Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). METHODS: Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. RESULTS: We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

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.

Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling initiatives in health and social services: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Scaling in health and social services (HSS) aims to increase the intended impact of proven effective interventions. Patient and public involvement (PPI) is critical for ensuring that scaling beneficiaries' interests are served. We aimed to identify PPI strategies and their characteristics in the science and practice of scaling in HSS. METHODS: In this scoping review, we included any scaling initiative in HSS that used PPI strategies and reported PPI methods and outcomes. We searched electronic databases (e.g., Medline) from inception to 5 February 2024, and grey literature (e.g., Google). Paired reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports. A narrative synthesis was performed and we used the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2). FINDINGS: We included 110 unique reports out of 24,579 records. In the past 5 years, the evidence on PPI in scaling has increased faster than in any previous period. We found 236 mutually nonexclusive PPI strategies among 120 scaling initiatives. Twenty-four initiatives did not target a specific country; but most of those that did so (n = 96) occurred in higher-income countries (n = 51). Community-based primary health care was the most frequent level of care (n = 103). Mostly, patients and the public were involved throughout all scaling phases (n = 46) and throughout the continuum of collaboration (n = 45); the most frequently reported ethical lens regarding the rationale for PPI was consequentialist-utilitarian (n = 96). Few papers reported PPI recruitment processes (n = 31) or incentives used (n = 18). PPI strategies occurred mostly in direct care (n = 88). Patient and public education was the PPI strategy most reported (n = 31), followed by population consultations (n = 30). CONCLUSIONS: PPI in scaling is increasing in HSS. Further investigation is needed to better document the PPI experience in scaling and ensure that it occurs in a meaningful and equitable way. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patients were involved in this review. They shared decisions on review questions, data collection instruments, protocol design, and findings dissemination. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework on 19 August 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/).

Transitions of care for older adults discharged home from the emergency department: an inductive thematic content analysis of patient comments.

OBJECTIVE: Improving care transitions for older adults can reduce emergency department (ED) visits, adverse events, and empower community autonomy. We conducted an inductive qualitative content analysis to identify themes emerging from comments to better understand ED care transitions. METHODS: The LEARNING WISDOM prospective longitudinal observational cohort includes older adults (≥ 65 years) who experienced a care transition after an ED visit from both before and during COVID-19. Their comments on this transition were collected via phone interview and transcribed. We conducted an inductive qualitative content analysis with randomly selected comments until saturation. Themes that arose from comments were coded and organized into frequencies and proportions. We followed the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). RESULTS: Comments from 690 patients (339 pre-COVID, 351 during COVID) composed of 351 women (50.9%) and 339 men (49.1%) were analyzed. Patients were satisfied with acute emergency care, and the proportion of patients with positive acute care experiences increased with the COVID-19 pandemic. Negative patient comments were most often related to communication between health providers across the care continuum and the professionalism of personnel in the ED. Comments concerning home care became more neutral with the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Patients were satisfied overall with acute care but reported gaps in professionalism and follow-up communication between providers. Comments may have changed in tone from positive to neutral regarding home care over the COVID-19 pandemic due to service slowdowns. Addressing these concerns may improve the quality of care transitions and provide future pandemic mitigation strategies.

Changes in intention to use an interprofessional approach to decision-making following training: a cluster before-and-after study.

BACKGROUND: Health professionals in home care work in interprofessional teams. Yet most training in decision support assumes a one-on-one relationship with patients. We assessed the impact of an in-person training session in interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM) on home care professionals' intention to adopt this approach. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a cluster stepped-wedge trial using a before-and-after study design. We collected data among home care professionals from November 2016 to February 2018 in 9 health and social services centers in Quebec, Canada. The intervention was an in-person IP-SDM training session. Intention to engage in IP-SDM pre- and post-session (dependent variable) was compared using a continuing professional development evaluation scale (CPD-Reaction) informed by the Godin's Integrated Behavioral Model for health professionals. We also assessed socio-demographic and psychosocial variables (beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, social influence and moral norm). We performed bivariate and multivariate analysis to identify factors influencing post-intervention intention. We used the STROBE reporting guidelines for observational studies to report our results. RESULTS: Of 134 respondents who provided complete pairs of questionnaires (pre- and post-), most were female (90.9%), mean age was 42 (± 9.3) years and 66.9% were social workers. Mean intention scores decreased from 5.84 (± 1.19) to 5.54 (± 1.35) (Mean difference = -0.30 ± 1.16; p = 0.02). Factors associated with higher intention post-intervention were social influence (ß = 0.34, p = 0.01) and belief about capabilities (ß = 0.49, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: After in-person IP-SDM training, healthcare professionals' intention to engage in IP-SDM decreased. However, the scope of this decrease is probably not clinically significant. Due to their association with intention, beliefs about capabilities, which translate into having a sense of self-competency in the new clinical behavior, and social influences, which translate into what important others think one should be doing, could be targets for future research aiming to implement IP-SDM in home care settings.

Comparing the implementation of advanced access strategies among primary health care providers.

The advanced access (AA) model is among the most recommended innovations for improving timely access in primary health care (PHC). Originally developed for physicians, it is now relevant to evaluate the model's implementation in more interprofessional practices. We compared AA implementation among family physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses. A cross-sectional online open survey was completed by 514 PHC providers working in 35 university-affiliated clinics. Family physicians delegated tasks to other professionals in the team more often than nurse practitioners (p = .001) and nurses (p < .001). They also left a smaller proportion of their schedules open for urgent patient needs than did nurse practitioners (p = .015) and nurses (p < .001). Nurses created more alternatives to in-person visits than family physicians (p < .001) and coordinated health and social services more than family physicians (p = .003). During periods of absence, physicians referred patients to walk-in services for urgent needs significantly more often than nurses (p = .003), whereas nurses planned replacements between colleagues more often than physicians (p <.001). The variations among provider categories indicate that a one-size-fits-all implementation of AA principles is not recommended.

Efficacy of sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions in chronic disease management in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. METHODS: Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). INFORMATION SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database's inception to March 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. RESULTS: We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [- 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I2 = 25%; St George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MD - 2.12, 95% CI [- 3.72, - 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I2 = 21%). CONCLUSIONS: KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

Evidence on Scaling in Health and Social Care: An Umbrella Review.

Policy Points More rigorous methodologies and systematic approaches should be encouraged in the science of scaling. This will help researchers better determine the effectiveness of scaling, guide stakeholders in the scaling process, and ultimately increase the impacts of health innovations. The practice and the science of scaling need to expand worldwide to address complex health conditions such as noncommunicable and chronic diseases. Although most of the scaling experiences described in the literature are occurring in the Global South, most of the authors publishing on it are based in the Global North. As the science of scaling spreads across the world with the aim of reducing health inequities, it is also essential to address the power imbalance in how we do scaling research globally. CONTEXT: Scaling of effective innovations in health and social care is essential to increase their impact. We aimed to synthesize the evidence base on scaling and identify current knowledge gaps. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual. We included any type of review that 1) focused on scaling, 2) covered health or social care, and 3) presented a methods section. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global from their inception to August 6, 2020. We searched the gray literature using, e.g., Google and WHO-ExpandNet. We assessed methodological quality with AMSTAR2. Paired reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reviews and assessed study quality. A narrative synthesis was performed. FINDINGS: Of 24,269 records, 137 unique reviews were included. The quality of the 58 systematic reviews was critically low (n = 42). The most frequent review type was systematic review (n = 58). Most reported on scaling in low- and middle-income countries (n = 59), whereas most first authors were from high-income countries (n = 114). Most reviews concerned infectious diseases (n = 36) or maternal-child health (n = 28). They mainly focused on interventions (n = 37), barriers and facilitators (n = 29), frameworks (n = 24), scalability (n = 24), and costs (n = 14). The WHO/ExpandNet scaling definition was the definition most frequently used (n = 26). Domains most reported as influencing scaling success were building scaling infrastructure (e.g., creating new service sites) and human resources (e.g., training community health care providers). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base on scaling is evolving rapidly as reflected by publication trends, the range of focus areas, and diversity of scaling definitions. Our study highlights knowledge gaps around methodology and research infrastructures to facilitate equitable North-South research relationships. Common efforts are needed to ensure scaling expands the impacts of health and social innovations to broader populations.

Social participation of older people in urban and rural areas: Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although the positive influence of social activity on health is now well-established, a complex relationship exists among social participation, personal, social and the environment. Social participation of older adults was examined in rural and urban settings to identify features of the built-environment and perception of neighborhood specific to the locale. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using cross-sectional data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA), we examined social participation and health of older people (65 + yrs) in relation to the built environment and sociocultural contexts for urban and rural areas. A social participation index was derived from responses on the frequency of participating in 8 social activities over the past 12 months. Personal, household and neighborhood indicators were examined to develop multivariable regression models for social participation in urban and rural cohorts. RESULTS: No meaningful differences were seen with the frequency of social participation between rural and urban settings; however, the type of community-related activities differed in that a greater proportion of urban participants reported sports and educational/cultural events than rural participants. Service club activities were greater for rural than urban participants. Different neighborhood features were statistically significant factors in explaining social participation in rural than in urban locales, although transportation was a significant factor regardless of locale. Trustworthiness, belonging and safety were perceived factors of the neighborhood associated with higher social participation for rural participants. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The relationship between home and health becomes stronger as one ages. Social and physical features of built environment specific to urban and rural settings need to be considered when implementing appropriate social activities for older people.

Assessing the sustainability and scalability of a diabetes eHealth innovation: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: To date, little is known about the sustainability and scalability of MyDiabetesPlan, an eHealth innovation designed to facilitate shared decision-making within diabetes care. To avoid the possibility of its short-lived implementation and promote wider adoption so as to promote patient-centred diabetes care, it is critical to understand MyDiabetesPlan's sustainability and scalability in order to ensure its long-term impact at a greater scale. We sought to identify the sustainability and scalability potential of MyDiabetesPlan and its limiting factors. METHODS: Using a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods approach, data were collected from 20 individuals involved in the development and implementation of MyDiabetesPlan. The National Health Services Sustainability Model (NHSSM) and the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire (ISSaQ) were administered using a 'think-aloud' approach and subsequently, short semi-structured interviews were conducted. Mean aggregate scores and stakeholder-specific scores were generated for the NHSSM and ISSaQ, to quantitatively determine facilitating and limiting factors to sustainability and scalability. Content analysis occurred iteratively with qualitative data, to examine commonalities and differences with the quantitative findings. RESULTS: The top facilitating factor to sustaining MyDiabetesPlan was "Staff involvement and training to sustain the process.", whereas the top limiting factors were: "Adaptability of Improved Process", "Senior Leadership Engagement" and "Infrastructure for Sustainability". The top three facilitating factors for scale-up were "Acceptability", "Development with Theory" and "Consistency with Policy Directives." Conversely, the top three limiting factors were "Financial and Human Resources", "Achievable Adoption" and "Broad Reach". Qualitative findings corroborated the limiting/facilitating factors identified. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing staff involvement throughout the dynamic care contexts, and resource constraints impacting scale-up can enhance the sustainability and scalability of MyDiabetesPlan. As such, future plans will focus on garnering organizational leadership buy-in and support, which may address the resource constraints associated with sustainability and scalability and improve the capacity for adequate staff involvement. eHealth researchers will be able to prioritize these limiting factors from the outset of their tool development to purposefully optimize its sustainability and scalability performance.

Evaluating the impact of continuing professional development courses on physician behavioral intention: a pre-post study with follow-up at six months.

BACKGROUND: Continuing professional development (CPD) for health professionals includes educational activities to maintain or improve skills. We evaluated the impact of a series of CPD courses by identifying factors influencing physicians' intention to adopt targeted behaviors and assessing self-reported behavior adoption six months later. METHODS: In this pre-post study, eligible participants attended at least one in-person course at the Fédération des Médecins Spécialistes du Québec annual meeting in November 2019. Before and afterwards, participants completed CPD-REACTION, a validated questionnaire based on Godin's integrated model for health professional behavior change that measures intention and psychosocial factors influencing intention. We used Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare pre- and post-course intention scores and linear regression analyses to identify factors influencing intention. We also compared the post-course intention scores of participants reporting a behavior change six months later with the scores of those reporting no behavior change six months later. Qualitative data was collected only six months after courses and responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: A total of 205/329 course attendees completed CPD-REACTION (response rate 62.3%). Among these participants, 158/329 (48%) completed the questionnaire before CPD courses, 129/329 (39.2%) only after courses and 47/329 (14.3%) at 6 months. Study population included 192 physicians of whom 78/192(40.6%) were female; 59/192(30.7%) were between 50 and 59 years old; and 72/192 (37.5%) were surgical specialist physicians. Mean intention scores before (n = 158) and after (n = 129) courses were 5.74(SD = 1.52) and 6.35(SD = 0.93) respectively. Differences in mean (DM) intention before and afterwards ranged from - 0.31(p = 0.17) to 2.25(p = 0.50). Multivariate analysis showed that beliefs about capabilities (ß = 0.15, p = 0.001), moral norm (ß = 0.75, p < 0.0001), and beliefs about consequences (ß = 0.11, p = 0.04) influenced post-course intention. Post-course intention was correlated with behavior six months later (DM = 0.63; p = 0.02). Qualitative analysis showed that facilitators to behavior adoption after six months were most often related to the TDF domains of beliefs about capabilities. Most frequent barriers to adoption related to lack of resources. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, scores for intention to adopt targeted behaviors increased after the courses. CPD providers could increase participants' intention by including interventions that emphasize beliefs about capabilities, moral norm and beliefs about consequences.

The Aging, Community and Health Research Unit Community Partnership Program (ACHRU-CPP) for older adults with diabetes and multiple chronic conditions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (≥65 years) with diabetes and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) (> 2 chronic conditions) experience reduced function and quality of life, increased health service use, and high mortality. Many community-based self-management interventions have been developed for this group, however the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This paper presents the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the effectiveness and implementation of the Aging, Community and Health Research Unit-Community Partnership Program (ACHRU-CPP) to usual care in older adults with diabetes and MCC and their caregivers. METHODS: We will conduct a cross-jurisdictional, multi-site implementation-effectiveness type II hybrid RCT. Eligibility criteria are: ≥65 years, diabetes diagnosis (Type 1 or 2) and at least one other chronic condition, and enrolled in a primary care or diabetes education program. Participants will be randomly assigned to the intervention (ACHRU-CPP) or control arm (1:1 ratio). The intervention arm consists of home/telephone visits, monthly group wellness sessions, multidisciplinary case conferences, and system navigation support. It will be delivered by registered nurses and registered dietitians/nutritionists from participating primary care or diabetes education programs and program coordinators from community-based organizations. The control arm consists of usual care provided by the primary care setting or diabetes education program. The primary outcome is the change from baseline to 6 months in mental functioning. Secondary outcomes will include, for example, the change from baseline to 6 months in physical functioning, diabetes self-management, depressive symptoms, and cost of use of healthcare services. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models will be used to analyze all outcomes, with intention-to-treat analysis using multiple imputation to address missing data. Descriptive and qualitative data from older adults, caregivers and intervention teams will be used to examine intervention implementation, site-specific adaptations, and scalability potential. DISCUSSION: An interprofessional intervention supporting self-management may be effective in improving health outcomes and client/caregiver experience and reducing service use and costs in this complex population. This pragmatic trial includes a scalability assessment which considers a range of effectiveness and implementation criteria to inform the future scale-up of the ACHRU-CPP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier NCT03664583 . Registration date: September 10, 2018.

Tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen growing interest in scaling up of innovations to strengthen healthcare systems. However, the lack of appropriate methods for determining their potential for scale-up is an unfortunate global handicap. Thus, we aimed to review tools proposed for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following the COSMIN methodology. We included any empirical research which aimed to investigate the creation, validation or interpretability of a scalability assessment tool in health. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and ERIC from their inception to 20 March 2019. We also searched relevant websites, screened the reference lists of relevant reports and consulted experts in the field. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports and assessed the methodological quality of tools. We summarized data using a narrative approach involving thematic syntheses and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We identified 31 reports describing 21 tools. Types of tools included criteria (47.6%), scales (33.3%) and checklists (19.0%). Most tools were published from 2010 onwards (90.5%), in open-access sources (85.7%) and funded by governmental or nongovernmental organizations (76.2%). All tools were in English; four were translated into French or Spanish (19.0%). Tool creation involved single (23.8%) or multiple (19.0%) types of stakeholders, or stakeholder involvement was not reported (57.1%). No studies reported involving patients or the public, or reported the sex of tool creators. Tools were created for use in high-income countries (28.6%), low- or middle-income countries (19.0%), or both (9.5%), or for transferring innovations from low- or middle-income countries to high-income countries (4.8%). Healthcare levels included public or population health (47.6%), primary healthcare (33.3%) and home care (4.8%). Most tools provided limited information on content validity (85.7%), and none reported on other measurement properties. The methodological quality of tools was deemed inadequate (61.9%) or doubtful (38.1%). CONCLUSIONS: We inventoried tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. Existing tools are as yet of limited utility for assessing scalability in health. More work needs to be done to establish key psychometric properties of these tools. Trial registration We registered this review with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019107095).

Home care providers' perceptions of shared decision-making with older clients (and their caregivers): A cross-sectional study.

Interprofessional care teams can play a key role in supporting older adults (and caregivers) in making informed health decisions, yet shared decision making is not widely practiced in home care. Based on an earlier needs assessment with older adults (and caregivers) with home care experience, we aimed to explore the perceptions of home care teams on the decisions facing their clients and their perceived involvement in shared decision making. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 614 home care providers (nurses, personal support workers, rehabilitation professionals) in three Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta). Home care providers considered the decision "to stay at home or move" as the most difficult for older adults. Those most frequently involved in decision making with older adults were family members and least involved were physicians. Although all home care providers reported high levels of shared decision-making, we detected an effect of respondent's discipline on self-perceived shared decision-making; nurses and rehabilitation professionals reported significantly higher levels of shared decision making than personal support workers. A more tailored approach is required to support shared decision making in interprofessional care teams.

Discussing around a virtual fire: Citizen engagement in a shared Decision-Making conference.

An online conference was organized to promote the Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making model and maximize its dissemination among stakeholders (citizens, health care providers, administrative staffs, policy makers, academics) in Canada. The goal was to enhance knowledge of and engagement in shared decision-making in a patient-oriented research, since shared decision-making has been hampered by reduced face-to-face contact, fear of infection, and overworked health professionals due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we share a summary of what has been done to engage citizens in shared decision-making and to inform the interprofessional community about active citizen engagement in an online conference.

Barriers to and enablers of attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening experienced by immigrants to Canada from multiple cultural and linguistic minority groups.

AIM: To identify barriers to/enablers of attendance at eye screening among three groups of immigrantsto Canada from cultural/linguistic minority groups living with diabetes. METHODS: Using a patient-oriented research approach leveraging Diabetes Action Canada's patient engagement platform, we interviewed a purposeful sample of people with type 2 diabetes who had immigrated to Canada from: Pakistan (interviews in Urdu), China (interviews in Mandarin) and French-speaking African and Caribbean nations (interviews in French). We collected and analysed data based on the Theoretical Domains Framework covering key modifiable factors that may operate as barriers to or enablers of attending eye screening. We used directed content analysis to code barrier/enabler domains. Barriers/enablers were mapped to behaviour change techniques to inform future intervention development. RESULTS: We interviewed 39 people (13 per group). Many barriers/enablers were consistent across groups, including views about harms caused by screening itself, practical appointment issues including forgetting, screening costs, wait times and making/getting to an appointment, lack of awareness about retinopathy screening, language barriers, and family and clinical support. Group-specific barriers/enablers included a preference to return to one's country of birth for screening, the impact of winter, and preferences for alternative medicine. CONCLUSION: Our results can inform linguistic and culturally competent interventions to support immigrants living with diabetes in attending eye screening to prevent avoidable blindness.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Continuing professional education of Iranian healthcare professionals in shared decision-making: lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we sought to assess healthcare professionals' acceptance of and satisfaction with a shared decision making (SDM) educational workshop, its impact on their intention to use SDM, and their perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation of SDM in clinical settings in Iran. METHODS: We conducted an observational quantitative study that involved measurements before, during, and immediately after the educational intervention at stake. We invited healthcare professionals affiliated with Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, East Azerbaijan, Iran, to attend a half-day workshop on SDM in December 2016. Decisions about prenatal screening and knee replacement surgery was used as clinical vignettes. We provided a patient decision aid on prenatal screening that complied with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards and used illustrate videos. Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and a questionnaire to assess their familiarity with SDM, a questionnaire based on theoretical domains framework to assess their intention to implement SDM, a questionnaire about their perceived facilitators and barriers of implementing SDM in their clinical practice, continuous professional development reaction questionnaire, and workshop evaluation. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively and with multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Among the 60 healthcare professionals invited, 41 participated (68%). Twenty-three were female (57%), 18 were specialized in family and emergency medicine, or community and preventive medicine (43%), nine were surgeons (22%), and 14 (35%) were other types of specialists. Participants' mean age was 37.51 ± 8.64 years with 8.09 ± 7.8 years of clinical experience. Prior to the workshop, their familiarity with SDM was 3.10 ± 2.82 out of 9. After the workshop, their belief that practicing SDM would be beneficial and useful (beliefs about consequences) (beta = 0.67, 95% CI 0.27, 1.06) and beliefs about capability of using SDM (beta = 0.32, 95% CI -0.08, 0.72) had the strongest influence on their intention of practicing SDM. Participants perceived the main facilitator and barrier to perform SDM were training and high patient load, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Participants thought the workshop was a good way to learn SDM and that they would be able to use what they had learned in their clinical practice. Future studies need to study the level of intention of participants in longer term and evaluate the impact of cultural differences on practicing SDM and its implementation in both western and non-western countries.

Effects of the scope of practice on family physicians: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Family medicine is a branch of medicine that manages common and long-term illnesses in children and adults. Family physicians in particular play a major role and their scope of practice is expected to impact patient and population. However, little is known about its impact on physicians. We aimed to assess the effects of scope of practice on family physician outcomes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review that we reported using PRISMA guidelines. For the inclusion criteria, any study exploring an association between the scope of practice and physician outcomes was considered. Three bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, and ERIC were consulted through OVID interface from their respective inceptions to November, 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of studies using appropriate tools. We conducted data synthesis using a narrative form. GRADE was used for evaluating quality of cumulative evidence. RESULTS: In total, we included 12 studies with 38,732 participants from 6927 citations identified. Eleven of them were cross-sectional, and one was a cohort study with acceptable methodological quality. We found that: 1) family physicians with diverse clinical and nonclinical activities significantly improve their job satisfaction (p<0.05); 2) family physicians with a variety of clinical practices significantly improve their competences and health status (p<0.05); 3) family physicians who perform clinical procedures (mainly extended to gynecological procedures) significantly improve their psychosocial outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction) (p<0.05); and 4) some associations are not statistically significant (e.g., relation between variety of practice settings and outcomes). We observed that the evidence available has a very low level. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the scope of practice may be favorably associated with some family physician outcomes but with a very low level of evidence available. Based on these findings, healthcare system managers could monitor the scope of practice among family physicians and encourage future research in this field. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Our protocol was registered under the number CRD42019121990 in PROSPERO.

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Community-Based Primary Health Care: Systematic Scoping Review and Critical Appraisal.

BACKGROUND: Research on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into community-based primary health care (CBPHC) has highlighted several advantages and disadvantages in practice regarding, for example, facilitating diagnosis and disease management, as well as doubts concerning the unintended harmful effects of this integration. However, there is a lack of evidence about a comprehensive knowledge synthesis that could shed light on AI systems tested or implemented in CBPHC. OBJECTIVE: We intended to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI in CBPHC settings. METHODS: We conducted a systematic scoping review informed by an earlier study and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework and reported the findings according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from the date of inception until February 2020, in seven bibliographic databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore. The selected studies considered all populations who provide and receive care in CBPHC settings, AI interventions that had been implemented, tested, or both, and assessed outcomes related to patients, health care providers, or CBPHC systems. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified records, read the selected full texts, and extracted data from the included studies using a validated extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. A third reviewer also validated all the extracted data. RESULTS: We retrieved 22,113 documents. After the removal of duplicates, 16,870 documents were screened, and 90 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Machine learning (ML) (41/90, 45%), natural language processing (NLP) (24/90, 27%), and expert systems (17/90, 19%) were the most commonly studied AI interventions. These were primarily implemented for diagnosis, detection, or surveillance purposes. Neural networks (ie, convolutional neural networks and abductive networks) demonstrated the highest accuracy, considering the given database for the given clinical task. The risk of bias in diagnosis or prognosis studies was the lowest in the participant category (4/49, 4%) and the highest in the outcome category (22/49, 45%). CONCLUSIONS: We observed variabilities in reporting the participants, types of AI methods, analyses, and outcomes, and highlighted the large gap in the effective development and implementation of AI in CBPHC. Further studies are needed to efficiently guide the development and implementation of AI interventions in CBPHC settings.