Chronic disease prevention and screening outcomes for patients with and without financial difficulty: a secondary analysis of the BETTER WISE cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment. INTERVENTION: 1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: 55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p<0.001) which was similar in the control and intervention groups. The response rate to this question was only 51% at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21333761.

A Brief Tool to Screen Patients for Precarious Employment: A Validation Study.

PURPOSE: Precarious employment, defined by temporary contracts, unstable employment, or job insecurity, is increasingly common and is associated with inconsistent access to benefits, lower income, and greater exposure to physical and psycholosocial hazards. Clinicians can benefit from a simple approach to screen for precarious employment to improve their understanding of a patient's social context, help with diagnoses, and inform treatment plans and intersectional interventions. Our objective was to validate a screening tool for precarious employment. METHODS: We used a 3-item screening tool that covered key aspects of precarious employment: non-standard employment, variable income, and violations of occupational health and safety rights and protections. Answers were compared with classification using the Poverty and Employment Precarity in Southern Ontario Employment Index. Participants were aged 18 years and older, fluent in English, and employed. They were recruited in 7 primary care clinic waiting rooms in Toronto, Canada over 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 204 people aged 18-72 years (mean 38 [SD 11.3]) participated, of which 93 (45.6%) identified as men and 119 (58.3%) self-reported as White. Participants who reported 2 or more of the 3 items as positive were almost 4 times more likely to be precariously employed (positive likelihood ratio = 3.84 [95% CI, 2.15-6.80]). CONCLUSIONS: A 3-item screening tool can help identify precarious employment. Our tool is useful for starting a conversation about employment precarity and work conditions in clinical settings. Implementation of this screening tool in health settings could enable better targeting of resources for managing care and connecting patients to legal and employment support services.

Screening for poverty and related social determinants to improve knowledge of and links to resources (SPARK): development and cognitive testing of a tool for primary care.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations are increasingly exploring ways to address the social determinants of health. Accurate data on social determinants is essential to identify opportunities for action to improve health outcomes, to identify patterns of inequity, and to help evaluate the impact of interventions. The objective of this study was to refine a standardized tool for the collection of social determinants data through cognitive testing. METHODS: An initial set of questions on social determinants for use in healthcare settings was developed by a collaboration of hospitals and a local public health organization in Toronto, Canada during 2011-2012. Subsequent research on how patients interpreted the questions, and how they performed in primary care and other settings led to revisions. We administered these questions and conducted in-depth cognitive interviews with all the participants, who were from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Cognitive interviewing was used, with participants invited to verbalize thoughts and feelings as they read the questions. Interview notes were grouped thematically, and high frequency themes were addressed. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-five individuals responded to the study advertisements and 195 ultimately participated in the study. Although all interviews were conducted in English, participants were diverse. For many, the value of this information being collected in typical healthcare settings was unclear, and hence, we included descriptors for each question. In general, the questions were understood, but participants highlighted a number of ways the questions could be changed to be even clearer and more inclusive. For example, more response options were added to the question of sexual orientation and the "making ends meet" question was completely reworded in light of challenges to understand the informal phrasing cited by English as a Second Language (ESL) users of the tool. CONCLUSION: In this work we have refined an initial set of 16 sociodemographic and social needs questions into a simple yet comprehensive 18-question tool. The changes were largely related to wording, rather than content. These questions require validation against accepted, standardized tools. Further work is required to enable community data governance, and to ensure implementation of the tool as well as the use of its data is successful in a range of organizations.

Addressing health inequity during the COVID-19 pandemic through primary health care and public health collaboration: a multiple case study analysis in eight high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic substantially magnified the inequity gaps among vulnerable populations. Both public health (PH) and primary health care (PHC) have been crucial in addressing the challenges posed by the pandemic, especially in the area of vulnerable populations. However, little is known about the intersection between PH and PHC as a strategy to mitigate the inequity gap. This study aims to assess the collaboration between PHC and PH with a focus on addressing the health needs of vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 pandemic across jurisdictions. METHODS: We analyzed and compared data from jurisdictional reports of COVID-19 pandemic responses in PHC and PH in Belgium, Canada (Ontario), Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain from 2020 to 2021. RESULTS: Four themes emerge from the analysis: (1) the majority of the countries implemented outreach strategies targeting vulnerable groups as a means to ensure continued access to PHC; (2) digital assessment in PHC was found to be present across all the countries; (3) PHC was insufficiently represented at the decision-making level; (4) there is a lack of clear communication channels between PH and PHC in all the countries. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified opportunities for collaboration between PHC and PH to reduce inequity gaps and to improve population health, focusing on vulnerable populations. The COVID-19 response in these eight countries has demonstrated the importance of an integrated PHC system. Consequently, the development of effective strategies for responding to and planning for pandemics should take into account the social determinants of health in order to mitigate the unequal impact of COVID-19. Careful, intentional coordination between PH and PHC should be established in normal times as a basis for effective response during future public health emergencies. The pandemic has provided significant insights on how to strengthen health systems and provide universal access to healthcare by fostering stronger connections between PH and PHC.

"Addressing the bigger picture": A qualitative study of internal medicine patients' perspectives on social needs data collection and use.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in collecting sociodemographic and social needs data in hospital settings to inform patient care and health equity. However, few studies have examined inpatients' views on this data collection and what should be done to address social needs. This study describes internal medicine inpatients' perspectives on the collection and use of sociodemographic and social needs information. METHODS: A qualitative interpretive description methodology was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 patients admitted to a large academic hospital in Toronto, Canada. Participants were recruited using maximum variation sampling for diverse genders, races, and those with and without social needs. Interviews were coded using a predominantly inductive approach and a thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Patients expressed that sociodemographic and social needs data collection is important to offer actionable solutions to address their needs. Patients described a gap between their ideal care which would attend to social needs, versus the reality that hospital-based teams are faced with competing priorities and pressures that make it unfeasible to provide such care. They also believed that this data collection could facilitate more holistic, integrated care. Patients conveyed a need to have a trusting and transparent relationship with their provider to alleviate concerns surrounding bias, discrimination, and confidentiality. Lastly, they indicated that sociodemographic and social needs data could be useful to inform care, support research to inspire social change, and assist them with navigating community resources or creating in-hospital programs to address unmet social needs. CONCLUSIONS: While the collection of sociodemographic and social needs information in hospital settings is generally acceptable, there were varied views on whether hospital staff should intervene, as their priority is medical care. The results can inform the implementation of social data collection and interventions in hospital settings.

Effect of Free Medicine Distribution on Health Care Costs in Canada Over 3 Years: A Secondary Analysis of the CLEAN Meds Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few interventions are proven to reduce total health care costs, and addressing cost-related nonadherence has the potential to do so. Objective: To determine the effect of eliminating out-of-pocket medication fees on total health care costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial using a prespecified outcome took place across 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada (6 in Toronto and 3 in rural areas), where health care services are generally publicly funded. Adult patients (≥18 years old) reporting cost-related nonadherence to medicines in the past 12 months were recruited between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, and followed up until April 28, 2020. Data analysis was completed in 2021. Interventions: Access to a comprehensive list of 128 medicines commonly prescribed in ambulatory care with no out-of-pocket costs for 3 years vs usual medicine access. Main Outcome and Measures: Total publicly funded health care costs over 3 years, including costs of hospitalizations. Health care costs were determined using administrative data from Ontario's single-payer health care system, and all costs are reported in Canadian dollars with adjustments for inflation. Results: A total of 747 participants from 9 primary care sites were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 51 [14] years; 421 [56.4%] female). Free medicine distribution was associated with a lower median total health care spending over 3 years of $1641 (95% CI, $454-$2792; P = .006). Mean total spending was $4465 (95% CI, -$944 to $9874) lower over the 3-year period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, eliminating out-of-pocket medication expenses for patients with cost-related nonadherence in primary care was associated with lower health care spending over 3 years. These findings suggest that eliminating out-of-pocket medication costs for patients could reduce overall costs of health care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744963.

Implementing artificial intelligence in Canadian primary care: Barriers and strategies identified through a national deliberative dialogue.

BACKGROUND: With large volumes of longitudinal data in electronic medical records from diverse patients, primary care is primed for disruption by artificial intelligence (AI) technology. With AI applications in primary care still at an early stage in Canada and most countries, there is a unique opportunity to engage key stakeholders in exploring how AI would be used and what implementation would look like. OBJECTIVE: To identify the barriers that patients, providers, and health leaders perceive in relation to implementing AI in primary care and strategies to overcome them. DESIGN: 12 virtual deliberative dialogues. Dialogue data were thematically analyzed using a combination of rapid ethnographic assessment and interpretive description techniques. SETTING: Virtual sessions. PARTICIPANTS: Participants from eight provinces in Canada, including 22 primary care service users, 21 interprofessional providers, and 5 health system leaders. RESULTS: The barriers that emerged from the deliberative dialogue sessions were grouped into four themes: (1) system and data readiness, (2) the potential for bias and inequity, (3) the regulation of AI and big data, and (4) the importance of people as technology enablers. Strategies to overcome the barriers in each of these themes were highlighted, where participatory co-design and iterative implementation were voiced most strongly by participants. LIMITATIONS: Only five health system leaders were included in the study and no self-identifying Indigenous people. This is a limitation as both groups may have provided unique perspectives to the study objective. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide insight into the barriers and facilitators associated with implementing AI in primary care settings from different perspectives. This will be vital as decisions regarding the future of AI in this space is shaped.

Collection and Use of Social Determinants of Health Data in Inpatient General Internal Medicine Wards: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in incorporating social determinants of health (SDoH) data collection in inpatient hospital settings to inform patient care. However, there is limited information on this data collection and its use in inpatient general internal medicine (GIM). This scoping review sought to describe the current state of the literature on SDoH data collection and its application to patient care in inpatient GIM settings. METHODS: English-language searches on MedLine, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane, and PsycINFO were conducted from 2000 to April 2021. Studies reporting systematic data collection or use of at least three SDoH, sociodemographic, or social needs variables in inpatient hospital GIM settings were included. Four independent reviewers screened abstracts, and two reviewers screened full-text articles. RESULTS: A total of 8190 articles underwent abstract screening and eight were included. A range of SDoH tools were used, such as THRIVE, PRAPARE, WHO-Quality of Life, Measuring Health Equity, and a biopsychosocial framework. The most common SDoH were food security or malnutrition (n=7), followed by housing, transportation, employment, education, income, functional status and disability, and social support (n=5 each). Four of the eight studies applied the data to inform patient care, and three provided community resource referrals. DISCUSSION: There is limited evidence to guide the collection and use of SDoH data in inpatient GIM settings. This review highlights the need for integrated care, the role of the electronic health record, and social history taking, all of which may benefit from more robust SDoH data collection. Future research should examine the feasibility and acceptability of SDoH integration in inpatient GIM settings.

Chronic Struggle: An Institutional Ethnography of Chronic Pain and Marginalization.

There have been several recent calls to re-think chronic pain in response to the growing awareness of social inequities that impact the prevalence of chronic pain and its management. This in turn has resulted in new explorations of suffering as it relates to pain. While laudable, many of these clinically oriented accounts are abstract and often fail to offer a critical theoretical understanding of social and structural inequities. To truly rethink pain, we must also reconsider suffering, beginning in the everyday expert knowledge of people with chronic pain who can offer insights in relation to their bodies and also the organization of the social circumstances in which they live. Our team undertook a sociological approach known as institutional ethnography (IE) to explicate the work of people in managing lives beset by chronic pain and the inequities that stem from marginalization. In keeping with our critical paradigm, we describe participant accounts as situated, rather than lived, to de-emphasize the individual in favour of the social and relational. Through our analysis, we offer a new concept of chronic struggle to capture how pain, illness, economic deprivation, and suffering constitute a knot of experience that people living with chronic pain are obliged to simplify in order to fit existing logics of medicine. Our goal is to identify the social organization of chronic pain care which underpins experience in order to situate the social as political rather than medical or individual. PERSPECTIVE: This article explicates the health work of people living with chronic pain and marginalization, drawing on their situated experience. We offer the concept of chronic struggle as a conceptualization that allows us to bring into clear view the social organization of chronic pain in which the social is visible as political and structural rather than medical or individual.

Can a Focus on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Transform Health Services Research?

The new Canadian Institutes of Health Research - Institute of Health Services and Policy Research's Strategic Plan 2021-2026 (CIHR IHSPR 2021) holds potential. Barriers are anticipated, including that commitments to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) are tokenistic. This commentary provides four recommendations to support EDI as transformative. First, EDI must start with an honest history of the role of institutions in upholding injustice. Second, performative EDI must be replaced by changes in money, power and resources. Third, data collection alone must never be the end goal of EDI. And fourth, for EDI to be transformative, it must be grounded in praxis, taking direction from communities and movements seeking justice.

Implementing High-Quality Primary Care Through a Health Equity Lens.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of centering health equity in future health system and primary care reforms. Strengthening primary care will be needed to correct the longstanding history of mistreatment of First Nations/Indigenous and racialized people, exclusion of health care workers of color, and health care access and outcome inequities further magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released a report on Implementing High-Quality Primary Care: Rebuilding the Foundation of Health Care, that provided a framework for defining high-quality primary care and proposed 5 recommendations for implementing that definition. Using the report's framework, we identified health equity challenges and opportunities with examples from primary care systems in the United States and Canada. We are poised to reinvigorate primary care because the recent pandemic and the attention to continued racialized police violence sparked renewed conversations and collaborations around equity, diversity, inclusion, and health equity that have been long overdue. The time to transition those conversations to actionable items to improve the health of patients, families, and communities is now.Appeared as Annals "Online First" article.

Connecting artificial intelligence and primary care challenges: findings from a multi stakeholder collaborative consultation.

Despite widespread advancements in and envisioned uses for artificial intelligence (AI), few examples of successfully implemented AI innovations exist in primary care (PC) settings. OBJECTIVES: To identify priority areas for AI and PC in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A collaborative consultation event engaged multiple stakeholders in a nominal group technique process to generate, discuss and rank ideas for how AI can support Ontario PC. RESULTS: The consultation process produced nine ranked priorities: (1) preventative care and risk profiling, (2) patient self-management of condition(s), (3) management and synthesis of information, (4) improved communication between PC and AI stakeholders, (5) data sharing and interoperability, (6-tie) clinical decision support, (6-tie) administrative staff support, (8) practitioner clerical and routine task support and (9) increased mental healthcare capacity and support. Themes emerging from small group discussions about barriers, implementation issues and resources needed to support the priorities included: equity and the digital divide; system capacity and culture; data availability and quality; legal and ethical issues; user-centred design; patient-centredness; and proper evaluation of AI-driven tool implementation. DISCUSSION: Findings provide guidance for future work on AI and PC. There are immediate opportunities to use existing resources to develop and test AI for priority areas at the patient, provider and system level. For larger scale, sustainable innovations, there is a need for longer-term projects that lay foundations around data and interdisciplinary work. CONCLUSION: Study findings can be used to inform future research and development of AI for PC, and to guide resource planning and allocation.

Routinely asking patients about income in primary care: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Income is a key social determinant of health, yet it is rare for data on income to be routinely collected and integrated with electronic health records. AIM: To examine response bias and evaluate patient perspectives of being asked about income in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Mixed-methods study in a large, multi-site primary care organisation in Toronto, Canada, where patients are asked about income in a routinely administered sociodemographic survey. METHOD: Data were examined from the electronic health records of patients who answered at least one question on the survey between December 2013 and March 2016 (n = 14 247). The study compared those who responded to the income question with non-responders. Structured interviews with 27 patients were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 10 441 (73%) patients responded to both parts of the income question: 'What was your total family income before taxes last year?' and 'How many people does your income support?'. Female patients, ethnic minorities, caregivers of young children, and older people were less likely to respond. From interviews, many patients were comfortable answering the income question, particularly if they understood the connection between income and health, and believed the data would be used to improve care. Several patients found it difficult to estimate their income or felt the options did not reflect fluctuating financial circumstances. CONCLUSION: Many patients will provide data on income in the context of a survey in primary care, but accurately estimating income can be challenging. Future research should compare self-reported income to perceived financial strain. Data on income linked to health records can help identify health inequities and help target anti-poverty interventions.

Cash transfer during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a one-time cash transfer of $C1000 in people who are unable to physically distance due to insufficient income. DESIGN: Open-label, multi-centre, randomised superiority trial. SETTING: Seven primary care sites in Ontario, Canada; six urban sites associated with St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto and one in Manitoulin Island. PARTICIPANTS: 392 individuals who reported trouble affording basic necessities due to disruptions related to COVID-19. INTERVENTION: After random allocation, participants either received the cash transfer of $C1000 (n=196) or physical distancing guidelines alone (n=196). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the maximum number of symptoms consistent with COVID-19 over 14 days. Secondary outcomes were meeting clinical criteria for COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 presence, number of close contacts, general health and ability to afford basic necessities. RESULTS: The primary outcome of number of symptoms reported by participants did not differ between groups after 2 weeks (cash transfer, mean 1.6 vs 1.9, ratio of means 0.83; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.24). There were no statistically significant effects on secondary outcomes of the meeting COVID-19 clinical criteria (7.9% vs 12.8%; risk difference -0.05; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.01), SARS-CoV-2 presence (0.5% vs 0.6%; risk difference 0.00 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02), mean number of close contacts (3.5 vs 3.7; rate ratio 1.10; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.46), general health very good or excellent (60% vs 63%; risk difference -0.03 95% CI -0.14 to 0.08) and ability to make ends meet (52% vs 51%; risk difference 0.01 95% CI -0.10 to 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: A single cash transfer did not reduce the COVID-19 symptoms or improve the ability to afford necessities. Further studies are needed to determine whether some groups may benefit from financial supports and to determine if a higher level of support is beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04359264.

Implementation of targeted screening for poverty in a large primary care team in Toronto, Canada: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Poverty has a significant influence on health. Efforts to optimize income and reduce poverty could make a difference to the lives of patients and their families. Routine screening for poverty in primary care is an important first step but rarely occurs in Canada. We aimed to implement a targeted screening and referral process in a large, distributed primary care team in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The main outcome was the proportion of targeted patients screened. METHODS: This implementation evaluation was conducted with a large community-based primary care team in north Toronto. The primary care team serves relatively wealthy neighborhoods with pockets of poverty. Physicians were invited to participate. We implemented targeted screening by combining census information on neighborhood-level deprivation with postal codes in patient records. For physicians agreeing to participate, we added prompts to screen for poverty to the charts of adult patients living in the most deprived areas. Standardized electronic medical record templates recommended a referral to a team case worker for income optimization, for those patients screening positive. We recorded the number and percentages of participants at each stage, from screening to receiving advice on income optimization. RESULTS: 128 targeted patients with at least one visit (25%) were screened. The primary care team included 86 physicians distributed across 19 clinical locations. Thirty-four physicians (39%) participated. Their practices provided care for 27,290 patients aged 18 or older; 852 patients (3%) were found to be living in the most deprived neighborhoods. 509 (60%) had at least one office visit over the 6 months of follow up. 25 patients (20%) screened positive for poverty, and 13 (52%) were referred. Eight patients (62% of those referred) were ultimately seen by a caseworker for income optimization. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented a targeted poverty screening program combined with resources to optimize income for patients in a large, distributed community-based primary care team. Screening was feasible; however, only a small number of patients were linked to the intervention Further efforts to scale and spread screening and mitigation of poverty are warranted; these should include broadening the targeted population beyond those living in the most deprived areas.

Exploring different methods to evaluate the impact of basic income interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Persistent income inequality, the increase in precarious employment, the inadequacy of many welfare systems, and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have increased interest in Basic Income (BI) interventions. Ensuring that social interventions, such as BI, are evaluated appropriately is key to ensuring their overall effectiveness. This systematic review therefore aims to report on available methods and domains of assessment, which have been used to evaluate BI interventions. These findings will assist in informing future program and research development and implementation. METHODS: Studies were identified through systematic searches of the indexed and grey literature (Databases included: Scopus, Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest databases, EBSCOhost Research Databases, and PsycINFO), hand-searching reference lists of included studies, and recommendations from experts. Citations were independently reviewed by two study team members. We included studies that reported on methods used to evaluate the impact of BI, incorporated primary data from an observational or experimental study, or were a protocol for a future BI study. We extracted information on the BI intervention, context and evaluation method. RESULTS: 86 eligible articles reported on 10 distinct BI interventions from the last six decades. Workforce participation was the most common outcome of interest among BI evaluations in the 1960-1980 era. During the 2000s, studies of BI expanded to include outcomes related to health, educational attainment, housing and other key facets of life impacted by individuals' income. Many BI interventions were tested in randomized controlled trials with data collected through surveys at multiple time points. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last two decades, the assessment of the impact of BI interventions has evolved to include a wide array of outcomes. This shift in evaluation outcomes reflects the current hypothesis that investing in BI can result in lower spending on health and social care. Methods of evaluation ranged but emphasized the use of randomization, surveys, and existing data sources (i.e., administrative data). Our findings can inform future BI intervention studies and interventions by providing an overview of how previous BI interventions have been evaluated and commenting on the effectiveness of these methods. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42016051218).

Implementing Anti-Racism Interventions in Healthcare Settings: A Scoping Review.

Racism towards Black, Indigenous and people of colour continues to exist in the healthcare system. This leads to profound harm for people who use and work within these settings. This is a scoping review to identify anti-racism interventions in outpatient healthcare settings. Searching the peer-reviewed and grey literature, articles were screened for inclusion by at least two independent reviewers. Synthesizing the socio-ecological levels of interventions with inductively identifying themes, a conceptual model for implementing anti-racism interventions in healthcare settings is presented. In total, 37 peer-reviewed articles were included in the review, with 12 empirical studies and 25 theoretical or conceptual papers. Six grey literature documents were also included. Healthcare institutions need to incorporate an explicit, shared language of anti-racism. Anti-racism action should incorporate leadership buy-in and commitment with dedicated resources, support and funding; a multi-level approach beginning with policy and organizational interventions; transparent accountability mechanisms for sustainable change; long-term meaningful partnerships with Black, Indigenous, and people of colour (i.e., racialized communities); and ongoing, mandatory, tailored staff education and training. Decision-makers and staff in healthcare settings have a responsibility to take anti-racism action and may improve the success and sustainability of their efforts by incorporating the foundational principles and strategies identified in this paper.

Paramedics Have Untapped Potential to Address Social Determinants of Health in Canada.

The role of paramedics, including select paramedics providing primary and preventive care in homes and community settings, is evolving in health systems around the world. These developments are associated with improvements in health outcomes, improved access to services and reduced emergency department use. Building on these existing trends in paramedicine, and because social conditions contribute to illness and are strong predictors of future health service use, addressing patients' social needs should be integrated into core paramedic practice in Canada. We discuss how paramedic education, culture and governance could better enable paramedics to address the social determinants of health.