OBJECTIVE: Patients with incurable cancer should receive general palliative care according to their needs, as provided through collaboration between hospital departments, municipalities, and general practices and as outlined in national guidelines. However, the implementation of general palliative care in Denmark has been inadequate. This study aimed to investigate the healthcare professionals\' (HCPs\') perceptions on barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of the Danish National Guideline (NG) for general palliative care.
METHODS: This descriptive, qualitative study was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Qualitative focus group and individual interviews were conducted with 23 HCPs. The interview guide, coding, analysis, and reporting of findings were developed within the CFIR framework.
RESULTS: The main barriers to implementing NG were as follows: lack of knowledge about the NG, lack of an implementation plan, and insufficient communication and collaboration across sectors. Important facilitators were as follows: HCP motivation to meet palliative care needs, HCPs with special functions taking responsibility for incorporating NG into local guidelines, and the role of district nurses specialised in palliative care as opinion leaders providing security and continuity for the HCPs working in palliative care.
CONCLUSIONS: To address the needs of patients with incurable cancer, greater efforts are required on implementing general palliative care. Although HCPs in our setting were motivated to improve NG implementation, financial resources and strategies are necessary to ensure sufficient knowledge uptake and accommodate identified barriers in order to translate the NG into practice.

Opening data promises to improve research rigour and democratize knowledge production. But it also presents practical, theoretical, and ethical considerations for qualitative researchers in particular. Discussion about open data in qualitative social psychology predates the replication crisis. However, the nuances of this ongoing discussion have not been translated into current journal guidelines on open data. In this article, we summarize ongoing debates about open data from qualitative perspectives, and through a content analysis of 261 journals we establish the state of current journal policies for open data in the domain of social psychology. We critically discuss how current common expectations for open data may not be adequate for establishing qualitative rigour, can introduce ethical challenges, and may place those who wish to use qualitative approaches at a disadvantage in peer review and publication processes. We advise that future open data guidelines should aim to reflect the nuance of arguments surrounding data sharing in qualitative research, and move away from a universal \"one-size-fits-all\" approach to data sharing. This article outlines the past, present, and the potential future of open data guidelines in social-psychological journals. We conclude by offering recommendations for how journals might more inclusively consider the use of open data in qualitative methods, whilst recognizing and allowing space for the diverse perspectives, needs, and contexts of all forms of social-psychological research.

Findings from qualitative research may make valuable contributions to the evidence informing healthcare practice. Qualitative research methodologies and methods, however, are less familiar to health researchers and research consumers when compared with quantitative methods. Qualitative research reporting guidelines and their merit have been hotly debated for at least two decades. Herein I discuss two sets of qualitative research reporting guidelines endorsed by many high tiered health research journals: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research and Standards for reporting qualitative research. Six aspects of the two sets of guidelines are compared. The first aspect is the focus of the guidelines. The latter five aspects are items included in the guidelines: reflexivity, participant sampling and saturation, data collection, member checking, and data analysis. Except for reflexivity, these items were selected for comparison as they include features of, or strategies to, enhance the rigor of qualitative research that are applicable within some but not all qualitative methodologies. Reflexivity, a central feature of rigor within all qualitative research, is discussed for its suboptimal representation in both sets of reporting guidelines. Without regular and critical review of reporting guidelines, efforts to promote the design, conduct, and reporting of rigorous qualitative health research to support evidence-informed practice may be undermined. Moreover, for qualitative research reporting guidelines to be useful, they must be applied appropriately and in a flexible manner by researchers and reviewers. This paper has implications for researchers, journal editors, reviewers, and research consumers.

BACKGROUND: Research claims that \'learning by doing\' creates new thinking, often leading to new practice.
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to explore and describe the staff learning process from the first to the second year when adopting person-centred care into clinical practice in a nursing home for persons with dementia.
METHODS: The data consisted of poster texts from staff and written notes by researchers obtained from the group discussions. The study involved 24 care units (200 staff). Content analysis was chosen as method to explore the learning process.
RESULTS: The staff described the actions that they took during year 1 and year 2, in which five categories emerged, activities, environment, information, priorities and staff routines. With researchers\' analysis the categories together created the learning process and formed a sub-theme. They further formed an overarching theme from simplicity to complexity and consensus. Staff changes year 1 pertained more to planning and doing, while year 2 changes constituted a larger complexity of person-centred care with reflection, collaborative learning and a mind-set change.
CONCLUSIONS: Staff chose the development area, and the learning process was illuminated by the researchers. This underscores the value to visualise and verbalise the steps of change as well as include these steps in the design of an implementation process. The concept of person-centred care could be viewed on different levels. The findings may contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of staff learning process when implementation of person-centred care.
CONCLUSIONS: Making staff\'s learning process visible can be a guide for improvement and change from a generic care towards person-centred care. The Regional Board of Research Ethics approved the study (Reg no. 2010/1234-31/5).

As providers of community-based physical activity programs, recreation and sports facilities serve as an important resource for health promotion. Unfortunately, the food environments within these settings often do not reflect healthy eating guidelines. This study sought to describe facilitators and barriers to implementing provincial nutrition guidelines in recreation and sports facilities in three Canadian provinces with nutrition guidelines. Semi-structured interviews were analysed thematically to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing provincial nutrition guidelines. Facilitators and barriers were then categorised using a modified \"inside out\" socio-ecological model that places health-related and other social environments at the centre. A total of 32 semi-structured interviews were conducted at two time-points across the three guideline provinces. Interview participants included recreation staff managers, facility committee or board members and recreation volunteers. Eight facilitators and barriers were identified across five levels of the inside out socio-ecological model. Facilitators included provincial or municipal expectations of guideline implementation, clear communication to staff around guideline directives and the presence of a champion within the community or facility who supported guideline implementation. Barriers included unhealthy food culture within community, competition from other food providers and issues within food service contracts that undermined healthy food provision. Findings reinforce the importance of top down (clear expectations regarding guideline implementation at the time of approval) and bottom up (need for buy-in from multiple stakeholders) approaches to ensure successful implementation of nutrition guidelines. The application of a modified socio-ecological model allowed for a more nuanced understanding of leverage points to support successful guideline implementation. Lay summary Healthy eating is an important behaviour for preventing chronic diseases. Supporting people to access healthy foods in places where they live, learn, work or play is a public health priority. Recreation and sports facilities are a setting where people can be physically active. Unfortunately, the food environment in these settings may not reflect nutrition guidelines. In this study, we interviewed key stakeholders from recreation and sports facilities in three Canadian provinces who had put guidelines for healthy eating in place. We used a specific framework to do this called the inside out socio-ecological model. Eight facilitators and barriers were identified using this model. Facilitators included provincial or municipal expectations of guideline implementation, clear communication to staff around guideline directives and the presence of a champion within the community or facility who supported guideline implementation. Barriers included unhealthy food culture within community, competition from other food providers and issues within food service contracts that undermined healthy food provision. Our findings can help people working in recreation and sports facilities to identify issues that may help or hinder healthy food provision in these settings.

HealthyHearts NYC was a stepped wedge randomized control trial that tested the effectiveness of practice facilitation on the adoption of cardiovascular disease guidelines in small primary care practices. The objective of this study was to identify was to identify attributes of small practices that signaled they would perform well in a practice facilitation intervention implementation.
A mixed methods multiple-case study design was used. Six small practices were selected representing 3 variations in meeting the practice-level benchmark of >70% of hypertensive patients having controlled blood pressure. Inductive and deductive approaches were used to identify themes and assign case ratings. Cross-case rating comparison was used to identify attributes of high performing practices.
Our first key finding is that the high-performing and improved practices in our study looked and acted similarly during the intervention implementation. The second key finding is that 3 attributes emerged in our analysis of determinants of high performance in small practices: (1) advanced use of the EHR; (2) dedicated resources and commitment to quality improvement; and (3) actively engaged lead clinician and office manager.
These attributes may be important determinants of high performance, indicating not only a small practice\'s capability to engage in an intervention but possibly also its readiness to change. We recommend developing tools to assess readiness to change, specifically for small primary care practices, which may help external agents, like practice facilitators, better translate intervention implementations to context.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a debilitating symptom experienced by many cancer patients. Although guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for screening, assessing, and managing CRF, there is limited evidence of their implementation in practice. This study aimed to explore patients\', healthcare providers\' (HCPs), community support providers\' (CSPs) experiences and opinions on CRF guidelines and the underlying causes of CRF treatment gaps following the Knowledge-to-Action model.
METHODS: A total of 62 participants were recruited-16 patients, 32 HCPs, and 14 CSPs-for a total of 9 focus groups and 4 individual interviews. Sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: There were gaps in the application of CRF guidelines and patient dissatisfaction with care. Two underlying mechanisms may contribute to these gaps. First, professionals\' lack of knowledge and resources paired with systemic obstacles created difficult conditions to adequately address CRF-A Perfect Storm. Further, patient-provider communication gaps lead to patients feeling discouraged to report issues to their healthcare teams and turning to community services for help-A Breakdown in Communication.
CONCLUSIONS: There is little indication that CRF guidelines are routinely implemented in clinical practice. This study provides insights from various perspectives to aid understanding of the critical issues that require consideration to increase implementation of CRF guidelines by HCPs. As patients are currently dissatisfied with CRF-related care, implementation of CRF guidelines is needed.

BACKGROUND: WHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that guideline decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable. To help achieve this, WHO guidelines now typically enhance intervention effectiveness data with evidence on a wider range of decision-making criteria, including how stakeholders value different outcomes, equity, gender and human rights impacts, and the acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly used to provide evidence on this wider range of issues. In this paper, we describe and discuss how to use the findings from QES to populate decision-making criteria in evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks. This is the second in a series of three papers that examines the use of QES in developing clinical and health system guidelines.
METHODS: WHO convened a writing group drawn from the technical teams involved in its recent (2010-2018) guidelines employing QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development.
RESULTS: We describe a step-wise approach to populating EtD frameworks with QES findings. This involves allocating findings to the different EtD criteria (how stakeholders value different outcomes, equity, acceptability and feasibility, etc.), weaving the findings into a short narrative relevant to each criterion, and inserting this summary narrative into the corresponding \'research evidence\' sections of the EtD. We also identify areas for further methodological research, including how best to summarise and present qualitative data to groups developing guidelines, how these groups draw on different types of evidence in their decisions, and the extent to which our experiences are relevant to decision-making processes in fields other than health.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper shows the value of incorporating QES within a guideline development process, and the roles that qualitative evidence can play in integrating the views and experiences of relevant stakeholders, including groups who may not be otherwise represented in the decision-making process.

BACKGROUND: This is the third in a series of three papers describing the use of qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the development of clinical and health systems guidelines. WHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable to end users. In addition to the standard data on effectiveness, WHO guidelines increasingly use evidence derived from QES to provide information on acceptability and feasibility and to develop important implementation considerations.
METHODS: WHO convened a group drawn from the technical teams involved in formulating recent (2010-2018) guidelines employing QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. As members of WHO guideline technical teams, our aim in this paper is to explore how we have used findings from QES to develop implementation considerations for these guidelines.
RESULTS: For each guideline, in addition to using systematic reviews of effectiveness, the technical teams used QES to gather evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of interventions and, in some cases, equity issues and the value people place on different outcomes. This evidence was synthesised using standardised processes. The teams then used the QES to identify implementation considerations combined with other sources of information and input from experts.
CONCLUSIONS: QES were useful sources of information for implementation considerations. However, several issues for further development remain, including whether researchers should use existing health systems frameworks when developing implementation considerations; whether researchers should take confidence in the evidence into account when developing implementation considerations; whether qualitative evidence that reveals implementation challenges should lead guideline panels to make conditional recommendations or only point to implementation considerations; and whether guideline users find it helpful to have challenges pointed out to them or whether they also need solutions. Finally, we need to explore how QES findings can be incorporated into derivative products to aid implementation.

BACKGROUND: WHO has recognised the need to ensure that guideline processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable. Along with decision-making criteria that require findings from effectiveness reviews, WHO is increasingly using evidence derived from qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the values, acceptability, equity and feasibility implications of its recommendations. This is the first in a series of three papers examining the use of QES in developing clinical and health systems guidelines.
METHODS: WHO convened a group of methodologists involved in developing recent (2010-2018) guidelines that were informed by QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. Our aim in this paper is to (1) describe and discuss how the findings of QES can inform the scope of a guideline and (2) develop findings for key guideline decision-making criteria.
RESULTS: QES resulted in the addition of new outcomes that are directly relevant to service users, a stronger evidence base for decisions about how much effective interventions and related outcomes are valued by stakeholders in a range of contexts, and a more complete database of summary evidence for guideline panels to consider, linked to decisions about values, acceptability, feasibility and equity.
CONCLUSIONS: Rigorously conducted QES can be a powerful means of improving the relevance of guidelines, and of ensuring that the concerns of stakeholders, at all levels of the healthcare system and from a wide range of settings, are taken into account at all stages of the process.