Search

The sexual health of Indigenous Peoples in Canada has been identified as an important community and public health concern; however, there is a lack of research on the sexual health needs of Indigenous boys and men. This article shares results from interviews conducted with six stakeholders to explore pathways for sexual health promotion and considers the impacts of colonialism and other socio-political contextual factors on Indigenous boys’ and men’s sexual health. The study employed thematic analysis, and the findings indicate the following three pathways for sexual health promotion of Indigenous boys and men: (1) developing healthy relationships and highlighting role models, (2) providing access to comprehensive sexual health information, and (3) fostering open communication among Indigenous boys and men. Sexual health promotion with Indigenous boys and men in Atlantic Canada should include addressing the impacts of colonization and their unique socio-cultural contexts.

Jad Sinno,1,2 Nicole Doria,1 Nicholas Cochkanoff,1 Matthew Numer,1 Heather Neyedli,1 Darrell Tan2,3 1School of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada; 2Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 3Department of Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Jad SinnoSchool of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie University, Stairs House, 6230 South Street, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, CanadaTel +1 (902) 402-9596Fax +1 (902) 494-5120Email jad.sinno@dal.caIntroduction: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective HIV prevention tool that requires the ongoing support of physicians to be accessible. Recently, Nova Scotia experienced a 100% increase in HIV diagnoses. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between physicians’ support of PrEP, knowledge of PrEP, and PrEP prescribing history using the information-motivation-behavioral (IMB) skills model.Methods: An online survey was distributed to physicians in Nova Scotia, Canada, and eighty physicians participated. Two exploratory factor analyses were conducted with items from the Support of PrEP scale and Knowledge of PrEP scale. A mediation analysis was conducted to assess if knowledge of PrEP mediated the relationship between support of PrEP and whether physicians have prescribed PrEP in the past.Results: On average, physicians reported strong support for PrEP, and as support for PrEP increased so did knowledge of PrEP. Further, physicians who had prescribed PrEP demonstrated strong knowledge of PrEP and physicians who had not prescribed PrEP reported feeling neutral. The 95% bootstrap confidence interval indirect effect of Support for PrEP on prescription history did not include zero (B = 1.59, 95% BsCI [0.83, 3.57]) demonstrating that the effect of support for PrEP is mediated by knowledge of PrEP. The most commonly identified barrier to prescribing PrEP was the lack of drug coverage among patients.Conclusion: The results of the mediation analysis support the IMB skills model regarding support for PrEP, Knowledge of PrEP, and having prescribed PrEP in the past. Our findings suggest that to improve PrEP uptake in Nova Scotia, educational interventions for physicians and universal coverage of the drug would be necessary.Keywords: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, health care providers, attitudes, knowledge, barriers, accessibility, health care access, information-motivation-behavior skills model

The purpose of this article is to review the scope of the current literature on sexualized drug use (SDU) among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), particularly in online spaces. Over the last decade, there has been a rapid emergence of online venues for GBMSM to interact for sexual purposes. These spaces have also been infused with various substances that influence or shape the sexual interactions among GBMSM. Employing a scoping review methodology, we explored the interplay between GBMSM, SDU, and online dating and hookup apps. This scoping review presents four themes emerging from the literature: the connection between social networking apps (SNAs) and SDU, the planning and coordination of sex parties, accessing drugs through SNAs, and the coded language that emerges on SNAs. These findings synthesize the important relationship between GBMSM and SDUs, and identify the implications for health promotion.

Indigenous boys and men in Canada face adverse social and structural circumstances that affect their ability to achieve and maintain sexual health. Research about Indigenous sexual health, however, is largely limited to matters relating to women and statistics on sexually transmitted infections. A rapid review of research was conducted to determine what is currently known about Indigenous boys' and men's sexual health in Canada. Given the prevalence of research documenting quantitative disparities, the current review included qualitative research only. Thirteen included studies explored a wide range of topics relating to sexual health and an overarching intersection between social conditions and individual health outcomes was observed. The results of this review reveal significant gaps in the literature relating to the holistic sexual health of Indigenous boys and men and highlight important domains of sexual health to consider in future research. Findings suggest that sexual health programmes that promote traditional Indigenous knowledge and intergenerational relationships may be effective for promoting sexual health among Indigenous boys and men.

Interprofessional primary care (IPPC) teams are promoted as an alternative to single profession physician practices in primary care with focus on preventive care and chronic disease management. Characteristics of teams can have an impact on their performance. We synthesized quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods evidence addressing the design of IPPC teams. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PAIS using search terms focused on IPPC teams. Studies were included if they discussed the influence of team structure, organization, financial arrangements, or policies and procedures, or either health care processes or outputs, health outcomes, or costs, and were conducted in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom or New Zealand between 2003 and 2016. We screened 11,707 titles, 5366 abstracts, and selected 77 full text articles (38 qualitative, 31 quantitative and 8 mixed-methods). Literature focused on the implications of team characteristics on team processes, such as teamwork, collaboration, or satisfaction of patients or providers. Despite heterogeneity of contexts, some trends are observable: shared space, common vision and goals, clear definitions of roles, and leadership as important to good teamwork. The impacts of these on health care outputs or patient health are not clear. To move the state of knowledge beyond perception of what works well for IPPC teams, researchers should focus on quantitative causal inference about the linkages between team characteristics and patient health.

Patient engagement is an opportunity for people with experience of a health-related issue to contribute to research on that issue. The Canadian Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) highlights patient engagement as an important part of health research. Patient engagement, however, is a new concept for many researchers and research ethics boards, and it can be difficult to understand the differences between patient engagement activities and research activities. Focus groups are one example of how research and patient engagement activities are often confused. We distinguish these two types of activities by using different terms for each. We use focus groups to refer to research activities, and discussion groups to refer to patient engagement activities. In focus groups, researchers collect data by speaking with a group of research subjects about their experiences. Researchers use this information to answer research questions and share their findings in academic journals and gatherings. In patient engagement, discussion groups are a way for patients to help plan research projects. Their contributions are not treated as research data, but instead they help make decisions that shape the research process. We have found that using different language to refer to each type of activity has led to improved clarity in research planning and research ethics submissions. Background In patient-oriented research (POR), focus groups can be used as a method in both qualitative research and in patient engagement. Canadian health systems researchers and research ethics boards (REBs), however, are often unaware of the key differences to consider when using focus groups for these two distinct purposes. Furthermore, no one has clearly established how using focus groups for these two purposes should be differentiated in the context of Canada’s Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), which emphasizes appropriate patient engagement as a fundamental component of POR. Body Researchers and staff in the Maritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit refer to focus groups in patient engagement as discussion groups for clarity, and have developed internal guidelines to encourage their appropriate use. In this paper, the guidelines comparing and contrasting the design and conduct of focus groups and of discussion groups is described, including: the theoretical framework for each; the need for research ethics board review approval; identifying participants; collecting and analyzing data; ensuring rigour; and disseminating results. Conclusion The MSSU guidelines address an important and current methodological challenge in patient-oriented research, which will benefit Canadian and international health systems researchers, patients, and institutional REBs.