Bree Case Study Guidelines PDF Link

Introduction

These case study guidelines are modeled on the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia’s guidelines for case studies.[1]

The Bree Collaborative developed a reporting system to determine the usage of Bree guidelines and the resulting impact on population health.  The Bree seeks stakeholders to report on the utilization of the Bree guidelines and to develop case studies in partnership that review the implementation and communicate findings within Washington State.

Partnering with the Bree Collaborative to develop a case study provides benefits for both the Collaborative and the partner.

By working with partners, the Bree Collaborative gains access to:

• specialist and expert knowledge that is vital to the identification of possible impacts of our guidelines and to describing the pathways that lead to them;
• data and information that are not publicly available but are essential to creation of a guideline impact narrative, and the provision of evidence for it.

Benefits for the partner include:

• the Foundation for Health Care Quality (FHCQ) and the Bree Collaborative branding applied to the partner’s impact narrative.
• promotion by Foundation of the case study, and thus of the partner and its impacts.

Development principles

In developing the case studies, the Bree Collaborative is guided by a number of principles, as set out below.

Principle 1: All Bree Collaborative Case Studies must be approved by the Foundation for Health Care Quality

Only those case studies that have been formally approved by FHCQ may be published using FHCQ/Bree template and logo. While Bree Collaborative case studies are developed collaboratively, FHCQ retains final authority over whether or not, and in what form, they are published.

Principle 2: Each case study must utilize the Bree Collaborative guidelines as all or part of an initiative

The Bree Collaborative recognizes that few, if any, impacts arising from health and medical guidelines implementation will be the result of the result of a single guideline, initiative or other activities. The Bree will only publish case studies on impacts whose underpinning is based on the implementation of our published guidelines or participation in our guideline’s development workgroups.

Principle 3: The Bree Collaborative will work closely with case study partners

The Bree’s ability to work closely with case study partners is vital to the successful and timely completion of the case studies themselves. In order to ensure the maintenance of close working relationships with partners, FHCQ/Bree:

• keeps partners informed throughout the development of each case study
• provides opportunities for partners to comment on drafts and layouts
• alerts partners ahead of the publication of each case study
• actively works with partners to cross-promote the case studies

Principle 4: All factual statements must be checked for accuracy

The Bree Collaborative actively confirms the accuracy of all factual statements contained within each case study.

Using its own internal data and information sources, the Bree verifies factual details about those measures or activities that are featured in a case study.

For content contributed by or about partners, the Bree asks the partner institution to confirm that this content is accurate, and to work with its own staff/researchers to ensure that any statements made about them are accurate.

The Bree regards partners as expert sources with respect to the claims that they make within their domains of expertise. That said, the Bree may query claims made by partners and require evidence to support these claims. The decision to publish a claim will ultimately be made by the Bree Collaborative and FHCQ.

Principle 5: Case study topics are carefully selected

The Bree Collaborative takes the following considerations into account when selecting topics for case studies:

• the focal impact should be a significant and noteworthy change
• the attribution of the impact should be uncontested (refer below for further discussion of attribution)
• the partner organization should have the capability necessary to assist the Bree to complete the case study.

In addition to the above, the Bree is particularly interested in developing case studies that:

• describe obstacles and barriers in the translation pathway and how these were overcome
• communicate research translations, outcomes and impacts that are not currently being effectively communicated through other channels
• relate to the Bree Collaboratives Roadmap to Health Ecosystem Improvement (Appendix A).

Topics will be selected to ensure that, collectively and over time, the case studies reflect the diversity of the Bree Collaborative Guidelines.

Note on attribution 

One of the most challenging aspects of case study development is the correct attribution of impacts¹. Each case study must include reference to those individuals and organizations that made the most significant contributions to generating the impact being described.

As any given impact will usually have resulted from the work of a range of individuals and organizations, and because of the limited space available within the Bree Collaborative case study template, it may not be possible for a case study to refer to everyone who made a contribution to the impact. Those included will be selected on a number of criteria, including the degree and type of support that they provided.

While the Bree is not able to include every involved individual and organization within any given case study, it can develop additional case studies within the same guideline topic or impact area. Please contact the case study development team if you are interested to pursue this option.

Principle 6: Case studies are drafted in plain English

The Bree Collaborative case studies strive to translate technical research and commercial language into plain English that can be easily understood by a non-academic audience. Consequently, some technical information and content provided by partners may be edited to simplify it and to align it with the Bree’s style guide. The Bree Collaborative retains final editorship of all case studies to ensure a consistent tone and style.

Principle 7: Case studies are intended to be used

The Bree Collaborative produces case studies to increase public awareness of the role that health and medical research has played, and continues to play, in building a healthier Washington State.  Because promotion is essential to ensuring that case studies reach their intended audiences, The Bree Collaborative actively seeks opportunities to cross-promote each case study with its partner organization(s).

Development stages 

The process to develop a case study follows the stages set out below.

Stage 1: Planning the case study 

A small team within the Bree Collaborative is responsible for leading the development of case studies. When a submission for a new case study has been submitted to the Bree or a project has been identified, the team undertakes background research to determine how well the case study aligns with the current work when considering further development.

Stage 2: Developing drafts

The Bree staff work closely with the submitting partner(s) to develop draft text for the case study that can be placed into the case study template, then prepared for approval by the partner and ultimately by FHCQ/Bree.

Partners have ongoing opportunities to review drafts and provide comments during this process.

The working relationship with partners is informed by Principle 3 and Principle 4.

Stage 3: Fact and integrity checking

Prior to being published, each case study must receive clearance both from the partner and from FHCQ/Bree.

Partners are asked to verify details mentioned in the case study, including such things as publications, patents, curriculum vitae details, timeline dates, conflict of interests and a range of other issues. Fact checking is undertaken consistent with Principle 4.

Clearance within FHCQ/Bree includes ensuring that the case study:

• accurately describes the guidelines used by profiled researchers and staff
• accurately reflects FHCQ/Bree policies regarding conflicts of interest, ethics and other considerations.
• does not include profiled researchers that have been the subject of findings of research misconduct or breaches of the ethics.

Final approval to publish must be granted by FHCQ Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

Stage 4: Publishing

Subject to approval to publish by the CEO, the Bree prepares the case study for uploading onto its website and develops any other supporting material. This process may include the development of a cross-promotion strategy with the partner. Partners are kept informed of the likely timing of publication.

Questions 

Any questions about the content and/or application of these Guidelines should be addressed to bree@qualityhealth.org

FOOTNOTES:

1_{A detailed discussion of attribution may be found within CSIRO’s Impact Evaluation Guide.}

REFERENCES:

[1] Guidelines. NHMRC. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2023, from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines