The utilization and delivery of safer smoking practices and services: a narrative synthesis of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Providing sterile drug smoking materials to people who use drugs can prevent the acquisition of infectious diseases and reduce overdose risk. However, there is a lack of understanding of how these practices are being implemented and received by people who use drugs globally. METHODS: A systematic review of safer smoking practices was conducted by searching PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase for relevant peer-reviewed, English-language publications from inception or the availability of online manuscripts through December 2022. RESULTS: Overall, 32 peer-reviewed papers from six countries were included. 30 studies exclusively included people who use drugs as participants (n = 11 people who use drugs; generally, n = 17 people who smoke drugs, n = 2 people who inject drugs). One study included program staff serving people who use drugs, and one study included staff and people who use drugs. Sharing smoking equipment (e.g., pipes) was reported in 25 studies. People who use drugs in several studies reported that pipe sharing occurred for multiple reasons, including wanting to accumulate crack resin and protect themselves from social harms, such as police harassment. Across studies, smoking drugs, as opposed to injecting drugs, were described as a crucial method to reduce the risk of overdose, disease acquisition, and societal harms such as police violence. Ten studies found that when people who use drugs were provided with safer smoking materials, they engaged in fewer risky drug use behaviors (e.g., pipe sharing, using broken pipes) and showed improved health outcomes. However, participants across 11 studies reported barriers to accessing safer smoking services. Solutions to overcoming safer smoking access barriers were described in 17 studies and included utilizing peer workers and providing safer smoking materials to those who asked. CONCLUSION: This global review found that safer smoking practices are essential forms of harm reduction. International policies must be amended to help increase access to these essential tools. Additional research is also needed to evaluate the efficacy of and access to safer smoking services, particularly in the U.S. and other similar countries, where such practices are being implemented but have not been empirically studied in the literature.

Evidence-Based Design Features Improve Sleep Quality Among Psychiatric Inpatients.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the present study was to compare sleep characteristics pre- and post-move into a state-of-the-art mental health facility, which offered private sleeping quarters. BACKGROUND: Significant evidence points toward sleep disruption among psychiatric inpatients. It is unclear, however, how environmental factors (e.g., dorm-style rooms) impact sleep quality in this population. METHODS: To assess sleep quality, a novel objective technology, actigraphy, was used before and after a facility move. Subjective daily interviews were also administered, along with the Horne-Ostberg Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. RESULTS: Actigraphy revealed significant improvements in objective sleep quality following the facility move. Interestingly, subjective report of sleep quality did not correlate with the objective measures. Circadian sleep type appeared to play a role in influencing subjective attitudes toward sleep quality. CONCLUSIONS: Built environment has a significant effect on the sleep quality of psychiatric inpatients. Given well-documented disruptions in sleep quality present among psychiatric patients undergoing hospitalization, design elements like single patient bedrooms are highly desirable.

A Recovery-Oriented Care Approach: Weighing the Pros and Cons of a Newly Built Mental Health Facility.

The current study adopted a recovery-oriented care approach by emphasizing patients' perspectives and experiences regarding changes to a newly built mental health facility. The inpatient entrance, or "portal," intended to balance the aims of recovery-oriented care with minimizing risk. A mixed-methods study of the portal's pros and cons was conducted, according to four themes: (a) autonomy versus inconvenience; (b) safety and security versus stigma; (c) unit door versus portal operating costs; and (d) privacy versus community integration. Focus groups engaging with patients (N = 39) indicated that the design effectively supported recovery-oriented care. Patients did not find the portal to be stigmatizing or triggering and valued the safety and privacy it created, and visitors also generally had a positive experience. Survey responses (N = 101) from portal users were also positive about the new design. The study findings suggest that the pros outweighed the cons of the new design. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 54(2), 39-48.].

Overcoming the Challenges Inherent in Conducting Design Research in Mental Health Settings: Lessons from St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton's Pre and Post-Occupancy Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Conducting high-quality design research in a mental health setting presents significant challenges, limiting the availability of high-quality evidence to support design decisions for built environments. Here, we outline key approaches to overcoming these challenges. BACKGROUND: In conducting a rigorous post-occupancy evaluation of a newly built mental health and addictions facility, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, we identified a number of systematic barriers associated with conducting design research in mental health settings. METHODS: Our approach to overcoming these barriers relied heavily upon (i) selecting established measures and methods with demonstrated efficacy in a mental health context, (ii) navigating institutional protocols designed to protect vulnerable members of this population, and (iii) designing innovative data collection strategies to increase participation in research by individuals with mental illness. Each of these approaches drew heavily on the expert knowledge of mental health settings and the experiences with mental health, facilities management, and research of a research team that was well integrated within the parent institution. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging multiple stakeholders (e.g., care providers, patients, ethics board, and hospital administrators) contributed their trust and support of the research. Traditionally, post-occupancy evaluation researchers are independent of the facilities they research, yet this is not an effective approach in mental health settings. We found that, in working toward solutions to the three obstacles we described, having team members who were well "networked" within the parent institution was necessary. This approach can turn "gatekeepers" into champions for patients' engagement in the research, which is essential in generating high-quality evidence.

Postal survey of physicians and laboratories: practices and perceptions of molecular oncology testing.

BACKGROUND: Molecular oncology testing (MOT) to detect genomic alterations underlying cancer holds promise for improved cancer care. Yet knowledge limitations regarding the delivery of testing services may constrain the translation of scientific advancements into effective health care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered, postal survey of active cancer physicians in Ontario, Canada (N = 611) likely to order MOT, and cancer laboratories (N = 99) likely to refer (i.e., referring laboratories) or conduct (i.e., testing laboratories) MOT in 2006, to assess respondents' perceptions of the importance and accessibility of MOT and their preparedness to provide it. RESULTS: 54% of physicians, 63% of testing laboratories and 60% of referring laboratories responded. Most perceived MOT to be important for treatment, diagnosis or prognosis now, and in 5 years (61% - 100%). Yet only 45% of physicians, 59% of testing labs and 53% of referring labs agreed that patients in their region were receiving MOT that is indicated as a standard of care. Physicians and laboratories perceived various barriers to providing MOT, including, among 70% of physicians, a lack of clear guidelines regarding clinical indications, and among laboratories, a lack of funding (73% - 100%). Testing laboratories were confident of their ability to determine whether and which MOT was indicated (77% and 82% respectively), and perceived that key elements of formal and continuing education were helpful (75% - 100%). By contrast, minorities of physicians were confident of their ability to assess whether and which MOT was indicated (46% and 34% respectively), and while majorities considered various continuing educational resources helpful (68% - 75%), only minorities considered key elements of formal education helpful in preparing for MOT (17% - 43%). CONCLUSION: Physicians and laboratory professionals were enthusiastic about the value of MOT for cancer care but most did not believe patients were gaining adequate access to clinically necessary testing. Further, our results suggest that many were ill equipped as individual stakeholders, or as a coordinated system of referral and interpretation, to provide MOT. These challenges should inspire educational, training and other interventions to ensure that developments in molecular oncology can result in optimal cancer care.

Contending visions in the evolution of genetic medicine: the case of cancer genetic services in Ontario, Canada.

Growth in genetic medicine has provoked debate about how new and emerging genetic services should be provided, and specifically, what roles non-genetic clinicians should assume. We address this question through a qualitative interview based case study of the program in genetic testing for the hereditary cancer syndromes (breast/ovarian and colorectal) in Ontario, Canada. We argue that two communities offer parallel visions of cancer genetic care: one "genetic," the other "oncologic." Both communities argue from precedent that cancer genetics is a natural extension of their work: it is "what we do." Both communities also highlight the importance of their own expertise in providing core elements of cancer genetic care: it requires "what we know." Further, both communities perceive the need for leadership by their own (or a related) community as genetic medicine expands to include a broader array of more common and complex diseases: it is expanding "where we're leading." Yet, the "we's" articulating these visions are not reducible to professional identity; rather, both represent distinctive "communities of practice and discourse" that are constructed in relation to institutionalized professional roles, and interactions with the genetic technologies (both tests and counselling) themselves. Available literature on the role of diverse health care professionals in the provision of genetic health care presumes a fixed identity and set of approaches for each professional group that might play a role. Further, existing models tend to assume that genetic technologies are given as tools, and that service organization concerns primarily questions of who will have access to these tools and their powers, as well as the consequent professional and ethical responsibilities. Yet questions about who will control genetic technologies are not simply turf battles between the professions: they are also inescapably questions about what the genetic technologies should and will accomplish clinically.

When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results.

BACKGROUND: Research ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm. METHODS: This paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000. RESULTS: We advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices seem like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and should, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results.

Redefining disease? The nosologic implications of molecular genetic knowledge.

How will developments in genetic knowledge affect the classification of disease? Leaders in genetics have suggested that knowledge of the role of genes in disease can determine nosology. Diseases might be defined by genotype, thus avoiding the limitations of more empirical approaches to categorization. Other commentators caution against disease definitions that are detached from the look and feel of disease, and argue for an interplay between genotypic and phenotypic information. Still others attribute nosologic change to social processes. We draw on an analysis of the scientific literature, our conversations with genetics clinicians, and reviews of patient organization Web sites to offer a revised interpretation of the nosologic implications of molecular genetic knowledge. We review the recent histories of three diseases--hemophilia, Rett syndrome, and cystic fibrosis--to argue that nosologic change cannot be explained by either biologic theories of disease etiology or sociologic theories of social tendencies. Although new genetic information challenges disease classifications and is highly influential in their redesign, genetic information can be used in diverse ways to reconstruct disease categories and is not the only influence in these revisions. Ironically, genetic information is likely to play a central role in producing a new, but still empirical, classification scheme.

Understanding the new human genetics: a review of scientific editorials.

Developments in genetics are expected to have a profound impact on health and health care, yet much remains to be learned about how leaders of the research and clinical communities view and frame these expectations. We conducted a comprehensive review of editorials about developments in genetic medicine published in scientific journals, to understand what this elite group of commentators anticipate. Editorials are an important resource for understanding how the new genetics is understood and portrayed. They allow leaders of the research and clinical communities to communicate to each other and informed publics, and are a forum for the expression of widely shared elite beliefs and opinions. We analyzed selected editorials for content and metaphoric language to explore attitudes and expectations concerning developments in genetic science and technology. Our analysis suggests that a diverse group of leaders of the research and clinical communities are remarkably uniform in their discourse about the future of genetic medicine. Editorialists have great expectations for developments in basic science and in the comprehension and management of disease. They also anticipate important effects on health care, notably the health care professions, and on wider society. Yet editorialists do not discuss these prospects in a consistently positive or optimistic manner, and they utilize metaphoric imagery that emphasizes the inexorable nature of progress, and the sometimes ominous manner in which developments emerge. The dominant discourse of editorialists claims authority for clinicians and researchers and asserts a broad sphere of expertise, but it also positions these leaders as handmaidens of a science they do not control, and insists that their ultimate contribution is to prepare themselves and others for the inexorable march of progress.

Ruling in and ruling out: implications of molecular genetic diagnoses for disease classification.

We report on a qualitative analysis of interviews with 14 genetic counsellors in Ontario, Canada about the implications of developments in molecular genetic knowledge for disease definition and classification. Genetic counsellors express a restrained set of hopes and expectations about the utility of genetic diagnoses. They identify several limitations faced by available genetic tests, limitations that constrain the significance of genetic information in disease identification and clinical management. Yet they also emphasize the fundamental nature of genetic information, its decisive role in specifying disease causation, and its significance for disease classification. The decisive nature of genetic information means that, in some cases, genetic tests foster change in disease categories. Diseases are redefined by the "ruling in" of atypical cases demonstrating a broader spectrum of clinical effects, or the "ruling out" of typical cases with classic clinical presentations that are better assigned to other (or no) causes. These redefinitions can be profoundly consequential, producing several kinds of uncertainty: What do we call this state of being? How do we manage it clinically? And, what are the social entitlements of individuals in this state? Though limited today, such complex effects can be expected to increase, alongside the growing diagnostic power of molecular genetics.