Search

ObjectivesTo chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research.DesignScoping review.ParticipantsQuantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOutcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support.ResultsLiterature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%).ConclusionsReviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework:https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Background While audit & feedback (A&F) is an effective implementation intervention, the design elements which maximize effectiveness are unclear. Partnering with a healthcare quality advisory organization already delivering feedback, we conducted a pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, cluster-randomized trial to test the impact of variations in two factors: (A) the benchmark used for comparison and (B) information framing. An embedded process evaluation explored hypothesized mechanisms of effect. Methods Eligible physicians worked in nursing homes in Ontario, Canada, and had voluntarily signed up to receive the report. Groups of nursing homes sharing physicians were randomized to (A) physicians’ individual prescribing rates compared to top-performing peers (the top quartile) or the provincial median and (B) risk-framed information (reporting the number of patients prescribed high-risk medication) or benefit-framed information (reporting the number of patients not prescribed). We hypothesized that the top quartile comparator and risk-framing would lead to greater practice improvements. The primary outcome was the mean number of central nervous system-active medications per resident per month. Primary analyses compared the four arms at 6 months post-intervention. Factorial analyses were secondary. The process evaluation comprised a follow-up questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. Results Two hundred sixty-seven physicians (152 clusters) were randomized: 67 to arm 1 (median benchmark, benefit framing), 65 to arm 2 (top quartile benchmark, benefit framing), 75 to arm 3 (median benchmark, risk framing), and 60 to arm 4 (top quartile benchmark, risk framing). There were no significant differences in the primary outcome across arms or for each factor. However, engagement was low (27–31% of physicians across arms downloaded the report). The process evaluation indicated that both factors minimally impacted the proposed mechanisms. However, risk-framed feedback was perceived as more actionable and more compatible with current workflows, whilst a higher target might encourage behaviour change when physicians identified with the comparator. Conclusions Risk framing and a top quartile comparator have the potential to achieve change. Further work to establish the strategies most likely to enhance A&F engagement, particularly with physicians who may be most likely to benefit from feedback, is required to support meaningfully addressing intricate research questions concerning the design of A&F. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02979964. Registered 29 November 2016.

In Canada, government mandates for patient-centred care (PCC) vary across the 10 provinces and three territories. Although basic medical and hospital services are provided for all, health care options for patients also depend on having private insurance. Thus, the current design of the Canadian healthcare system has several implications for PCC and shared decision-making (SDM). Since 2007, this is our fourth update on SDM in Canada. The aim of this paper is to provide an update on the current state of SDM and patient and public involvement in Canada. Overall, we still observed the difficulty of implementing any sort of national strategy partly because of the decentralized nature of the healthcare system. Second, national professional education programs are complicated by licensure and scope of practice variations across jurisdictions. Third, there are variations in the availability of different options covered by universal healthcare. Canada has experienced some favorable development as PCC is now explicitly articulated in the policies of most provinces and territories and there are increased efforts to give patients more access to their electronic health records. However, patient and public engagement (PPE) reform in health programs and governance remains an exception, and continuing centralization of governance structures may reduce their responsiveness to patient priorities. In a 2018 survey, 47.2% of respondents reported that they were not told by their health professional that they had a choice about treatment. Nonetheless, decision aids and decision coaching are increasingly available for health-related decisions and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute's decision aid inventory has ensured continued leadership in this area. Diverse jurisdictions are starting to embed decision aids into care pathways, with some decision aids being included in clinical practice guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic may have had a negative impact on SDM by removing decision choices due to emergency public health mandates, but stimulated new research and decision aids. Canada continues to assign health research funding to SDM and PCC, and a program dedicated to patient-oriented research is central to this effort. Guides and frameworks are increasingly available for planning and evaluating PPE. Finally, various initiatives are attempting to involve and empower Indigenous peoples through PPE and SDM.

Background Large-scale efforts to train clinicians in serious-illness communication skills are needed, but 2 important gaps in knowledge remain. (1) No proven training method exists that can be readily scaled to train thousands of clinicians. (2) Though the value of interprofessional collaboration to support incapacitated patients’ surrogates is increasingly recognized, few interventions for training intensive care unit (ICU) nurses in important communication skills can be leveraged to provide interprofessional family support. Objective To develop and test a web/videoconference-based platform to train nurses to communicate about serious illness. Methods A user-centered process was used to develop the intervention, including (1) iteratively engaging a stakeholder panel, (2) developing prototype and beta versions of the platform, and (3) 3 rounds of user testing with 13 ICU nurses. Participants’ ratings of usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness were assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. Results Stakeholders stressed that the intervention should leverage interactive learning and a streamlined digital interface. A training platform was developed consisting of 6 interactive online training lessons and 3 group-based video-conference practice sessions. Participants rated the program as usable (mean summary score 84 [96th percentile]), acceptable (mean, 4.5/5; SD, 0.7), and effective (mean, 4.8/5; SD, 0.6). Ten of 13 nurses would recommend the intervention over 2-day in-person training. Conclusions Nurses testing this web-based training program judged it usable, acceptable, and effective. These data support proceeding with an appropriately powered efficacy trial.

Background Diabetic retinopathy is a sight-threatening ocular complication of diabetes. Screening is an effective way to reduce severe complications, but screening attendance rates are often low, particularly for newcomers and immigrants to Canada and people from cultural and linguistic minority groups. Building on previous work, in partnership with patient and health system stakeholders, we co-developed a linguistically and culturally tailored tele-retinopathy screening intervention for people living with diabetes who recently immigrated to Canada from either China or African-Caribbean countries. Methods Following an environmental scan of diabetes eye care pathways in Ottawa, we conducted co-development workshops using a nominal group technique to create and prioritize personas of individuals requiring screening and identify barriers to screening that each persona may face. Next, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework to categorize the barriers/enablers and then mapped these categories to potential evidence-informed behaviour change techniques. Finally with these techniques in mind, participants prioritized strategies and channels of delivery, developed intervention content, and clarified actions required by different actors to overcome anticipated intervention delivery barriers. Results We carried out iterative co-development workshops with Mandarin and French-speaking individuals living with diabetes (i.e., patients in the community) who immigrated to Canada from China and African-Caribbean countries (n = 13), patient partners (n = 7), and health system partners (n = 6) recruited from community health centres in Ottawa. Patients in the community co-development workshops were conducted in Mandarin or French. Together, we prioritized five barriers to attending diabetic retinopathy screening: language (TDF Domains: skills, social influences), retinopathy familiarity (knowledge, beliefs about consequences), physician barriers regarding communication for screening (social influences), lack of publicity about screening (knowledge, environmental context and resources), and fitting screening around other activities (environmental context and resources). The resulting intervention included the following behaviour change techniques to address prioritized local barriers: information about health consequence, providing instructions on how to attend screening, prompts/cues, adding objects to the environment, social support, and restructuring the social environment. Operationalized delivery channels incorporated language support, pre-booking screening and sending reminders, social support via social media and community champions, and providing using flyers and videos as delivery channels. Conclusion Working with intervention users and stakeholders, we co-developed a culturally and linguistically relevant tele-retinopathy intervention to address barriers to attending diabetic retinopathy screening and increase uptake among two under-served groups.

BACKGROUND Gamification has been used successfully to promote various desired health behaviours. Previous studies have used gamification to achieve desired health behaviours or facilitate their learning about health. OBJECTIVE In this scoping review and environmental scan, we aimed to describe gamified digital tools that have been implemented and or evaluated across various populations to encourage vaccination uptake, as well as any reported effects of identified tools. METHODS For the scoping review component, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, Global Health and ERIC for peer-reviewed articles describing gamified digital tools with or without evaluations. For the environmental scan component, we conducted web searches with Google to identify gamified digital tools lacking associated publications. We also consulted 12 experts in the field of gamification and health behaviour to identify any articles or tools we might have missed. We extracted data about the target population of the tool, the interventions themselves (e.g., type of gamified digital tool platforms, type of disease/vaccine, type and design of the study), any effects of evaluated tools, and synthesized data narratively. RESULTS Of 1402 records, we included 28 peer-reviewed articles and 10 gamified digital tools lacking associated publications. Experts added one gamified digital tool that met the inclusion criteria. Our final data set therefore included 28 peer-reviewed articles and 11 gamified digital tools. Out of 28 peer-reviewed articles, 7 studies explained the development of the tool, 16 studies described evaluation, and 2 reported both development and evaluation of the tool. The 28 peer-reviewed articles reported on 25 different tools. Of these 25 gamified digital tools, 11 were web-based, 8 mobile (native mobile applications or mobile web applications), and 6 virtual reality. Overall, tools that were evaluated showed increases in knowledge and intentions to receive vaccines, mixed effects on attitudes, and positive effects on beliefs. We did not observe discernible advantages of one type of gamified digital tool (web-based, mobile, virtual reality) over the others. However, few studies were randomized controlled trials, and publication bias may have led to such positive effects having a higher likelihood of appearing in the peer-reviewed literature. CONCLUSIONS This review demonstrates that gamified digital tools appear to have potential for improving vaccine uptake by promoting vaccine-favourable beliefs and increasing knowledge about vaccines and intentions to receive vaccines. Comparative studies of different features or different types of gamified digital tools could advance the field by identifying features or types of tools that yield more positive effects across populations and contexts.

Background: Diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of preventable blindness in Canada. Clinical guidelines recommend annual diabetic retinopathy screening for people living with diabetes to reduce the risk and progression of vision loss. However, many Canadians with diabetes do not attended screening. Screening rates are even lower in immigrants to Canada including people from China, Africa and the Caribbean, and these groups are also at higher risk of developing diabetes complications. We aim to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity of a co-developed, linguistically and culturally-tailored tele-retinopathy screening intervention for Mandarin-speaking immigrants from China and French speaking immigrants from African-Caribbean countries living with diabetes in Ottawa, Canada, and identify how many from each population group attend screening during the pilot period. Methods: We will work with our health system and patient partners to conduct a six-month feasibility pilot of a tele-retinopathy screening intervention in a Community Health Centre in Ottawa. We anticipate recruiting 50-150 patients and 5-10 health care providers involved in delivering the intervention for the pilot. Acceptability will be assessed via a Theoretical Framework of Acceptability-informed survey with patients and health care providers. To assess feasibility, we will use a Theoretical Domains Framework-informed interview guide and to assess fidelity, we will use a survey informed by the National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change framework from the perspective of health care providers. We will also collect patient demographics (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, health insurance status, and immigration information), screening outcomes (i.e., patients with retinopathy identified, patients requiring specialist care), patient costs, and other intervention related variables such as preferred language. Survey data will be descriptively analyzed and qualitative data will undergo content analysis. Discussion: This feasibility pilot study will capture how many people living with diabetes from each group attend the diabetic retinopathy screening, costs, and implementation processes for the tele-retinopathy screening intervention. The study will indicate the practicability and suitability of the intervention in increasing screening attendance in the target population groups. The study results will inform a patient-randomized trial, provide evidence to conduct an economic evaluation of the intervention, and optimize the community-based intervention.

Objectives: This study aims to determine whether patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), either starting on or changing biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), demonstrate better self-management safety skills three months after receiving a multidisciplinary educational intervention compared to patients receiving usual care. Patients and methods: Between October 2015 and October 2018 , this open-label, randomized-controlled trial included a total of 107 RA patients (27 males, 80 females; mean age: 60.2±10.4 years; range, 54 to 71 years) who were on treatment or in whom treatment was changed with a biological or targeted synthetic DMARD. The patients were randomized into two groups: Group 1 (n=57) received additional intervention with educational DVD and one teleconference session and Group 2 (n=55) received usual care and were offered the intervention at three months. All patients underwent a final visit at six months. At each visit, the patients completed the BioSecure questionnaire measuring the self-care safety skills, a behavioral intention questionnaire, and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ). Results: No significant difference was observed in the Biosecure score at three months between the two groups (p=0.08). After pooling the first three-month data in Group 1 and the last three-month data in Group 2, the mean score of the BioSecure questionnaire increased to 7.10±0.92 in the group receiving educational intervention (p Conclusion: The development of an educational DVD followed by a teleconference seem to improve self-care safety skills of the patients in practical situations.

Background Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment. Purpose To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Study Selection We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods. Data Extraction Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation. Data Synthesis Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ2 = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ2 = 6.08, P = 0.05). Limitations Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories. Conclusions Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Background Literature examining the feedback supervisors give to residents during case discussions in the realms of communication, collaboration, and professional roles (intrinsic roles) focuses on analyses of written feedback and self-reporting. Objectives We quantified how much of the supervisors' verbal feedback time targeted residents' intrinsic roles and how well feedback time was aligned with the role targeted by each case. We analyzed the educational goals of this feedback. We assessed whether feedback content differed depending on whether the residents implied or explicitly expressed a need for particular feedback. Methods This was a mixed-methods study conducted from 2017 to 2019. We created scripted cases for radiology and internal medicine residents to present to supervisors, then analyzed the feedback given both qualitatively and quantitatively. The cases were designed to highlight the CanMEDS intrinsic roles of communicator, collaborator, and professional. Results Radiologists (n = 15) spent 22% of case discussions providing feedback on intrinsic roles (48% aligned): 28% when the case targeted the communicator role, 14% for collaborator, and 27% for professional. Internists (n = 15) spent 70% of discussions on intrinsic roles (56% aligned): 66% for communicator, 73% for collaborator, and 72% for professional. Radiologists' goals were to offer advice (66%), reflections (21%), and agreements (7%). Internists offered advice (41%), reflections (40%), and clarifying questions (10%). We saw no consistent effects when residents explicitly requested feedback on an intrinsic role. Conclusions Case discussions represent frequent opportunities for substantial feedback on intrinsic roles, largely aligned with the clinical case. Supervisors predominantly offered monologues of advice and agreements.

In recent years, cultural safety has been proposed as a transformative approach to health care allowing improved consideration of Indigenous patient needs, expectations, rights and identities. This community‐based participatory study aimed to identify potential barriers and enablers to cultural safety in health care provided to Atikamekw living with diabetes in Québec, Canada. Based on a qualitative descriptive design, the study uses talking circles as a data collection strategy. Three talking circles were conducted with Atikamekw living with diabetes and caregivers, as well as with health professionals of the family medicine teaching clinic providing services to the community. Two team members performed deductive thematic analysis based on key dimensions of cultural safety. Results highlight four categories of barriers and enablers to cultural safety for Atikamekw living with diabetes, related to social determinants of health (including colonialism), health services organization, language and communication, as well as Atikamekw traditional practices and cultural perspectives of health. This study is one of the few that provides concrete suggestions to address key aspects of diabetes care in a culturally respectful way. Our findings indicate that potential enablers of cultural safety reside at different (from individual to structural) levels of change. Solutions in this matter will require strong political will and policy support to ensure intervention sustainability. Patient or public contribution Partners and patients have been involved in identifying the need for this study, framing the research question, developing the data collection tools, recruiting participants and interpreting results.

IntroductionWe aimed to assess the current experience and attitudes towards Commercial and Do-it-yourself (DIY) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems among healthcare providers (HCP) across Canada.MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed through electronic distribution of an anonymous survey to HCP licensed to practice in Canada looking after people with type 1 diabetes (T1D).ResultsResponses included 204 HCP across the multi-disciplinary team; dieticians (32.8%), nurses (31.9%), and endocrinologists (28.4%), looking after adults (51%) and children (23%) mainly in urban areas (85.7%). Respondents reported a median 100-500 patients with T1D per practice, with a median 6-24 current users/practice of Commercial compared to a median 1-5 current users/practice of DIY AID. The majority of HCP (72.7%) were comfortable supporting Commercial AID, whereas only 21.6% reported comfort supporting DIY AID use. A significant, although moderate correlation between HCP experience and comfort was seen; Commercial r=0.57(pConclusionsDespite documented beneficial outcomes, AID systems are not widely used in the management of T1D in Canada. The need for both user and HCP education to improve familiarity with the systems, in addition to clarity in medico-legal guidance, have been identified as gaps, which if addressed, might enable the benefits of AID to be more widely available to people with T1D in Canada.

BACKGROUND To reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the associated spread of COVID-19, many jurisdictions around the world imposed mandatory or recommended social or physical distancing. As a result, at the beginning of the pandemic, various communication materials appeared online to promote distancing. Explanations of the science underlying these mandates or recommendations were either highly technical or highly simplified. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to understand the effects of a dynamic visualization on distancing. Our overall aim was to help people understand the dynamics of the spread of COVID-19 in their community and the implications of their own behavior for themselves, those around them, the health care system, and society. METHODS Using Scrum, which is an agile framework; JavaScript (Vue.js framework); and code already developed for risk communication in another context of infectious disease transmission, we rapidly developed a new personalized web application. In our application, people make avatars that represent themselves and the people around them. These avatars are integrated into a 3-minute animation illustrating an epidemiological model for COVID-19 transmission, showing the differences in transmission with and without distancing. During the animation, the narration explains the science of how distancing reduces the transmission of COVID-19 in plain language in English or French. The application offers full captions to complement the narration and a descriptive transcript for people using screen readers. We used Google Analytics to collect standard usage statistics. A brief, anonymous, optional survey also collected self-reported distancing behaviors and intentions in the previous and coming weeks, respectively. We launched and disseminated the application on Twitter and Facebook on April 8, 2020, and April 9, 2020. RESULTS After 26 days, the application received 3588 unique hits from 82 countries. The optional survey at the end of the application collected 182 responses. Among this small subsample of users, survey respondents were nearly (170/177, 96%) already practicing distancing and indicated that they intended to practice distancing in the coming week (172/177, 97.2%). Among the small minority of people (n=7) who indicated that they had not been previously practicing distancing, 2 (29%) reported that they would practice distancing in the week to come. CONCLUSIONS We developed a web application to help people understand the relationship between individual-level behavior and population-level effects in the context of an infectious disease spread. This study also demonstrates how agile development can be used to quickly create personalized risk messages for public health issues like a pandemic. The nonrandomized design of this rapid study prevents us from concluding the application’s effectiveness; however, results thus far suggest that avatar-based visualizations may help people understand their role in infectious disease transmission.

Background Let's Discuss Health (LDH) is a website that encourages patients to prepare their health-care encounters by providing communication training, review of topics and questions that are important to them. Objective To describe LDH implementation during primary care (PC) visits for chronic illnesses. Methods Design: Descriptive mixed-method study. Setting 6 PC clinics. Participants 156 patients and 51 health-care providers (HCP). Intervention LDH website implementation. Outcome measures Perceived quality and usefulness of LDH; perceived quality of HCP-patient communication; patient activation; LDH integration in routine PC practices and barriers to its use. Results Patients reported a positive perception of the website in that it helped them to adopt an active role in the encounters; recall their visit agenda and reduce encounter-related stress; feel more confident to ask questions, feel more motivated to prepare their future medical visits and improve their chronic illness management. However, a certain disconnect emerged between HCP and patient perceptions as to the value of LDH in promoting a sense of partnership and collaboration. The main barriers to the use of LDH are HCP lack of interest, limited access to technology, lack of time and language barriers. Conclusion Our findings indicate that it is advantageous for patients to prepare their medical encounters. However, the study needs to be replicated in other medical environments using larger and more diverse samples. Patient and public contribution Patient partners were involved in the conduct of this study.

In the past century, since the discovery of insulin, methods of insulin delivery and glucose monitoring have advanced technologically. In particular, the introduction of insulin pumps, providing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have been revolutionary for people living with type 1 diabetes. In this review, we have focussed on automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and discuss the implications of both approved and off-label options for the user and health-care providers. By pairing insulin pumps with CGM, AID systems facilitate automated adjustment in insulin delivery based on CGM readings. A subset of these have been developed commercially and were granted regulatory approval. In contrast, unregulated do-it-yourself AID systems, designed and set up by people living with type 1 diabetes and their families, have advanced rapidly and are gaining popularity worldwide. These patient-driven technologies have demonstrated impressive user self-reported improvements in glycemic control and quality of life, but have not been evaluated in any formal randomized controlled trials or by regulators. This presents challenging uncertainty for health-care providers, in addition to ethical and legal implications in supporting people with diabetes who wish to use these technologies. The current knowledge, opinions and practices relating to the use of AID systems across Canada are unknown. Gathering this information will highlight current practice and areas of knowledge gaps and concern and will assist in focussed education. This understanding is crucial to ensure people with type 1 diabetes using these systems have access to optimal, consistent and safe patient-centred care.

Background Patient-oriented research (POR) is a specific application of participatory research that promotes active patient engagement in health research. There is a growing concern that people involved in POR do not reflect the diversity of the population such research aims to serve, but are rather those more ‘easily’ engaged with institutions, organizations and society. Indigenous peoples are among such groups generally underrepresented in POR. The “Indigenous patient partners platform project” was a small-scale initiative aimed to address the issue of the underrepresentation of Indigenous people in patient-oriented research by recruiting, orienting and supporting Indigenous patient partners in Québec (Canada). This article reports on the findings of an evaluation conducted at the end of the project to garner lessons and identify strategies for engaging Indigenous patient partners in patient-oriented research. Methods The evaluation of this initiative used a case study design hinging on documentary analysis and committee member interviews. Project documents (n = 29) included agendas and meeting minutes, support documents from the orientation workshop and workshop evaluations, and tools the committee developed as part of the project. Interview participants (n = 6) were patients and organizational partners. Thematic analysis was performed by two members of the research team. Patient partners actively contributed to validating the interpretation of result and knowledge translation. Results Results point to four key components of Indigenous patient partner engagement in POR: initiation of partnership, interest development, capacity building and involvement in research. Specific lessons emphasize the importance of community connections in recruiting, sustaining and motivating patient partners, the need to be flexible in the engagement process, and the importance of consistently valuing patient partner contributions and involvement. Conclusions There is a need to engage Indigenous patient partners in POR to ensure that healthcare practices, policies and research take their particular needs, stories and culture into account. While results of this evaluation are generally consistent with the existing literature on patient engagement, they offer additional insight into how to effectively engage Indigenous patient partners in research, which might also be relevant to the involvement of other marginalized populations who have been historically and systemically disempowered.

Language reflects and shapes our thoughts, feelings, behaviours and experiences and can have a profound impact on the lives of people with and at risk for diabetes. Inappropriate language has a negative impact on self-efficacy, well-being and confidence of people living with diabetes, can seriously undermine experiences with health-care providers and, more broadly, can contribute to diabetes stigma. To date, Diabetes Canada has had no formal position to facilitate positive and affirming attitudes towards diabetes, which is reflected by the use of more appropriate language around diabetes. This consensus statement was developed by Diabetes Canada, by a working group comprised of health-care professionals and lived experience subject matter experts (LESME: patient partners) and validated by volunteers from Diabetes Canada's Professional Section and Diabetes Action Canada's Patient Circles. The principles outlined in this document will be valuable in three broad domains: 1) Diabetes Canada's internal and external communications, 2) increasing public awareness of diabetes and reduction of stigma around diabetes and 3) enhancing the health, wellness and self-efficacy of persons living with diabetes. A major strategy to effect change in this third domain will be to disseminate these concepts broadly among all current (and future) health-care professionals to help integrate positive and supportive attitudes in everyday clinical practice.

Background Diabetes is a highly prevalent chronic disease that places a large burden on individuals and health care systems. Models predicting the risk (also called predictive models) of other conditions often compare people with and without diabetes, which is of little to no relevance for people already living with diabetes (called patients). This review aims to identify and synthesize findings from existing predictive models of physical and mental health diabetes-related conditions. Methods We will use the scoping review frameworks developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and Levac and colleagues. We will perform a comprehensive search for studies from Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases. Studies involving patients with prediabetes and all types of diabetes will be considered, regardless of age and gender. We will limit the search to studies published between 2000 and 2018. There will be no restriction of studies based on country or publication language. Abstracts, full-text screening, and data extraction will be done independently by two individuals. Data abstraction will be conducted using a standard methodology. We will undertake a narrative synthesis of findings while considering the quality of the selected models according to validated and well-recognized tools and reporting standards. Discussion Predictive models are increasingly being recommended for risk assessment in treatment decision-making and clinical guidelines. This scoping review will provide an overview of existing predictive models of diabetes complications and how to apply them. By presenting people at higher risk of specific complications, this overview may help to enhance shared decision-making and preventive strategies concerning diabetes complications. Our anticipated limitation is potentially missing models because we will not search grey literature.

Objective To refine communication strategies to assist clinician conversations with vaccine hesitant and declining parents as part of the Sharing Knowledge About Immunisation (SKAI) package. Methods We recorded and analysed consultations held in two Specialist Immunisation Clinics in tertiary hospitals in Australia between consenting clinicians and parents. We undertook content analysis that was both iterative and informed by the Calgary Cambridge Model of health communication and motivational interviewing. Results We found common strengths and opportunities in clinician's communication styles. Strengths included: rapport building; communicating care for both the parent and child; exhibiting depth of vaccination-specific communication skill and content knowledge. Opportunities for strengthening communication practices included: eliciting parents' concerns to saturation early in the consultation; structuring the consultation to prioritise and address parents' concerns; recognising and responding to parents' motivation to vaccinate; effectively closing consultations. Conclusion This study has synthesised clinical communication strategies from expert vaccination communicators using well-established communication frameworks to advance a unique approach to the challenging task of addressing vaccine hesitancy and refusal. Practice implications The clinic observations helped us to create a structured consultation guide that can enhance and provide greater structure to a clinician's existing communication skills.

A number of countries have implemented vaccination in pregnancy as a strategy to reduce the burden of influenza and pertussis. The aim of this study was to assess the involvement of Canadian maternity care providers in administration of vaccines to their pregnant patients. A cross-sectional web-based survey was sent to family physicians, obstetricians-gynecologists, midwives, pharmacists, and nurses. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine variables independently associated with offering vaccination services in pregnancy in providers’ practice. A total of 1,135 participants participated. Overall, 64% (n = 724) of the participants reported offering vaccines in their practice and 56% (n = 632) reported offering vaccines to pregnant patients. The main reasons reported for not offering vaccination services in pregnancy were the belief that vaccination was outside of the scope of practice; logistical issues around access to vaccines; or lack of staff to administer vaccines. In multivariable analysis, the main factors associated with vaccination of pregnant patients in practices where vaccination services were offered were: providers’ confidence in counseling pregnant patients about vaccines, seeing fewer than 11 pregnant patients on average each week, and being a nurse or a family physician. Although the majority of participants expressed strong support for vaccination during pregnancy, half were not offering vaccination services in their practice. Many were not equipped to offer vaccines in their practice or felt that it was not their role to do so. To enhance vaccine acceptance and uptake in pregnancy, it will be important to address the logistical barriers identified in this study.

Background As part of their professional role, healthcare providers enact multiple competing goal-directed behaviours in time-constrained environments. Better understanding healthcare providers’ motivation to engage in the pursuit of particular goals may help inform the development of implementation interventions. We investigated healthcare providers’ pursuit of multiple goals as part of a trial evaluating the effectiveness of an audit and feedback intervention in supporting appropriate adjustment of high-risk medication prescribing by physicians working in nursing homes. Our objectives were to determine whether goal priority and constructs from Social Cognitive Theory (self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and descriptive norms) predicted intention to adjust prescribing of multiple high-risk medications and to investigate how physicians in nursing homes prioritise their goals related to high-risk medication prescribing. Methods Physicians in Ontario, Canada, who signed up for and accessed the audit and feedback report were invited to complete a questionnaire assessing goal priority, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, descriptive norms, and intention in relation to the three targeted behaviours (adjusting prescribing of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and antidepressants) and a control behaviour (adjusting statin prescribing). We conducted multiple linear regression analyses to identify predictors of intention. We also conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews to investigate how physicians in nursing homes prioritise their goals in relation to appropriately adjusting prescribing of the medications included in the report: analysis was informed by the framework analysis method. Results Thirty-three of 89 (37%) physicians completed the questionnaire. Goal priority was the only significant predictor of intention for each medication type; the greater a priority it was for physicians to appropriately adjust their prescribing, the stronger was their intention to do so. Across five interviews, physicians reported prioritising adjustment of antipsychotic prescribing specifically. This was influenced by negative media coverage of antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes, the provincial government’s mandate to address antipsychotic prescribing, and by the deprescribing initiatives or best practice routines in place in their nursing homes. Conclusions Goal priority predicted nursing home physicians’ intention to adjust prescribing. Targeting goal priority through implementation interventions therefore has the potential to influence behaviour via increased motivation. Implementation intervention developers should consider the external factors that may drive physicians’ prioritization.

BackgroundClinical guidelines for most adults with diabetes recommend maintaining hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤7.0% (MethodsWe used generalized estimating equations to analyze the effects of age, sex and socioeconomic status in 947,543 HbA1c results measured from 2010 to 2019 among 90,770 people living with type 1 or 2 diabetes in Canada. People living with diabetes reviewed and interpreted the results.ResultsHbA1c results at or below 7.0% represented 30.5% (male people living with type 1 diabetes), 21.0% (female people living with type 1 diabetes), 55.0% (male people living with type 2 diabetes) and 59.0% (female people living with type 2 diabetes) of results in each subcategory. We observed higher HbA1c values during adolescence and, for people living with type 2 diabetes, among people living in lower income areas. Among those with type 1 diabetes, female people tended to have lower HbA1c than male people during childbearing years but higher HbA1c than male people during menopausal years. Team members living with diabetes confirmed that the patterns we observed reflected their own life courses and suggested these results be communicated to health professionals and other stakeholders to improve treatment for people living with diabetes.InterpretationA substantial proportion of people with diabetes in Canada are insufficiently supported to maintain guideline-recommended glycemic control goals. Blood sugar management goals may be particularly challenging for people who are going through adolescence, menopause, or living with fewer financial resources. Health professionals should be aware of the challenging nature of glycemic management and policymakers in Canada should provide more support for people with diabetes to live healthy lives.

OBJECTIVES Evidence on repeating vaccination misinformation or "myths" in debunking text is inconclusive; repeating myths may unintentionally increase agreement with myths or help discredit myths. In this study we aimed to compare the effect of repeating vaccination myths and other text-based debunking strategies on parents’ agreement with myths and their intention to vaccinate their children. METHODS For this online experiment we recruited 788 parents of children aged 0 to 5 years; 454 (58%) completed the study. We compared 3 text-based debunking strategies (repeating myths, posing questions, or making factual statements) and a control. We measured changes in agreement with myths and intention to vaccinate immediately after the intervention and at least 1 week later. The primary analysis compared the change in agreement with vaccination myths from baseline, between groups, at each time point after the intervention. RESULTS There was no evidence that repeating myths increased agreement with myths compared with the other debunking strategies or the control. Posing questions significantly decreased agreement with myths immediately after the intervention compared with the control (difference: −0.30 points, 99.17% confidence interval: −0.58 to −0.02, P = .004, d = 0.39). There was no evidence of a difference between other debunking strategies or the control at either time point, or on intention to vaccinate. CONCLUSIONS Debunking strategies that repeat vaccination myths do not appear to be inferior to strategies that do not repeat myths.

IntroductionConsiderable observational evidence suggests that cancer online support groups reduce feelings of isolation, depression and anxiety, enhance coping and self-management, and lead to better informed patients. Other studies indicate that cancer online support groups can increase distress. Yet no studies theorise the complex, context-dependent mechanisms by which cancer online support groups generate their—sometimes contrasting—outcomes.Methods and analysisGuided by an integrated knowledge translation approach and the strategy for patient-oriented research, we will conduct a realist review of cancer online support groups in partnership with stakeholders. We will follow Pawson’s five steps and existing quality standards to develop a program theory that explains how cancer online support groups work, for whom and in what circumstances. The specific research questions will be: what positive and negative outcomes have been reported on cancer online support groups? What are the mechanisms that are associated with these outcomes, in which contexts and for whom? Through a rigorous review of relevant scientific and grey literature, as well as ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, a program theory will be developed to explain who benefits from cancer online support groups and who does not, what benefits they derive (or do not), and the factors that affect these outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThe use of secondary data for this review precludes the need for ethical approval. Dissemination will be informed by the knowledge-to-action framework and will consist of tailored knowledge products that are conceived of collaboratively with stakeholders. These will include peer-reviewed publications on how cancer online support groups can be optimised and best practice recommendations to maximise the benefits experienced by people with cancer. These traditional scientific outputs, along with their respective evidence summaries, will be amplified through strategic social media events hosted and promoted by knowledge users.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021250046.

BackgroundDiabetes often places a large burden on people with diabetes (hereafter ‘patients’) and the society, that is, in part attributable to its complications. However, evidence from models predicting diabetes complications in patients remains unclear. With the collaboration of patient partners, we aimed to describe existing prediction models of physical and mental health complications of diabetes.MethodsBuilding on existing frameworks, we systematically searched for studies in Ovid-Medline and Embase. We included studies describing prognostic prediction models that used data from patients with pre-diabetes or any type of diabetes, published between 2000 and 2020. Independent reviewers screened articles, extracted data and narratively synthesised findings using established reporting standards.ResultsOverall, 78 studies reported 260 risk prediction models of cardiovascular complications (n=42 studies), mortality (n=16), kidney complications (n=14), eye complications (n=10), hypoglycaemia (n=8), nerve complications (n=3), cancer (n=2), fracture (n=2) and dementia (n=1). Prevalent complications deemed important by patients such as amputation and mental health were poorly or not at all represented. Studies primarily analysed data from older people with type 2 diabetes (n=54), with little focus on pre-diabetes (n=0), type 1 diabetes (n=8), younger (n=1) and racialised people (n=10). Per complication, predictors vary substantially between models. Studies with details of calibration and discrimination mostly exhibited good model performance.ConclusionThis rigorous knowledge synthesis provides evidence of gaps in the landscape of diabetes complication prediction models. Future studies should address unmet needs for analyses of complications n> and among patient groups currently under-represented in the literature and should consistently report relevant statistics.Scoping review registrationhttps://osf.io/fjubt/