Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). METHODS: Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. RESULTS: We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

Assessing the feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity of a tele-retinopathy-based intervention to encourage greater attendance to diabetic retinopathy screening in immigrants living with diabetes from China and African-Caribbean countries in Ottawa, Canada: a protocol.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of preventable blindness in Canada. Clinical guidelines recommend annual diabetic retinopathy screening for people living with diabetes to reduce the risk and progression of vision loss. However, many Canadians with diabetes do not attend screening. Screening rates are even lower in immigrants to Canada including people from China, Africa, and the Caribbean, and these groups are also at higher risk of developing diabetes complications. We aim to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity of a co-developed, linguistically and culturally tailored tele-retinopathy screening intervention for Mandarin-speaking immigrants from China and French-speaking immigrants from African-Caribbean countries living with diabetes in Ottawa, Canada, and identify how many from each population group attend screening during the pilot period. METHODS: We will work with our health system and patient partners to conduct a 6-month feasibility pilot of a tele-retinopathy screening intervention in a Community Health Centre in Ottawa. We anticipate recruiting 50-150 patients and 5-10 health care providers involved in delivering the intervention for the pilot. Acceptability will be assessed via a Theoretical Framework of Acceptability-informed survey with patients and health care providers. To assess feasibility, we will use a Theoretical Domains Framework-informed interview guide and to assess fidelity, and we will use a survey informed by the National Institutes of Health framework from the perspective of health care providers. We will also collect patient demographics (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, health insurance status, and immigration information), screening outcomes (i.e., patients with retinopathy identified, patients requiring specialist care), patient costs, and other intervention-related variables such as preferred language. Survey data will be descriptively analyzed and qualitative data will undergo content analysis. DISCUSSION: This feasibility pilot study will capture how many people living with diabetes from each group attend the diabetic retinopathy screening, costs, and implementation processes for the tele-retinopathy screening intervention. The study will indicate the practicability and suitability of the intervention in increasing screening attendance in the target population groups. The study results will inform a patient-randomized trial, provide evidence to conduct an economic evaluation of the intervention, and optimize the community-based intervention.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value care in adults hospitalized following trauma: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While simple Audit & Feedback (A&F) has shown modest effectiveness in reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance-linked to accreditation. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) embedded in a Canadian provincial quality assurance program. Level I-III trauma centers (n = 30) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The intervention, developed using extensive background work and UK Medical Research Council guidelines, includes an A&F report, educational meetings, and facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be the use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed at the patient level using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging after a patient transfer, unintended consequences, determinants for successful implementation, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. DISCUSSION: On completion of the cRCT, if the intervention is effective and cost-effective, the multifaceted intervention will be integrated into trauma systems across Canada. Medium and long-term benefits may include a reduction in adverse events for patients and an increase in resource availability. The proposed intervention targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, was developed using a partnership approach, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. There will be no attrition, identification, or recruitment bias as the intervention is mandatory in line with trauma center designation requirements, and all outcomes will be assessed with routinely collected data. However, investigators cannot be blinded to group allocation and there is a possibility of contamination bias that will be minimized by conducting intervention refinement only with participants in the intervention arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24, 2023, # NCT05744154 ).

The Influence of Age, Sex, and Socioeconomic Status on Glycemic Control Among People With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in Canada: Patient-Led Longitudinal Retrospective Cross-sectional Study With Multiple Time Points of Measurement.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines for most adults with diabetes recommend maintaining hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels ≤7% (≤53 mmol/mol) to avoid microvascular and macrovascular complications. People with diabetes of different ages, sexes, and socioeconomic statuses may differ in their ease of attaining this goal. OBJECTIVE: As a team of people with diabetes, researchers, and health professionals, we aimed to explore patterns in HbA1c results among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Canada. Our research question was identified by people living with diabetes. METHODS: In this patient-led retrospective cross-sectional study with multiple time points of measurement, we used generalized estimating equations to analyze the associations of age, sex, and socioeconomic status with 947,543 HbA1c results collected from 2010 to 2019 among 90,770 people living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Canada and housed in the Canadian National Diabetes Repository. People living with diabetes reviewed and interpreted the results. RESULTS: HbA1c results ≤7.0% represented 30.5% (male people living with type 1 diabetes), 21% (female people living with type 1 diabetes), 55% (male people living with type 2 diabetes) and 59% (female people living with type 2 diabetes) of results in each subcategory. We observed higher HbA1c values during adolescence, and for people living with type 2 diabetes, among people living in lower income areas. Among those with type 1 diabetes, female people tended to have lower HbA1c levels than male people during childbearing years but higher HbA1c levels than male people during menopausal years. Team members living with diabetes confirmed that the patterns we observed reflected their own life courses and suggested that these results be communicated to health professionals and other stakeholders to improve the treatment for people living with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of people with diabetes in Canada may need additional support to reach or maintain the guideline-recommended glycemic control goals. Blood sugar management goals may be particularly challenging for people going through adolescence or menopause or those living with fewer financial resources. Health professionals should be aware of the challenging nature of glycemic management, and policy makers in Canada should provide more support for people with diabetes to live healthy lives.

Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research. DESIGN: Scoping review. PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support. RESULTS: Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Addressing Myths and Vaccine Hesitancy: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence on repeating vaccination misinformation or "myths" in debunking text is inconclusive; repeating myths may unintentionally increase agreement with myths or help discredit myths. In this study we aimed to compare the effect of repeating vaccination myths and other text-based debunking strategies on parents' agreement with myths and their intention to vaccinate their children. METHODS: For this online experiment we recruited 788 parents of children aged 0 to 5 years; 454 (58%) completed the study. We compared 3 text-based debunking strategies (repeating myths, posing questions, or making factual statements) and a control. We measured changes in agreement with myths and intention to vaccinate immediately after the intervention and at least 1 week later. The primary analysis compared the change in agreement with vaccination myths from baseline, between groups, at each time point after the intervention. RESULTS: There was no evidence that repeating myths increased agreement with myths compared with the other debunking strategies or the control. Posing questions significantly decreased agreement with myths immediately after the intervention compared with the control (difference: -0.30 points, 99.17% confidence interval: -0.58 to -0.02, P = .004, d = 0.39). There was no evidence of a difference between other debunking strategies or the control at either time point, or on intention to vaccinate. CONCLUSIONS: Debunking strategies that repeat vaccination myths do not appear to be inferior to strategies that do not repeat myths.

Transforming primary care for older Canadians living with frailty: mixed methods study protocol for a complex primary care intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Older Canadians living with frailty are high users of healthcare services; however, the healthcare system is not well designed to meet the complex needs of many older adults. Older persons look to their primary care practitioners to assess their needs and coordinate their care. They may need care from a variety of providers and services, but often this care is not well coordinated. Older adults and their family caregivers are the experts in their own needs and preferences, but often do not have a chance to participate fully in treatment decisions or care planning. As a result, older adults may have health problems that are not properly assessed, managed or treated, resulting in poorer health outcomes and higher economic and social costs. We will be implementing enhanced primary healthcare approaches for older patients, including risk screening, patient engagement and shared decision making and care coordination. These interventions will be tailored to the needs and circumstances of the primary care study sites. In this article, we describe our study protocol for implementing and testing these approaches. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Nine primary care sites in three Canadian provinces will participate in a multi-phase mixed methods study. In phase 1, baseline information will be collected through questionnaires and interviews with patients and healthcare providers (HCPs). In phase 2, HCPs and patients will be consulted to tailor the evidence-based interventions to site-specific needs and circumstances. In phase 3, sites will implement the tailored care model. Evaluation of the care model will include measures of patient and provider experience, a quality of life measure, qualitative interviews and economic evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethics clearance from the host academic institutions: University of Calgary (REB17-0617), University of Waterloo (ORE#22446) and Université Laval (#MP-13-2019-1500 and 2017-2018-12-MP). Results will be disseminated through traditional means, including peer-reviewed publications and conferences and through an extensive network of knowledge user partners. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03442426;Pre-results.

COVID-19 gender policy changes support female scientists and improve research quality.

With more time being spent on caregiving responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, female scientists' productivity dropped. When female scientists conduct research, identity factors are better incorporated in research content. In order to mitigate damage to the research enterprise, funding agencies can play a role by putting in place gender equity policies that support all applicants and ensure research quality. A national health research funder implemented gender policy changes that included extending deadlines and factoring sex and gender into COVID-19 grant requirements. Following these changes, the funder received more applications from female scientists, awarded a greater proportion of grants to female compared to male scientists, and received and funded more grant applications that considered sex and gender in the content of COVID-19 research. Further work is urgently required to address inequities associated with identity characteristics beyond gender.

Global evidence of gender inequity in academic health research: a living scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe the global evidence of gender inequity among individuals with appointments at academic institutions that conduct health research, and examine how gender intersects with other social identities to influence outcomes. INTRODUCTION: The gender demographics of universities have shifted, yet the characteristics of those who lead academic health research institutions have not reflected this change. Synthesized evidence will guide decision-making and policy development to support the progress of gender and other under-represented social identities in academia. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider any quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods primary research that reports outcome data related to gender equity and other social identities among individuals affiliated with academic or research institutions that conduct health research, originating from any country. METHODS: The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Cochrane Collaboration's guidance on living reviews will inform the review methods. Information sources will include electronic databases, unpublished literature sources, reference scanning of relevant systematic reviews, and sources provided by experts on the research team. Searches will be run regularly to monitor the development of new literature and determine when the review will be updated. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers working independently, and all discrepancies will be resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data synthesis will summarize information using descriptive frequencies and simple thematic analysis. Results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to scoping reviews. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency.

BACKGROUND: Across countries and disciplines, studies show male researchers receive more research funding than their female peers. Because most studies have been observational, it is unclear whether imbalances stem from evaluations of female research investigators or of their proposed research. In 2014, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research created a natural experiment by dividing investigator-initiated funding applications into two new grant programmes: one with and one without an explicit review focus on the calibre of the principal investigator. METHODS: We analysed application success among 23 918 grant applications from 7093 principal investigators in all investigator-initiated Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant programmes between 2011 and 2016. We used generalised estimating equations to account for multiple applications by the same applicant and compared differences in application success between male and female principal investigators under different review criteria. FINDINGS: Overall application success across competitions was 15·8%. After adjusting for age and research domain, the predicted probability of success in traditional programmes was 0·9 percentage points lower for female applicants than male applicants (95% CI 2·0 lower-0·2 higher; odds ratio 0·934, 95% CI 0·854-1·022). In the new programme, in which review focused on the proposed science, the gap remained 0·9 percentage points (3·2 lower-1·4 higher; 0·998, 0·794-1·229). In the new programme with an explicit review focus on the calibre of the principal investigator, the gap was 4·0 percentage points (6·7 lower-1·3 lower; 0·705, 0·519-0·960). INTERPRETATION: Gender gaps in grant funding are attributable to less favourable assessments of women as principal investigators, not of the quality of their proposed research. We discuss reasons less favourable assessments might occur and strategies to foster fair and rigorous peer review. FUNDING: None.

The Implementation Effectiveness of a Freely Available Pediatric Cancer Pain Assessment App: A Pilot Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: Pain Squad is an evidence-based, freely available iOS app designed to assess pain in children with cancer. Once research-based technologies such as Pain Squad are validated, it is important to evaluate their performance in natural settings to optimize their real-world clinical use. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation effectiveness of Pain Squad in a natural setting. METHODS: Parents of 149 children with cancer (aged 8-18 years) were contacted to invite their child to participate. Participating children downloaded Pain Squad on their own iOS devices from the Apple App Store and reported their pain using the app twice daily for 1 week. Participants then emailed their pain reports from the app to the research team and completed an online survey on their experiences. Key implementation outcomes included acceptability, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. RESULTS: Of the 149 parents contacted, 16 of their children agreed to participate. More than a third (6/16, 37.5%) of participating children returned their pain reports to the research team. Adherence to the pain assessments was 62.1% (mean 8.7/14 assessments). The 6 children who returned reports rated the app as highly feasible to download and use and rated their overall experience as acceptable. They also reported that they would be willing to sustain their Pain Squad use over several weeks and that they would recommend it to other children with cancer, which suggests that it may have potential for penetration. CONCLUSIONS: While Pain Squad was well received by the small number of children who completed the study, user uptake, engagement, and adherence were significant barriers to the implementation of Pain Squad in a natural setting. Implementation studies such as this highlight important challenges and opportunities for promoting the use and uptake of evidence-based technologies by the intended end-users.

Availability of researcher-led eHealth tools for pain assessment and management: barriers, facilitators, costs, and design.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous eHealth tools for pain assessment and management have been developed and evaluated with promising results regarding psychometric properties, efficacy, and effectiveness. Although considerable resources are spent on developing and evaluating these tools with the aim of increasing access to care, current evidence suggests they are not made available to end users, reducing their impact and creating potential research waste. METHODS: This study consisted of 2 components: (1) a systematic review of eHealth tools for pediatric pain assessment and/or management published in the past 10 years, and (2) an online survey, completed by the authors of identified tools, of tool availability, perceived barriers or facilitators to availability, grant funding used, and a validated measure of user-centeredness of the design process (UCD-11). RESULTS: Ninety articles (0.86% of citations screened) describing 53 tools met inclusion criteria. Twenty-six survey responses were completed (49.06%), 13 of which (50.00%) described available tools. Commonly endorsed facilitators of tool availability included researchers' beliefs in tool benefits to the target population and research community; barriers included lack of infrastructure and time. The average cost of each unavailable tool was $314,425.31 USD ($3,144,253.06 USD total, n = 10). Authors of available tools were more likely to have followed user-centered design principles and reported higher total funding. CONCLUSION: Systemic changes to academic and funding structures could better support eHealth tool availability and may reduce potential for research waste. User-centered design and implementation science methods could improve the availability of eHealth tools and should be further explored in future studies.

Caring for seniors living with dementia means caring for their caregivers too.

To improve the care of seniors living with dementia, current initiatives typically target better identification and treatment of the patient. Our recent survey, however, shows we should also focus more on the needs of the informal caregivers who care for this population in primary care settings. This three-round Delphi survey sought caregivers' views on the most frequent and difficult decisions that seniors with dementia, their informal caregivers, and health care providers face in primary care settings in the province of Quebec. Respondents consisted of 31 health care professionals, informal caregivers, managers, representatives of community-based organizations devoted to these seniors, and clinical researchers involved in the organization of care or services to seniors with dementia. When we asked respondents to rank 27 common but difficult decisions involving benefit/harm trade-offs, 83% ranked the decision to choose an option to reduce the burden of informal caregivers as one of the five most important decisions. Choosing a treatment to manage agitation, aggression or psychotic symptoms followed closely, with 79% of respondents selecting it as one of the five most important decisions. Our results point to the importance of attending to the needs of informal caregivers and improving the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia.

Pain in Children With Cancer: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Parent Management.

OBJECTIVES: Pain is a common and distressing symptom of pediatric cancer, as reported by both children and their parents. Increasingly, children with cancer are cared for as outpatients, yet little is known about how parents manage their cancer-related pain. The aim of the current study was to examine pain prevalence and characteristics, and the pharmacological, physical, and psychological pain management strategies used by parents to manage their child's cancer pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 230 parents and caregivers (89% mothers) of children (mean age=8.93 y, SD=4.50) with cancer currently in treatment or who are survivors completed an online survey about their child's pain in the preceding month. RESULTS: Results indicated that children with cancer who were on active treatment and who were posttreatment experienced clinically significant levels of pain. Parents reported using more physical and psychological strategies than pharmacological strategies to manage their child's pain. The most frequently used physical/psychological strategy was distraction and acetaminophen was the most frequently administered pain medication. Parents' confidence in managing their child's pain was inversely associated with both how much pain they perceived their child had, and also whether they had given any pain medication. DISCUSSION: The results of this study suggest that despite parents' use of pain management strategies, management of cancer-related pain continues to be a problem for children during treatment and into survivorship.

Interventions Supporting Long-term Adherence aNd Decreasing cardiovascular events (ISLAND): Pragmatic randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend cardiac rehabilitation and long-term use of cardiac medications for most patients who have had a myocardial infarction (MI), but adherence to these secondary prevention treatments is suboptimal. METHODS: This is a multicenter, pragmatic, 3-arm randomized trial. Eligible patients (n = 2,742) with obstructive coronary artery disease are randomized post-MI to usual care or 1 of 2 intervention arms. Patients in the first intervention arm receive mail-outs sent on behalf of their cardiologist at 4, 8, 20, 32, and 44 weeks post-MI; content is designed to address determinants of adherence and facilitate discussion between the patient and their health care team. Patients in the second intervention arm receive mail-outs plus automated interactive voice response system telephone calls 2 weeks after each letter, as well as a telephone call by trained lay health workers if the interactive voice response system identifies challenges with adherence. Outcomes are assessed 12 months post-MI via patient self-report and administrative data sources. Co-primary outcomes are adherence to cardiac medications and completion of cardiac rehabilitation. Secondary outcomes include cardiovascular events and mortality. An embedded, theory-informed process evaluation will explore the mechanism of action; an economic evaluation is also planned. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a complete program evaluation of a highly pragmatic, health-system intervention to support adherence to recommended treatments. Research ethics boards approved waiver of consent for patients enrolled in the trial with provision of multiple opportunities to opt out and a debrief at the time of outcome assessment. The methods used here may provide a model for similar interventions.

Testing feedback message framing and comparators to address prescribing of high-risk medications in nursing homes: protocol for a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (AF) interventions that leverage routine administrative data offer a scalable and relatively low-cost method to improve processes of care. AF interventions are usually designed to highlight discrepancies between desired and actual performance and to encourage recipients to act to address such discrepancies. Comparing to a regional average is a common approach, but more recipients would have a discrepancy if compared to a higher-than-average level of performance. In addition, how recipients perceive and respond to discrepancies may depend on how the feedback itself is framed. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of different comparators and framing in feedback on high-risk prescribing in nursing homes. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, cluster-randomized controlled trial testing variations in the comparator and framing on the effectiveness of quarterly AF in changing high-risk prescribing in nursing homes in Ontario, Canada. We grouped homes that share physicians into clusters and randomized these clusters into the four experimental conditions. Outcomes will be assessed after 6 months; all primary analyses will be by intention-to-treat. The primary outcome (monthly number of high-risk medications received by each patient) will be analysed using a general linear mixed effects regression model. We will present both four-arm and factorial analyses. With 160 clusters and an average of 350 beds per cluster, assuming no interaction and similar effects for each intervention, we anticipate 90% power to detect an absolute mean difference of 0.3 high-risk medications prescribed. A mixed-methods process evaluation will explore potential mechanisms underlying the observed effects, exploring targeted constructs including intention, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, descriptive norms, and goal prioritization. An economic analysis will examine cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the publicly funded health care system. DISCUSSION: This protocol describes the rationale and methodology of a trial testing manipulations of theory-informed components of an audit and feedback intervention to determine how to improve an existing intervention and provide generalizable insights for implementation science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02979964.

The invisible work of personal health information management among people with multiple chronic conditions: qualitative interview study among patients and providers.

BACKGROUND: A critical problem for patients with chronic conditions who see multiple health care providers is incomplete or inaccurate information, which can contribute to lack of care coordination, low quality of care, and medical errors. OBJECTIVE: As part of a larger project on applications of consumer health information technology (HIT) and barriers to its use, we conducted a semistructured interview study with patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) with the objective of exploring their role in managing their personal health information. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients and providers. Patients were eligible if they had multiple chronic conditions and were in regular care with one of two medical organizations in New York City; health care providers were eligible if they had experience caring for patients with multiple chronic conditions. Analysis was conducted from a grounded theory perspective, and recruitment was concluded when saturation was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients and 7 providers were interviewed; patients had an average of 3.5 (SD 1.5) chronic conditions and reported having regular relationships with an average of 5 providers. Four major themes arose: (1) Responsibility for managing medical information: some patients perceived information management and sharing as the responsibility of health care providers; others­particularly those who had had bad experiences in the past­took primary responsibility for information sharing; (2) What information should be shared: although privacy concerns did influence some patients' perceptions of sharing of medical data, decisions about what to share were also heavily influenced by their understanding of health and disease and by the degree to which they understood the health care system; (3) Methods and tools varied: those patients who did take an active role in managing their records used a variety of electronic tools, paper tools, and memory; and (4) Information management as invisible work: managing transfers of medical information to solve problems was a tremendous amount of work that was largely unrecognized by the medical establishment. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that personal health information management should be recognized as an additional burden that MCC places upon patients. Effective structural solutions for information sharing, whether institutional ones such as care management or technological ones such as electronic health information exchange, are likely not only to improve the quality of information shared but reduce the burden on patients already weighed down by MCC.

Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice.

For many patients, the time spent meeting with their physician-the clinical encounter-is the most opportune moment for them to become engaged in their own health through the process of shared decision making. In the United States shared decision making is being promoted for its potential to improve the health of populations and individual patients, while also helping control care costs. In this overview we describe the three essential elements of shared decision making: recognizing and acknowledging that a decision is required; knowing and understanding the best available evidence; and incorporating the patient's values and preferences into the decision. To achieve the promise of shared decision making, more physicians need training in the approach, and more practices need to be reorganized around the principles of patient engagement. Additional research is also needed to identify the interventions that are most effective.