Search

BackgroundConsumer-wearable activity trackers are small electronic devices that record fitness and health-related measures. ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to examine the validity and reliability of commercial wearables in measuring step count, heart rate, and energy expenditure. MethodsWe identified devices to be included in the review. Database searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus, and only articles published in the English language up to May 2019 were considered. Studies were excluded if they did not identify the device used and if they did not examine the validity or reliability of the device. Studies involving the general population and all special populations were included. We operationalized validity as criterion validity (as compared with other measures) and construct validity (degree to which the device is measuring what it claims). Reliability measures focused on intradevice and interdevice reliability. ResultsWe included 158 publications examining nine different commercial wearable device brands. Fitbit was by far the most studied brand. In laboratory-based settings, Fitbit, Apple Watch, and Samsung appeared to measure steps accurately. Heart rate measurement was more variable, with Apple Watch and Garmin being the most accurate and Fitbit tending toward underestimation. For energy expenditure, no brand was accurate. We also examined validity between devices within a specific brand. ConclusionsCommercial wearable devices are accurate for measuring steps and heart rate in laboratory-based settings, but this varies by the manufacturer and device type. Devices are constantly being upgraded and redesigned to new models, suggesting the need for more current reviews and research.

Background: Administrative staff in primary care undertake numerous tasks to support patient care delivery. Although their roles are often overlooked, administrative staff are essential to the coordination and operations of primary care clinics. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional clinical and administrative tasks, including transitioning to virtual appointments and triaging patients for urgency, changing typical workflows. In Canada, existing pandemic plans for primary care did not account for these administrative tasks, nor the support that family physicians would require to continue to provide patient access to primary care. This research seeks to describe and understand the perceptions and experiences of family physicians of their administrative staff roles in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic, to help inform future pandemic planning. Methods: We present findings from a qualitative case study across four regions in Canada: Vancouver Coastal health region in British Columbia, Ontario Health West region, the province of Nova Scotia, and the Eastern Health region of Newfoundland and Labrador. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with family physicians (n = 68) across the four regions and thematically analysed the data. Results: We identified five salient themes in the data, including (1) applying public health guidelines, (2) educating patients on COVID-19 and COVID-19 services, (3) re-organizing patient visits, (4) maintaining adequate staffing, and (5) recognizing administrative staff contributions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, family physicians took on numerous additional roles to reduce the risk of transmission of the virus with the support of their administrative staff. Family physicians emphasized the challenges of maintaining adequate staffing, and the importance of administrative staff in enabling the provision of primary care. Conclusions: Existing pandemic plans do not account for increased administrative roles taken on by primary care administrative staff. Pandemic plans must include guidance for the roles taken on by primary care administrative staff, such as clinical tasks, as they will continue to play an important role in pandemic recovery. Supporting administrative staff would enhance primary care providers' ability to manage care during pandemics, facilitate resilience, and decrease provider and administrative burnout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Health system disruptions, caused by unexpected emergencies such as disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and cybercrimes, impact the delivery of routine preventative care. As comprehensive care providers, family physicians (FPs) devote significant time to prevention. However, without emergency and pandemic plans in place in primary care, FPs face added barriers to prioritizing and sustaining preventative care when health systems are strained, which was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to describe FPs' experiences providing preventative care during the COVID-19 pandemic and their perceptions of the impacts of disrupted preventative care in primary care settings.Methods: Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we conducted semistructured interviews with FPs across 4 provinces in Canada (i.e. Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia) between October 2020 and June 2021 as part of a larger multiple case study. These interviews broadly explored the roles and responsibilities of FPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were coded thematically and codes from the larger study were analysed further using an iterative, phased process of thematic analysis.Results: Interviews averaged 58 min in length (range 17-97 min) and FPs had a mean of 16.9 years of experience. We identified 4 major themes from interviews with FPs (n = 68): (i) lack of capacity and coordination across health systems, (ii) patient fear, (iii) impacts on patient care, and (iv) negative impacts on FPs. Physicians voiced concerns with managing patients' prevention needs when testing availability and coordination of services was limited. Early in the pandemic, patients were also missing or postponing their own primary care appointments. Change in the provision and coordination of routine preventative care had negative impacts on both patients and physicians, affecting disease incidence/progression, physician workload, and psychological wellbeing.Conclusion: During the COVID-19 pandemic, upstream care efforts were impacted, and FPs were forced to reduce their provision of preventative care. FPs contribute direct insight to primary care delivery that can support pandemic planning to ensure preventative care is sustained during future emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Historically, Canadians experience long wait times for specialist referrals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many specialist services were suspended to reduce virus transmission and redeploy physicians. Little has been reported on family physicians' (FPs') perspectives and experiences accessing specialists during the pandemic and implications for practice. Objective: To understand FPs' experiences accessing specialists during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study design and analysis: A qualitative, multiple case study was conducted. Relevant data (i.e., pertaining to specialists) were thematically analyzed. Setting: Four Canadian jurisdictions (Vancouver Coastal Health region, British Columbia; Southwestern Ontario; the province of Nova Scotia; and Eastern Health region of Newfoundland and Labrador). Population studied: FPs who were practicing in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instrument: Semi-structured exploratory qualitative interviews. Outcome measures: Perspectives from FPs on accessing specialists during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Thirty-nine of 68 FP interviewees described experiences accessing specialists during the pandemic. Findings were organized according to the CanMEDS competency framework. This framework describes competencies held by FPs and, by organizing identified themes by this framework, we illustrate how FPs applied these competencies during the pandemic. Themes included: 1) collaborator: barriers and enabler to accessing specialists, opportunities for greater collaboration, and conflict between specialists and FPs; 2) medical expert: working beyond typical scope to manage patients in lieu of specialist appointments; 3) health advocate: identifying patient needs and advocating for them to be seen by specialists; 4) communicator: explaining changes to patients and managing patient frustration; 5) scholar: integrating best practices and contributing to research; 6) professional: applying best practices and identifying issues of FP wellness; 7) leader: suggesting improvements to challenges exacerbated by the pandemic. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing challenges in primary healthcare. Although there were challenges associated with the lack of access to specialists, and FPs took on additional work to address access challenges, there were also opportunities for greater collaboration and innovation., Presenters Emily Gard Marshall, PhD, MSc, Richard Buote, PhD, Lauren Moritz, BA, MA, Julia Lukewich, PhD, RN, Maria Mathews, PhD, Lindsay Hedden, PhD, [...]

Background: Primary care attachment improves health care access and health outcomes, but many Canadians are unattached, seeking a provider via provincial wait-lists. This Nova Scotia–wide cohort study compares emergency department utilization and hospital admission associated with insufficient primary care management among patients on and off a provincial primary care wait-list, before and during the first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We linked wait-list and Nova Scotian administrative health data to describe people on and off wait-list, by quarter, between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 24, 2020. We quantified emergency department utilization and ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC) hospital admission rates by wait-list status from physician claims and hospital admission data. We compared relative differences during the COVID-19 first and second waves with the previous year. Results: During the study period, 100 867 people in Nova Scotia (10.1% of the provincial population) were on the wait-list. Those on the wait-list had higher emergency department utilization and ACSC hospital admission. Emergency department utilization was higher overall for individuals aged 65 years and older, and females; lowest during the first 2 COVID-19 waves; and differed more by wait-list status for those younger than 65 years. Emergency department contacts and ACSC hospital admissions decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic relative to the previous year, and for emergency department utilization, this difference was more pronounced for those on the wait-list. Interpretation: People in Nova Scotia seeking primary care attachment via the provincial wait-list use hospital-based services more frequently than those not on the wait-list. Although both groups have had lower utilization during COVID-19, existing challenges to primary care access for those actively seeking a provider were further exacerbated during the initial waves of the pandemic. The degree to which forgone services produces downstream health burden remains in question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As the first point of contact in health care, primary care providers play an integral role in pandemic response. Despite this, primary care has been overlooked in previous pandemic plans, with a lack of emphasis on ways in which the unique characteristics of family practice could be leveraged to create a more effective response. Aim: To explore family physicians' perceptions of the integration of primary care in the COVID-19 pandemic response. Design and setting: Descriptive qualitative approach examining family physician roles during the COVID-19 pandemic across four regions in Canada. Method: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with family physicians and participants were asked about their roles during each pandemic stage, as well as facilitators and barriers they experienced in performing these roles. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was employed to develop a unified coding template across the four regions and identify recurring themes. Results: In total, 68 family physicians completed interviews. Four priorities for integrating primary care in future pandemic planning were identified: 1) improve communication with family physicians; 2) prioritise community-based primary care; 3) leverage the longitudinal relationship between patients and family physicians; and 4) preserve primary care workforce capacity. Across all regions, family physicians felt that primary care was not well incorporated into the COVID-19 pandemic response. Conclusion: Future pandemic plans require greater integration of primary care to ensure the delivery of an effective and coordinated pandemic response. Strengthening pandemic preparedness requires a broader reconsideration and better understanding of the central role of primary care in health system functioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences and perspectives of men who have had prostate cancer to better understand the effect of prostate cancer and associated stigmas on men in the Canadian province Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). PARTICIPANTS & SETTING: Eleven men from NL who have had prostate cancer participated in semistructured interviews exploring their perspectives and experiences of prostate cancer and stigma. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: A social-ecological framework was used to understand experiences from different domains. Interviews were analyzed using Lichtman's three Cs approach. Analysis focused on establishing themes of the participants' lived experience of prostate cancer and related stigma. FINDINGS: Participants described how emasculating a prostate cancer diagnosis can feel. They identified ways prostate cancer negatively affected their behaviors and sense of self, described coping with the diagnosis and different strategies, and talked about broader system change required to address prostate cancer stigma. Participants expressed a need for additional support from healthcare providers (HCPs). IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: HCPs, such as oncology nurses, may be able to reduce stigmatization by providing patient navigation, improving information delivery, or providing psychosocial counseling to individuals experiencing feelings of internal or external stigmatization related to prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]