"They're all struggling as well": social and economic barriers and facilitators to self-managing chronic illness among marginalized people who use drugs.

PURPOSE: Self-management is recommended for addressing chronic conditions, and self-management programmes improve health behaviours and outcomes. However, social and economic factors have been neglected in self-management research, despite their relevance for marginalized groups. Thus, we aimed to explore barriers and facilitators that influence self-management among socioeconomically marginalized people who use drugs (PWUD). METHODS: Using community-based participatory methods, we developed a qualitative interview guide and conducted peer-led recruitment. Participants were admitted into the study after self-identifying as using non-prescribed drugs, having a chronic health issue, and experiencing socioeconomic marginalization. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, taking a relational autonomy lens. RESULTS: Participants highlighted substantial barriers to managing their health issues, mostly stemming from their social and economic environments, such as unstable housing, low income, lack of supportive social networks, and negative healthcare experiences. Participants also described how their ability to self-manage their chronic conditions benefited from specific aspects of social interactions, including close relationships, community connectedness, and engaging in peer support. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that structural interventions are needed to support self-management among marginalized PWUD, especially stable housing. Self-management supports for PWUD would benefit from including a range of low-barrier community-based options, peer work opportunities, and advocacy for needs.

Establishing need and population priorities to improve the health of homeless and vulnerably housed women, youth, and men: A Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Homelessness is one of the most disabling and precarious living conditions. The objective of this Delphi consensus study was to identify priority needs and at-risk population subgroups among homeless and vulnerably housed people to guide the development of a more responsive and person-centred clinical practice guideline. METHODS: We used a literature review and expert working group to produce an initial list of needs and at-risk subgroups of homeless and vulnerably housed populations. We then followed a modified Delphi consensus method, asking expert health professionals, using electronic surveys, and persons with lived experience of homelessness, using oral surveys, to prioritize needs and at-risk sub-populations across Canada. Criteria for ranking included potential for impact, extent of inequities and burden of illness. We set ratings of ≥ 60% to determine consensus over three rounds of surveys. FINDINGS: Eighty four health professionals and 76 persons with lived experience of homelessness participated from across Canada, achieving an overall 73% response rate. The participants identified priority needs including mental health and addiction care, facilitating access to permanent housing, facilitating access to income support and case management/care coordination. Participants also ranked specific homeless sub-populations in need of additional research including: Indigenous Peoples (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit); youth, women and families; people with acquired brain injury, intellectual or physical disabilities; and refugees and other migrants. INTERPRETATION: The inclusion of the perspectives of both expert health professionals and people with lived experience of homelessness provided validity in identifying real-world needs to guide systematic reviews in four key areas according to priority needs, as well as launch a number of working groups to explore how to adapt interventions for specific at-risk populations, to create evidence-based guidelines.

How the delivery of HIV care in Canada aligns with the Chronic Care Model: A qualitative study.

With the advent of continuous antiretroviral therapy, HIV has become a complex chronic, rather than acute, condition. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) provides an integrated approach to the delivery of care for people with chronic conditions that could therefore be applied to the delivery of care for people living with HIV. Our objective was to assess the alignment of HIV care settings with the CCM. We conducted a mixed methods study to explore structures, organization and care processes of Canadian HIV care settings. The quantitative results of phase one are published elsewhere. For phase two, we conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants from 12 HIV care settings across Canada. Irrespective of composition of the care setting or its location, HIV care in Canada is well aligned with several components of the CCM, most prominently in the areas of linkage to community resources and delivery system design with inter-professional team-based care. We propose the need for improvements in the availability of electronic clinical information systems and self-management support services to support better care delivery and health outcomes among people living with HIV in Canada.

Canadian HIV Care Settings as Patient-Centered Medical Homes (PCMHs).

PURPOSE: For people living with HIV (PLWH) using continuous antiretroviral therapy, HIV is now a complex chronic condition often managed in primary care settings. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a model to deliver comprehensive, coordinated, and integrated primary care that promotes collaboration between primary and specialist care and allied services. The study assessed how both Canadian primary and specialist HIV care settings align with the PCMH. METHODS: Mixed-methods surveys and interviews with providers in Canadian HIV care settings. RESULTS: Twenty-two settings completed the survey, 12 of which participated in follow-up interviews. Settings had a mean PCMH score of 8.06/12 (SD = 1.53), indicating the basic elements of each PCMH domain have been implemented. We found no significant differences between HIV primary care and specialist care settings. Continuous team-based healing relationships had the highest score (mean = 9.2; SD = 2.15), and quality improvement strategy had the lowest score (mean = 7.19; SD = 2.26). The themes that arose from the interviews were 1) endorsement of the domains of the PCMH by all settings, 2) organizational structures of settings located in hospitals facilitating the implementation of the PCMH through existing technology, patient advisory boards, and accessible services, and 3) dissonance between complex care needs and existing organizational structures in some settings, including limited clinic hours, lack of electronic medical records, and limited mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: HIV care in Canada is reasonably well aligned with the PCMH, irrespective of structure of settings. We propose the need for improvements in the use of electronic medical records, quality improvement strategies, and integration of mental health services to achieve better care delivery and health outcomes among PLWH in Canada.