"How are you?" Perspectives From Patients and Health Care Providers of Text Messaging to Support Rheumatoid Arthritis Care: A Thematic Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may need to access rheumatology care between scheduled visits. WelTel is a virtual care platform that supports secure two-way text-messaging between patients and their health care team. The objective of the present study was to explore perspectives and experiences of health care providers (HCPs) and patients related to the use of WelTel as an adjunct to routine care. METHODS: Seventy patients with RA were enrolled in a six-month WelTel pilot project launched in September 2021. Patients received monthly "How are you?" text message check-ins and could message their health care team during clinic hours to request health advice. The current project is a qualitative study of the WelTel pilot. A subgroup of pilot participants was purposively sampled and invited to participate in interviews. A thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted using a deductive approach leveraging quality of care domains. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (62% female, mean age 62 years, 10 White) completed interviews. Patients' views suggested that text messaging with the rheumatology team supported high-quality care across multiple quality domains including patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, safety, effectiveness, equity, and appropriateness. Seven HCPs (57.1% female, one pharmacist and six rheumatologists) completed interviews. HCPs' perspectives varied based on their experience with the WelTel platform. Additional themes reported by HCPs included perceived increased workload and burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA perceived text-based messaging as supporting high-quality care. The impact of increased communications on HCP burnout and workload requires consideration, and future studies should evaluate the effect of texting on patient outcomes.

Content validity testing of the INTERMED Self-Assessment in a sample of adults with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatology healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: Care complexity can occur when patients experience health challenges simultaneously with social barriers including food and/or housing insecurity, lack of transportation or other factors that impact care and patient outcomes. People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may experience care complexity due to the chronicity of their condition and other biopsychosocial factors. There are few standardised instruments that measure care complexity and none that measure care complexity specifically in people with RA. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the content validity of the INTERMEDS Self-Assessment (IMSA) instrument that measures care complexity with a sample of adults with RA and rheumatology healthcare providers (HCPs). Cognitive debriefing interviews utilising a reparative framework were conducted. METHODS: Patient participants were recruited through two existing studies where participants agreed to be contacted about future studies. Study information was also shared through email blasts, posters and brochures at rheumatology clinic sites and trusted arthritis websites. Various rheumatology HCPs were recruited through email blasts, and divisional emails and announcements. Interviews were conducted with nine patients living with RA and five rheumatology HCPs. RESULTS: Three main reparative themes were identified: (1) Lack of item clarity and standardisation including problems with item phrasing, inconsistency of the items and/or answer sets and noninclusive language; (2) item barrelling, where items asked about more than one issue, but only allowed a single answer choice; and (3) timeframes presented in the item or answer choices were either too long or too short, and did not fit the lived experiences of patients. Items predicting future healthcare needs were difficult to answer due to the episodic and fluctuating nature of RA. CONCLUSIONS: Despite international use of the IMSA to measure care complexity, patients with RA and rheumatology HCPs in our setting perceived that it did not have content validity for use in RA and that revision for use in this population under a reparative framework was unfeasible. Future instrument development requires an iterative cognitive debriefing and repair process with the population of interest in the early stages to ensure content validity and comprehension. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and public contributions included both patient partners on the study team and people with RA who participated in the study. Patient partners were involved in study design, analysis and interpretation of the findings and manuscript preparation. Data analysis was structured according to emergent themes of the data that were grounded in patient perspectives and experiences.

Costs of major depression covered / not covered in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the world's leading causes of disability. Our purpose was to characterize the total costs of MDD and evaluate the degree to which the British Columbia provincial health system meets its objective to protect people from the financial impact of illness. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study of adults newly diagnosed with MDD between 2015 and 2020 and followed their health system costs over two years. The expenditure proportion of MDD-related, patient paid costs relative to non-subsistence income was estimated, incidences of financial hardship were identified and the slope index of inequality (SII) between the highest and lowest income groups compared across regions. RESULTS: There were 250,855 individuals diagnosed with MDD in British Columbia over the observation period. Costs to the health system totalled >$1.5 billion (2020 CDN), averaging $138/week for the first 12 weeks following a new diagnosis and $65/week to week 52 and $55/week for weeks 53-104 unless MDD was refractory to treatment ($125/week between week 12-52 and $101/week over weeks 53-104). The proportion of MDD-attributable costs not covered by the health system was 2-15x greater than costs covered by the health system, exceeding $700/week for patients with severe MDD or MDD that was refractory to treatment. Population members in lower-income groups and urban homeowners had disadvantages in the distribution of financial protection received by the health system (SII reached - 8.47 and 15.25, respectively); however, financial hardship and inequities were mitigated province-wide if MDD went into remission (SII - 0.07 to 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: MDD-attributable costs to health systems and patients are highest in the first 12 weeks after a new diagnosis. During this time, lower income groups and homeowners in urban areas run the risk of financial hardship.

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomic-guided treatment for major depression.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomic testing to identify variations in genes that influence metabolism of antidepressant medications can enhance efficacy and reduce adverse effects of pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder. We sought to establish the cost-effectiveness of implementing pharmacogenomic testing to guide prescription of antidepressants. METHODS: We developed a discrete-time microsimulation model of care pathways for major depressive disorder in British Columbia, Canada, to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomic testing from the public payer's perspective over 20 years. The model included unique patient characteristics (e.g., metabolizer phenotypes) and used estimates derived from systematic reviews, analyses of administrative data (2015-2020) and expert judgment. We estimated incremental costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for a representative cohort of patients with major depressive disorder in BC. RESULTS: Pharmacogenomic testing, if implemented in BC for adult patients with moderate-severe major depressive disorder, was predicted to save the health system $956 million ($4926 per patient) and bring health gains of 0.064 life-years and 0.381 QALYs per patient (12 436 life-years and 74 023 QALYs overall over 20 yr). These savings were mainly driven by slowing or avoiding the transition to refractory (treatment-resistant) depression. Pharmacogenomic-guided care was associated with 37% fewer patients with refractory depression over 20 years. Sensitivity analyses estimated that costs of pharmacogenomic testing would be offset within about 2 years of implementation. INTERPRETATION: Pharmacogenomic testing to guide antidepressant use was estimated to yield population health gains while substantially reducing health system costs. These findings suggest that pharmacogenomic testing offers health systems an opportunity for a major value-promoting investment.

IMplementing Predictive Analytics towards efficient COPD Treatments (IMPACT): protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized impact study.

INTRODUCTION: Personalized disease management informed by quantitative risk prediction has the potential to improve patient care and outcomes. The integration of risk prediction into clinical workflow should be informed by the experiences and preferences of stakeholders, and the impact of such integration should be evaluated in prospective comparative studies. The objectives of the IMplementing Predictive Analytics towards efficient chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatments (IMPACT) study are to integrate an exacerbation risk prediction tool into routine care and to determine its impact on prescription appropriateness (primary outcome), medication adherence, quality of life, exacerbation rates, and sex and gender disparities in COPD care (secondary outcomes). METHODS: IMPACT will be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 will include the systematic and user-centered development of two decision support tools: (1) a decision tool for pulmonologists called the ACCEPT decision intervention (ADI), which combines risk prediction from the previously developed Acute COPD Exacerbation Prediction Tool with treatment algorithms recommended by the Canadian Thoracic Society's COPD pharmacotherapy guidelines, and (2) an information pamphlet for COPD patients (patient tool), tailored to their prescribed medication, clinical needs, and lung function. In phase 2, we will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in two outpatient respiratory clinics to evaluate the impact of the decision support tools on quality of care and patient outcomes. Clusters will be practicing pulmonologists (n ≥ 24), who will progressively switch to the intervention over 18 months. At the end of the study, a qualitative process evaluation will be carried out to determine the barriers and enablers of uptake of the tools. DISCUSSION: The IMPACT study coincides with a planned harmonization of electronic health record systems across tertiary care centers in British Columbia, Canada. The harmonization of these systems combined with IMPACT's implementation-oriented design and partnership with stakeholders will facilitate integration of the tools into routine care, if the results of the proposed study reveal positive association with improvement in the process and outcomes of clinical care. The process evaluation at the end of the trial will inform subsequent design iterations before largescale implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05309356.

Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches.

BACKGROUND: Models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) provide the foundation for a cumulative science of implementation, reflecting a shared, evolving understanding of various facets of implementation. One under-represented aspect in implementation MTFs is how intersecting social factors and systems of power and oppression can shape implementation. There is value in enhancing how MTFs in implementation research and practice account for these intersecting factors. Given the large number of MTFs, we sought to identify exemplar MTFs that represent key implementation phases within which to embed an intersectional perspective. METHODS: We used a five-step process to prioritize MTFs for enhancement with an intersectional lens. We mapped 160 MTFs to three previously prioritized phases of the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework. Next, 17 implementation researchers/practitioners, MTF experts, and intersectionality experts agreed on criteria for prioritizing MTFs within each KTA phase. The experts used a modified Delphi process to agree on an exemplar MTF for each of the three prioritized KTA framework phases. Finally, we reached consensus on the final MTFs and contacted the original MTF developers to confirm MTF versions and explore additional insights. RESULTS: We agreed on three criteria when prioritizing MTFs: acceptability (mean = 3.20, SD = 0.75), applicability (mean = 3.82, SD = 0.72), and usability (median = 4.00, mean = 3.89, SD = 0.31) of the MTF. The top-rated MTFs were the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care for the 'Identify the problem' phase (mean = 4.57, SD = 2.31), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for the 'Assess barriers/facilitators to knowledge use' phase (mean = 5.79, SD = 1.12), and the Behaviour Change Wheel for the 'Select, tailor, implement interventions' phase (mean = 6.36, SD = 1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Our interdisciplinary team engaged in a rigorous process to reach consensus on MTFs reflecting specific phases of the implementation process and prioritized each to serve as an exemplar in which to embed intersectional approaches. The resulting MTFs correspond with specific phases of the KTA framework, which itself may be useful for those seeking particular MTFs for particular KTA phases. This approach also provides a template for how other implementation MTFs could be similarly considered in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registration: osf.io/qgh64.

Development and usability testing of tools to facilitate incorporating intersectionality in knowledge translation.

BACKGROUND: The field of knowledge translation (KT) has been criticized for neglecting contextual and social considerations that influence health equity. Intersectionality, a concept introduced by Black feminist scholars, emphasizes how human experience is shaped by combinations of social factors (e.g., ethnicity, gender) embedded in systemic power structures. Its use has the potential to advance equity considerations in KT. Our objective was to develop and conduct usability testing of tools to support integrating intersectionality in KT through three key phases of KT: identifying the gap; assessing barriers to knowledge use; and selecting, tailoring, and implementing interventions. METHODS: We used an integrated KT approach and assembled an interdisciplinary development committee who drafted tools. We used a mixed methods approach for usability testing with KT intervention developers that included semi-structured interviews and the System Usability Scale (SUS). We calculated an average SUS score for each tool. We coded interview data using the framework method focusing on actionable feedback. The development committee used the feedback to revise tools, which were formatted by a graphic designer. RESULTS: Nine people working in Canada joined the development committee. They drafted an intersectionality primer and one tool that included recommendations, activities, reflection prompts, and resources for each of the three implementation phases. Thirty-one KT intervention developers from three countries participated in usability testing. They suggested the tools to be shorter, contain more visualizations, and use less jargon. Average SUS scores of the draft tools ranged between 60 and 78/100. The development committee revised and shortened all tools, and added two, one-page summary documents. The final toolkit included six documents. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and evaluated tools to help embed intersectionality considerations in KT. These tools go beyond recommending the use of intersectionality to providing practical guidance on how to do this. Future work should develop guidance for enhancing social justice in intersectionality-enhanced KT.

Applying an intersectionality lens to the theoretical domains framework: a tool for thinking about how intersecting social identities and structures of power influence behaviour.

BACKGROUND: A key component of the implementation process is identifying potential barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is one of the most commonly used frameworks for this purpose. When applying the TDF, it is critical to understand the context in which behaviours occur. Intersectionality, which accounts for the interface between social identity factors (e.g. age, gender) and structures of power (e.g. ageism, sexism), offers a novel approach to understanding how context shapes individual decision-making and behaviour. We aimed to develop a tool to be used alongside applications of the TDF to incorporate an intersectionality lens when identifying implementation barriers and enablers. METHODS: An interdisciplinary Framework Committee (n = 17) prioritized the TDF as one of three models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) to enhance with an intersectional lens through a modified Delphi approach. In collaboration with the wider Framework Committee, a subgroup considered all 14 TDF domains and iteratively developed recommendations for incorporating intersectionality considerations within the TDF and its domains. An iterative approach aimed at building consensus was used to finalize recommendations. RESULTS: Consensus on how to apply an intersectionality lens to the TDF was achieved after 12 rounds of revision. Two overarching considerations for using the intersectionality alongside the TDF were developed by the group as well as two to four prompts for each TDF domain to guide interview topic guides. Considerations and prompts were designed to assist users to reflect on how individual identities and structures of power may play a role in barriers and facilitators to behaviour change and subsequent intervention implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Through an expert-consensus approach, we developed a tool for applying an intersectionality lens alongside the TDF. Considering the role of intersecting social factors when identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing research evidence may result in more targeted and effective interventions that better reflect the realities of those involved.