Uncovering the wider impact of COVID-19 measures on the lives of children with complex care needs and their families: A mixed-methods study protocol.

Existing barriers to care were exacerbated by the development and implementation of necessary public health restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Children with complex care needs and their families represent a small portion of the paediatric population, and yet they require disproportionately high access to services. Little is known about the impact of COVID-19 public health measures on this population. This study will generate evidence to uncover the wider impact of COVID-19 measures on the lives of children with complex care needs and their families in relation to policy and service changes. This multi-site sequential mixed methods study will take place across the Canadian Maritime provinces and use an integrated knowledge translation approach. There are two phases to this study: 1) map COVID-19 public health restrictions and service changes impacting children with complex care needs by conducting an environmental scan of public health restrictions and service changes between March 2020 and March 2022 and interviewing key informants involved in the development or implementation of restrictions and service changes, and 2) explore how children with complex care needs and their families experienced public health restrictions and service changes to understand how their health and well-being were impacted.

Stakeholders' experiences with school-based immunization programs during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Canadian Maritimes: A qualitative study.

Background: School-based immunization programs (SBIP) support access to routine vaccines for adolescents. Across Canada, the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent public health measures affected SBIP and vaccine uptake. The objectives of this study were to explore 1.) stakeholders' experiences with SBIP and changes to programs during COVID-19 in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, and 2.) how the pandemic affected parents' and adolescents' vaccine views. Study design: Semi-structured interviews with decision makers, healthcare providers, teachers, parents and adolescents between February-August 2023. Methods: The COM-B model and Theoretical Domains Framework informed interview guides. Deductive and inductive analyses saw participant quotes mapped to relevant model components and domains by two coders. Belief statements were generated within each stakeholder group then compared to identify themes and subthemes. Results: Participants (n = 39) identified five themes: 1) enablers to SBIP delivery, 2) barriers to SBIP delivery, 3) desired changes to SBIP delivery, 4) student anxiety, and 5) vaccination views and changes since the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health measures facilitated more space for clinics, as did taking smaller cohorts of students. School staff-healthcare provider relationships could help or hinder programs, particularly with high turnover in both professions during the pandemic. Adolescents played a passive role in vaccine decision making, with mothers often being the sole decision maker. We did not identify any changes in hesitancy towards routine vaccines since the pandemic. Conclusions: We identified a range of barriers and enablers to SBIP, many of which were exacerbated by the pandemic. Efforts are needed to ensure SBIP and catch-up programming remains accessible for all adolescents to catch-up on missed vaccines before graduation. Parents and adolescents' vaccination views suggest changes in vaccine coverage since the pandemic may be due to accessibility of services rather than vaccine hesitancy. Future research is needed to engage adolescents in their vaccine decisions.

Implementation strategies and outcome measures for advancing learning health systems: a mixed methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Learning health systems strive to continuously integrate data and evidence into practice to improve patient outcomes and ensure value-based healthcare. While the LHS concept is gaining traction, the operationalization of LHSs is underexplored. OBJECTIVE: To identify and synthesize the existing evidence on the implementation and evaluation of advancing learning health systems across international health care settings. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review was conducted. Six databases (CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PAIS, Scopus and Nursing at Allied Health Database) were searched up to July 2022 for terms related to learning health systems, implementation, and evaluation measures. Any study design, health care setting and population were considered for inclusion. No limitations were placed on language or date of publication. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of identified articles. Data were extracted and synthesized using a convergent integrated approach. Studies were critically appraised using relevant JBI critical appraisal checklists. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included in the review. Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 21) and published between 2019 and 2022 (n = 24). Digital data capture was the most common LHS characteristic reported across studies, while patient engagement, aligned governance and a culture of rapid learning and improvement were reported least often. We identified 33 unique strategies for implementing LHSs including: change record systems, conduct local consensus discussions and audit & provide feedback. A triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data revealed three integrated findings related to the implementation of LHSs: (1) The digital infrastructure of LHSs optimizes health service delivery; (2) LHSs have a positive impact on patient care and health outcomes; and (3) LHSs can influence health care providers and the health system. CONCLUSION: This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the implementation of LHSs in various healthcare settings. While this review identified key implementation strategies, potential outcome measures, and components of functioning LHSs, further research is needed to better understand the impact of LHSs on patient, provider and population outcomes, and health system costs. Health systems researchers should continue to apply the LHS concept in practice, with a stronger focus on evaluation.

Identifying H1N1 and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy or refusal among health care providers: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to describe and map the evidence on COVID-19 and H1N1 vaccine hesitancy or refusal by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists in North America, the United Kingdom and the European Union, and Australia. INTRODUCTION: Since 2009, we have experienced two pandemics: H1N1 "swine flu" and COVID-19. While severity and transmissibility of these viruses varied, vaccination has been a critical component of bringing both pandemics under control. However, uptake of these vaccines has been affected by vaccine hesitancy and refusal. The vaccination behaviors of health care providers, including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, are of particular interest as they have been priority populations to receive both H1N1 and COVID-19 vaccinations. Their vaccination views could affect the vaccination decisions of their patients. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they identified reasons for COVID-19 or H1N1 vaccine hesitancy or refusal among physicians, nurses, or pharmacists from the included countries. Published and unpublished literature were eligible for inclusion. Previous reviews were excluded; however, the reference lists of relevant reviews were searched to identify additional studies for inclusion. METHODS: A search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Premier databases was conducted April 28, 2021, to identify English-language literature published from 2009 to 2021. Gray literature and citation screening were also conducted to identify additional relevant literature. Titles, abstracts, and eligible full-text articles were reviewed in duplicate by 2 trained reviewers. Data were extracted in duplicate using a structured extraction tool developed for the review. Conflicts were resolved through discussion or with a third team member. Data were synthesized using narrative and tabular summaries. RESULTS: In total, 83 articles were included in the review. Studies were conducted primarily across the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The majority of articles (n=70) used cross-sectional designs to examine knowledge, attitudes, and uptake of H1N1 (n=61) or COVID-19 (n=22) vaccines. Physicians, medical students, nurses, and nursing students were common participants in the studies; however, only 8 studies included pharmacists in their sample. Across health care settings, most studies were conducted in urban, academic teaching hospitals, with 1 study conducted in a rural hospital setting. Concerns about vaccine safety, vaccine side effects, and perceived low risk of contracting H1N1 or COVID-19 were the most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy or refusal across both vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: With increased interest and attention on vaccines in recent years, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, more research that examines vaccine hesitancy or refusal across different health care settings and health care providers is warranted. Future work should aim to utilize more qualitative and mixed methods research designs to capture the personal perspectives of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, and consider collecting data beyond the common urban and academic health care settings identified in this review.

Children, young people and parent engagement in health intervention design and implementation: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Engaging children and young people (CYP) with and without their parents in health research has the potential to improve the development and implementation of health interventions. However, to our knowledge, the scope of engagement activities used with this population and barriers to their engagement is unknown. The objective of this review was to identify and describe CYP engagement with and without their parents in the development and/or implementation of health interventions. METHODS: This scoping review included any primary research studies reporting on engaging CYP, with or without parents, in the design and/or implementation of health interventions. Healthcare professionals had to be involved over the course of the study and the study had to take place in either community, primary or tertiary care settings. The following databases were searched in May 2017, May 2020 and June 2021: Medline (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Embase (Elsevier). Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles and used a previously piloted extraction form to extract and summarize information from the included articles. RESULTS: Twenty-eight articles discussing twenty-four studies were included. CYP engagement throughout the research cycle was limited. There were no observed differences in the reported presence of engagement, types of interventions or outcomes of engagement between studies engaging CYP or CYP and parents. Studies engaging CYP and parents contained limited information on how these relationships affected outcomes of engagement. Engagement was enabled primarily by the maintenance of resources and relationships among stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Although CYP engagement often influenced health intervention and implementation design, they are inconsistently engaged across the research cycle. It is unclear whether parental involvement enhances CYP engagement. Future research should consider reporting guidelines to clarify the level of CYP and/or parent engagement, and enhance CYP engagement by fostering synergistic and sustainable partnerships with key stakeholders. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A parent partner with codesign experience contributed to the creation of the research questions, screened titles, abstracts and full texts, helped with data extraction and provided feedback on the manuscript.

Strategies to adapt and implement health system guidelines and recommendations: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based health system guidelines are pivotal tools to help outline the important financial, policy and service components recommended to achieve a sustainable and resilient health system. However, not all guidelines are readily translatable into practice and/or policy without effective and tailored implementation and adaptation techniques. This scoping review mapped the evidence related to the adaptation and implementation of health system guidelines in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A search strategy was implemented in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, LILACS (VHL Regional Portal), and Web of Science databases in late August 2020. We also searched sources of grey literature and reference lists of potentially relevant reviews. All findings were reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies were included in the final set of papers. Common strategies were identified for adapting and implementing health system guidelines, related barriers and enablers, and indicators of success. The most common types of implementation strategies included education, clinical supervision, training and the formation of advisory groups. A paucity of reported information was also identified related to adaptation initiatives. Barriers to and enablers of implementation and adaptation were reported across studies, including the need for financial sustainability. Common approaches to evaluation were identified and included outcomes of interest at both the patient and health system level. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this review suggest several themes in the literature and identify a need for future research to strengthen the evidence base for improving the implementation and adaptation of health system guidelines in low- and middle-income countries. The findings can serve as a future resource for researchers seeking to evaluate implementation and adaptation of health system guidelines. Our findings also suggest that more effort may be required across research, policy and practice sectors to support the adaptation and implementation of health system guidelines to local contexts and health system arrangements in low- and middle-income countries.

Identifying harm reduction strategies for alcohol and drug-use in inpatient care settings and emergency departments: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: People who use alcohol and/or drugs (PWUAD) are at high risk of medical complications, frequent hospitalisation and drug-related death following discharge from inpatient settings and emergency departments (EDs). Harm reduction strategies implemented in these settings may mitigate negative health outcomes for PWUAD. However, the scope of harm reduction strategies used globally within inpatient settings and EDs is unknown. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise reported harm reduction strategies that have been implemented across inpatient settings and EDs for PWUAD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will include studies from any country and health service reporting on harm reduction strategies implemented in inpatient settings or EDs. The population of interest includes people of any race, gender and age identifying as PWUAD, or individuals who provided care to PWUAD. Studies which describe implementation strategies and barriers and enablers to implementation will be included. Studies published in English, or those available for English translation will be included. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE All (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier Embase.com), CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) and SCOPUS (Elsevier Scopus.com). A grey literature search will be conducted. There will be no date restrictions on the search. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened in duplicate. Data will be extracted using a standardised form. The results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Scoping reviews do not require ethical approval. Patient partners with lived experience and relevant knowledge users will be engaged as research team members throughout all phases of the research process. A report detailing context, methodology and findings from this review will be disseminated to knowledge users and relevant community stakeholders. This review will be submitted for publication to a relevant peer-reviewed journal.