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 .

Characteristics of primary care practices by proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2: a cross-sectional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Variations in primary care practices may explain some differences in health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to evaluate the characteristics of primary care practices by the proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional cohort study using linked administrative data sets in Ontario, Canada. We calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 enrolled with each comprehensive-care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of patients unvaccinated, and identified physicians in the top 10% (v. the other 90%). We compared characteristics of family physicians and their patients in these 2 groups using standardized differences. RESULTS: We analyzed 9060 family physicians with 10 837 909 enrolled patients. Family physicians with the largest proportion (top 10%) of unvaccinated patients (n = 906) were more likely to be male, to have trained outside of Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than those in the remaining 90%. Vaccine coverage (≥ 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine) was 74% among patients of physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients, compared with 87% in the remaining patient population. Patients in the top 10% group tended to be younger and live in areas with higher levels of ethnic diversity and immigration and lower incomes. INTERPRETATION: Primary care practices with the largest proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 served marginalized communities and were less likely to use team-based care models. These findings can guide resource planning and help tailor interventions to integrate public health priorities within primary care practices.

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.

Patients as teachers: a within-subjects randomized pilot experiment of patient-led online learning modules for health professionals.

PURPOSE: Many health professions education programs involve people with lived experience as expert speakers. Such presentations may help learners better understand the realities of living with chronic illness or experiencing an acute health problem. However, lectures from only one or a small number of people may not adequately illustrate the perspectives and experiences of a diverse patient cohort. Additionally, logistical constraints such as public health restrictions or travel barriers may impede in-person presentations, particularly among people who have more restrictions on their time. Health professions education programs may benefit from understanding the potential effects of online patient-led presentations with a diverse set of speakers. We aimed to explore whether patient-led online learning modules about diabetes care would influence learners' responses to clinical scenarios and to collect learners' feedback about the modules. METHOD: This within-subjects randomized experiment involved 26 third-year medical students at Université Laval in Quebec, Canada. Participation in the experiment was an optional component within a required course. Prior to the intervention, participating learners responded to three clinical scenarios randomly selected from a set of six such scenarios. Each participant responded to the other three scenarios after the intervention. The intervention consisted of patient-led online learning modules incorporating segments of narratives from 21 patient partners (11 racialized or Indigenous) describing why and how clinicians could provide patient-centered care. Working with clinical teachers and psychometric experts, we developed a scoring grid based on the biopsychosocial model and set 0.6 as a passing score. Independent evaluators, blinded to whether each response was collected before or after the intervention, then scored learners' responses to scenarios using the grid. We used Fisher's Exact test to compare proportions of passing scores before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Learners' overall percentage of passing scores prior to the intervention was 66%. Following the intervention, the percentage of passing scores was 76% (p = 0.002). Overall, learners expressed appreciation and other positive feedback regarding the patient-led online learning modules. DISCUSSION: Findings from this experiment suggest that learners can learn to provide better patient-centered care by watching patient-led online learning modules created in collaboration with a diversity of patient partners.

Impact of interventions to improve HPV vaccination acceptance and uptake in school-based programs: Findings of a pilot project in Quebec.

CONTEXT: Vaccination coverage against human papillomavirus (HPV) in school-based programs in Quebec, Canada, is suboptimal despite more than a decade of introduction. Three interventions to improve HPV vaccine acceptability and coverage in school-based programs were developed, implemented as part of a multicomponent strategy and evaluated. METHOD: Sixty-four (64) schools were recruited, of which 32 received the interventions (pilot schools), and 32 received usual vaccination activities (control schools). Two approaches were used to assess the impact of the interventions. Pre-post questionnaires were completed by parents in both pilot and control schools. Quantitative analyses of vaccination coverage using the Quebec immunization registry were conducted. RESULTS: Participating parents (n = 989 in the pre-intervention survey and n = 772 in the post-intervention one) were generally aware of HPV and HPV vaccination. Most parents were confident about vaccination, had little or no hesitation and had decided to have their child vaccinated. Parents in the pilot schools were less concerned about vaccine safety than those in the control schools after the interventions. Parents in the pilot schools were also more likely to have decided to have their child vaccinated. A statistically significant difference of 7.4 % in HPV vaccine coverage between pilot and control schools was observed (82.9 % vs 75.5 %, p <0.0001). CONCLUSION: Although school-based programs offer equitable access to vaccination and minimize access barriers, it remains crucial to identify effective interventions to improve vaccine uptake further and reach the WHO cervical cancer elimination goal. Our multicomponent strategy appears to have positively impacted HPV vaccine acceptability and coverage and could be adapted to other contexts where vaccination is delivered in school-based programs.

Development of Promising Interventions to Improve Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in a School-Based Program in Quebec, Canada: Results From a Formative Evaluation Using a Mixed Methods Design.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of school-based human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs, disparities in vaccine coverage persist. Barriers to HPV vaccine acceptance and uptake include parental attitudes, knowledge, beliefs, and system-level barriers. A total of 3 interventions were developed to address these barriers: an in-person presentation by school nurses, an email reminder with a web-based information and decision aid tool, and a telephone reminder using motivational interviewing (MI) techniques. OBJECTIVE: Here we report on the development and formative evaluation of interventions to improve HPV vaccine acceptance and uptake among grade 4 students' parents in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: In the summer of 2019, we conducted a formative evaluation of the interventions to assess the interventions' relevance, content, and format and to identify any unmet needs. We conducted 3 focus group discussions with parents of grade 3 students and nurses. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for thematic content using NVivo software (Lumivero). Nurses received training on MI techniques and we evaluated the effect on nurses' knowledge and skills using a pre-post questionnaire. Descriptive quantitative analyses were carried out on data from questionnaires relating to the training. Comparisons were made using the proportions of the results. Finally, we developed a patient decision aid using an iterative, user-centered design process. The iterative refinement process involved feedback from parents, nurses, and experts to ensure the tool's relevance and effectiveness. The evaluation protocol and data collection tools were approved by the CHU (Centre Hospitalier Universitaire) de Québec Research Ethics Committee (MP-20-2019-4655, May 16, 2019). RESULTS: The data collection was conducted from April 2019 to March 2021. Following feedback (n=28) from the 3 focus group discussions in June 2019, several changes were made to the in-person presentation intervention. Experts (n=27) and school nurses (n=29) recruited for the project appreciated the visual and simplified information on vaccination in it. The results of the MI training for school nurses conducted in August 2019 demonstrated an increase in the skills and knowledge of nurses (n=29). School nurses who took the web-based course (n=24) filled out a pretest and posttest questionnaire to evaluate their learning. The rating increased by 19% between the pretest and posttest questionnaires. Several changes were made between the first draft of the web-based decision-aid tool and the final version during the summer of 2019 after an expert consultation of experts (n=3), focus group participants (n=28), and parents in the iterative process (n=5). More information about HPV and vaccines was added, and users could click if more detail is desired. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and pilot-tested 3 interventions using an iterative process. The interventions were perceived as potentially effective to increase parents' knowledge and positive attitudes toward HPV vaccination, and ultimately, vaccine acceptance. Future research will assess the effectiveness of these interventions on a larger scale.

Digital Gamification Tools to Enhance Vaccine Uptake: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Gamification has been used successfully to promote various desired health behaviors. Previous studies have used gamification to achieve desired health behaviors or facilitate their learning about health. OBJECTIVE: In this scoping review, we aimed to describe digital gamified tools that have been implemented or evaluated across various populations to encourage vaccination, as well as any reported effects of identified tools. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, Global Health, and ERIC for peer-reviewed papers describing digital gamified tools with or without evaluations. We also conducted web searches with Google to identify digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. We consulted 12 experts in the field of gamification and health behavior to identify any papers or tools we might have missed. We extracted data about the target population of the tools, the interventions themselves (eg, type of digital gamified tool platform, type of disease/vaccine, type and design of study), and any effects of evaluated tools, and we synthesized data narratively. RESULTS: Of 1402 records, we included 28 (2%) peer-reviewed papers and 10 digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. The experts added 1 digital gamified tool that met the inclusion criteria. Our final data set therefore included 28 peer-reviewed papers and 11 digital gamified tools. Of the 28 peer-reviewed papers, 7 (25%) explained the development of the tool, 16 (57%) described evaluation, and 2 (7%) reported both development and evaluation of the tool. The 28 peer-reviewed papers reported on 25 different tools. Of these 25 digital gamified tools, 11 (44%) were web-based tools, 8 (32%) mobile (native mobile or mobile-enabled web) apps, and 6 (24%) virtual reality tools. Overall, tools that were evaluated showed increases in knowledge and intentions to receive vaccines, mixed effects on attitudes, and positive effects on beliefs. We did not observe discernible advantages of one type of digital gamified tool (web based, mobile, virtual reality) over the others. However, a few studies were randomized controlled trials, and publication bias may have led to such positive effects having a higher likelihood of appearing in the peer-reviewed literature. CONCLUSIONS: Digital gamified tools appear to have potential for improving vaccine uptake by fostering positive beliefs and increasing vaccine-related knowledge and intentions. Encouraging comparative studies of different features or different types of digital gamified tools could advance the field by identifying features or types of tools that yield more positive effects across populations and contexts. Further work in this area should seek to inform the implementation of gamification for vaccine acceptance and promote effective health communication, thus yielding meaningful health and social impacts.

Use of narratives to enhance childhood vaccine acceptance: Results of an online experiment among Canadian parents.

Identifying effective interventions to promote children's vaccination acceptance is crucial for the health and wellbeing of communities. Many interventions can be implemented to increase parental awareness of the benefits of vaccination and positively influence their confidence in vaccines and vaccination services. One potential approach is using narratives as an intervention. This study aims to evaluate the effects of a narrative-based intervention on parents' attitudes and vaccination intentions. In a pre-post experiment, 2,000 parents of young children recruited from an online pan-Canadian panel were randomly exposed to one of the three videos presenting narratives to promote childhood vaccination or a control condition video about the importance and benefits of physical activity in children. Pre-post measures reveal a relatively modest but positive impact of the narratives on parents' attitudes and intention to vaccinate their child(ren). The results also suggest that narratives with more emotional content may be more effective in positively influencing vaccine attitudes than the more factual narrative. Using narratives to promote vaccination can positively influence parents' views and intentions toward childhood vaccines, but research is still required to identify the best components of such interventions.

Mailed feedback to primary care physicians on antibiotic prescribing for patients aged 65 years and older: pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether providing family physicians with feedback on their antibiotic prescribing compared with that of their peers reduces antibiotic prescriptions. To also identify effects on antibiotic prescribing from case-mix adjusted feedback reports and messages emphasising antibiotic associated harms. DESIGN: Pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All primary care physicians were randomly assigned a group if they were eligible and actively prescribing antibiotics to patients 65 years or older. Physicians were excluded if had already volunteered to receive antibiotic prescribing feedback from another agency, or had opted out of the trial. INTERVENTION: A letter was mailed in January 2022 to physicians with peer comparison antibiotic prescribing feedback compared with the control group who did not receive a letter (4:1 allocation). The intervention group was further randomised in a 2x2 factorial trial to evaluate case-mix adjusted versus unadjusted comparators, and emphasis, or not, on harms of antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Antibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient visits for patients 65 years or older six months after intervention. Analysis was in the modified intention-to-treat population using Poisson regression. RESULTS: 5046 physicians were included and analysed: 1005 in control group and 4041 in intervention group (1016 case-mix adjusted data and harms messaging, 1006 with case-mix adjusted data and no harms messaging, 1006 unadjusted data and harms messaging, and 1013 unadjusted data and no harms messaging). At six months, mean antibiotic prescribing rate was 59.4 (standard deviation 42.0) in the control group and 56.0 (39.2) in the intervention group (relative rate 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.96). Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing (0.89 (0.86 to 0.92)), prolonged duration prescriptions defined as more than seven days (0.85 (0.83 to 0.87)), and broad spectrum prescribing (0.94 (0.92 to 0.95)) were also significantly lower in the intervention group compared with the control group. Results were consistent at 12 months post intervention. No significant effect was seen for including emphasis on harms messaging. A small increase in antibiotic prescribing with case-mix adjusted reports was noted (1.01 (1.00 to 1.03)). CONCLUSIONS: Peer comparison audit and feedback letters significantly reduced overall antibiotic prescribing with no benefit of case-mix adjustment or harms messaging. Antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback is a scalable and effective intervention and should be a routine quality improvement initiative in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04594200.