Identification and assessment of factors that impact the demand for and supply of dental hygienists amidst an evolving workforce context: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: This study involved a scoping review to explore factors influencing dental hygienist demand and supply in high-income countries. METHODS: A six-stage scoping review was conducted with separate search strategies tailored to four databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Google) plus a targeted scan of dental hygienist organization websites. This yielded 2,117 unique citations, leading to 148 articles included in the review. RESULTS: Nearly half of the articles (47%) focused on the United States, with 11% on Canada. Most articles (91%) were in English, alongside 13 in Korean and one in French. Journal articles comprised 62% of the publications, followed by reports/working papers (11%) and websites (11%). Other types included conference abstracts, policy briefs, and presentation slides. Content-wise, 47% were original research, with analysis articles (14%), commentaries (11%), and reviews (8%) also present. The articles were coded into three main categories: workforce characteristics/projections, factor-specific analyses, and workforce opportunities. The articles on workforce characteristics covered demographic, geographic, and employment aspects of dental hygienists, along with projections for supply and demand using simulation modelling and geospatial analyses. Factor-specific articles investigated the (1) working environment, (2) policy/regulatory/training environment, (3) job/career satisfaction and related human resource issues, and (4) scope of practice. The third key category of articles highlighted opportunities for expanding the workforce through alternative models in different sectors/settings (e.g., public health, primary care, long-term care, hospitals, mobile outreach, and non-clinical roles including research, education and leadership) and for a range of vulnerable or underserved populations (e.g., geriatric and pediatric populations, persons with disabilities, those living in rural/remote areas, Indigenous peoples, and incarcerated people). CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive documentation of the current state of the dental hygienist workforce, compiling factors affecting demand and supply, and highlighting opportunities for the dental hygienist workforce in Canada and other high-income countries. The findings offer a foundation for future research, highlighting the need for more focused and rigorous reviews and underscoring the necessity of high-quality studies to verify the effectiveness of various interventions and policies. This is crucial to address dental hygienist workforce challenges and ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of oral health care delivery.

Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes and inefficient use of resources. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada. METHODS: We searched multiple bibliometric databases and grey literature to identify inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada between 2007 and 2021. Two team members independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Findings were synthesized in 2 categories: diagnostics and therapeutics. We reported ranges of proportions of inappropriate use for all practices. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs), based on the percentage of patients not receiving recommended practices (underuse) or receiving practices not recommended (overuse), were calculated. All statistics are at the study summary level. RESULTS: We included 174 studies, representing 228 clinical practices and 28 900 762 patients. The median proportion of inappropriate care, as assessed in the studies, was 30.0% (IQR 12.0%-56.6%). Underuse (median 43.9%, IQR 23.8%-66.3%) was more frequent than overuse (median 13.6%, IQR 3.2%-30.7%). The most frequently investigated diagnostics were glycated hemoglobin (underused, range 18.0%-85.7%, n = 9) and thyroid-stimulating hormone (overused, range 3.0%-35.1%, n = 5). The most frequently investigated therapeutics were statin medications (underused, range 18.5%-71.0%, n = 6) and potentially inappropriate medications (overused, range 13.5%-97.3%, n = 9). INTERPRETATION: We have provided a summary of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canadian health care systems. Our findings can be used to support health care professionals and quality agencies to improve patient care and safety in Canada.

Health system learning with Indigenous communities: a study protocol for a two-eyed seeing review and multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: It is well documented that Canadian healthcare does not fully meet the health needs of First Nations, Inuit or Métis peoples. In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples concluded that Indigenous peoples' healthcare needs had to be met by strategies and systems that emerged from Indigenous worldviews and cultures. In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission also called on health organizations to learn from Indigenous "knowledges" and integrate Indigenous worldviews alongside biomedicine and other western ways of knowing. These calls have not yet been met. Meanwhile, the dynamic of organizational learning from knowledges and evidence within communities is poorly understood-particularly when learning is from communities whose ways of knowing differ from those of the organization. Through an exploration of organizational and health system learning, this study will explore how organizations learn from the Indigenous communities they serve and contribute to (re-)conceptualizing the learning organization and learning health system in a way that privileges Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing. METHODS: This study will employ a two-eyed seeing literature review and embedded multiple case study. The review, based on Indigenous and western approaches to reviewing and synthesizing knowledges, will inform understanding of health system learning from different ways of knowing. The multiple case study will examine learning by three distinct government organizations in Northwest Territories, a jurisdiction in northern Canada, that have roles to support community health and wellness: TlįchÇ« Government, Gwich'in Tribal Council, and Government of Northwest Territories. Case study data will be collected via interviews, talking circles, and document analysis. A steering group, comprising TlįchÇ« and Gwich'in Elders and representatives from each of the three partner organizations, will guide all aspects of the project. DISCUSSION: Examining systems that create health disparities is an imperative for Canadian healthcare. In response, this study will help to identify and understand ways for organizations to learn from and respectfully apply knowledges and evidence held within Indigenous communities so that their health and wellness are supported. In this way, this study will help to guide health organizations in the listening and learning that is required to contribute to reconciliation in healthcare.

Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process.

BACKGROUND: In 1968, Wilson and Jungner published 10 principles of screening that often represent the de facto starting point for screening decisions today; 50 years on, are these principles still the right ones? Our objectives were to review published work that presents principles for population-based screening decisions since Wilson and Jungner's seminal publication, and to conduct a Delphi consensus process to assess the review results. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and modified Delphi consensus process. We searched multiple databases for articles published in English in 1968 or later that were intended to guide population-based screening decisions, described development and modification of principles, and presented principles as a set or list. Identified sets were compared for basic characteristics (e.g., number, categorization), a citation analysis was conducted, and principles were iteratively synthesized and consolidated into categories to assess evolution. Participants in the consensus process assessed the level of agreement with the importance and interpretability of the consolidated screening principles. RESULTS: We identified 41 sets and 367 unique principles. Each unique principle was coded to 12 consolidated decision principles that were further categorized as disease/condition, test/intervention or program/system principles. Program or system issues were the focus of 3 of Wilson and Jungner's 10 principles, but comprised almost half of all unique principles identified in the review. The 12 consolidated principles were assessed through 2 rounds of the consensus process, leading to specific refinements to improve their relevance and interpretability. No gaps or missing principles were identified. INTERPRETATION: Wilson and Jungner's principles are remarkably enduring, but increasingly reflect a truncated version of contemporary thinking on screening that does not fully capture subsequent focus on program or system principles. Ultimately, this review and consensus process provides a comprehensive and iterative modernization of guidance to inform population-based screening decisions.

Public involvement in health research systems: a governance framework.

BACKGROUND: Growing interest in public involvement in health research has led to organisational and policy change. Additionally, an emerging body of policy-oriented scholarship has begun to identify the organisational and network arrangements that shape public involvement activity. Such developments suggest the need to clearly conceptualise and characterise public involvement in health research in terms of governance. METHODS: We drew on an established health research system framework to analyse governance functions related to public involvement, adapting scoping review methods to identify evidence from a corpus of journal papers and policy reports. We drew on the logics of aggregation and top down configuration, using a qualitative interpretive approach to combine and link findings from different studies into framework categories. RESULTS: We identified a total of 32 scholarly papers and 13 policy reports (n = 45 included papers) with relevance to governance for public involvement. Included papers were broadly consonant in identifying the need for activity to specify and support public involvement across all four governance functions of stewardship, financing, creating and sustaining resources, and research production and use. However, different visions for public involvement, and the activity required to implement it and achieve impact, were particularly evident with respect to the stewardship function, which seeks to set overall directions for research while addressing the potentially competing demands of a system's many constituents. CONCLUSIONS: A governance perspective has considerable value for public involvement in health research systems, supporting efforts to coordinate and institutionalise the burgeoning public involvement enterprise. Furthermore, it highlights challenges for what is, ultimately, a highly political intervention, suggesting that diverse publics must be both involved within health research systems and enrolled as governors of them.

Public involvement and health research system governance: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Interest in public involvement in health research projects has led to increased attention on the coordination of public involvement through research organisations, networks and whole systems. We draw on previous work using the 'health research system' framework to explore organisational actors and stewardship functions relevant to governance for public involvement. METHODS: To inform efforts in Ontario, Canada, to mobilise public involvement across the provincial health research enterprise, we conducted an exploratory, qualitative descriptive study of efforts in two jurisdictions (England, United Kingdom, and Alberta, Canada) where there were active policy efforts to support public involvement, alongside jurisdiction-wide efforts to mobilise health research. Focusing on the efforts of public sector organisations with responsibility for funding health research, enabling public involvement, and using research results, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 26 expert informants and used a qualitative thematic approach to explore how the involvement of publics in health research has been embedded and supported. RESULTS: We identified three sets of common issues in efforts to advance public involvement. First, the initial aim to embed public involvement leveraged efforts to build self-conscious research 'systems', and mobilised policy guidance, direction, investment and infrastructure. Second, efforts to sustain public involvement aimed to deepen involvement activity and tackle diversity limitations, while managing the challenges of influencing research priorities and forging common purpose on the evaluation of public involvement. Finally, public involvement was itself an influential force, with the potential to reinforce - or complicate - the ties that link actors within research systems, and to support - or constrain - the research system's capacity to serve and strengthen health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in the two jurisdictions analysed and in the organisation of public involvement within them, the supporters and stewards of public involvement sought to leverage research systems to advance public involvement, anticipated similar opportunities for improvement in involvement processes and identified similar challenges for future involvement activities. This suggests the value of a health research system framework in governance for public involvement, and the importance of public involvement for the success of health research systems and the health systems they aim to serve.

Understanding relevance of health research: considerations in the context of research impact assessment.

BACKGROUND: With massive investment in health-related research, above and beyond investments in the management and delivery of healthcare and public health services, there has been increasing focus on the impact of health research to explore and explain the consequences of these investments and inform strategic planning. Relevance is reflected by increased attention to the usability and impact of health research, with research funders increasingly engaging in relevance assessment as an input to decision processes. Yet, it is unclear whether relevance is a synonym for or predictor of impact, a necessary condition or stage in achieving it, or a distinct aim of the research enterprise. The main aim of this paper is to improve our understanding of research relevance, with specific objectives to (1) unpack research relevance from both theoretical and practical perspectives, and (2) outline key considerations for its assessment. APPROACH: Our approach involved the scholarly strategy of review and reflection. We prepared a draft paper based on an exploratory review of literature from various fields, and gained from detailed and insightful analysis and critique at a roundtable discussion with a group of key health research stakeholders. We also solicited review and feedback from a small sample of expert reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: Research relevance seems increasingly important in justifying research investments and guiding strategic research planning. However, consideration of relevance has been largely tacit in the health research community, often depending on unexplained interpretations of value, fit and potential for impact. While research relevance seems a necessary condition for impact - a process or component of efforts to make rigorous research usable - ultimately, relevance stands apart from research impact. Careful and explicit consideration of research relevance is vital to gauge the overall value and impact of a wide range of individual and collective research efforts and investments. To improve understanding, this paper outlines four key considerations, including how research relevance assessments (1) orientate to, capture and compare research versus non-research sources, (2) consider both instrumental versus non-instrumental uses of research, (3) accommodate dynamic temporal-shifting perspectives on research, and (4) align with an intersubjective understanding of relevance.

Identifying the conditions needed for integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care organizations: qualitative interviews with researchers and research users.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration among researchers and research users, or integrated knowledge translation (IKT), enhances the relevance and uptake of evidence into policy and practice. However, it is not widely practiced and, even when well-resourced, desired impacts may not be achieved. Given that large-scale investment is not the norm, further research is needed to identify how IKT can be optimized. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with researchers and research users (clinicians, managers) in a health care delivery (HCDO) and health care monitoring (HCMO) organization that differed in size and infrastructure, and were IKT-naïve. Basic qualitative description was used. Participants were asked about IKT activities and challenges, and recommendations for optimizing IKT. Data were analysed inductively using constant comparative technique. RESULTS: Forty-three interviews were conducted (28 HCDO, 15 HCMO) with 13 researchers, 8 clinicians, and 22 managers. Little to no IKT took place. Participants articulated similar challenges and recommendations revealing that a considerable number of changes were needed at the organizational, professional and individual levels. Given the IKT-absent state of participating organizations, this research identified a core set of conditions which must be addressed to prepare an environment conducive to IKT. These conditions were compiled into a framework by which organizations can plan for, or evaluate their capacity for IKT. CONCLUSIONS: The IKT capacity framework is relevant for organizations in which there is no current IKT activity. Use of the IKT framework may result in more organizations that are ready to initiate and establish IKT, perhaps ultimately leading to more, and higher-quality collaboration for health system innovation. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in other organizations not yet resourced for, or undertaking IKT, and to explore the resource implications and mechanisms for establishing the conditions identified here as essential to preparing for IKT.

Qualitative research publication rates in top-ranked nursing journals: 2002-2011.

BACKGROUND: Journal publication is the traditional means of disseminating research. Few top-ranked general medical and health services and policy research journals publish qualitative research. OBJECTIVES: This study examined qualitative research publication rates in top-ranked nursing journals with varying characteristics (general vs. specialty focus, number of issues per year) and compared publication rates with those previously reported for journals in related fields. METHODS: A bibliometric approach was used to identify and quantify qualitative articles published in 10 top-ranked nursing journals from 2002 to 2011. RESULTS: The percentage of qualitative empirical studies varied within and across nursing journals with no apparent association with journal characteristics. Although variable, qualitative research appears more common in high-ranking nursing journals than in general medical and health services and policy research journals. DISCUSSION: Examining factors that contribute to inconsistent rates may identify strategies to optimize qualitative research reporting and publication.

Healthcare system performance improvement: a comparison of key policies in seven high-income countries.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that healthcare system performance may be improved with policy emphasis on primary care, quality improvement, and information technology. The authors therefore sought to investigate the extent to which policy makers in seven countries are emphasizing these areas. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Policies in these three areas in seven high-income countries were compared. A comparative descriptive approach was taken in which each of the country-specialist authors supplied information on key policies and developments pertaining to primary care, quality improvement and information technology, supplemented with routine data. FINDINGS: Each of the seven countries faces similar challenges with healthcare system performance, yet differs in emphasis on the three key policy areas; efforts in each are, at best, patchy. The authors conclude that there is substantial scope for policy makers to further emphasize primary care, quality improvement and information technology if aiming for high-performing healthcare systems. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This is the first study to investigate policy-makers' commitment to key areas known to improve health system performance. The comparative method illustrates the different emphases that countries have placed on primary care, quality improvement and information technology development.

When can research from one setting be useful in another? Understanding perceptions of the applicability and transferability of research.

Determining whether research findings from one setting are relevant to another is complex and poorly understood. This study aimed to explore the factors affecting whether research from other settings was perceived to be of potential use to those working in or researching maternal health in Ghana. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 69 purposively sampled government decision-makers, researchers and other stakeholders working in maternal health in Ghana in 2008-09. The most influential factors affecting perceptions of applicability/transferability were the study's congruence with interviewees' previous experiences and beliefs. Interventions' adaptability was also considered crucial (and more important than remaining faithful to the original intervention). However, it was frequently considered a distinct stage in the research use process rather than a consideration of applicability/transferability. More attention was paid to the implementability of the intervention in the new setting, than to whether it would be as effective there. Interpretations of intervention descriptions and evaluation findings varied between interviewees, even when the same information was presented. This study is one of the first to explore perceptions of applicability/transferability of public health research among researchers and potential research users in a low-income setting. The findings suggest that existing frameworks of applicability/transferability do not reflect the factors considered to be most important in Ghana.

A multidisciplinary systematic review of the use of diagrams as a means of collecting data from research subjects: application, benefits and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: In research, diagrams are most commonly used in the analysis of data and visual presentation of results. However there has been a substantial growth in the use of diagrams in earlier stages of the research process to collect data. Despite this growth, guidance on this technique is often isolated within disciplines. METHODS: A multidisciplinary systematic review was performed, which included 13 traditional healthcare and non-health-focused indexes, non-indexed searches and contacting experts in the field. English-language articles that used diagrams as a data collection tool and reflected on the process were included in the review, with no restriction on publication date. RESULTS: The search identified 2690 documents, of which 80 were included in the final analysis. The choice to use diagrams for data collection is often determined by requirements of the research topic, such as the need to understand research subjects' knowledge or cognitive structure, to overcome cultural and linguistic differences, or to understand highly complex subject matter. How diagrams were used for data collection varied by the degrees of instruction for, and freedom in, diagram creation, the number of diagrams created or edited and the use of diagrams in conjunction with other data collection methods. Depending on how data collection is structured, a variety of options for qualitative and quantitative analysis are available to the researcher. The review identified a number of benefits to using diagrams in data collection, including the ease with which the method can be adapted to complement other data collection methods and its ability to focus discussion. However it is clear that the benefits and challenges of diagramming depend on the nature of its application and the type of diagrams used. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The results of this multidisciplinary systematic review examine the application of diagrams in data collection and the methods for analyzing the unique datasets elicited. Three recommendations are presented. Firstly, the diagrammatic approach should be chosen based on the type of data needed. Secondly, appropriate instructions will depend on the approach chosen. And thirdly, the final results should present examples of original or recreated diagrams. This review also highlighted the need for a standardized terminology of the method and a supporting theoretical framework.

Paucity of qualitative research in general medical and health services and policy research journals: analysis of publication rates.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research has the potential to inform and improve health care decisions but a study based on one year of publications suggests that it is not published in prominent health care journals. A more detailed, longitudinal analysis of its availability is needed. The purpose of this study was to identify, count and compare the number of qualitative and non-qualitative research studies published in high impact health care journals, and explore trends in these data over the last decade. METHODS: A bibliometric approach was used to identify and quantify qualitative articles published in 20 top general medical and health services and policy research journals from 1999 to 2008. Eligible journals were selected based on performance in four different ranking systems reported in the 2008 ISI Journal Citation Reports. Qualitative and non-qualitative research published in these journals were identified by searching MEDLINE, and validated by hand-searching tables of contents for four journals. RESULTS: The total number of qualitative research articles published during 1999 to 2008 in ten general medical journals ranged from 0 to 41, and in ten health services and policy research journals from 0 to 39. Over this period the percentage of empirical research articles that were qualitative ranged from 0% to 0.6% for the general medical journals, and 0% to 6.4% for the health services and policy research journals. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that qualitative research it is rarely published in high impact general medical and health services and policy research journals. The factors that contribute to this persistent marginalization need to be better understood.

Factors affecting the implementation of complex and evolving technologies: multiple case study of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Research regarding the decision to adopt and implement technological innovations in radiation oncology is lacking. This is particularly problematic since these technologies are often complex and rapidly evolving, requiring ongoing revisiting of decisions regarding which technologies are the most appropriate to support. Variations in adoption and implementation decisions for new radiation technologies across cancer centres can impact patients' access to appropriate and innovative forms of radiation therapy. This study examines the key steps in the process of adopting and implementing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in publicly funded cancer centres and identifies facilitating or impeding factors. METHODS: A multiple case study design, utilizing document analysis and key informant interviews was employed. Four cancer centres in Ontario, Canada were selected and interviews were conducted with radiation oncologists, medical physicists, radiation therapists, and senior administrative leaders. RESULTS: Eighteen key informants were interviewed. Overall, three centres made fair to excellent progress in the implementation of IMRT, while one centre achieved only limited implementation as of 2009. Key factors that influenced the extent of IMRT implementation were categorized as: 1) leadership, 2) training, expertise and standardization, 3) collaboration, 4) resources, and 5) resistance to change. CONCLUSION: A framework for the adoption and implementation of complex and evolving technologies is presented. It identifies the key factors that should be addressed by decision-makers at specific stages of the adoption/implementation process.

Health Care Professional Association Agency in Preparing for Artificial Intelligence: Protocol for a Multi-Case Study.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care has impacted health care systems, including employment, training, education, and professional regulation. It is incumbent on health professional associations to assist their membership in defining and preparing for AI-related change. Health professional associations, or the national groups convened to represent the interests of the members of a profession, play a unique role in establishing the sociocultural, normative, and regulative elements of health care professions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to present a protocol for a proposed study of how, when faced with AI as a disruptive technology, health professional associations engage in sensemaking and legitimization of change to support their membership in preparing for future practice. METHODS: An exploratory multi-case study approach will be used. This study will be informed by the normalization process theory (NPT), which suggests behavioral constructs required for complex change, providing a novel lens through which to consider the agency of macrolevel actors in practice change. A total of 4 health professional associations will be studied, each representing an instrumental case and related fields selected for their early consideration of AI technologies. Data collection will consist of key informant interviews, observation of relevant meetings, and document review. Individual and collective sensemaking activities and action toward change will be identified using stakeholder network mapping. A hybrid inductive and deductive model will be used for a concurrent thematic analysis, mapping emergent themes against the NPT framework to assess fit and identify areas of discordance. RESULTS: As of January 2021, we have conducted 17 interviews, with representation across the 4 health professional associations. Of these 17 interviews, 15 (88%) have been transcribed. Document review is underway and complete for one health professional association and nearly complete for another. Observation opportunities have been challenged by competing priorities during COVID-19 and may require revisiting. A linear cross-case analytic approach will be taken to present the data, highlighting both guidance for the implementation of AI and implications for the application of NPT at the macro level. The ability to inform consideration of AI will depend on the degree to which the engaged health professional associations have considered this topic at the time of the study and, hence, what priority it has been assigned within the health professional association and what actions have been taken to consider or prepare for it. The fact that this may differ between health professional associations and practice environments will require consideration throughout the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, this protocol outlines a case study approach to understand how, when faced with AI as a disruptive technology, health professional associations engage in sensemaking and legitimization of change to support their membership in preparing for future practice. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/27340.

Referral and access to heart function clinics: A realist review.

RATIONALE, AIM, AND OBJECTIVES: Heart failure (HF) clinics are highly effective, yet not optimally utilized. A realist review was performed to identify contexts (eg, health system characteristics, clinic capacity, and siting) and underlying mechanisms (eg, referring provider knowledge of clinics and referral criteria, barriers in disadvantaged patients) that influence utilization (provider referral [ie, of all appropriate and no inappropriate patients] and access [ie, patient attends ≥1 visit]) of HF clinics. METHODS: Following an initial scoping search and field observation in a HF clinic, we developed an initial program theory in conjunction with our expert panel, which included patient partners. Then, a literature search of seven databases was searched from inception to December 2019, including Medline; Grey literature was also searched. Studies of any design or editorials were included; studies regarding access to cardiac rehabilitation, or a single specialist for example, were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts, and then full-texts. Relevant data from included articles were used to refine the program theory. RESULTS: A total of 29 papers from five countries (three regions) were included. There was limited information to support or refute many elements of our initial program theory (eg, referring provider knowledge/beliefs, clinic inclusion/exclusion criteria), but refinements were made (eg, specialized care provided in each clinic, lack of patient encouragement). Lack of capacity, geography, and funding arrangements were identified as contextual factors, explaining a range of mechanistic processes, including patient clinical characteristics and social determinants of health as well as clinic characteristics that help to explain inappropriate and low use of HF clinics (outcome). CONCLUSION: Given the burden of HF and benefit of HF clinics, more research is needed to understand, and hence overcome sub-optimal use of HF clinics. In particular, an understanding from the perspective of referring providers is needed.

Health Policy as a Barrier to First Nations Peoples' Access to Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: First Nations peoples in Ontario are facing increasing rates of cancer and have been found to have poorer survival. Cancer screening is an important strategy to improve cancer outcomes; yet, Indigenous people in Canada are less likely to participate in screening. Ontario has established organized breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programs; this paper examines the health policy context that informs these programs for First Nations peoples in the province. METHOD: This paper follows an embedded multiple-case study design, drawing upon a document review to outline the existing policy context and on key informant interviews to explore the aforementioned context from the perspective of stakeholders. RESULTS: Policies created by agencies operating across federal, regional and provincial levels impact First Nations peoples' access to screening. Interviews identified issues of jurisdictional ambiguity, appropriateness of program design for First Nations persons and lack of cultural competency as barriers to participation in screening. CONCLUSION: Federal, provincial and regional policy makers must work in collaboration with First Nations peoples to overcome barriers to cancer screening created and sustained by existing policies.

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening.

Background: In their landmark report on the "Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease" (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of "screening governance organizations" to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by Sturdy, Miller and Hogarth. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Interviewee Transcript Review: assessing the impact on qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: This paper assesses interviewee transcript review (ITR) as a technique for improving the rigour of interview-based, qualitative research. ITR is a process whereby interviewees are provided with verbatim transcripts of their interviews for the purposes of verifying accuracy, correcting errors or inaccuracies and providing clarifications. ITR, in various forms, is widely used among qualitative researchers, however there is limited methodological guidance on how it should be employed and little is known about its actual impact on the transcript, the data, the interviewee or the researcher. METHODS: ITR was incorporated into a qualitative research study in which 51 key informant interviews were conducted with a range of senior stakeholders within the Canadian health care system. The changes made by interviewees to their transcripts were systematically tracked and categorized using a set of mutually exclusive categories. RESULTS: The study found that ITR added little to the accuracy of the transcript and may create complications if the goal of the researcher is to produce a transcript which reflects precisely what was said at the time of the interview. The advantages of ITR are that it allows interviewees the opportunity to edit or clarify information provided in the original interview, with many interviewees providing corrections, clarifications, and in some cases, adding new material to their transcripts. There are also potential disadvantages, such as a bias created by inconsistent data sources or the loss of data when an interviewee chooses to remove valuable material. The impact of ITR on the interviewee may be both positive and negative, depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the study. The impact of ITR on the researcher was minimal in this study, but is again subject to specific circumstances of the research context. CONCLUSION: While ITR is employed by many researchers across numerous fields, the advantages of its use may be relatively small in terms of verifying the accuracy of qualitative interview transcripts. Researchers are advised to carefully consider both the potential advantages and disadvantages of ITR outlined in this paper before deciding to incorporate the practice within their qualitative study designs.

Access to electronic health records by care setting and provider type: perceptions of cancer care providers in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The use of electronic health records (EHRs) to support the organization and delivery of healthcare is evolving rapidly. However, little is known regarding potential variation in access to EHRs by provider type or care setting. This paper reports on observed variation in the perceptions of access to EHRs by a wide range of cancer care providers covering diverse cancer care settings in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Perspectives were sought regarding EHR access and health record completeness for cancer patients as part of an internet survey of 5663 cancer care providers and administrators in Ontario. Data were analyzed using a multilevel logistic regression model. Provider type, location of work, and access to computer or internet were included as covariates in the model. RESULTS: A total of 1997 of 5663 (35%) valid responses were collected. Focusing on data from cancer care providers (N = 1247), significant variation in EHR access and health record completeness was observed between provider types, location of work, and level of computer access. Providers who worked in community hospitals were half as likely as those who worked in teaching hospitals to have access to their patients' EHRs (OR 0.45 95% CI: 0.24-0.85, p < 0.05) and were six times less likely to have access to other organizations' EHRs (OR 0.15 95% CI: 0.02-1.00, p < 0.05). Compared to surgeons, nurses (OR 3.47 95% CI: 1.80-6.68, p < 0.05), radiation therapists/physicists (OR 7.86 95% CI: 2.54-25.34, p < 0.05), and other clinicians (OR 4.92 95% CI: 2.15-11.27, p < 0.05) were more likely to report good access to their organization's EHRs. CONCLUSION: Variability in access across different provider groups, organization types, and geographic locations illustrates the fragmented nature of EHR adoption in the cancer system. Along with focusing on technological aspects of EHR adoption within organizations, it is essential that there is cross-organizational and cross-provider access to EHRs to ensure patient continuity of care, system efficiency, and high quality care.