Harmonization of clinical practice guidelines for primary prevention and screening: actionable recommendations and resources for primary care.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program. METHODS: A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40-69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40-69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person's overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.

A Goffmanian analysis of impact of unclear professional identity and role negotiation of pharmacists in primary care: A multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Professional identity and its development is a focus of research, education, and practice. But, there is a lack of how professional identity impacts changes in pharmacists' roles in practice, which are particularly prevalent in primary care teams. OBJECTIVES: This research uses Goffmanian theory, micro-sociologic interactional theory, to describe the outcomes of role negotiation in integrated primary care teams. METHODS: This is a multiple case study done per Yin, which used interviews and documents to collect data. Interviews used a storytelling format to gather information on the pharmacist's role and negotiation with their team. Four to six interviews were done in each case. Data was analyzed in an iterative manner using the Qualitative approach by Leuven including narrative reports being created for each case. RESULTS: Five cases were recruited but three cases were completed. In each case, the pharmacist was passive in role negotiation and allowed other actors to decide what tasks were of value. Likely this passivity was due to their professional identities: supportive and "not a physician". These identities led to a focus on the pharmacists' need to develop. This multi-case study demonstrated that pharmacists' professional identity led to passivity being valued and expected. Whether pharmacists self-limited, which has been previously seen, needs to be better defined. But unclear archetypes reduced tasks identified as unique to the pharmacist. CONCLUSION: Goffmanian theory highlighted a key success for future pharmacist role negotiation, a clear professional identity by both pharmacists and society, including team members. Until that occurs, there is a risk of underuse in primary care team settings.

Risk-based lung cancer screening performance in a universal healthcare setting.

Globally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Previous trials demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% or more. Lung cancer screening has been approved by major guidelines in the United States, and over 4,000 sites offer screening. Adoption of lung screening outside the United States has, until recently, been slow. Between June 2017 and May 2019, the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot successfully recruited 7,768 individuals at high risk identified by using the PLCOm2012noRace lung cancer risk prediction model. In total, 4,451 participants were successfully screened, retained and provided with high-quality follow-up, including appropriate treatment. In the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot, the lung cancer detection rate and the proportion of early-stage cancers were 2.4% and 79.2%, respectively; serious harms were infrequent; and sensitivity to detect lung cancers was 95.3% or more. With abnormal scans defined as ones leading to diagnostic investigation, specificity was 95.5% (positive predictive value, 35.1%), and adherence to annual recall and early surveillance scans and clinical investigations were high (>85%). The Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot provides insights into how a risk-based organized lung screening program can be implemented in a large, diverse, populous geographic area within a universal healthcare system.

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of the BETTER intervention for chronic disease prevention and screening by public health nurses in low income neighbourhoods: views of community residents.

BACKGROUND: The BETTER intervention is an effective comprehensive evidence-based program for chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) delivered by trained prevention practitioners (PPs), a new role in primary care. An adapted program, BETTER HEALTH, delivered by public health nurses as PPs for community residents in low income neighbourhoods, was recently shown to be effective in improving CDPS actions. To obtain a nuanced understanding about the CDPS needs of community residents and how the BETTER HEALTH intervention was perceived by residents, we studied how the intervention was adapted to a public health setting then conducted a post-visit qualitative evaluation by community residents through focus groups and interviews. METHODS: We first used the ADAPT-ITT model to adapt BETTER for a public health setting in Ontario, Canada. For the post-PP visit qualitative evaluation, we asked community residents who had received a PP visit, about steps they had taken to improve their physical and mental health and the BETTER HEALTH intervention. For both phases, we conducted focus groups and interviews; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Thirty-eight community residents participated in either adaptation (n = 14, 64% female; average age 54 y) or evaluation (n = 24, 83% female; average age 60 y) phases. In both adaptation and evaluation, residents described significant challenges including poverty, social isolation, and daily stress, making chronic disease prevention a lower priority. Adaptation results indicated that residents valued learning about CDPS and would attend a confidential visit with a public health nurse who was viewed as trustworthy. Despite challenges, many recipients of BETTER HEALTH perceived they had achieved at least one personal CDPS goal post PP visit. Residents described key relational aspects of the visit including feeling valued, listened to and being understood by the PP. The PPs also provided practical suggestions to overcome barriers to meeting prevention goals. CONCLUSIONS: Residents living in low income neighbourhoods faced daily stress that reduced their capacity to make preventive lifestyle changes. Key adapted features of BETTER HEALTH such as public health nurses as PPs were highly supported by residents. The intervention was perceived valuable for the community by providing access to disease prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: #NCT03052959, 10/02/2017.

Chronic disease prevention and screening outcomes for patients with and without financial difficulty: a secondary analysis of the BETTER WISE cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment. INTERVENTION: 1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: 55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p<0.001) which was similar in the control and intervention groups. The response rate to this question was only 51% at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21333761.

Policies in Canada fail to address disparities in access to person-centred osteoarthritis care: a content analysis.

BACKGROUND: Women are disproportionately impacted by osteoarthritis (OA) but less likely than men to access OA care, particularly racialized women. One way to reduce inequities is through policies that can influence healthcare services. We examined how OA-relevant policies in Canada address equitable, person-centred OA care for women. METHODS: We used content analysis to extract data from English-language OA-relevant documents referred to as policies or other synonymous terms published in 2000 or later identified by searching governmental and other web sites. We used summary statistics to describe policy characteristics, person-centred care using McCormack's six-domain framework, and mention of OA prevalence, barriers and strategies to improve equitable access to OA care among women. RESULTS: We included 14 policies developed from 2004 to 2021. None comprehensively addressed all person-centred care domains, and few addressed individual domains: enable self-management (50%), share decisions (43%), exchange information (29%), respond to emotions (14%), foster a healing relationship (0%) and manage uncertainty (0%). Even when mentioned, content offered little guidance for how to achieve person-centred OA care. Few policies acknowledged greater prevalence of OA among women (36%), older (29%) or Indigenous persons (29%) and those of lower socioeconomic status (14%); or barriers to OA care among those of lower socioeconomic status (50%), in rural areas (43%), of older age (37%) or ethno-cultural groups (21%), or women (21%). Four (29%) policies recommended strategies for improving access to OA care at the patient (self-management education material in different languages and tailored to cultural norms), clinician (healthcare professional education) and system level (evaluate OA service equity, engage lay health leaders in delivering self-management programs, and offer self-management programs in a variety of formats). Five (36%) policies recommended research on how to improve OA care for equity-seeking groups. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian OA-relevant policies lack guidance to overcome disparities in access to person-centred OA care for equity-seeking groups including women. This study identified several ways to strengthen policies. Ongoing research must identify the needs and preferences of equity-seeking persons with OA, and evaluate the impact of various models of service delivery, knowledge needed to influence OA-relevant policy.

Stage of diagnosis and survival for prostate cancer among immigrant men in Ontario, Canada.

INTRODUCTION: We previously identified specific immigrant groups (West African and Caribbean) with increased incidence of prostate cancer in Ontario, Canada. In this population-level retrospective cohort study, we used administrative databases to compare stage of diagnosis, 5-year overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival for immigrants versus long-term residents of Ontario. METHODS: We linked several provincial-level databases available at ICES, an independent, non-profit research institute. We included all male Ontario residents 20-105 years of age who had an incident prostate cancer diagnosis date between March 31, 2008 and March 31, 2017, stratified into immigrants vs. long-term residents. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the odds of early (stage I-II) vs. late (III-IV) stage of diagnosis, adjusting for age, co-morbidities, neighbourhood income and continuity of care. We produced Kaplan-Meier curves for 5-year overall survival and for 5-year prostate cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Compared to long-term residents, men from West Africa (adjusted odds ratio 1.66 [95% CI 1.16-2.38], East Africa (AOR 1.54 [95% CI 1.02-2.33]) and the Caribbean (AOR 1.22 [95% CI 1.01-1.47]) had a diagnostic stage advantage, and men from South Asia were most likely to be diagnosed at a late stage. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, overall and prostate cancer-specific survival were higher for immigrants than long-term residents. The highest five-year overall survival was seen for men from Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, and the lowest was seen for South Asian men, where 11.7% died within five years of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Immigrant men in Ontario with prostate cancer are more likely to be diagnosed at an early stage and to survive for 5 years than long-term residents. Among immigrant men, men from the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa have the greatest stage and survival advantage and South Asian men the least. Differences in awareness, diagnostic suspicion, genetic predisposition, and social factors may play a role in these findings.

Anti-Black discrimination in primary health care: a qualitative study exploring internalized racism in a Canadian context.

OBJECTIVES: A growing body of evidence points to persistent health inequities within racialized minority communities, and the effects of racial discrimination on health outcomes and health care experiences. While much work has considered how anti-Black racism operates at the interpersonal and institutional levels, limited attention has focused on internalized racism and its consequences for health care. This study explores patients' attitudes towards anti-Black racism in a Canadian health care system, with a particular focus on internalized racism in primary health care. DESIGN: This qualitative study employed purposive maximal variation and snowball sampling to recruit and interview self-identified Black persons aged 18 years and older who: (1) lived in Montréal during the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) could speak English or French, and (3) were registered with the Québec health insurance program. Adopting a phenomenological approach, in-depth interviews took place from October 2021 to July 2022. Following transcription, data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Thirty-two participants were interviewed spanning an age range from 22 years to 79 years (mean: 42 years). Fifty-nine percent of the sample identified as women, 38% identified as men, and 3% identified as non-binary. Diversity was also reflected in terms of immigration experience, financial situation, and educational attainment. We identified three major themes that describe mechanisms through which internalized racism may manifest in health care to impact experiences: (1) the internalization of anti-Black racism by Black providers and patients, (2) the expression of anti-Black prejudice and discrimination by non-Black racialized minority providers, and (3) an insensitivity towards racial discrimination. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that multiple levels of racism, including internalized racism, must be addressed in efforts to promote health and health care equity among racialized minority groups, and particularly within Black communities.

Priority strategies to reduce socio-gendered inequities in access to person-centred osteoarthritis care: Delphi survey.

OBJECTIVES: Osteoarthritis (OA) prevalence, severity and related comorbid conditions are greater among women compared with men, but women, particularly racialised women, are less likely than men to access OA care. We aimed to prioritise strategies needed to reduce inequities in OA management. DESIGN: Delphi survey of 28 strategies derived from primary research retained if at least 80% of respondents rated 6 or 7 on a 7-point Likert scale. SETTING: Online. PARTICIPANTS: 35 women of diverse ethno-cultural groups and 29 healthcare professionals of various specialties from across Canada. RESULTS: Of the 28 initial and 3 newly suggested strategies, 27 achieved consensus to retain: 20 in round 1 and 7 in round 2. Respondents retained 7 patient-level, 7 clinician-level and 13 system-level strategies. Women and professionals agreed on all but one patient-level strategy (eg, consider patients' cultural needs and economic circumstances) and all clinician-level strategies (eg, inquire about OA management needs and preferences). Some discrepancies emerged for system-level strategies that were more highly rated by women (eg, implement OA-specific clinics). Comments revealed general support among professionals for system-level strategies provided that additional funding or expanded scope of practice was targeted to only formally trained professionals and did not reduce funding for professionals who already managed OA. CONCLUSIONS: We identified multilevel strategies that could be implemented by healthcare professionals, organisations or systems to mitigate inequities and improve OA care for diverse women.

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.

Access to cancer clinical trials for racialised older adults: an equity-focused rapid scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The intersection of race and older age compounds existing health disparities experienced by historically marginalised communities. Therefore, racialised older adults with cancer are more disadvantaged in their access to cancer clinical trials compared with age-matched counterparts. To determine what has already been published in this area, the rapid scoping review question are: what are the barriers, facilitators and potential solutions for enhancing access to cancer clinical trials among racialised older adults? METHODS: We will use a rapid scoping review methodology in which we follow the six-step framework of Arksey and O'Malley, including a systematic search of the literature with abstract and full-text screening to be conducted by two independent reviewers, data abstraction by one reviewer and verification by a second reviewer using an Excel data abstraction sheet. Articles focusing on persons aged 18 and over who identify as a racialised person with cancer, that describe therapies/therapeutic interventions/prevention/outcomes related to barriers, facilitators and solutions to enhancing access to and equity in cancer clinical trials will be eligible for inclusion in this rapid scoping review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All data will be extracted from published literature. Hence, ethical approval and patient informed consent are not required. The findings of the scoping review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at international conferences.

Randomized controlled trial demonstrates novel tools to assess patient outcomes of Indigenous cultural safety training.

BACKGROUND: Health care routinely fails Indigenous peoples and anti-Indigenous racism is common in clinical encounters. Clinical training programs aimed to enhance Indigenous cultural safety (ICS) rely on learner reported impact assessment even though clinician self-assessment is poorly correlated with observational or patient outcome reporting. We aimed to compare the clinical impacts of intensive and brief ICS training to control, and to assess the feasibility of ICS training evaluation tools, including unannounced Indigenous standardized patient (UISP) visits. METHOD: Using a prospective parallel group three-arm randomized controlled trial design and masked standardized patients, we compared the clinical impacts of the intensive interactive, professionally facilitated, 8- to10-h Sanyas ICS training; a brief 1-h anti-bias training adapted to address anti-Indigenous bias; and control continuing medical education time-attention matched to the intensive training. Participants included 58 non-Indigenous staff physicians, resident physicians and nurse practitioners from family practice clinics, and one emergency department across four teaching hospitals in Toronto, Canada. Main outcome measures were the quality of care provided during UISP visits including adjusted odds that clinician would be recommended by the UISP to a friend or family member; mean item scores on patient experience of care measure; and clinical practice guideline adherence for NSAID renewal and pain assessment. RESULTS: Clinicians in the intensive or brief ICS groups had higher adjusted odds of being highly recommended to friends and family by standardized patients (OR 6.88, 95% CI 1.17 to 40.45 and OR 7.78, 95% CI 1.05 to 58.03, respectively). Adjusted mean item patient experience scores were 46% (95% CI 12% to 80%) and 40% (95% CI 2% to 78%) higher for clinicians enrolled in the intensive and brief training programs, respectively, compared to control. Small sample size precluded detection of training impacts on clinical practice guideline adherence; 100% of UISP visits were undetected by participating clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-oriented evaluation design and tools including UISPs were demonstrated as feasible and effective. Results show potential impact of cultural safety training on patient recommendation of clinician and improved patient experience. A larger trial to further ascertain impact on clinical practice is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.org NCT05890144. Retrospectively registered on June 5, 2023.

Surviving the Storm: The Impact of COVID-19 on Cervical Cancer Screening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, the cervical cancer screening rate dropped by 84% soon after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenges facing cervical cancer screening were largely attributed to the required in-person nature of the screening process and the measures implemented to control the spread of the virus. While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening is well-documented in high-income countries, less is known about the low- and middle-income countries that bear 90% of the global burden of cervical cancer deaths. In this paper, we aim to offer a comprehensive view of the impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer screening in LMICs. Using our study, "Prevention of Cervical Cancer in India through Self-Sampling" (PCCIS), as a case example, we present the challenges COVID-19 has exerted on patients, healthcare practitioners, and health systems, as well as potential opportunities to mitigate these challenges.

#HowNotToDoPatientEngagement: the engaging with purpose patient engagement framework based on a twitter analysis of community perspectives on patient engagement.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of patient engagement practices are frequently researcher-driven, researcher-funded, and asymmetric in power dynamics. Little to no literature on patient experiences in patient engagement exist that is are not framed by institutionally-driven research inquiries (i.e., from the lens of a research team lead, or healthcare administrative setting). Understanding these perspectives can help us understand: (i)what matters to patients when they are engaged in research; (ii)why it matters to them, and(iii) how to improve patient engagement practices, so that the needs and priorities of patients are consistently met. METHODS: This is a patient partner-initiated study. Study authors (including patient partners) conducted a conventional and summative content analysis of textual data retrieved from a highly engaged conversation on Twitter regarding the hashtags #HowNotToDoPatientEngagement and #HowToDoPatientEngagement posted between February 2018 to June 2021. Twitter is a microblogging platform that allows for free-flowing discussions between users not pre-bound by specific community groupings (like within that of Facebook). RESULTS: A total of 276 tweets were retrieved from 178 separate contributors across seven geographical locations. Four stakeholder groups were identified. We generated 24 codes, nine subthemes and five overarching themes: respect, support, collaboration, inclusivity and impact. Four of these themes are closely aligned with the Strategy for Patient Oriented (SPOR) Patient Engagement framework. We identify impact as a separate and new theme. INTERPRETATION: Based on our findings we offer the Engaging with Purpose Patient Engagement Framework that defines and describes respect, support, collaboration, inclusivity and impact as five key pillars of meaningful patient engagement.

Patient engagement in research is an important aspect of healthcare, but most studies on the topic are driven by researchers and healthcare settings. We wanted to understand patient experiences of patient engagement from the lens of patient partners that occurred outside the traditional norms of evaluating such engagements. To do this, we analyzed data from Twitter, a platform where users freely share their thoughts and opinions. Posts that included the hashtags #HowNotToDoPatientEngagement and #HowToDoPatientEngagement were of focus because they resonated with members of the online patient partner community who wanted to improve the current state of patient partnership. We identified 276 tweets from 178 contributors across seven geographic locations. Five themes emerged from the study: respect, support, collaboration, inclusivity, and impact which led to the development of the Engaging with Purpose Patient Engagement Framework. This framework highlights respect, support, collaboration, inclusivity, and impact as the five essential pillars of meaningful patient engagement in research. By understanding and implementing these pillars, researchers and institutions can improve patient engagement practices and ensure that the needs and priorities of patients are effectively addressed.

Recommandations pour des soins préventifs pour promouvoir l'équité en matière de santé.

CONTEXTE: Malgré des investissements importants dans un système de soins de santé public qui comprend des services préventifs, on continue d'observer des disparités évitables en matière de santé au Canada. L'équipe avait pour objectif de formuler des recommandations pour des soins de santé préventifs qui puissent améliorer l'équité en matière de santé par la priorisation des interventions efficaces à l'intention des groupes défavorisés. MÉTHODES: La ligne directrice a été élaborée par un comité composé de spécialistes en soins primaires et de membres de la patientèle, avec la contribution d'un groupe de patientes-et patientspartenaires ayant vécu diverses expériences. Après avoir sélectionné les sujets à prioriser, nous avons recensé les revues systématiques, les essais randomisés et contrôlés récents sur les méthodes de dépistage et d'autres études pertinentes sur l'efficacité du dépistage et de la prise en charge. Nous avons utilisé l'approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) pour formuler les recommandations et avons suivi le guide AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) pour rédiger le rapport. Il en a été de même avec les principes du Guidelines International Network pour la gestion des intérêts concurrents. Les recommandations ont été passées en revue par un comité externe d'experts en contenu avant d'être distribuées à des intervenants à l'échelle nationale pour approbation. RECOMMANDATIONS: Nous avons formulé 15 recommandations concernant le dépistage et d'autres soins préventifs et 1 recommandation de nature politique visant à améliorer l'accès aux soins primaires. Ainsi, nous recommandons de prioriser une stratégie de communication pour le dépistage du cancer colorectal à partir de l'âge de 45 ans et pour l'évaluation du risque de maladie cardiovasculaire pour lutter contre les iniquités en matière de santé et promouvoir la santé. Les interventions particulières qui devraient être déployées pour lutter contre les iniquités comprennent l'autodépistage du virus du papillome humain (VPH) et du VIH, et le test de libération de l'interféron γ pour l'infection tuberculeuse. Le dépistage de la dépression, de la toxicomanie, de la violence conjugale et de la pauvreté devrait également permettre aux personnes touchées d'accéder plus facilement à des interventions éprouvées. Nous recommandons une prise de contact systématique avec des professionnels de la santé en soins primaires pour les personnes défavorisées. INTERPRÉTATION: Les interventions préventives éprouvées peuvent aider à combattre les iniquités en matière de santé si la priorité est accordée aux personnes défavorisées. Les médecins, les organisations de santé et les gouvernements devraient adopter des mesures fondées sur des données probantes et en faire le suivi s'ils veulent promouvoir l'équité en matière de santé partout au Canada.

Breast Cancer Screening Among Females With and Without Schizophrenia.

Importance: Breast cancer screening with mammography is recommended in Ontario, Canada, for females 50 years or older. Females with schizophrenia are at higher risk of breast cancer, but in Ontario it is currently unknown whether breast cancer screening completion differs between those with vs without schizophrenia and whether primary care payment models are a factor. Objective: To compare breast cancer screening completion within 2 years after the 50th birthday among females with and without schizophrenia, and to identify the association between breast cancer screening completion and different primary care payment models. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study analyzed Ontario-wide administrative data on females with and without schizophrenia who turned 50 years of age between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. Those with schizophrenia (cases) were matched 1:10 to those without schizophrenia (controls) on local health integration network, income quintile, rural residence, birth dates, and weighted Aggregated Diagnosis Group score. Data analysis was performed from November 2021 to February 2023. Exposures: Exposures were schizophrenia and primary care payment models. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included breast cancer screening completion among cases and controls within 2 years after their 50th birthday and the association with receipt of care from primary care physicians enrolled in different primary care payment models, which were analyzed using logistic regression and reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. Results: The study included 11 631 females with schizophrenia who turned 50 years of age during the study period and a matched cohort of 115 959 females without schizophrenia, for a total of 127 590 patients. Overall, 69.3% of cases and 77.1% of controls had a mammogram within 2 years after their 50th birthday. Cases had lower odds of breast cancer screening completion within 2 years after their 50th birthday (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.64-0.70). Cases who received care from a primary care physician in a fee-for-service (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.60) or enhanced fee-for-service (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.82) payment model had lower odds of having a mammogram than cases whose physicians were paid under a Family Health Team model. Conclusions and Relevance: This case-control study found that, in Ontario, Canada, breast cancer screening completion was lower among females with schizophrenia, and differences from those without schizophrenia may partially be explained by differences in primary care payment models. Widening the availability of team-based primary care for females with schizophrenia may play a role in increased breast cancer screening rates.

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.

Cancer Screening Disparities Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer-screening disparities existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is unclear whether those have changed since the pandemic. Objective: To assess whether changes in screening from before the pandemic to after the pandemic varied for immigrants and for people with limited income. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, cross-sectional study, using data from March 31, 2019, and March 31, 2022, included adults in Ontario, Canada, the country's most populous province, with more than 14 million people, almost 30% of whom are immigrants. At both dates, the screening-eligible population for each cancer type was assessed. Exposures: Neighborhood income quintile, immigrant status, and primary care model type. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each cancer screening type, the main outcome was whether the screening-eligible population was up to date on screening (a binary outcome) on March 31, 2019, and March 31, 2022. Up to date on screening was defined as having had a mammogram in the previous 2 years, a Papanicolaou test in the previous 3 years, and a fecal test in the previous 2 years or a flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the previous 10 years. Results: The overall cohort on March 31, 2019, included 1 666 943 women (100%) eligible for breast screening (mean [SD] age, 59.9 [5.1] years), 3 918 225 women (100%) eligible for cervical screening (mean [SD] age, 45.5 [13.2] years), and 3 886 345 people eligible for colorectal screening (51.4% female; mean [SD] age, 61.8 [6.4] years). The proportion of people up to date on screening in Ontario decreased for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers, with the largest decrease for breast screening (from 61.1% before the pandemic to 51.7% [difference, -9.4 percentage points]) and the smallest decrease for colorectal screening (from 65.9% to 62.0% [difference, -3.9 percentage points]). Preexisting disparities in screening for people living in low-income neighborhoods and for immigrants widened for breast screening and colorectal screening. For breast screening, compared with income quintile 5 (highest), the ß estimate for income quintile 1 (lowest) was -1.16 (95% CI, -1.56 to -0.77); for immigrant vs nonimmigrant, the ß estimate was -1.51 (95% CI, -1.84 to -1.18). For colorectal screening, compared with income quintile 5, the ß estimate for quntile 1 was -1.29 (95% CI, 16 -1.53 to -1.06); for immigrant vs nonimmigrant, the ß estimate was -1.41 (95% CI, -1.61 to -1.21). The lowest screening rates both before and after the COVID-19 pandemic were for people who had no identifiable family physician (eg, moving from 11.3% in 2019 to 9.6% in 2022 up to date for breast cancer). In addition, patients of interprofessional, team-based primary care models had significantly smaller reductions in ß estimates for breast (2.14 [95% CI, 1.79 to 2.49]), cervical (1.72 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.98]), and colorectal (2.15 [95% CI, 1.95 to 2.36]) postpandemic screening and higher uptake of screening in general compared with patients of other primary care models. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study in Ontario that included 2 time points, widening disparities before compared with after the COVID-19 pandemic were found for breast cancer and colorectal cancer screening based on income and immigrant status, but smaller declines in disparities were found among patients of interprofessional, team-based primary care models than among their counterparts. Policy makers should investigate the value of prioritizing and investing in improving access to team-based primary care for people who are immigrants and/or with limited income.

Multi-level strategies to improve equitable timely person-centred osteoarthritis care for diverse women: qualitative interviews with women and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Women are more likely to develop osteoarthritis (OA), and have greater OA pain and disability compared with men, but are less likely to receive guideline-recommended management, particularly racialized women. OA care of diverse women, and strategies to improve the quality of their OA care is understudied. The purpose of this study was to explore strategies to overcome barriers of access to OA care for diverse women. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with key informants and used content analysis to identify themes regarding what constitutes person-centred OA care, barriers of OA care, and strategies to support equitable timely access to person-centred OA care. RESULTS: We interviewed 27 women who varied by ethno-cultural group (e.g. African or Caribbean Black, Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Pakistani, Caucasian), age, region of Canada, level of education, location of OA and years with OA; and 31 healthcare professionals who varied by profession (e.g. family physician, nurse practitioner, community pharmacist, physio- and occupational therapists, chiropractors, healthcare executives, policy-makers), career stage, region of Canada and type of organization. Participants within and across groups largely agreed on approaches for person-centred OA care across six domains: foster a healing relationship, exchange information, address emotions, manage uncertainty, share decisions and enable self-management. Participants identified 22 barriers of access and 18 strategies to overcome barriers at the patient- (e.g. educational sessions and materials that accommodate cultural norms offered in different languages and formats for persons affected by OA), healthcare professional- (e.g. medical and continuing education on OA and on providing OA care tailored to intersectional factors) and system- (e.g. public health campaigns to raise awareness of OA, and how to prevent and manage it; self-referral to and public funding for therapy, greater number and ethno-cultural diversity of healthcare professionals, healthcare policies that address the needs of diverse women, dedicated inter-professional OA clinics, and a national strategy to coordinate OA care) levels. CONCLUSIONS: This research contributes to a gap in knowledge of how to optimize OA care for disadvantaged groups including diverse women. Ongoing efforts are needed to examine how best to implement these strategies, which will require multi-sector collaboration and must engage diverse women.

Integration of the social determinants of health into quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Quality monitoring is a critical component of high-performing cancer care systems. Quality indicators (QIs) are standardised, evidence-based measures of healthcare quality that allow healthcare systems to track performance, identify gaps in healthcare delivery and inform areas of priority for strategic planning. Social structures and economic systems that allow for unequal access to power and resources that shape health and health inequities can be described through the social determinants of health (SDoH) framework. Therefore, granular analysis of healthcare quality through SDoH frameworks is required to identify patient subgroups who may experience health inequity. Given the high burden of disease of colorectal cancer (CRC) and well-defined cancer care pathways, CRC is often the first disease site targeted by health systems for quality improvement. The objective of this review is to examine how SDoH have been integrated into QIs for CRC surgery. This review aims to address three primary questions: (1) Have SDoH been integrated into the development, reporting and assessment of CRC surgery QIs? (2) When integrated, what measures and statistical methods have been applied? (3) In which direction do individual SDoH influence QIs outputs? METHODS: This review will follow Arksey and O'Malley frameworks for scoping reviews. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR databases for papers that examine QIs for CRC surgery applicable to healthcare systems from database inception until January 2023. Interventional trials, prospective and retrospective observational studies, reviews, case series and qualitative study designs will be included. Two authors will independently review all titles, abstracts and full texts to determine which studies meet the inclusion criteria. ETHICS & DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this review. Results will be disseminated through scientific presentation and relevant conferences targeted for researchers examining healthcare quality and equity in cancer care. REGISTRATION DETAILS: osf.io/vfzd3-Open Science Framework.