Assessing the effectiveness of "BETTER Women", a community-based, primary care-linked peer health coaching programme for chronic disease prevention: protocol for a pragmatic, wait-list controlled, type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.

INTRODUCTION: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Cancer and Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER) programme trains allied health professionals working in primary care settings to develop personalised chronic disease 'prevention prescriptions' with patients. However, maintenance of health behaviour changes is difficult without ongoing support. Sustainable options to enhance the BETTER programme and ensure accessibility to underserved populations are needed. We designed the BETTER Women programme, which uses a digital app to match patients with a trained peer health coach (PHC) who provides ongoing support for health behaviour change after receipt of a BETTER prevention prescription in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a type 1 hybrid implementation-effectiveness patient-randomised trial. Interested women aged 40-68 years will be recruited from three large, sociodemographically distinct primary care clinics (urban, suburban and rural). Patients will be randomised 1:1 to intervention or wait-list control after receipt of their BETTER prevention prescription. We will aim to recruit 204 patients per group (408 total). Effectiveness will be assessed by the primary outcome of targeted behaviours achieved for each participant at 6 months, consisting of three cancer screening tests (cervical, breast and colorectal) and four behavioural determinants of cancer and chronic disease (diet, smoking, alcohol use and physical activity). Data will be collected through patient survey and clinical chart review, measured at 3, 6 and 12 months. Implementation outcomes will be assessed through patient surveys and interviews with patients, peer health coaches and healthcare providers. An embedded economic evaluation will examine cost per quality-adjusted life-year and per additional health behavioural targets achieved. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Women's College Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB), the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre REB and the University of Toronto REB. All participants will provide informed consent prior to enrolment. Participation is voluntary and withdrawal will have no impact on the usual care received from their primary care provider. The results of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals and shared via conference presentations. Deidentified datasets will be shared on request, after publication of results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04746859.

Mailed feedback to primary care physicians on antibiotic prescribing for patients aged 65 years and older: pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether providing family physicians with feedback on their antibiotic prescribing compared with that of their peers reduces antibiotic prescriptions. To also identify effects on antibiotic prescribing from case-mix adjusted feedback reports and messages emphasising antibiotic associated harms. DESIGN: Pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All primary care physicians were randomly assigned a group if they were eligible and actively prescribing antibiotics to patients 65 years or older. Physicians were excluded if had already volunteered to receive antibiotic prescribing feedback from another agency, or had opted out of the trial. INTERVENTION: A letter was mailed in January 2022 to physicians with peer comparison antibiotic prescribing feedback compared with the control group who did not receive a letter (4:1 allocation). The intervention group was further randomised in a 2x2 factorial trial to evaluate case-mix adjusted versus unadjusted comparators, and emphasis, or not, on harms of antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Antibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient visits for patients 65 years or older six months after intervention. Analysis was in the modified intention-to-treat population using Poisson regression. RESULTS: 5046 physicians were included and analysed: 1005 in control group and 4041 in intervention group (1016 case-mix adjusted data and harms messaging, 1006 with case-mix adjusted data and no harms messaging, 1006 unadjusted data and harms messaging, and 1013 unadjusted data and no harms messaging). At six months, mean antibiotic prescribing rate was 59.4 (standard deviation 42.0) in the control group and 56.0 (39.2) in the intervention group (relative rate 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.96). Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing (0.89 (0.86 to 0.92)), prolonged duration prescriptions defined as more than seven days (0.85 (0.83 to 0.87)), and broad spectrum prescribing (0.94 (0.92 to 0.95)) were also significantly lower in the intervention group compared with the control group. Results were consistent at 12 months post intervention. No significant effect was seen for including emphasis on harms messaging. A small increase in antibiotic prescribing with case-mix adjusted reports was noted (1.01 (1.00 to 1.03)). CONCLUSIONS: Peer comparison audit and feedback letters significantly reduced overall antibiotic prescribing with no benefit of case-mix adjustment or harms messaging. Antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback is a scalable and effective intervention and should be a routine quality improvement initiative in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04594200.

Exploring the content and delivery of feedback facilitation co-interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers and researchers recommend supporting the capabilities of feedback recipients to increase the quality of care. There are different ways to support capabilities. We aimed to describe the content and delivery of feedback facilitation interventions delivered alongside audit and feedback within randomised controlled trials. METHODS: We included papers describing feedback facilitation identified by the latest Cochrane review of audit and feedback. The piloted extraction proforma was based upon a framework to describe intervention content, with additional prompts relating to the identification of influences, selection of improvement actions and consideration of priorities and implications. We describe the content and delivery graphically, statistically and narratively. RESULTS: We reviewed 146 papers describing 104 feedback facilitation interventions. Across included studies, feedback facilitation contained 26 different implementation strategies. There was a median of three implementation strategies per intervention and evidence that the number of strategies per intervention is increasing. Theory was used in 35 trials, although the precise role of theory was poorly described. Ten studies provided a logic model and six of these described their mechanisms of action. Both the exploration of influences and the selection of improvement actions were described in 46 of the feedback facilitation interventions; we describe who undertook this tailoring work. Exploring dose, there was large variation in duration (15-1800 min), frequency (1 to 42 times) and number of recipients per site (1 to 135). There were important gaps in reporting, but some evidence that reporting is improving over time. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in the design of feedback facilitation needs to be considered when assessing the intervention's effectiveness. We describe explicit feedback facilitation choices for future intervention developers based upon choices made to date. We found the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to be valuable when describing intervention components, with the potential for some minor clarifications in terms and for greater specificity by intervention providers. Reporting demonstrated extensive gaps which hinder both replication and learning. Feedback facilitation providers are recommended to close reporting gaps that hinder replication. Future work should seek to address the 'opportunity' for improvement activity, defined as factors that lie outside the individual that make care or improvement behaviour possible. REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study protocol was published at: https://www.protocols.io/private/4DA5DE33B68E11ED9EF70A58A9FEAC02 .

A shifting terrain: Understanding the perspectives of walk-in physicians on their roles amid worsening primary care access in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: High-quality primary care is associated with better health outcomes and more efficient and equitable health system performance. However, the rate of primary care attachment is falling, and timely access to primary care is worsening, driving many patients to use walk-in clinics for their comprehensive primary care needs. This study sought to explore the experiences and perceived roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians in this current climate. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with nineteen physicians currently providing walk-in care in Ontario, Canada between May and December 2022. RESULTS: Limited capacity for continuity and comprehensiveness of care were identified as major sources of professional tension for walk-in physicians. Divergent perspectives on their roles were anchored in how physicians viewed their professional identity. Some saw providing continuous and comprehensive care as an infringement on their professional role; others saw their professional role as more flexible and responsive to population needs. Regardless of their professional identity, participants reported feeling ill-equipped to manage the swell of unattached patients, citing a lack of time, resources, connectivity to the system, and remuneration flexibility. Conclusions: As practice demands of walk-in clinics change, an evolution in the professional roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians follows. However, the resources, structure, and incentives of walk-in care have not evolved to reflect this, leaving physicians to set their own professional boundaries with patients. This results in increasing variations in care and confusion across the primary care sector around who is responsible for what, when, and how.

Characteristics of primary care practices by proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2: a cross-sectional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Variations in primary care practices may explain some differences in health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to evaluate the characteristics of primary care practices by the proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional cohort study using linked administrative data sets in Ontario, Canada. We calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 enrolled with each comprehensive-care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of patients unvaccinated, and identified physicians in the top 10% (v. the other 90%). We compared characteristics of family physicians and their patients in these 2 groups using standardized differences. RESULTS: We analyzed 9060 family physicians with 10 837 909 enrolled patients. Family physicians with the largest proportion (top 10%) of unvaccinated patients (n = 906) were more likely to be male, to have trained outside of Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than those in the remaining 90%. Vaccine coverage (≥ 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine) was 74% among patients of physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients, compared with 87% in the remaining patient population. Patients in the top 10% group tended to be younger and live in areas with higher levels of ethnic diversity and immigration and lower incomes. INTERPRETATION: Primary care practices with the largest proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 served marginalized communities and were less likely to use team-based care models. These findings can guide resource planning and help tailor interventions to integrate public health priorities within primary care practices.

The Conceptualization and Measurement of Research Impact in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Rapid Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The generation of research evidence and knowledge in primary health care (PHC) is crucial for informing the development and implementation of interventions and innovations and driving health policy, health service improvements, and potential societal changes. PHC research has broad effects on patients, practices, services, population health, community, and policy formulation. The in-depth exploration of the definition and measures of research impact within PHC is essential for broadening our understanding of research impact in the discipline and how it compares to other health services research. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study are (1) to understand the conceptualizations and measures of research impact within the realm of PHC and (2) to identify methodological frameworks for evaluation and research impact and the benefits and challenges of using these approaches. The forthcoming review seeks to guide future research endeavors and enhance methodologies used in assessing research impact within PHC. METHODS: The protocol outlines the rapid review and environmental scan approach that will be used to explore research impact in PHC and will be guided by established frameworks such as the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences Impact Framework and the Canadian Health Services and Policy Research Alliance. The rapid review follows scoping review guidelines (PRISMA-ScR; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews). The environmental scan will be done by consulting with professional organizations, academic institutions, information science, and PHC experts. The search strategy will involve multiple databases, citation and forward citation searching, and manual searches of gray literature databases, think tank websites, and relevant catalogs. We will include gray and scientific literature focusing explicitly on research impact in PHC from high-income countries using the World Bank classification. Publications published in English from 1978 will be considered. The collected papers will undergo a 2-stage independent review process based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The research team will extract data from selected studies based on the research questions and the CRISP (Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care) protocol statement. The team will discuss the extracted data, enabling the identification and categorization of key themes regarding research impact conceptualization and measurement in PHC. The narrative synthesis will evolve iteratively based on the identified literature. RESULTS: The results of this study are expected at the end of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The forthcoming review will explore the conceptualization and measurement of research impact in PHC. The synthesis will offer crucial insights that will guide subsequent research, emphasizing the need for a standardized approach that incorporates diverse perspectives to comprehensively gauge the true impact of PHC research. Furthermore, trends and gaps in current methodologies will set the stage for future studies aimed at enhancing our understanding and measurement of research impact in PHC. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/55860.

An assessment of adaptation and fidelity in the implementation of an audit and feedback-based intervention to improve transition to adult type 1 diabetes care in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The fit between an intervention and its local context may affect its implementation and effectiveness. Researchers have stated that both fidelity (the degree to which an intervention is delivered, enacted, and received as intended) and adaptation to the local context are necessary for high-quality implementation. This study describes the implementation of an audit and feedback (AF)-based intervention to improve transition to type 1 diabetes adult care, at five sites, in terms of adaptation and fidelity. METHODS: An audit and feedback (AF)-based intervention for healthcare teams to improve transition to adult care for patients with type 1 diabetes was studied at five pediatric sites. The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) was used to document the adaptations made during the study. Fidelity was determined on three different levels: delivery, enactment, and receipt. RESULTS: Fidelity of delivery, receipt, and enactment were preserved during the implementation of the intervention. Of the five sites, three changed their chosen quality improvement initiative, however, within the parameters of the study protocol; therefore, fidelity was preserved while still enabling participants to adapt accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: We describe implementing a multi-center AF-based intervention across five sites in Ontario to improve the transition from pediatric to adult diabetes care for youth with type 1 diabetes. This intervention adopted a balanced approach considering both adaptation and fidelity to foster a community of practice to facilitate implementing quality improvement initiatives for improving transition to adult diabetes care. This approach may be adapted for improving transition care for youth with other chronic conditions and to other complex AF-based interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03781973. Registered 13 December 2018. Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: June 1, 2019.

Longitudinal adherence to surveillance for late effects of cancer treatment: a population-based study of adult survivors of childhood cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adult survivors of childhood cancer are at elevated risk of morbidity and mortality compared to the general population, but their adherence to lifelong periodic surveillance is suboptimal. We aimed to examine adherence to surveillance guidelines for high-yield tests and identify risk factors for nonadherence in adult survivors of childhood cancer. METHODS: In this retrospective, population-based cohort study, we used health care administrative data from Ontario, Canada, to identify adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who were at elevated risk of therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. Using a Poisson regression framework, we assessed longitudinal adherence and predictors of adherence to the Children's Oncology Group surveillance guideline. RESULTS: Among 3241 survivors, 327 (10%), 234 (7%), and 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and cardiomyopathy, respectively. Within these cohorts, only 13%, 6%, and 53% were adherent to recommended surveillance as of February 2020. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 14% among survivors at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, 10% for breast cancer, and 43% for cardiomyopathy. Significant predictors of adherence varied across the risk groups, but higher comorbidity was associated with adherence to recommended surveillance. INTERPRETATION: Survivors of childhood cancer in Ontario are rarely up to date for recommended surveillance tests. Tailored interventions beyond specialized clinics are needed to improve surveillance adherence.

Equity in prenatal healthcare services globally: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Timely, appropriate, and equitable access to quality healthcare during pregnancy is proven to contribute to better health outcomes of birthing individuals and infants following birth. Equity is conceptualized as the absence of differences in healthcare access and quality among population groups. Healthcare policies are guides for front-line practices, and despite merits of contemporary policies striving to foster equitable healthcare, inequities persist. The purpose of this umbrella review is to identify prenatal healthcare practices, summarize how equities/inequities are reported in relation to patient experiences or health outcomes when accessing or using services, and collate equity reporting characteristics. METHODS: For this umbrella review, six electronic databases were searched (Medline, EMBASE, APA PsychInfo, CINAHL, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, and Cochrane Library). Included studies were extracted for publication and study characteristics, equity reporting, primary outcomes (prenatal care influenced by equity/inequity) and secondary outcomes (infant health influenced by equity/inequity during pregnancy). Data was analyzed deductively using the PROGRESS-Plus equity framework and by summative content analysis for equity reporting characteristics. The included articles were assessed for quality using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: The search identified 8065 articles and 236 underwent full-text screening. Of the 236, 68 systematic reviews were included with first authors representing 20 different countries. The population focus of included studies ranged across prenatal only (n = 14), perinatal (n = 25), maternal (n = 2), maternal and child (n = 19), and a general population (n = 8). Barriers to equity in prenatal care included travel and financial burden, culturally insensitive practices that deterred care engagement and continuity, and discriminatory behaviour that reduced care access and satisfaction. Facilitators to achieve equity included innovations such as community health workers, home visitation programs, conditional cash transfer programs, virtual care, and cross-cultural training, to enhance patient experiences and increase their access to, and use of health services. There was overlap across PROGRESS-Plus factors. CONCLUSIONS: This umbrella review collated inequities present in prenatal healthcare services, globally. Further, this synthesis contributes to future solution and action-oriented research and practice by assembling evidence-informed opportunities, innovations, and approaches that may foster equitable prenatal health services to all members of diverse communities.

Protocol for the ONLOOP trial: pragmatic randomized trial evaluating a province-wide system of personalized reminders for evidence-based surveillance tests in adult survivors of childhood cancer in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer treatment while often curative, leads to elevated risks of morbidity and mortality. Survivors require lifelong periodic surveillance for late effects of treatment, yet adherence to guideline-recommended tests is suboptimal. We created ONLOOP to provide adult survivors of childhood cancer with detailed health information, including summaries of their childhood cancer treatment and recommended surveillance tests for early detection of cardiomyopathy, breast cancer, and/or colorectal cancer, with personalized reminders over time. METHODS: This is an individually randomized, registry-based pragmatic trial with an embedded process and economic evaluation to understand ONLOOP's impact and whether it can be readily implemented at scale. All adult survivors of childhood cancer in Ontario overdue for guideline-recommended tests will be randomly assigned to one of two arms: (1) intervention or (2) delayed intervention. A letter of information and invitation will detail the ONLOOP program. Those who sign up will receive a personalized toolkit and a screening reminder 6 months later. With the participants' consent, ONLOOP will also send their primary care clinician a letter detailing the recommended tests and a reminder 6 months later. The primary outcome will be the proportion of survivors who complete one or more of the guideline-recommended cardiac, breast, or colon surveillance tests during the 12 months after randomization. Data will be obtained from administrative databases. The intent-to-treat principle will be followed. Based on our analyses of administrative data, we anticipate allocating at least 862 individuals to each trial arm, providing 90% power to detect an absolute increase of 6% in targeted surveillance tests completed. We will interview childhood cancer survivors and family physicians in an embedded process evaluation to examine why and how ONLOOP achieved success or failed. A cost-effectiveness evaluation will be performed. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will determine if ONLOOP is effective at helping adult survivors of childhood cancer complete their recommended surveillance tests. This study will also inform ongoing provincial programs for this high-risk population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05832138.

Engaging critically: exploring the varying roles of lived experience advisors in an implementation science study on management of opioid prescribing.

Involvement of individuals with lived experience, also called "patient partners", is a key element within implementation science, the study of how to put evidence into practice. While conducting a 4-year implementation study focused on improving physician management of opioid prescribing, our research team worked closely with Lived Experience Advisors (LEAs). LEAs were involved throughout the study, including developing patient-facing recruitment material, informing the analysis of results, and as a regular reminder of the real-world impact of this work. However, through regular critical reflection, we acknowledged that we were still uncertain how to articulate the impact of LEA involvement. As a team, we continually discussed why and how people with lived experience were involved in this study. We probed ill-defined concepts such as "patient perspective", which was particularly complex for a study focused on changing physician behaviour with indirect impact on patients. This critical reflection strengthened trust and rapport between team members (characteristics deemed essential to meaningful patient involvement), while underscoring the value of including concerted time to explore the muddier aspects of engagement. In short, patient engagement did not proceed as smoothly as planned. We advocate that "best practices" in the engagement of people with lived experience include regularly setting aside time outside of practical study tasks to interrogate complex aspects of patient engagement, including reflecting on how and why individuals with lived experience are involved.

Involvement of individuals with lived experience, also called "patient partners", is often a required element of applied research. Although there is a lot of guidance on how to engage individuals with lived experience, there is no single best-practice that always applies. Each team is different and must adapt to meet the needs of their study and team. While conducting a 4-year study focused on improving physician management of opioid prescribing, our research team worked closely with Lived Experience Advisors (LEAs). The LEAs were involved in developing patient-facing recruitment material, informing the analysis of results, and were a regular reminder of the real-world impact of this work. As a team, we continually discussed why and how individuals with lived experience were involved in this study and probed concepts such as "patient perspective", which is complex in a study focused on changing physician behaviour. Setting aside time to not just work on a task but to critically reflect and ask questions led to new insights into why and how we do this work. For example, one of the patient handouts that was co-designed with patients and praised by some physicians we interviewed, was found by LEAs to be objectifying and lacking nuance, which further highlighted how the same material can be received in different ways. Our discussions also helped build trust and rapport, which are characteristics deemed essential to meaningful patient involvement. We advocate for study teams to dedicate time to interrogate the less straightforward aspects of patient engagement. In other words - "embrace the messiness".

Evidence Synthesis for Complex Interventions Using Meta-Regression Models.

A goal of evidence synthesis for trials of complex interventions is to inform the design or implementation of novel versions of complex interventions by predicting expected outcomes with each intervention version. Conventional aggregate data meta-analyses of studies comparing complex interventions have limited ability to provide such information. We argue that evidence synthesis for trials of complex interventions should forgo aspirations of estimating causal effects and instead model the response surface of study results to 1) summarize the available evidence and 2) predict the average outcomes of future studies or in new settings. We illustrate this modeling approach using data from a systematic review of diabetes quality improvement (QI) interventions involving at least 1 of 12 QI strategy components. We specify a series of meta-regression models to assess the association of specific components with the posttreatment outcome mean and compare the results to conventional meta-analysis approaches. Compared with conventional approaches, modeling the response surface of study results can better reflect the associations between intervention components and study characteristics with the posttreatment outcome mean. Modeling study results using a response surface approach offers a useful and feasible goal for evidence synthesis of complex interventions that rely on aggregate data.

Risk Prediction Scores for Type 2 Diabetes Microvascular and Cardiovascular Complications Derived and Validated With Real-world Data From 2 Provinces: The DIabeteS COmplications (DISCO) Risk Scores.

OBJECTIVES: Existing tools to predict the risk of complications among people with type 2 diabetes poorly discriminate high- from low-risk patients. Our aim in this study was to develop risk prediction scores for major type 2 diabetes complications using real-world clinical care data, and to externally validate these risk scores in a different jurisdiction. METHODS: Using health-care administrative data and electronic medical records data, risk scores were derived using data from 25,088 people with type 2 diabetes from the Canadian province of Ontario, followed between 2002 and 2017. Scores were developed for major clinically important microvascular events (treatment for retinopathy, foot ulcer, incident end-stage renal disease), cardiovascular disease events (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, amputation), and mortality (cardiovascular, noncardiovascular, all-cause). They were then externally validated using the independent data of 11,416 people with type 2 diabetes from the province of Manitoba. RESULTS: The 10 derived risk scores had moderate to excellent discrimination in the independent validation cohort, ranging from 0.705 to 0.977. Their calibration to predict 5-year risk was excellent across most levels of predicted risk, albeit with some displaying underestimation at the highest levels of predicted risk. CONCLUSIONS: The DIabeteS COmplications (DISCO) risk scores for major type 2 diabetes complications were derived and externally validated using contemporary real-world clinical data. As a result, they may be more accurate than other risk prediction scores derived using randomized trial data. The use of more accurate risk scores in clinical practice will help improve personalization of clinical care for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Virtual Visits With Own Family Physician vs Outside Family Physician and Emergency Department Use.

Importance: Virtual visits became more common after the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is unclear in what context they are best used. Objective: To investigate whether there was a difference in subsequent emergency department use between patients who had a virtual visit with their own family physician vs those who had virtual visits with an outside physician. Design, Setting, and Participants: This propensity score-matched cohort study was conducted among all Ontario residents attached to a family physician as of April 1, 2021, who had a virtual family physician visit in the subsequent year (to March 31, 2022). Exposure: The type of virtual family physician visit, with own or outside physician, was determined. In a secondary analysis, own physician visits were compared with visits with a physician working in direct-to-consumer telemedicine. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was an emergency department visit within 7 days after the virtual visit. Results: Among 5 229 240 Ontario residents with a family physician and virtual visit, 4 173 869 patients (79.8%) had a virtual encounter with their own physician (mean [SD] age, 49.3 [21.5] years; 2 420 712 females [58.0%]) and 1 055 371 patients (20.2%) had an encounter with an outside physician (mean [SD] age, 41.8 [20.9] years; 605 614 females [57.4%]). In the matched cohort of 1 885 966 patients, those who saw an outside physician were 66% more likely to visit an emergency department within 7 days than those who had a virtual visit with their own physician (30 748 of 942 983 patients [3.3%] vs 18 519 of 942 983 patients [2.0%]; risk difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 1.2%-1.3%]; relative risk, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.63-1.69]). The increase in the risk of emergency department visits was greater when comparing 30 216 patients with definite direct-to-consumer telemedicine visits with 30 216 patients with own physician visits (risk difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 3.8%-4.5%]; relative risk, 2.99 [95% CI, 2.74-3.27]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients whose virtual visit was with an outside physician were more likely to visit an emergency department in the next 7 days than those whose virtual visit was with their own family physician. These findings suggest that primary care virtual visits may be best used within an existing clinical relationship.

Developing an Audit and Feedback Dashboard for Family Physicians: User-Centered Design Process.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F), the summary and provision of clinical performance data, is a common quality improvement strategy. Successful design and implementation of A&F-or any quality improvement strategy-should incorporate evidence-informed best practices as well as context-specific end user input. OBJECTIVE: We used A&F theory and user-centered design to inform the development of a web-based primary care A&F dashboard. We describe the design process and how it influenced the design of the dashboard. METHODS: Our design process included 3 phases: prototype development based on A&F theory and input from clinical improvement leaders; workshop with family physician quality improvement leaders to develop personas (ie, fictional users that represent an archetype character representative of our key users) and application of those personas to design decisions; and user-centered interviews with family physicians to learn about the physician's reactions to the revised dashboard. RESULTS: The team applied A&F best practices to the dashboard prototype. Personas were used to identify target groups with challenges and behaviors as a tool for informed design decision-making. Our workshop produced 3 user personas, Dr Skeptic, Frazzled Physician, and Eager Implementer, representing common users based on the team's experience of A&F. Interviews were conducted to further validate findings from the persona workshop and found that (1) physicians were interested in how they compare with peers; however, if performance was above average, they were not motivated to improve even if gaps compared to other standards in their care remained; (2) burnout levels were high as physicians are trying to catch up on missed care during the pandemic and are therefore less motivated to act on the data; and (3) additional desired features included integration within the electronic medical record, and more up-to-date and accurate data. CONCLUSIONS: We found that carefully incorporating data from user interviews helped operationalize generic best practices for A&F to achieve an acceptable dashboard that could meet the needs and goals of physicians. We demonstrate such a design process in this paper. A&F dashboards should address physicians' data skepticism, present data in a way that spurs action, and support physicians to have the time and capacity to engage in quality improvement work; the steps we followed may help those responsible for quality improvement strategy implementation achieve these aims.

Surfacing the causal assumptions and active ingredients of healthcare quality improvement interventions: An application to primary care opioid prescribing.

Background: Efforts to maximize the impact of healthcare improvement interventions are hampered when intervention components are not well defined or described, precluding the ability to understand how and why interventions are expected to work. Method: We partnered with two organizations delivering province-wide quality improvement interventions to establish how they envisaged their interventions lead to change (their underlying causal assumptions) and to identify active ingredients (behavior change techniques [BCTs]). The interventions assessed were an audit and feedback report and an academic detailing program. Both focused on supporting safer opioid prescribing in primary care in Ontario, Canada. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with intervention developers (n = 8) and a content analysis of intervention documents. Analyses unpacked and articulated how the interventions were intended to achieve change and how this was operationalized. Results: Developers anticipated that the feedback report would provide physicians with a clear understanding of their own prescribing patterns in comparison to others. In the feedback report, we found an emphasis on BCTs consistent with that assumption (feedback on behavior; social comparison). The detailing was designed to provide tailored support to enable physicians to overcome barriers to change and to gradually enact specific practice changes for patients based on improved communication. In the detailing materials, we found an emphasis on instructions on how to perform the behavior, for a range of behaviors (e.g., tapering opioids, treating opioid use disorder). The materials were supplemented by detailer-enacted BCTs (e.g., social support [practical]; goal setting [behavior]; review behavioral goal[s]). Conclusions: The interventions included a small range of BCTs addressing various clinical behaviors. This work provides a methodological example of how to apply a behavioral lens to surface the active ingredients, target clinical behaviors, and causal assumptions of existing large-scale improvement interventions that could be applied in other contexts to optimize effectiveness and facilitate scale and spread.

What is already known about the topic?: The causal assumptions and key components of implementation interventions are often not well described, which limits the influence of implementation science on implementation practice. What does this paper add?: This work provides an approach for surfacing the causal assumptions from intervention developers (through interviews with eight participants) and active ingredients from intervention materials, focusing on two real-world interventions already delivered at scale and designed to promote safer opioid prescribing. The analysis provides a comprehensive intervention description and reveals the extent to which final interventions align with developers' intentions. What are the implications for practice, research, or policy?: The findings provide a foundation for future work which will describe the effectiveness of these interventions (alone and in combination) and explore whether they achieve change in the intended ways, thereby providing an example of a more fulsome intervention evaluation. More broadly, our methods can be used by implementation practitioners to review and reflect on their intervention development process and support comprehensive intervention descriptions.

What are effective vaccine distribution approaches for equity-deserving and high-risk populations during COVID-19? Exploring best practices and recommendations in Canada: protocol for a mixed-methods multiple case codesign study.

INTRODUCTION: The WHO has stated that vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to overcoming COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy among underserved and at-risk communities is an ongoing challenge in Canada. Public confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness and the principles of equity need to be considered in vaccine distribution. In Canada, governments of each province or territory manage their own healthcare system, providing an opportunity to compare and contrast distribution strategies. The overarching objective of this study is to identify effective vaccine distribution approaches and advance knowledge on how to design and implement various strategies to meet the different needs of underserved communities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Multiple case studies in seven Canadian provinces will be conducted using a mixed-methods design. The study will be informed by Experience-Based CoDesign techniques and theoretically guided by the Socio-Ecological Model and the Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix frameworks. Phase 1 will involve a policy document review to systematically explore the vaccine distribution strategy over time in each jurisdiction. This will inform the second phase, which will involve (2a) semistructured, in-depth interviews with policymakers, public health officials, researchers, providers, groups representing patients, researchers and stakeholders and (2b) an analysis of population-based administrative health data of vaccine administration. Integration of qualitative and quantitative data will inform the identification of effective vaccine distribution approaches for various populations. Informed by this evidence, phase 3 of the study will involve conducting focus groups with multiple stakeholders to codesign recommendations for the design and implementation of effective vaccine delivery strategies for equity-deserving and at-risk populations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the University of Toronto's Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (#42643), University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (#H22-01750-A002), Research Ethics Board of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (#48272), Newfoundland and Labrador Health Research Ethics Board (#2022.126), Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board, University of Calgary (REB22-0207), and University of Manitoba Health Research Board (H2022-239). The outcome of this study will be to produce a series of recommendations for implementing future vaccine distribution approaches from the perspective of various stakeholders, including equity-deserving and at-risk populations.

Practice Facilitation to Support Family Physicians in Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Multimethod Process Evaluation.

PURPOSE: We offered a practice facilitation intervention to family physicians in Ontario, Canada, known to have large numbers of patients not yet vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We conducted a multimethod process evaluation embedded within a randomized controlled trial (clinical trial #NCT05099497). We collected descriptive statistics regarding engagement and qualitative interview data from family physicians and practice facilitators, as well as data from facilitator field notes. We analyzed and triangulated the data using thematic analysis and mapped barriers to and enablers for implementation to structural, organizational, physician, and patient factors. RESULTS: Of the 300 approached, 90 family physicians (30%) accepted facilitation. Of these, 57% received technical support to identify unvaccinated patients, 29% used trained medical student volunteers to contact patients on their behalf, and 30% used automated calling to reach patients. Key factors affecting engagement with the intervention were staff shortages owing to COVID-19 (structural), clinic characteristics such as technical issues and gatekeeping by staff, which prevented facilitators from talking with physicians (organizational), burnout (physician), and specialized populations that required targeted resources (patient). The facilitator's ability to address technical issues and connect family physicians with medical students helped with engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to help underresourced family physicians serving high-needs populations for issues of public health importance, such as vaccine promotion, must acknowledge the scarcity of physicians' time and provide new resources. To successfully engage family physicians, practice facilitators should seek to build trust and relationships over time, including with front-office staff.