Search

Background: Scaling is typically discussed as a way to amplify or expand a health innovation. However, there is limited knowledge about the specific techniques that can enhance access to or improve the quality of innovations, aiming to increase their positive impacts for the public good. We sought to identify, compare, and contrast scaling frameworks to advance the science and practice of scaling., Methods: Using a scoping review we asked: 1) What are the attributes of scaling frameworks for innovations that support health outcomes? and 2) What are the similarities and differences of these attributes? Inclusion criteria were 1) primary studies or review articles, 2) a primary focus on scaling innovations for health and social care, 3) articles that developed a framework, and 4) articles were concerned with a health outcome. Starting from an umbrella review, we identified relevant studies and extracted data about the characteristics of the articles, attributes of framework development, attributes of framework components, transferability, and the framework's underlying ethical lens. Grey literature was included through expert consultation. Data were summarized using frequencies and qualitative description., Results: From 94 potentially eligible articles, we identified 9 unique frameworks and included 4 additional frameworks from the grey literature, resulting in a total of 13 frameworks. Seven frameworks include a definition of scaling, and eight are designed for public health settings. Five of the frameworks were developed for the US/Canada/UK and Australia. Six of the lead authors' primary institutional affiliation are from North America. Framework developers involved diverse stakeholders in a number of ways to develop their framework. Eight frameworks were developed, but not yet tested or applied, while the remaining frameworks were in the process of being applied or had already been applied to cases. All frameworks use a consequentialist-utilitarian ethical lens. Lastly, a comparison between frameworks found in the grey or published literature show important differences., Conclusion: Much may be learned through further support for, and development of, scaling frameworks by primary authors affiliated with the Global South. Important aspects of framework development were identified, especially understanding the nuances of diverse stakeholder involvement in development., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethics approval and consent to participate are not required for this research as it is a scoping review and uses secondary data. Human Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations: not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: Three of the authors (AE, MGI, RKDM) work for the International Development Research Centre whose scaling science framework was found in the parent umbrella review, and therefore included in this analysis., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: We evaluated studies published in high-impact psychiatry journals to assess (1) the proportion that reported in articles whether they engaged people with lived experience; (2) the proportion that likely engaged people with lived experience; and, if engagement occurred, (3) stages of research (planning, conduct, interpretation, dissemination); and (4) engagement level (consult, involve, partner)., Methods: We searched PubMed on December 14, 2022, for articles in psychiatry journals with impact factor ≥ 10 and reviewed articles in reverse chronological order until 141 were included, based on pre-study precision estimation. We contacted authors to obtain information on engagement., Results: Three of 141 (2%) studies reported engagement of people with lived experience in articles. Of the other 138 studies, 74 authors responded to follow-up emails and 22 reported they engaged people with lived experience but did not report in the article. Depending on assumptions about engagement by non-responders, we estimated, overall, 18-31% of studies may have engaged people with lived experience. Engagement occurred in research planning (70%) and rarely interpretation (35%). Most involved consultation (providing opinions or perspectives, 53%) and few involved partnership (11%)., Conclusions: Engagement of people with lived experience in psychiatry research is uncommon, and when it does occur people are typically consulted but not engaged in roles with influence on decision-making. Funding agencies, ethics committees, journals, and academic institutions should take steps to support engagement of people with lived experience in psychiatry research., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Raynaud's phenomenon is the earliest and most common systemic sclerosis manifestation. Episodes can be triggered by cold exposure and ambient temperature changes. Small studies have found that Raynaud's phenomenon outcomes were associated with season. We aimed to map the degree that differences in ambient temperature are associated with Raynaud's phenomenon outcomes across the temperature spectrum., Methods: People with Raynaud's phenomenon secondary to systemic sclerosis in the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort completed past-week Raynaud's phenomenon severity assessments (0-10 numerical rating scale) at enrolment and longitudinally at 3-month intervals. Mean daily temperature and feels like temperature, which incorporates wind chill and humidity, for the week before each assessment were extracted for each participant from a weather site close to the participant's recruiting centre via the Iowa Environmental Mesonet. We used linear mixed models with basis splines to flexibly model non-linear changes in Raynaud's phenomenon severity across the temperature spectrum. People with lived experience of systemic sclerosis contributed to the study design and interpretation., Findings: Between April 15, 2014 and Aug 1, 2023, we included data on 20 233 Raynaud's phenomenon severity assessments from 2243 participants. 1964 (88%) of 2243 participants were women, 279 (12%) were men, and 1813 (82%) were White. Mean age was 54·8 (SD 12·7) years. The maximum predicted Raynaud's phenomenon severity score was 6·8 points (95% CI 5·6-8·1), which occurred at -25°C. Severity scores decreased minimally from -15°C to 5°C (0·05-0·21 points per 5°C difference), then decreased in larger steps between 5°C and 25°C (0·37-0·54 points per 5°C difference). The minimum predicted score was at 25°C (2·6 points [95% CI 2·5-2·7]). Scores increased at temperatures above 25°C to 3·5 points (3·0-4·1) at 35°C and 5·6 points (4·5-6·8) at 40°C. Results were similar for feels like temperature., Interpretation: Raynaud's phenomenon severity is worst at very cold temperatures but also increases with very warm temperatures, presumably due to air conditioning. Clinical management and Raynaud's phenomenon intervention trial designs should consider temperature patterns., Funding: Scleroderma Society of Ontario, Scleroderma Canada, Sclérodermie Québec, Scleroderma Manitoba, Scleroderma Atlantic, Scleroderma Association of BC, Scleroderma SASK, Scleroderma Australia, Scleroderma New South Wales, Scleroderma Victoria, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Arthritis Society, the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital, the Jewish General Hospital Foundation, and McGill University., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JDP has received speaker honoraria or consultancy fees from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, IsoMab, Janssen, Permeatus, and Sojournix Pharma. MDM has received research grants or contracts from Prometheus Biosciences, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Boehringer Ingelheim, EICOS, Corbus, and Horizon Pharma; consulting fees from Cabaletta Pharma; an honorarium from GSK Pharma; and was a member of a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with Mitsubishi Tanabe, Boehringer Ingelheim, and EICOS. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Introduction/objective: We investigated (1) work status changes during COVID-19, (2) financial resource adequacy, (3) preferences for work requirements (e.g. remote, workplace, mixed) and (4) work requirements versus preferences, among people with systemic sclerosis., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of participants in the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Cohort, which enrolled participants from the ongoing Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort and externally in April 2020. In August 2022, participants completed questions on work status, financial well-being using the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being Scale, work requirements and work requirement preferences., Results: A total of 298 participants with systemic sclerosis were included. Mean age was 58.6 years (SD = 11.4). There were 101 (34%) participants working at the start of the pandemic and still working in August 2022, 179 (60%) not working at the start of the pandemic and still not working, 10 (3%) who stopped working after April 2020 and 8 (3%) who started working. Mean financial well-being did not change from April 2020 to August 2022 (difference: 0.2 points; 95% confidence interval: -1.1 to 0.7). Working participants (N = 109) preferred flexible work requirements (N = 34, 31%) or working entirely remotely (N = 32, 29%), but most were required to work entirely at a workplace (N = 35, 32%) or combined workplace and remotely with a fixed schedule (N = 31, 28%)., Conclusion: Work status and financial well-being did not change substantively among people with systemic sclerosis during the pandemic. Flexible work policies may support people with systemic sclerosis to work., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Competing Interests: E-LN, M-EC, LK, RSH, SH, SP, SJB, LM, SBP, JV, AB, and BDT conceptualised and designed the study. E-LN, M-EC, LK, RSH, and BDT acquired data. E-LN, GV-G, and MG directly accessed and verified the data and did the statistical analysis. E-LN and BDT drafted the manuscript. All authors revised the manuscript, approved the final version, had full access to all the data in the study, and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) COVID-19 patient advisors were Catherine Fortuné, Amy Gietzen, Geneviève Guillot, Nancy Lewis, Michelle Richard, Maureen Sauvé, and Joep Welling. De-identified individual participant data with a data dictionary and analysis codes will be made available upon request to the corresponding author and presentation of a methodologically sound proposal that is approved by the SPIN Data Access and Publications Committee. Data will be available after publication. Data requesters will need to sign a data transfer agreement. Additional, related documents (eg, study protocol or informed consent form) can be made available on request to the corresponding author. This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR; VR4–172745, GA4–177764), the McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity Emergency COVID-19 Research Fund, Scleroderma Canada via an educational grant from Boehringer Ingelheim, the Scleroderma Society of Ontario, Scleroderma Manitoba, Scleroderma Atlantic, Scleroderma Australia, Scleroderma New South Wales, Scleroderma Victoria, Scleroderma Queensland, the Scleroderma Association of Saskatchewan (Scleroderma SASK), the Scleroderma Association of BC, and Sclérodermie Québec. E-LN was supported by a Fonds de recherche du Québec—Santé (FRQS) Doctoral Research Award, a Canadian Behavioural Interventions Trials Network Platform, and a CIHR Doctoral Studentship. RSH was supported by a CIHR Postdoctoral Fellowship. SP was supported by a FRQS Masters Research Award. BDT was supported by a tier 1 Canada Research Chair. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Introduction: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare, complex autoimmune rheumatic disease with multiple factors that contribute to pain. People with SSc emphasize the effect pain has on their quality of life, but no studies have systematically examined the frequency and relative importance of different SSc pain sources, patterns of pain from different sources, and pain management experiences. Our objectives are to (1) develop a tool, jointly with researchers, health care providers, and patients, to map sources of pain in SSc, determine patterns of pain from different sources, and understand pain management experiences; and (2) administer the final tool version to participants in the large multinational Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort., Methods: First, we will use validated pain assessment tools as templates to develop an initial version of our pain assessment tool, and we will obtain input from patient advisors to adapt it for SSc. The tool will include questions on pain sources, pain patterns, pain intensity, pain management techniques, and barriers to pain management in SSc. Second, we will conduct nominal group technique sessions with people living with SSc and health care providers who care for people with SSc to further refine the tool. Third, we will conduct individual usability testing sessions with SPIN Cohort participants. Once the tool has been finalized, we will administer it to individuals in the multinational SPIN Cohort, which currently includes over 1,300 active participants from 54 sites in 7 countries. We will perform unsupervised clustering using the KAy-Means for MIxed LArge data (KAMILA) method to identify participant subgroups with similar profiles of pain sources (present or absent) and to evaluate predictors of subgroup membership. We will use latent profile analysis to identify subgroups of participants with similar profiles based on pain intensity scores for each pain source and evaluate predictors., Discussion: Once completed, our pain assessment tool will allow our team and other researchers to map sources of pain in SSc and to understand pain management experiences of people living with SSc. This knowledge will provide avenues for studies on the pathophysiology of pain in SSc and studies of interventions to improve pain management., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Patient engagement in research is important to ensure research questions address problems important to patients, that research is designed in a way that can effectively answer those questions, and that findings are applicable, relevant, and credible. Yet, patients are rarely involved in the dissemination stage of research. This study explored one way to engage patients in dissemination, through co-presenting research., Methods: Semi-structured, one-on-one, audio-recorded interviews were conducted with researchers and patients who co-presented research at one patient conference (the 2022 Canadian National Scleroderma Conference) in Canada. A pragmatic orientation was adopted, and following verbatim transcription, data were analyzed using conventional content analysis., Results: Of 8 researchers who were paired with 7 patients, 5 researchers (mean age = 28 years, SD = 3.6 years) and 5 patients (mean age = 45 years, SD = 14.2 years) participated. Researcher and patient perspectives about their experiences co-presenting and how to improve the experience were captured across 4 main categories: (1) Reasons for accepting the invitation to co-present; (2) Degree that co-presenting expectations were met; (3) The process of co-presenting; and (4) Lessons learned: recommendations for co-presenting., Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest that the co-presenting experience was a rewarding and enjoyable way to tailor research dissemination to patients. We identified a patient-centred approach and meaningful and prolonged patient engagement as essential elements underlying co-presenting success., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

We aimed to synthesize evidence on (1) the prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders and (2) factors associated with symptoms in systemic sclerosis (SSc). We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and PsycINFO via an ongoing living systematic review with automated monthly searches. We identified 6 eligible studies through March 1, 2023. Based on 3 studies (N = 93 to 345), current or 30-day major depressive disorder prevalence was 4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2%, 6%) in a sample of Canadian outpatients (N = 345), 18% (95% CI 12%, 27%) in a study of Indian outpatients (N = 93), 10% (95% CI 4%, 21%) for French patient conference attendees (N = 51), and 29% (95% CI 18%, 42%) for French inpatients (N = 49). Current or 30-day prevalence of any anxiety disorder was 49% (95% CI 36%, 62%) for French conference attendees and 51% (95% CI 38%, 64%) for French inpatients; current or 30-day prevalence of generalized anxiety disorder was 3% for Indian outpatients (95% CI 1%, 9%; N = 93). In 3 studies (N = 114 to 376) that examined factors associated with depressive symptoms, higher education and being married or living as married were associated with lower symptoms and pulmonary involvement, breathing problems, and tender joint counts with higher symptoms; age and disease severity markers were not associated. Only 1 study (N = 114) assessed factors associated with anxiety symptoms and found no statistically significant associations. Limitations included heterogeneous populations and assessment methods, small samples, and substantial risk of bias concerns. Mood and anxiety disorder prevalence appear high in SSc, but estimates vary, and existing studies have important limitations. Future research should assess mood and anxiety prevalence and factors associated with symptoms using large representative samples and validated classification and assessment methods.Review registration: PROSPERO (CRD 42021251339)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Accurate and complete study reporting allows evidence users to critically appraise studies, evaluate possible bias, and assess generalizability and applicability. We evaluated the extent to which recent studies on depression screening accuracy were reported consistent with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement requirements., Methods: MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018 through May 21, 2021 for depression screening accuracy studies., Results: 106 studies were included. Of 34 STARD items or sub-items, the number of adequately reported items per study ranged from 7 to 18 (mean = 11.5, standard deviation [SD] = 2.5; median = 11.5), and the number inadequately reported ranged from 3 to 17 (mean = 10.1, SD = 2.5; median = 10.0). There were eight items adequately reported, seven partially reported, 11 inadequately reported, and four not applicable in ≥50% of studies; the remaining four items had mixed reporting. Items inadequately reported in ≥70% of studies related to the rationale for index test cut-offs examined, missing data management, analyses of variability in accuracy results, sample size determination, participant flow, study registration, and study protocol., Conclusion: Recently published depression screening accuracy studies are not optimally reported. Journals should endorse and implement STARD adherence., (© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Depression screening tool accuracy studies should be conducted with large enough sample sizes to generate precise accuracy estimates. We assessed the proportion of recently published depression screening tool diagnostic accuracy studies that reported sample size calculations; the proportion that provided confidence intervals (CIs); and precision, based on the width and lower bounds of 95% CIs for sensitivity and specificity. In addition, we assessed whether these results have improved since a previous review of studies published in 2013-2015., Methods: MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018, through May 21, 2021., Results: Twelve of 106 primary studies (11%) described a viable sample size calculation, which represented an improvement of 8% since the last review. Thirty-six studies (34%) provided reasonably accurate CIs. Of 103 studies where 95% CIs were provided or could be calculated, seven (7%) had sensitivity CI widths of ≤10%, whereas 58 (56%) had widths of ≥21%. Eighty-four studies (82%) had lower bounds of CIs <80% for sensitivity and 77 studies (75%) for specificity. These results were similar to those reported previously., Conclusion: Few studies reported sample size calculations, and the number of included individuals in most studies was too small to generate reasonably precise accuracy estimates., (© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Screening is done to improve health outcomes by identifying and effectively treating individuals with unrecognized conditions. Depression screening has been proposed to identify previously unrecognized depression cases. Including individuals already diagnosed or treated for depression in screening test accuracy studies could exaggerate accuracy and the yield of new cases from screening. The present study investigated (1) the proportion of depression screening tool accuracy primary studies published in 2018-2021 that excluded individuals with a confirmed depression diagnosis or who were already undergoing treatment; and (2) whether this has improved since the last review of studies published in 2013-2015, which found that five of 89 (5.6%) primary studies appropriately excluded such individuals., Methods: MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018 through May 21, 2021 for primary studies on depression screening tool accuracy., Results: Eighteen of 106 (17.0%; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 11.0% to 25.3%) primary studies excluded currently diagnosed or treated individuals. This was 11.4% (95% CI, 2.8% to 20.0%) greater than in similar studies published in 2013-2015., Conclusion: There has been an improvement since 2015, but the proportion of studies that exclude individuals already known to have depression remains low. This may bias research findings intended to inform clinical practice., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)