What was the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on unintentional injuries, in Canada and globally? A scoping review investigating how lockdown measures impacted the global burden of unintentional injury.

Background: Injuries are among the leading causes for hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits. COVID-19 restrictions ensured safety to Canadians, but also negatively impacted health outcomes, including increasing rates of certain injuries. These differences in trends have been reported internationally however the evidence is scattered and needs to be better understood to identify opportunities for public education and to prepare for future outbreaks. Objective: A scoping review was conducted to synthesize evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on unintentional injuries in Canada, compared to other countries. Methods: Studies investigating unintentional injuries among all ages during COVID-19 from any country, published in English between December 2019 and July 2021, were included. Intentional injuries and/or previous pandemics were excluded. Four databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus), and a gray literature search was also conducted. Results: The search yielded 3,041 results, and 189 articles were selected for extraction. A total of 41 reports were included from the gray literature search. Final studies included research from: Europe (n = 85); North America (n = 44); Asia (n = 32); Oceania (n = 12); Africa (n = 8); South America (n = 4); and multi-country (n = 4). Most studies reported higher occurrence of injuries/trauma among males, and the average age across studies was 46 years. The following mechanisms of injury were reported on most frequently: motor vehicle collisions (MVCs; n = 134), falls (n = 104), sports/recreation (n = 65), non-motorized vehicle (n = 31), and occupational (n = 24). Injuries occurring at home (e.g., gardening, home improvement projects) increased, and injuries occurring at schools, workplaces, and public spaces decreased. Overall, decreases were observed in occupational injuries and those resulting from sport/recreation, pedestrian-related, and crush/trap incidents. Decreases were also seen in MVCs and burns, however the severity of injury from these causes increased during the pandemic period. Increases were observed in poisonings, non-motorized vehicle collisions, lacerations, drownings, trampoline injuries; and, foreign body ingestions. Implications: Findings from this review can inform interventions and policies to identify gaps in public education, promote safety within the home, and decrease the negative impact of future stay-at-home measures on unintentional injury among Canadians and populations worldwide.

Equitable Research PRAXIS: A Framework for Health Informatics Methods.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing attention to health equity in health informatics research. However, the literature lacks a comprehensive framework outlining critical considerations for health informatics research with marginalized groups. METHODS: Literature review and experiences from nine equity-focused health informatics conducted in the United States and Canada. Studies focus on disparities related to age, disability or chronic illness, gender/sex, place of residence (rural/urban), race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: We found four key equity-related methodological considerations. To assist informaticists in addressing equity, we contribute a novel framework to synthesize these four considerations: PRAXIS (Participation and Representation, Appropriate methods and interventions, conteXtualization and structural competence, Investigation of Systematic differences). Participation and representation refers to the necessity for meaningful participation of marginalized groups in research, to elevate the voices of marginalized people, and to represent marginalized people as they are comfortable (e.g., asset-based versus deficit-based). Appropriate methods and interventions mean targeting methods, instruments, and interventions to reach and engage marginalized people. Contextualization and structural competence mean avoiding individualization of systematic disparities and targeting social conditions that (re-)produce inequities. Investigation of systematic differences highlights that experiences of people marginalized according to specific traits differ from those not so marginalized, and thus encourages studying the specificity of these differences and investigating and preventing intervention-generated inequality. We outline guidance for operationalizing these considerations at four research stages. CONCLUSIONS: This framework can assist informaticists in systematically addressing these considerations in their research in four research stages: project initiation; sampling and recruitment; data collection; and data analysis. We encourage others to use these insights from multiple studies to advance health equity in informatics.

"It's a mess sometimes": patient perspectives on provider responses to healthcare costs, and how informatics interventions can help support cost-sensitive care decisions.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated patient experiences with medication- and test-related cost conversations with healthcare providers to identify their preferences for future informatics tools to facilitate cost-sensitive care decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 18 semistructured interviews with diverse patients (ages 24-81) in a Midwestern health system in the United States. We identified themes through 2 rounds of qualitative coding. RESULTS: Patients believed their providers could help reduce medication-related costs but did not see how providers could influence test-related costs. Patients viewed cost conversations about medications as beneficial when providers could adjust medical recommendations or provide resources. However, cost conversations did not always occur when patients felt they were needed. Consequently, patients faced a "cascade of work" to address affordability challenges. To prevent this, collaborative informatics tools could facilitate cost conversations and shared decision-making by providing information about a patient's financial constraints, enabling comparisons of medication/testing options, and addressing transportation logistics to facilitate patient follow-through. DISCUSSION: Like providers, patients want informatics tools that address patient out-of-pocket costs. They want to discuss healthcare costs to reduce the frequency of unaffordable costs and obtain proactive assistance. Informatics interventions could minimize the cascade of patient work through shared decision-making and preventative actions. Such tools might integrate information about efficacy, costs, and side effects to support decisions, present patient decision aids, facilitate coordination among healthcare units, and eventually improve patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: To prevent a burdensome cascade of work for patients, informatics tools could be designed to support cost conversations and decisions between patients and providers.