Search

Evanescent field excitation is a powerful means to achieve a high surface-to-bulk signal ratio for bioimaging and sensing applications. However, standard evanescent wave techniques such as TIRF and SNOM require complex microscopy setups. Additionally, the precise positioning of the source relative to the analytes of interest is required, as the evanescent wave is critically distance-dependent. In this work, we present a detailed investigation of evanescent field excitation of near-surface waveguides written using femtosecond laser in glass. We studied the waveguide-to-surface distance and refractive index change to attain a high coupling efficiency between evanescent waves and organic fluorophores. First, our study demonstrated a reduction in sensing efficiency for waveguides written at their minimum distance to the surface without ablation as the refractive index contrast of the waveguide increased. While this result was anticipated, it had not been previously demonstrated in the literature. Moreover, we found that fluorescence excitation by waveguides can be enhanced using plasmonic silver nanoparticles. The nanoparticles were also organized in linear assemblies, perpendicular to the waveguide, with a wrinkled PDMS stamp technique, which resulted in an excitation enhancement of over 20 times compared to the setup without nanoparticles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: During the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions were imposed on visits in hospitals in the province of Quebec, Canada in an effort to reduce the risk of viral exposure by minimizing face-to-face contact in order to protect patients, visitors and staff. These measures led to social isolation for patients. In order to reduce this isolation, CHUM (the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, a teaching hospital) shifted from in-person visits to courtesy telephone calls delivered by volunteers from CHUM's Volunteers, Recreation and Leisure Department. Objectives: To study: (1) the contribution made by these calls to reducing isolation and their limitations, (2) how the calls can be improved, and (3) whether they should be maintained, based on the views of patients and volunteers. Methodology: This study examined two populations. The first one consisted of 189 adult patients hospitalized at CHUM who received a courtesy phone call from a volunteer and the second one consisted of the 25 CHUM volunteers who made these calls. Quantitative data were collected from patients and volunteers through questionnaires and a Smartsheet. The patient questionnaire evaluated isolation, the courtesy phone calls, the relationship of trust with the volunteer and sociodemographic questions. The volunteer questionnaire evaluated the appropriateness of the technology for the intervention, the support and training received, the impacts of the courtesy phone call on both the patients and the volunteers, an experience report and sociodemographic information. In addition, a focus group was held with 7 volunteers. Then the verbatim were transcribed and analyzed using QDA miner software. Results: From April 27, 2020 to September 5, 2020 more than 11,800 calls were made, mainly concerning hospitalization conditions or home follow-ups (n = 83), and relationships with relatives, friends, and family (n = 79). For 73.6% of hospitalized patients, the courtesy calls from volunteers were a good response to their needs, and 72% of volunteers agreed. 64.5% of patients felt less isolated and 40% of volunteers felt useful. Conclusion: Our data suggest that patients felt less isolated during their hospitalization because of the courtesy calls made by the volunteers, that smartphones could also be used for video calls and, finally, that maintaining this type of service seems as relevant after as during a pandemic to provide social interactions to people isolated for medical reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public engagement (PPE) in research is growing internationally, and with it, the interest for its evaluation. In Canada, the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research has generated national momentum and opportunities for greater PPE in research and health-system transformation. As is the case with most countries, the Canadian research community lacks a common evaluation framework for PPE, thus limiting our capacity to ensure integrity between principles and practices, learn across projects, identify common areas for improvement, and assess the impacts of engagement. Objective: This project aims to build a national adaptable framework for the evaluation of PPE in research, by: Building consensus on common evaluation criteria and indicators for PPE in research; Defining recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to specific populations. Methods: Using a collaborative action-research approach, a national coalition of patient-oriented research leaders, (patient and community partners, engagement practitioners, researchers and health system leaders) will co-design the evaluation framework. We will develop core evaluation domains of the logic model by conducting a series of virtual consensus meetings using a nominal group technique with 50 patient partners and engagement practitioners, identified through 18 national research organizations. We will then conduct two Delphi rounds to prioritize process and impact indicators with 200 participants purposely recruited to include respondents from seldom-heard groups. Six expert working groups will define recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to research with specific populations, including Indigenous communities, immigrants, people with intellectual and physical disabilities, caregivers, and people with low literacy. Each step of framework development will be guided by an equity, diversity and inclusion approach in an effort to ensure that the participants engaged, the content produced, and the adaptation strategies proposed are relevant to diverse PPE. Discussion: The potential contributions of this project are threefold: 1) support a national learning environment for engagement by offering a common blueprint for collaborative evaluation to the Canadian research community; 2) inform the international research community on potential (virtual) methodologies to build national consensus on common engagement evaluation frameworks; and 3) illustrate a shared attempt to engage patients and researchers in a strategic national initiative to strengthen evaluation capacity for PPE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The National Institute of Excellence in Health and Social Services (INESSS), which functions as the Québec health technology assessment (HTA) agency, tested a new way to engage patients along with health‐care professionals in the co‐construction of recommendations regarding implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator replacement. Objective: The objective of this article was to describe the process of co‐construction of recommendations and to propose methods of building best practices for patient involvement (PI) in HTA. Design: Throughout the process, documents were collected and participant observations were made. Individual interviews were conducted with patients, health‐care professionals and the INESSS scientific team, from January to March 2018. Results: Three committees were established: an expert patient committee to reflect on patient experience literature; an expert health professional committee to reflect on medical literature; and a co‐construction committee through which both patients and health‐care professionals contributed to develop the recommendations. The expert patients validated and contextualized a literature review produced by the scientific team. This allowed the scientists to consider aspects related to the patient experience and to integrate the feedback from patients into HTA recommendations. The most important factor contributing to a positive PI experience was the structured methodology for selecting patient participants, and a key factor that inhibited the process was a lack of training in PI on the part of the scientific team. Conclusions: This experience demonstrates that it is possible to co‐construct recommendations, even for technically complex HTA subjects, through a more democratic process than usual which led to more patient‐focused guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Decision-making about replacement or modification of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) must be patient-centered and clinically appropriate. We engaged both patients and health care professionals in a multi-method approach in order to recommend structures and processes that facilitate informed and shared decision-making. Methods: A systematic literature review (2000 to 2017) was performed focusing on the patient's perspective and the optimal organization of structures and processes for decision-making. A province-wide field evaluation based on medical chart review was carried out to provide 'real world' evidence in Québec's six ICD implanting centers (1 July to 31 December, 2016; N = 418). Patients and health care professionals reviewed the findings of the review and field evaluation, and deliberated recommendations in an anonymous manner by electronic mail. A joint meeting focused on proposed recommendations concerning shared decision-making. Results: The patients provided feedback on the literature review based on their ICD experience, and highlighted the need for better and more interactive decision aids, clinical information and time, and a private space for sensitive discussions. The field evaluation underlined the variability of treatment choices at the time of replacement and that more than one in ten patients had undergone ICD deactivation. Proposed recommendations focus on multi-disciplinary, integrated follow-up of patients and outline best practice for incorporating patient wishes and life objectives when discussing treatment options. The multi-round consultation process allowed both patients and professionals to co-construct recommendations with our evaluation team. Conclusions: This multi-method approach enriched our interpretation of literature and 'real world' data and facilitated identification and prioritization of important themes. Partnership with both patients and clinicians added a new and energizing dynamic to our evaluation and recommendation processes. We acknowledge the contribution of the members of the patient committee and the clinical experts committee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]