When Should I Get My Next COVID-19 Vaccine? Data From the Surveillance of Responses to COVID-19 Vaccines in Systemic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases (SUCCEED) Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how serologic responses to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and infection in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) are affected by time since last vaccination and other factors. METHODS: Post-COVID-19 vaccination, data, and dried blood spots or sera were collected from adults with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, ankylosing spondylitis and spondylarthritis, and psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. The first sample was collected at enrollment, then at 2 to 4 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after the latest vaccine dose. Multivariate generalized estimating equation regressions (including medications, demographics, and vaccination history) evaluated serologic response, based on log-transformed anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG titers; we also measured antinucleocapsid (anti-N) IgG. RESULTS: Positive associations for log-transformed anti-RBD titers were seen with female sex, number of doses, and self-reported COVID-19 infections in 2021 to 2023. Negative associations were seen with prednisone, anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, and rituximab. Over the 2021-2023 period, most (94%) of anti-N positivity was associated with a self-reported infection in the 3 months prior to testing. From March 2021 to February 2022, anti-N positivity was present in 5% to 15% of samples and was highest in the post-Omicron era, with antinucleocapsid positivity trending to 30% to 35% or higher as of March 2023. Anti-N positivity in IMID remained lower than Canada's general population seroprevalence (> 50% in 2022 and > 75% in 2023). Time since last vaccination was negatively associated with log-transformed anti-RBD titers, particularly after 210 days. CONCLUSION: Ours is the first pan-Canadian IMID assessment of how vaccine history and other factors affect serologic COVID-19 vaccine responses. These findings may help individuals personalize vaccination decisions, including consideration of additional vaccination when > 6 months has elapsed since last COVID-19 vaccination/infection.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate informed values-based decision-making: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients' involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane' Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022338299.

Self-Management Programs for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: A Rapid Review of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The body of evidence regarding self-management programs (SMPs) for adult chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is steadily growing, and regular updates are needed for effective decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To systematically identify, critically appraise, and summarize the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SMPs for CNCP. METHODS: We searched relevant databases from 2009 to August 2021 and included English-language RCT publications of SMPs compared with usual care for CNCP among adults (18+ years old). The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). We conducted meta-analysis using an inverse variance, random-effects model and calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) and statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: From 8538 citations, we included 28 RCTs with varying patient populations, standards for SMPs, and usual care. No RCTs were classified as having a low risk of bias. There was no evidence of a significant improvement in overall HR-QoL, irrespective of pain type, immediately post-intervention (SMD 0.01, 95%CI -0.21 to 0.24; I2 57%; 11 RCTs; 979 participants), 1-4 months post-intervention (SMD 0.02, 95%CI -0.16 to 0.20; I2 48.7%; 12 RCTs; 1160 participants), and 6-12 months post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95%CI -0.06 to 0.21; I2 26.1%; 9 RCTs; 1404 participants). Similar findings were made for physical and mental HR-QoL, and for specific QoL assessment scales (e.g., SF-36). CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence that SMPs are efficacious for CNCP compared with usual care. Standardization of SMPs for CNCP and better planned/conducted RCTs are needed to confirm these conclusions.

The State of Patient Engagement among Pain Research Trainees in Canada: Results of a National Web-Based Survey.

Background: Patient engagement (PE) in research refers to partnering with people with lived experience (e.g., patients, caregivers, family) as collaborators in the research process. Although PE is increasingly being recognized as an important aspect of health research, the current state of PE among pain research trainees in Canada is unclear. Aims: The aims of this study were to describe perspectives about and experiences with PE among trainees conducting pain research in Canada, to identify perceived barriers and facilitators, and to describe recommendations to improve its implementation. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey (English and French) was administered to trainees at any level conducting pain research at any Canadian academic institution. Results: A total of 128 responses were received; 115 responses were complete and included in the final analysis. The majority of respondents identified as women (90/115; 78.3%), in graduate school (83/115; 72.2%), and conducting clinical pain research (83/115; 72.2%). Most respondents (103/115; 89.6%) indicated that PE is "very" or "extremely" important. Despite this, only a minority of respondents (23/111; 20.7%) indicated that they "often" or "always" implement PE within their own research. The most common barrier identified was lack of knowledge regarding the practical implementation of PE, and understanding its positive value was the most commonly reported facilitator. Recommendations for improving the implementation of PE were diverse. Conclusions: Despite viewing PE as important in research, a minority of pain research trainees regularly implement PE. Results highlight perceived barriers and facilitators to PE and provide insight to inform the development of future training and other enabling initiatives.

Contexte: L'engagement des patients dans la recherche fait référence au partenariat avec des personnes ayant une expérience vécue (p. ex. des patients, des soignants ou des membres de la famille) en tant que collaborateurs dans le processus de recherche. Bien que l'engagement des patients soit de plus en plus reconnu comme un aspect important de la recherche en santé, son état actuel chez les stagiaires en recherche sur la douleur au Canada n'est pas clair.Objectif: Les objectifs de cette étude étaient de décrire les points de vue et les expériences sur l'engagement des patients chez les stagiaires menant des études sur la douleur au Canada, de recenser les obstacles et les facilitateurs perçus et de formuler des recommandations pour améliorer sa mise en œuvre.Méthodes: Une enquête transversale sur le Web (en anglais et en français) a été menée auprès des stagiaires de tout niveau menant des études sur la douleur dans n'importe quel établissement universitaire canadien.Résultats: Au total, 128 réponses ont été reçues; 115 réponses étaient complètes et ont été incluses dans l'analyse finale. La majorité des répondants ont indiqué qu'elles étaient des femmes (90/115; 78,3 %), qu'elles étaient inscrites aux cycles supérieures (83/115 ; 72,2 %) et qu'elles effectuaient des études cliniques sur la douleur (83/115 ; 72,2 %). La plupart des répondants (103/115 ; 89,6 %) ont indiqué que l'engagement était « très ¼ ou « extrêmement ¼ important. Malgré cela, seule une minorité de répondants (23/111; 20,7 %) ont indiqué qu'ils mettaient en œuvre l'engagement des patients « souvent ¼ ou « toujours ¼ dans leur propre recherche. L'obstacle le plus fréquemment énoncé était le manque de connaissances concernant la mise en œuvre pratique de l'engagement des patients, et la compréhension de sa valeur positive était le facilitateur le plus souvent signalé. Les recommandations visant à améliorer la mise en œuvre de l'engagement des patients étaient diverses.Conclusions: Bien que l'engagement des patients soit considéré comme important dans la recherche, une minorité de stagiaires en recherche sur la douleur le mettent régulièrement en œuvre. Les résultats mettent en évidence les obstacles et les facilitateurs perçus pour l'engagement des patients et fournissent un aperçu pour éclairer l'élaboration de la formation future et d'autres initiatives habilitantes.

Outcomes of a controlled trial with visiting therapy dog teams on pain in adults in an emergency department.

CONTEXT: Pain is a primary reason individuals attend an Emergency Department (ED), and its management is a concern. OBJECTIVES: Change in symptoms and physiologic variables at 3 time points pre-post a ten-minute St. John Ambulance therapy dog team visit compared to no visit in ED patients who experienced pain. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using a controlled clinical trial design, pain, anxiety, depression and well-being were measured with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (revised version) (ESAS-r) 11-point rating scales before, immediately after, and 20 minutes post- therapy dog team visit with Royal University Hospital ED patients participating in the study (n = 97). Blood pressure and heart rate were recorded at the time points. Control data was gathered twice (30 minutes apart) for comparison (n = 101). There were no group differences in age, gender or ethnicity among the control and intervention groups (respectively mean age 59.5/57.2, ethnicity 77.2% Caucasian/87.6%, female 43.6% /39.2%, male 56.4%/60.8%,). INTERVENTION: 10 minute therapy dog team visit in addition to usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in reported pain from pre and post therapy dog team visit and comparison with a control group. RESULTS: A two-way ANOVA was conducted to compare group effects. Significant pre- post-intervention differences were noted in pain for the intervention (mean changeint. = -0.9, SD = 2.05, p = .004, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.42, 1.32], ηp2 = 04) but not the control group. Anxiety (mean changeint. = -1.13, SD = 2.80, p = .005, 95% CI = [0.56, 1.64], ηp2 = .04), depression (mean changeint. = -0.72, SD = 1.71, p = .002, 95% CI = [0.39, 1.11], ηp2 = .047), and well-being ratings (mean changeint. = -0.87, SD = 1.84, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.49, 1.25], ηp2 = .07) similarly improved for the intervention group only. There were no pre-post intervention differences in blood pressure or heart rate for either group. Strong responders to the intervention (i.e. >50% reduction) were observed for pain (43%), anxiety (48%), depression (46%), and well-being (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant changes in pain as well as significant changes in anxiety, depression and well-being were observed in the therapy dog intervention compared to control. The findings of this novel study contribute important knowledge towards the potential value of ED therapy dogs to affect patients' experience of pain, and related measures of anxiety, depression and well-being. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This controlled clinical trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number NCT04727749.

Evaluating the Patient Family Advisor Experience in Patient-Oriented Research.

As part of the Saskatchewan Centre for Patient-Oriented Research (SCPOR)'s commitment to improving the experience of patient and family advisors (PFAs) who engage with local patient-oriented research teams, one of the supports offered is an evaluation that assesses the experiences and effectiveness of PFAs as research team members. In a recent evaluation project, SCPOR used an academically validated questionnaire and a survey co-designed by local PFAs. The results showed that PFAs wanted more frequent updates throughout the research project and greater role clarity. They also reported that the best part of their engagement was feeling like a valued team member.

The Creation of a Tool to Measure Engagement in Patient-Oriented Research.

In 2017, the Saskatchewan Centre for Patient-Oriented Research (SCPOR) engaged patient and family advisors (PFAs) to review patient-oriented research grant proposals. The PFAs observed that the reviews would be less subjective if they were assessing the projects based on more rigorous criteria. Together the PFAs and SCPOR staff members developed a tool based on the Canadian Institutes of Health Research's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research definition for patient-oriented research and the International Association for Public Participation's Spectrum of Public Participation. This article discusses the process of initiating a patient-identified project and co-creating the tool to indicate the level of patient-orientedness.