Using an intersectionality lens to explore barriers and enablers to hepatitis C point-of-care testing: a qualitative study among people who inject drugs and service providers.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a significant global health burden, particularly among people who inject drugs. Rapid point-of-care HCV testing has emerged as a promising approach to improve HCV detection and linkage to care in harm reduction organizations such as needle and syringe programs. The objective of this study was to use an intersectionality lens to explore the barriers and enablers to point-of-care HCV testing in a needle and syringe program. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with clients (people who inject drugs) and service providers in a large community organization focused on the prevention of sexually transmitted and blood borne infections and harm reduction in Montreal, Canada. An intersectionality lens was used alongside the Theoretical Domains Framework to guide the formulation of research questions as well as data collection, analysis, and interpretation. RESULTS: We interviewed 27 participants (15 clients, 12 providers). For clients, four themes emerged: (1) understanding and perceptions of HCV testing, (2) the role of an accessible and inclusive environment, (3) the interplay of emotions and motivations in decision-making, and (4) the impact of intersectional stigma related to HCV, behaviors, and identities. For providers, five themes emerged: (1) knowledge, skills, and confidence for HCV testing, (2) professional roles and their intersection with identity and lived experience, (3) resources and integration of services, (4) social and emotional factors, and (5) behavioral regulation and incentives for HCV testing. Intersectional stigma amplified access, emotional and informational barriers to HCV care for clients. In contrast, identity and lived experience acted as powerful enablers for providers in the provision of HCV care. CONCLUSION: The application of an intersectionality lens provides a nuanced understanding of multilevel barriers and enablers to point-of-care HCV testing. Findings underscore the need for tailored strategies that address stigma, improve provider roles and communication, and foster an inclusive environment for equitable HCV care. Using an intersectionality lens in implementation research can offer valuable insights, guiding the design of equity-focused implementation strategies.

"Apparently, you can only be treated once": A qualitative study exploring perceptions of hepatitis C and access to treatment among people who inject drugs visiting a needle and syringe program.

BACKGROUND: Access to hepatitis C care within harm reduction community organizations for people who inject drugs is crucial for achieving hepatitis C elimination. However, there is a lack of data on how perceptions of hepatitis C and treatment have changed among individuals visiting these organizations during the era of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). This study aimed to explore the perceptions of hepatitis C and treatment access for (re)infection among individuals visiting a needle and syringe program in Canada. METHODS: Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals who recently injected drugs and visited a needle and syringe program. The interviews were guided by the Common-Sense Self-Regulation Model (CS-SRM) and aimed to explore cognitive and emotional representations of hepatitis C, perceptions of treatment, coping strategies and sources of information. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most of the participants identified as male, were of white ethnicity and had a median age of 45. While most underscored the therapeutic advancements and the effectiveness of DAAs, they expressed confusion regarding the mechanisms of access to treatment, especially in cases of reinfection. Perceptions of the controllability of hepatitis C were significantly influenced by the stigmatizing discourse surrounding treatment access, cost, and public coverage. This influence extended to their intentions for seeking treatment. Participants emphasized the social consequences of hepatitis C, including stigma. Emotional representations of hepatitis C evolved along the care cascade, encompassing initial shock at diagnosis and later fear of reinfection following successful treatment. CONCLUSION: Nearly a decade after the advent of DAAs, misinformation about treatment access persists. Findings underscore a nexus of internalized and institutionalized stigma associated with hepatitis C, drug use, and the challenges of cost and access to treatment, pointing to a clear need for education and service delivery optimisation in harm reduction community organizations.

The big six: key principles for effective use of Behavior substitution in interventions to de-implement low-value care.

ABSTRACT: Healthcare professionals provide care to help patients; however, sometimes that care is of low value - at best ineffective and at worst harmful. To address this, recent frameworks provide guidance for developing and investigating de-implementation interventions; yet little attention has been devoted to identifying what strategies are most effective for de-implementation. In this paper, we discuss Behavior substitution, a strategy whereby an unwanted behavior is replaced with a wanted behavior, thereby making it hypothetically easier to reduce or stop the unwanted behavior. We discuss why Behavior substitution may be a useful de-implementation strategy, and why it may not be suitable for all circumstances. On the basis of the body of knowledge in behavioral science, we propose a list of principles to consider when selecting a substitute behavior for a de-implementation intervention. Applying these principles should increase the likelihood that this technique will be effective in reducing low-value care.

Understanding determinants of patients' decisions to attend their family physician and to take antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: a qualitative descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Although antibiotics have little or no benefit for most upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), they continue to be prescribed frequently in primary care. Physicians perceive that patients' expectations influence their antibiotic prescribing practice; however, not all patients seek antibiotic treatment despite having similar symptoms. In this study, we explored patients' views about URTIs, and the ways patients manage them (including attendance in primary care and taking antibiotics). METHODS: Using a qualitative descriptive design, adult English-speaking individuals at a Canadian health center were recruited through convenient sampling. The participants were interviewed using semi-structured interview guide based on the Common Sense-Self-Regulation Model (CS-SRM). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded according to CS-SRM dimensions (illness representations, coping strategies). Sampling continued until thematic saturation was achieved. Thematic analysis related to the dimensions of CS-SRM was applied. RESULTS: Generally, participants had accurate perception about the symptoms of URTIs, as well as how to prevent and manage them. However, some participants revealed misconceptions about the causes of URTIs. Almost all participants mentioned that they only visited their doctor if their symptoms got progressively worse and they could no longer self-manage the symptoms. When visiting a doctor, most participants reported that they did not seek antibiotics. They expected to receive an examination and an explanation for their symptoms. CONCLUSION: Our participants reported good understanding regarding the likely lack of benefit from antibiotics for URTIs. Developing interventions that specifically help patients discuss their concerns with their physicians, instead of providing more education to public may help in reducing the use of unnecessary antibiotics.

Barriers and Enablers to Direct Observation of Trainees' Clinical Performance: A Qualitative Study Using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

PURPOSE: Direct observation is essential to assess and provide feedback to medical trainees. However, calls for its increased use in medical training persist as learners report that direct observation occurs infrequently. This study applied a theory-driven approach to systematically investigate barriers and enablers to direct observation in residency training. METHOD: From September 2016 to July 2017, semistructured interviews of faculty and residents at The Ottawa Hospital were conducted and analyzed. An interview guide based on the theoretical domains framework (TDF) was used to capture 14 domains that may influence direct observation. Interview transcripts were independently coded using direct content analysis, and specific beliefs were generated by grouping similar responses. Relevant domains were identified based on the frequencies of beliefs reported, presence of conflicting beliefs, and perceived influence on direct observation practices. RESULTS: Twenty-five interviews (12 residents, 13 faculty) were conducted, representing 10 specialties. Ten TDF domains were identified as influencing direct observation: knowledge, skills, beliefs about consequences, social/professional role and identity, intention, goals, memory/attention/decision processes, environmental context and resources, social influences, and behavioral regulation. Discord between faculty and resident intentions, coupled with social expectations that residents should be responsible for ensuring that observations occur, was identified as a key barrier. Additionally, competing demands identified across multiple TDF domains emerged as a pervasive theme. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified key barriers and enablers to direct observation. These influencing factors provide a basis for the development of potential strategies aimed at embedding direct observation as a routine pedagogical practice in residency training.