"Whatever journey you want to take, I'll support you through": a mixed methods evaluation of a peer worker program in the hospital emergency department.

BACKGROUND: People who are unhoused, use substances (drugs and/or alcohol), and who have mental health conditions experience barriers to care access and are frequently confronted with discrimination and stigma in health care settings. The role of Peer Workers in addressing these gaps in a hospital-based context is not well characterized. The aim of this evaluation was to 1) outline the role of Peer Workers in the care of a marginalized populations in the emergency department; 2) characterize the impact of Peer Workers on patient care, and 3) to describe how being employed as a Peer Worker impacts the Peer. METHODS: Through a concurrent mixed methods evaluation, we explore the role of Peer Workers in the care of marginalized populations in the emergency department at two urban hospitals in Toronto, Ontario Canada. We describe the demographic characteristics of patients (n = 555) and the type of supports provided to patients collected through a survey between February and June 2022. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were completed with Peer Workers (n = 7). Interviews were thematically analyzed using a deductive approach, complemented by an inductive approach to allow new themes to emerge from the data. RESULTS: Support provided to patients primarily consisted of friendly conversations (91.4%), discharge planning (59.6%), tactics to help the patient navigate their emotions/mental wellbeing (57.8%) and sharing their lived experience (50.1%). In over one third (38.9%) of all patient interactions, Peer Workers shared new information about the patient with the health care team (e.g., obtaining patient identification). Five major themes emerged from our interviews with Peer Workers which include: (1) Establishing empathy and building trust between the patient and their care team through self-disclosure; (2) Facilitating a person-centered approach to patient care through trauma-informed listening and accessible language; (3) Support for patient preferences on harm reduction; (4) Peer worker role facilitating self-acceptance and self-defined recovery; and (5) Importance of supports and resources to help Peer Workers navigate the emotional intensity of the emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: The findings add to the literature on Peer Worker programs and how such interventions are designed to best meet the needs of marginalized populations.

Can the Healthcare System Improve Food Security? A Need for Collaborative Community Partnerships.

The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the food insecurity crisis in Canada, and existing supports have been largely insufficient to meet the food needs of communities. In response to increasing reports of food insecurity among Toronto residents during the pandemic, the Food RX program was developed as a collaborative initiative between FoodShare Toronto - a local, community-based food justice organization - and the University Health Network, a large university-affiliated hospital network in downtown Toronto, ON. This commentary describes the Food RX program, highlights the lessons learned during its early implementation and offers a set of recommendations for building community partnerships moving forward.

Adherence at 2 years with distribution of essential medicines at no charge: The CLEAN Meds randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to medicines is low for a variety of reasons, including the cost borne by patients. Some jurisdictions publicly fund medicines for the general population, but many jurisdictions do not, and such policies are contentious. To our knowledge, no trials studying free access to a wide range of medicines have been conducted. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 786 primary care patients who reported not taking medicines due to cost between June 1, 2016 and April 28, 2017 to either free distribution of essential medicines (n = 395) or to usual medicine access (n = 391). The trial was conducted in Ontario, Canada, where hospital care and physician services are publicly funded for the general population but medicines are not. The trial population was mostly female (56%), younger than 65 years (83%), white (66%), and had a low income from wages as the primary source (56%). The primary outcome was medicine adherence after 2 years. Secondary outcomes included control of diabetes, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients taking relevant treatments and healthcare costs over 2 years. Adherence to all appropriate prescribed medicines was 38.7% in the free distribution group and 28.6% in the usual access group after 2 years (absolute difference 10.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3 to 16.9, p = 0.004). There were no statistically significant differences in control of diabetes (hemoglobin A1c 0.27; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.79, p = 0.302), systolic blood pressure (-3.9; 95% CI -9.9 to 2.2, p = 0.210), or LDL cholesterol (0.26; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.60, p = 0.130) based on available data. Total healthcare costs over 2 years were lower with free distribution (difference in median CAN$1,117; 95% CI CAN$445 to CAN$1,778, p = 0.006). In the free distribution group, 51 participants experienced a serious adverse event, while 68 participants in the usual access group experienced a serious adverse event (p = 0.091). Participants were not blinded, and some outcomes depended on participant reports. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that free distribution of essential medicines to patients with cost-related nonadherence substantially increased adherence, did not affect surrogate health outcomes, and reduced total healthcare costs over 2 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02744963.

Effect of Free Medicine Distribution on Health Care Costs in Canada Over 3 Years: A Secondary Analysis of the CLEAN Meds Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few interventions are proven to reduce total health care costs, and addressing cost-related nonadherence has the potential to do so. Objective: To determine the effect of eliminating out-of-pocket medication fees on total health care costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial using a prespecified outcome took place across 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada (6 in Toronto and 3 in rural areas), where health care services are generally publicly funded. Adult patients (≥18 years old) reporting cost-related nonadherence to medicines in the past 12 months were recruited between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, and followed up until April 28, 2020. Data analysis was completed in 2021. Interventions: Access to a comprehensive list of 128 medicines commonly prescribed in ambulatory care with no out-of-pocket costs for 3 years vs usual medicine access. Main Outcome and Measures: Total publicly funded health care costs over 3 years, including costs of hospitalizations. Health care costs were determined using administrative data from Ontario's single-payer health care system, and all costs are reported in Canadian dollars with adjustments for inflation. Results: A total of 747 participants from 9 primary care sites were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 51 [14] years; 421 [56.4%] female). Free medicine distribution was associated with a lower median total health care spending over 3 years of $1641 (95% CI, $454-$2792; P = .006). Mean total spending was $4465 (95% CI, -$944 to $9874) lower over the 3-year period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, eliminating out-of-pocket medication expenses for patients with cost-related nonadherence in primary care was associated with lower health care spending over 3 years. These findings suggest that eliminating out-of-pocket medication costs for patients could reduce overall costs of health care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744963.

Effect on Treatment Adherence of Distributing Essential Medicines at No Charge: The CLEAN Meds Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Nonadherence to treatment with medicines is common globally, even for life-saving treatments. Cost is one important barrier to access, and only some jurisdictions provide medicines at no charge to patients. Objective: To determine whether providing essential medicines at no charge to outpatients who reported not being able to afford medicines improves adherence. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, unblinded, parallel, 2-group, superiority, outcomes assessor-blinded, individually randomized clinical trial conducted at 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada, enrolled 786 patients between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, who reported cost-related nonadherence. Follow-up occurred at 12 months. The primary analysis was performed using an intention-to-treat principle. Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated to receive free medicines on a list of essential medicines in addition to otherwise usual care (n = 395) or usual medicine access and usual care (n = 391). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adherence to treatment with all medicines that were appropriately prescribed for 1 year. Secondary outcomes were hemoglobin A1c level, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels 1 year after randomization in participants taking corresponding medicines. Results: Among the 786 participants analyzed (439 women and 347 men; mean [SD] age, 51.7 [14.3] years), 764 completed the trial. Adherence to treatment with all medicines was higher in those randomized to receive free distribution (151 of 395 [38.2%]) compared with usual access (104 of 391 [26.6%]; difference, 11.6%; 95% CI, 4.9%-18.4%). Control of type 1 and 2 diabetes was not significantly improved by free distribution (hemoglobin A1c, -0.38%; 95% CI, -0.76% to 0.00%), systolic blood pressure was reduced (-7.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -11.7 to -2.8 mm Hg), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were not affected (-2.3 mg/dL; 95% CI, -14.7 to 10.0 mg/dL). Conclusions and Relevance: The distribution of essential medicines at no charge for 1 year increased adherence to treatment with medicines and improved some, but not other, disease-specific surrogate health outcomes. These findings could help inform changes to medicine access policies such as publicly funding essential medicines. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02744963.