique visitors. In 1 month (November 2017), 87 people completed the survey, of whom 63 completed the full survey and 24 completed 1 or 2 sections. The respondents included 42 clinicians and 30 family members or individuals with a disability. The majority of people visited the Knowledge Hub 1-5 times (n=63) and spent up to 45 minutes exploring (n=61) before providing feedback. Overall, 66 people provided information on the perceived usefulness of the Knowledge Hub, of which 92% (61/66) found the Knowledge Hub user-friendly and stated that they enjoyed exploring the hub, and a majority (n=52) reported that the Knowledge Hub would influence what they did when working with others. From the open-ended responses (n=48), the “F-words” videos (n=21) and the “F-words” tools (n=15) were rated as the best features on the Knowledge Hub.ConclusionsThe “F-words” Knowledge Hub is an evidence-informed Web-based KT resource that was useful for respondents, most of whom were seen as “early adopters” of the “F-words” concepts. Based on the findings, minor changes are to be made to improve the Knowledge Hub before completing a larger evaluation study on the impact at the family, clinician, and organizational levels with a wider group of users. Our hope is that the “F-words” Knowledge Hub will become a go-to resource for knowledge sharing and exchange for families and service providers.

By creating a short and captivating video, we were able to spread awareness to a wide audience in a short period of time. Engaging families throughout the project was critical to the success of the video. By working together, we hope to continue bridging research and practice and moving the 'F-words' concepts forward one 'word' at a time.

The authors proposed and tested a model of social functioning in schizophrenia. The model consisted of five indicators: social competence, quality of relations, satisfaction, symmetry of relationships, and the number of close friends. The model combines proximal and distal, quality and quantity, and self-report and observer ratings of social functioning. It was designed to have ecological validity in that it reflects real-world social functioning, and the data are all gathered in reference to naturally occurring social contexts. Two independent community samples of individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (N = 172; N = 166) were used to test the structure of the measurement model and its invariance across samples. Additional measures of social functioning, prognosis, and intrapsychic deficits were used to further assess the validity of the proposed social functioning construct. A single-factor model had acceptable fit with the data from sample 1. The single-factor model was found to be invariant across the two independent samples. Correlations with other measures in both samples provided additional evidence for the construct validity of the proposed measurement model of social functioning. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

BackgroundIt is widely agreed that children's services should use participation‐focused practice, but that implementation is challenging. This paper describes a method for using audit and feedback, an evidence‐based knowledge translation strategy, to support implementation of participation‐focused practice in front‐line services, to identify barriers to implementation, and to enable international benchmarking of implementation and barriers.MethodBest‐practice guidelines for using audit and feedback were followed. For audit, participation‐focused practice was specified as clinicians' three observable behaviours: (a) targets participation outcomes; (b) involves child/parent in setting participation outcomes; and (c) measures progress towards participation outcomes. For barrier identification, the Theoretical Domains Framework Questionnaire (TDFQ) of known implementation barriers was used. A cycle of audit and barrier identification was piloted in three services (n = 25 clinicians) in a large U.K. healthcare trust. From each clinician, up to five randomly sampled case note sets were audited (total n = 122), and the clinicians were invited to complete the TDFQ. For feedback, data on the behaviours and barriers were shared visually and verbally with managers and clinicians to inform action planning.ResultsA Method for using Audit and feedback for Participation implementation (MAPi) was developed. The MAPi audit template captured clinicians' practices: Clinicians targeted participation in 37/122 (30.3%) of the sampled cases; involved child/parent in 16/122 (13.1%); and measured progress in 24/122 (19.7%). Barriers identified from the TDFQ and fed back to managers and clinicians included clinicians’ skills in participation‐focused behaviours (median = 3.00–5.00, interquartile range [IQR] = 2.25‐6.00), social processes (median = 4.00, IQR = 3.00–5.00), and behavioural regulation (median = 4.00–5.00, IQR = 3.00–6.00).ConclusionsMAPi provides a practical, off‐the‐shelf method for front‐line services to investigate and support their implementation of participation‐focused practice. Furthermore, as a shared, consistent template, MAPi provides a method for generating cumulative and comparable, across‐services evidence about levels and trends of implementation and about enduring barriers to implementation, to inform future implementation strategies.