Search

Introduction: This study presents a global research scenario in the broad domain of osteoarthritis (OA) research, using quantitative and qualitative publication and citation indicators. Methods: The study is based on 45,368 global publications, sourced from the Scopus bibliographical database, covering three decades (1994–2023). We studied the performance of the top 12 developed and top 12 developing countries. The key countries, organizations and authors at national and international levels were identified. The broad subject areas and key journals contributing to global OA research were delineated, besides identifying the broad characteristics of highly cited papers in the field. Results: The United States and China were the most productive countries, while the Netherlands and Canada made the largest citation impact. Harvard Medical School and the University of Sydney made the most contribution, while Boston University and Pfizer Inc., USA registered the highest citation impact. Hunter DJ and Guermazi A were the most productive authors, while Lohmander LS, and Hochberg MC registered the highest citation impact. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (n = 4879) and Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (n = 786) published the maximum papers, while Arthritis and Rheumatism and Nature Reviews Rheumatology registered the largest citation impact. The highly cited papers with 100 or more citations constituted 6.25% of the total publications. Conclusions: There has been a systematic growth of publications on OA. The research on OA was mainly done in developed countries, with the maximum publications coming from the United States of America, China and Canada. The most impactful publications on OA were from the Netherlands, Canada and the United States of America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite increases in Indigenous enrolment in post-secondary institutions (PSIs) in British Columbia, Canada, there are significant disparities in Indigenous student access, retention, and success in work-integrated learning (WIL) programs. By analyzing Indigenous-specific WIL literature, this article identifies existing barriers to Indigenous WIL as well as unrealized opportunities to expand and transform WIL approaches and practices. Based on these findings, the paper offers 10 recommendations for the development of resources and strategic Indigenous WIL initiatives, recommendations that also served to guide the creation of a publicly-accessible Indigenous WIL Resource Hub (IRH). However, the literature review also revealed limitations to academic publishing and challenges in institutional reporting. Accounting for these scholarly limitations and recognizing the value of on-the-ground and community-held knowledge, the directives guiding the IRH and shared in this article's conclusions are based on the understanding that initiatives to act on opportunities and address barriers must be needs-based and community-specific. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient "engagement" in health research broadly refers to including people with lived experience in the research process. Although previous reviews have systematically summarized approaches to engaging older adults and their caregivers in health research, there is currently little guidance on how to meaningfully engage older adults with multimorbidity as research partners. Objectives: This paper describes the lessons learned from a patient-oriented research program, the Aging, Community and Health Research Unit (ACHRU), on how to engage older adults with multimorbidity as research partners. Over the past 7-years, over 40 older adults from across Canada have been involved in 17 ACHRU projects as patient research partners. Methods: We developed this list of lessons learned through iterative consensus building with ACHRU researchers and patient partners. We then met to collectively identify and summarize the reported successes, challenges and lessons learned from the experience of engaging older adults with multimorbidity as research partners. Results: ACHRU researchers reported engaging older adult partners across many phases of the research process. Five challenges and lessons learned were identified: 1) actively finding patient partners who reflect the diversity of older adults with multimorbidity, 2) developing strong working relationships with patient partners, 3) providing education and support for both patient partners and researchers, 4) using flexible approaches for engaging patients, and 5) securing adequate resources to enable meaningful engagement. Conclusion: The lessons learned through this work may provide guidance to researchers on how to facilitate meaningful engagement of this vulnerable and understudied subgroup in the patient engagement literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient engagement in patient‐oriented research (POR) is described as patients collaborating as active and equal research team members (patient research partners [PRPs]) on the health research projects and activities that matter to them. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada's federal funding agency for health research, asks that patients be included as partners early, often and at as many stages of the health research process as possible. The objective of this POR project was to co‐build an interactive, hands‐on training programme that could support PRPs in understanding the processes, logistics and roles of CIHR grant funding applications. We also conducted a patient engagement evaluation, capturing the experiences of the PRPs in co‐building the training programme. Methods: This multiphased POR study included a Working Group of seven PRPs with diverse health and health research experiences and two staff members from the Patient Engagement Team. Seven Working Group sessions were held over the 3‐month period from June to August 2021. The Working Group worked synchronously (meeting weekly online via Zoom) as well as asynchronously. A patient engagement evaluation was conducted after the conclusion of the Working Group sessions using a validated survey and semi‐structured interviews. Survey data were analysed descriptively and interview data were analysed thematically. Results: The Working Group co‐built and co‐delivered the training programme about the CIHR grant application process for PRPs and researchers in five webinars and workshops. For the evaluation of patient engagement within the Working Group, five out of seven PRPs completed the survey and four participated in interviews. From the survey, most PRPs agreed/strongly agreed to having communication and supports to engage in the Working Group. The main themes identified from the interviews were working together‐communication and supports; motivations for joining and staying; challenges to contributing; and impact of the Working Group. Conclusion: This training programme supports and builds capacity for PRPs to understand the grant application process and offers ways by which they can highlight the unique experience and contribution they can bring to each project. Our co‐build process presents an example and highlights the need for inclusive approaches, flexibility and individual thinking and application. Patient or Public Contribution: The objective of this project was to identify the aspects of the CIHR grant funding application that were elemental to having PRPs join grant funding applications and subsequently funded projects, in more active and meaningful roles, and then to co‐build a training programme that could support PRPs to do so. We used the CIHR SPOR Patient Engagement Framework, and included time and trust, in our patient engagement approaches to building a mutually respectful and reciprocal co‐learning space. Our Working Group included seven PRPs who contributed to the development of a training programme. We suggest that our patient engagement and partnership approaches, or elements of, could serve as a useful resource for co‐building more PRP‐centred learning programmes and tools going forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mental health research in Canada is not only underfunded but there remains an inequitable distribution of funding to address unmet needs especially in clinical and applied research. In 2018, the legalization of cannabis for non-medical use in Canada sparked the need to examine the relationship between cannabis use and mental health. The federal government allocated $10 M over 5 years to the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC), a pan-Canadian health organization funded at arm's length by the federal government. Methods: In 2020, the MHCC implemented an innovative community-based research (CBR) program to investigate this relationship among priority populations including people who use cannabis and live with mental illness, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and/or queer (2SLGBTQ+) individuals, and racialized populations. Extensive consultations, a scoping review and an environmental scan set the research agenda. Key program components included a review committee with representation from diverse priority populations, extensive proposal-writing support for applicants, and capacity bridging workshops for the 14 funded projects. Results: Of the 14 funded research projects, 6 focus on and are led by Indigenous communities, 5 focus on other equity-seeking populations, and 9 explore the perceived patterns, influence and effects of use including benefits and harms. Lessons learned include the importance of a health equity lens and diverse sources of knowledge setting the CBR research agenda. In addition to capacity bridging that promote equitable roles among knowledge co-producers as well as the critical role of organizational support in increasing research productivity, especially in the area of mental health and cannabis use where there is a need for more applied research. Conclusion: Centering equity and lived and living experience strengthened the rationale for investments and ensured user-led evidence generation and utilization – a key public health gain. Organizational support for proposal development and capacity bridging yields significant value that can be replicated in future CBR initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the eligibility criteria, funds and deadlines for awards by the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses (CACCN). Topics include the Draeger Medical Canada Inc. Chapter of the Year Award to recognize the efforts of a CACCN chapter, CACCN Research Grant to support the research of a CACCN member, the Editorial Awards for authors of papers on critical care nursing and the CACCN Educational Awards for continuing education programs in critical care nursing.

From a global perspective, large disparities persist between the focus of health research investments and the global burden of illness. Over the past four years, Canadian efforts to address these disparities have steadily increased. The objectives of this paper are to present these recent achievements and to highlight continuing challenges. We summarize the activities of two complementary Canadian initiatives, both aimed at increasing Canada's investment and involvement in global health research. They are the Global Health Research Initiative--a partnership involving four federal agencies; and the Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research--a not-for-profit membership organization. Several achievements include: increased investment in global health research; increased knowledge production and use through "South-Canada" partnerships; stronger advocacy and increased awareness; enhanced capacity development; and improved coordination and communication. Based on these achievements, important current and future challenges are identified. They include: more coherent resource allocation; more focussed health research priorities; and the need to maintain and build momentum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Ethics application protocols for multicentre clinical studies in Canada: A paediatric rheumatology experience" in the June and July 2012 issue.