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 .

Facilitators and Barriers Influencing Antipsychotic Medication Prescribing and Deprescribing Practices in Critically Ill Adult Patients: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications do not alter the incidence or duration of delirium, but these medications are frequently prescribed and continued at transitions of care in critically ill patients when they may no longer be necessary or appropriate. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify and describe relevant domains and constructs that influence antipsychotic medication prescribing and deprescribing practices among physicians, nurses, and pharmacists that care for critically ill adult patients during and following critical illness. DESIGN: We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with critical care and ward healthcare professionals including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists to understand antipsychotic prescribing and deprescribing practices for critically ill adult patients during and following critical illness. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one interviews were conducted with 11 physicians, five nurses, and five pharmacists from predominantly academic centres in Alberta, Canada, between July 6 and October 29, 2021. MAIN MEASURES: We used deductive thematic analysis using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify and describe constructs within relevant domains. KEY RESULTS: Seven TDF domains were identified as relevant from the analysis: Social/Professional role and identity; Beliefs about capabilities; Reinforcement; Motivations and goals; Memory, attention, and decision processes; Environmental context and resources; and Beliefs about consequences. Participants reported antipsychotic prescribing for multiple indications beyond delirium and agitation including patient and staff safety, sleep management, and environmental factors such as staff availability and workload. Participants identified potential antipsychotic deprescribing strategies to reduce ongoing antipsychotic medication prescriptions for critically ill patients including direct communication tools between prescribers at transitions of care. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care and ward healthcare professionals report several factors influencing established antipsychotic medication prescribing practices. These factors aim to maintain patient and staff safety to facilitate the provision of care to patients with delirium and agitation limiting adherence to current guideline recommendations.

Patient, Public, and Healthcare Professionals' Sepsis Awareness, Knowledge, and Information Seeking Behaviors: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis awareness and understanding are important aspects of prevention, recognition, and clinical management of sepsis. We conducted a scoping review to identify and map the literature related to sepsis awareness, general knowledge, and information-seeking behaviors with a goal to inform future sepsis research and knowledge translation campaigns. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, we conducted a systematic search on May 3, 2021, across four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Education Research Complete). Title/abstract and full-text screening was done in duplicate. One researcher extracted the data for each included article, and a second researcher checked data accuracy. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YX7AU ). SUBJECTS: Articles related to sepsis awareness, knowledge, and information seeking behaviors among patients, public, and healthcare professionals. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 5,927 unique studies, 80 reported on patient ( n = 13/80;16.3%), public ( n = 15/80;18.8%), or healthcare professional (nurses, physicians, emergency medical technicians) ( n = 48/80; 60%) awareness and knowledge of sepsis. Healthcare professional awareness and knowledge of sepsis is high compared with patients/public. The proportion of patients/public who had heard of the term sepsis ranged from 2% (Japan) to 88.6% (Germany). The proportions of patients/public who correctly identified the definition of sepsis ranged from 4.2% (Singapore) to 92% (Sweden). The results from the included studies appear to suggest that patient/public awareness of sepsis gradually improved over time. We found that the definition of sepsis was inconsistent in the literature and that few studies reported on patient, public, or healthcare professional knowledge of sepsis risk factors. Most patient/public get their sepsis information from the internet, whereas healthcare professionals get it from their role in healthcare through job training or educational training. CONCLUSIONS: Patient, public, and healthcare professional awareness and knowledge of sepsis vary globally. Future research may benefit from a consistent definition as well as country-specific data to support targeted public awareness campaigns.

Public perceptions during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: a demographic analysis of self-reported beliefs, behaviors, and information acquisition.

INTRODUCTION: We explored associations between sociodemographic factors and public beliefs, behaviors, and information acquisition related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to identify how the experiences of subpopulations in Canada may vary. METHODS: We administered a national online survey through Ipsos Incorporated to adults residing in Canada. Sampling was stratified by population age, sex, and regional distributions. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses and test for differences based on gender, age, educational attainment, and household income using chi-squared tests, followed by weighted logistic regression. RESULTS: We collected 1996 eligible questionnaires between April 26th and May 1st, 2020. Respondents mean age was 50 years, 51% were women, 56% had a post-secondary degree, and 72% had a household income <$100,000. Our analysis found differences within the four demographic groups, with age effects most acutely evidenced. Respondents 65 years and older were more likely to perceive the pandemic as very serious, less likely to report declines in overall health, and more likely to intend to get vaccinated, compared to 18-29 year olds. Women overall were more likely to report negative outcomes than men, including stress due to the pandemic, and worsening social, mental/emotional, and spiritual health. Respondents 45 and older were more likely to seek and trust information from traditional Canadian news sources, while 18-29 year olds were more likely to seek and trust information on social media; overall, women and respondents with a post-secondary degree were more likely to access and trust online information from public health sites. CONCLUSION: This study found important demographic differences in how adults living in Canada perceived the COVID-19 pandemic, the impacts on their health, and their preferences for information acquisition. Our results highlight the need to consider demographic characteristics in tailoring the format and information medium to improve large scale acceptance and uptake of mitigation and containment measures.

Determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care: a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to understand the determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) of de-implementation. The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive list of determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care from the published literature and to compare this list to determinants identified by a group of stakeholders with lived experience with de-implementation. METHODS: This was a two-phase multi-method study. First, a systematic review examined published barriers and facilitators to de-implementation. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, reference lists and the grey literature. Citations were screened independently and in duplicate and included if they were: 1) written in English; and 2) described a barrier or facilitator to de-implementation of any clinical practice in adults (age ≥ 18 years). 'Raw text' determinants cited within included articles were extracted and synthesized into a list of representative determinants using conventional content analysis. Second, semi-structured interviews were conducted with decision-makers (unit managers and medical directors) and healthcare professionals working in adult critical care medicine to explore the overlap between the determinants found in the systematic review to those experienced in critical care medicine. Thematic content analysis was used to identify key themes emerging from the interviews. RESULTS: In the systematic review, reviewers included 172 articles from 35,368 unique citations. From 437 raw text barriers and 280 raw text facilitators, content analysis produced 29 distinct barriers and 24 distinct facilitators to de-implementation. Distinct barriers commonly cited within raw text included 'lack of credible evidence to support de-implementation' (n = 90, 21%), 'entrenched norms and clinicians' resistance to change (n = 43, 21%), and 'patient demands and preferences' (n = 28, 6%). Distinct facilitators commonly cited within raw text included 'stakeholder collaboration and communication' (n = 43, 15%), and 'availability of credible evidence' (n = 33, 12%). From stakeholder interviews, 23 of 29 distinct barriers and 20 of 24 distinct facilitators from the systematic review were cited as key themes relevant to de-implementation in critical care. CONCLUSIONS: The availability and quality of evidence that identifies a clinical practice as low-value, as well as healthcare professional willingness to change, and stakeholder collaboration are common and important determinants of de-implementation and may serve as targets for future de-implementation initiatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO CRD42016050234 .

Co-development of a transitions in care bundle for patient transitions from the intensive care unit: a mixed-methods analysis of a stakeholder consensus meeting.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing transitions in care are at increased risk of adverse events and gaps in medical care. We evaluated existing patient- and family-centered transitions in care tools and identified facilitators, barriers, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle in critically ill adults (i.e., a collection of evidence-based patient- and family-centred tools to improve outcomes during and after transitions from the intensive care unit [ICU] to hospital ward or community). METHODS: We conducted a concurrent mixed methods (quan + QUAL) study, including stakeholders with experience in ICU transitions in care (i.e., patient/family partners, researchers, decision-makers, providers, and other knowledge-users). First, participants scored existing transitions in care tools using the modified Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) framework. Transitions in care tools were discussed by stakeholders and either accepted, accepted with modifications, or rejected if consensus was achieved (≥70% agreement). We summarized quantitative results using frequencies and medians. Second, we conducted a qualitative analysis of participant discussions using grounded theory principles to elicit factors influencing AGREE-II scores, and to identify barriers, facilitators, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle. RESULTS: Twenty-nine stakeholders attended. Of 18 transitions in care tools evaluated, seven (39%) tools were accepted with modifications, one (6%) tool was rejected, and consensus was not reached for ten (55%) tools. Qualitative analysis found that participants' AGREE-II rankings were influenced by: 1) language (e.g., inclusive, balance of jargon and lay language); 2) if the tool was comprehensive (i.e., could stand alone); 3) if the tool could be individualized for each patient; 4) impact to clinical workflow; and 5) how the tool was presented (e.g., brochure, video). Participants discussed implementation considerations for a patient- and family-centered transitions in care bundle: 1) delivery (e.g., tool format and timing); 2) continuity (e.g., follow-up after ICU discharge); and 3) continuous evaluation and improvement (e.g., frequency of tool use). Participants discussed existing facilitators (e.g., collaboration and co-design) and barriers (e.g., health system capacity) that would impact application of a transitions in care bundle. CONCLUSIONS: Findings will inform future research to develop a transitions in care bundle for transitions from the ICU, co-designed with patients, families, providers, researchers, decision-makers, and knowledge-users.

Toward Gender Equity in Critical Care Medicine: A Qualitative Study of Perceived Drivers, Implications, and Strategies.

OBJECTIVES: Critical care medicine is a medical specialty where women remain underrepresented relative to men. The purpose of this study was to explore perceived drivers (i.e., influencing factors) and implications (i.e., associated consequences) of gender inequity in critical care medicine and determine strategies to attract and retain women. DESIGN: Qualitative interview-based study. SETTING: We recruited participants from the 13 Canadian Universities with adult critical care medicine training programs. PARTICIPANTS: We invited all faculty members (clinical and academic) and trainees to participate in a semistructured telephone interview and purposely aimed to recruit two faculty members (one woman and one man) and one trainee from each site. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and two investigators conducted thematic analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three-hundred seventy-one faculty members (20% women, 80% men) and 105 trainees (28% women, 72% men) were invited to participate, 48 participants were required to achieve saturation. Participants unanimously described critical care medicine as a specialty practiced predominantly by men. Most women described experiences of being personally or professionally impacted by gender inequity in their group. Postulated drivers of the gender gap included institutional and interpersonal factors. Mentorship programs that span institutions, targeted policies to support family planning, and opportunities for modified role descriptions were common strategies suggested to attract and retain women. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified a gender gap in critical care medicine and provided important insight into the impact for personal, professional, and group dynamics. Recommended improvement strategies are feasible, map broadly onto reported drivers and implications, and are applicable to critical care medicine and more broadly throughout medical specialties.

Translating evidence to patient care through caregivers: a systematic review of caregiver-mediated interventions.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers may promote the uptake of science into patient care and the practice of evidence-informed medicine. The purpose of this study was to determine whether caregiver-mediated (non-clinical caregiver-delivered) interventions are effective in improving patient, caregiver, provider, or health system outcomes. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, and Scopus databases from inception to February 27, 2017. Interventions (with a comparison group) reporting on a quality improvement intervention mediated by a caregiver and directed to a patient, in all ages and patient-care settings, were selected for inclusion. A three-category framework was developed to characterize caregiver-mediated interventions: inform (e.g., provide knowledge), activate (e.g., prompt action), and collaborate (e.g., lead to interaction between caregivers and other groups [e.g., care providers]). RESULTS: Fifty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, and 64% were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The most commonly assessed outcomes were patient- (n = 40) and caregiver-oriented (n = 33); few health system- (n = 10) and provider-oriented (n = 2) outcomes were reported. Patient outcomes (e.g., satisfaction) were most improved by caregiver-mediated interventions that provided condition and treatment education (e.g., symptom management information) and practical condition-management support (e.g., practicing medication protocol). Caregiver outcomes (e.g., stress-related/psychiatric outcomes) were most improved by interventions that activated caregiver roles (e.g., monitoring blood glucose) and provided information related to that action (e.g., why and how to monitor). The risk of bias was generally high, and the overall quality of the evidence was low-moderate, based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation ratings. CONCLUSIONS: There is a large body of research, including many RCTs, to support the use of caregiver-mediated interventions that inform and activate caregivers to improve patient and caregiver outcomes. Select caregiver-mediated interventions improve patient (inform-activate) and caregiver (inform-activate-collaborate) outcomes and should be considered by all researchers implementing patient- and family-oriented research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: PROSPERO, CRD42016052509 .

Incidence and Prevalence of Delirium Subtypes in an Adult ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Use systematic review and meta-analytic methodology to estimate the pooled incidence, prevalence, and proportion of delirium cases for each delirium subtype (hypoactive, hyperactive, and mixed) in an adult ICU population. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards from database inception until October 22, 2017, with no restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: We included original research conducted in adults admitted to any medical, surgical, or speciality ICU that reported incidence or prevalence estimates of delirium according to delirium subtype. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted on sample size, population demographics, condition information, and reported delirium estimates. DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-eight studies (27,342 patients; 4,550 with delirium) with an overall pooled prevalence of 31% (95% CI, 24-41; I = 99%) met inclusion criteria. The pooled incidence (n = 18 studies) of delirium subtypes were hyperactive (4% [95% CI, 2-6]; I = 92%]), hypoactive (11% [95% CI, 8-17; I = 97%]), and mixed (7% [95% CI, 4-11; I = 97%]). The pooled prevalence (n = 31 studies) of delirium subtypes were hyperactive (4% [95% CI, 3-6; I = 94%]), hypoactive (17% [95% CI, 13-22; I = 97%]), and mixed (10% [95% CI, 6-16; I = 99%]). The pooled prevalence of hypoactive delirium in study populations with a similarly high severity of illness or mechanically ventilated was higher (severity of illness: 29% [95% CI, 18-46%; I = 95%], 100% mechanically ventilated: 35% [95% CI, 23-55%; I = 93%]) compared with the pooled prevalence of hypoactive delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant heterogeneity between studies, these data show the majority of delirious ICU patients to have hypoactive delirium, a finding with potential monitoring, management, and prognostic implications. The prevalence of hypoactive delirium varies between-study populations and is higher in patients with greater severity of illness.

Patient, family and provider experiences with transfers from intensive care unit to hospital ward: a multicentre qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Transfer of patient care from an intensive care unit (ICU) to a hospital ward is often challenging, high risk and inefficient. We assessed patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators to high-quality transfers and recommendations to improve the transfer process. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews of participants from a multicentre prospective cohort study of ICU transfers conducted at 10 hospitals across Canada. We purposively sampled 1 patient, 1 family member of a patient, 1 ICU provider, and 1 ward provider at each of the 8 English-speaking sites. Qualitative content analysis was used to derive themes, subthemes and recommendations. RESULTS: The 35 participants described 3 interrelated, overarching themes perceived as barriers or facilitators to high-quality patient transfers: resource availability, communication and institutional culture. Common recommendations suggested to improve ICU transfers included implementing standardized communication tools that streamline provider-provider and provider-patient communication, using multimodal communication to facilitate timely, accurate, durable and mutually reinforcing information transfer; and developing procedures to manage delays in transfer to ensure continuity of care for patients in the ICU waiting for a hospital ward bed. INTERPRETATION: Patient and provider perspectives attribute breakdown of ICU-to-ward transfers of care to resource availability, communication and institutional culture. Patients and providers recommend standardized, multimodal communication and transfer procedures to improve quality of care.

Transfers from intensive care unit to hospital ward: a multicentre textual analysis of physician progress notes.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about documentation during transitions of patient care between clinical specialties. Therefore, we examined the focus, structure and purpose of physician progress notes for patients transferred from the intensive care unit (ICU) to hospital ward to identify opportunities to improve communication breaks. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study in ten Canadian hospitals. We analyzed physician progress notes for consenting adult patients transferred from a medical-surgical ICU to hospital ward. The number, length, legibility and content of notes was counted and compared across care settings using mixed-effects linear regression models accounting for clustering within hospitals. Qualitative content analyses were conducted on a stratified random sample of 32 patients. RESULTS: A total of 447 patient medical records that included 7052 progress notes (mean 2.1 notes/patient/day 95% CI 1.9-2.3) were analyzed. Notes written by the ICU team were significantly longer than notes written by the ward team (mean lines of text 21 vs. 15, p < 0.001). There was a discrepancy between documentation of patient issues in the last ICU and first ward notes; mean agreement of patient issues was 42% [95% CI 31-53%]. Qualitative analyses identified eight themes related to focus (central point - e.g., problem list), structure (organization, - e.g., note-taking style), and purpose (intention - e.g., documentation of patient course) of the notes that varied across clinical specialties and physician seniority. CONCLUSIONS: Important gaps and variations in written documentation during transitions of patient care between ICU and hospital ward physicians are common, and include discrepancies in documentation of patient information.

Ethical considerations in the de-adoption of ineffective or harmful aspects of healthcare.

De-adoption refers to the discontinuance of a medical practice or health service found to be ineffective or harmful following a previous period of adoption. As growing healthcare budgets threaten to cripple the societies that fund them, facilitating de-adoption may be integral to sustainable healthcare systems that provide high-quality care. This article explores ethical issues pertinent to de-adoption including the underpinnings of beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and autonomy.

Les considérations éthiques relatives à la désadoption d'aspects inefficaces ou nuisibles des soins de santé.

La désadoption désigne l'abandon d'une pratique médicale ou d'un service de santé inefficace ou nuisible après une période d'adoption. Tandis que les dépenses croissantes en matière de santé menacent de paralyser les sociétés qui les financent, le fait de faciliter la désadoption peut faire partie intégrante de systèmes de santé durables qui prodiguent des soins de qualité. Le présent article explore des enjeux éthiques qui se rapportent à la désadoption, y compris les principes sous-jacents de bénéficience, de non-maléficience, de justice et d'autonomie.

Factors affecting hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccine booster doses in Canada: a cross-national survey.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 transmission, emergence of variants of concern, and weakened immunity have led to recommended vaccine booster doses for COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy challenges broad immunization coverage. We deployed a cross-national survey to investigate knowledge, beliefs, and behaviours toward continued COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We administered a national, cross-sectional online survey among adults in Canada between March 16 and March 26, 2022. We utilized descriptive statistics to summarize our sample, and tested for demographic differences, perceptions of vaccine effectiveness, recommended doses, and trust in decisions, using the Rao-Scott correction for weighted chi-squared tests. Multivariable logistic regression was adjusted for relevant covariates to identify sociodemographic factors and beliefs associated with vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: We collected 2202 completed questionnaires. Lower education status (high school: odds ratio (OR) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29, 2.81) and having children (OR 1.89, CI 1.39, 2.57) were associated with increased odds of experiencing hesitancy toward a booster dose, while higher income ($100,000-$149,999: OR 0.60, CI 0.39, 0.91; $150,000 or more: OR 0.49, CI 0.29, 0.82) was associated with decreased odds. Disbelief in vaccine effectiveness (against infection: OR 3.69, CI 1.98, 6.90; serious illness: OR 3.15, CI 1.69, 5.86), disagreeing with government decision-making (somewhat disagree: OR 2.70, CI 1.38, 5.29; strongly disagree: OR 4.62, CI 2.20, 9.7), and beliefs in over-vaccinating (OR 2.07, CI 1.53, 2.80) were found associated with booster dose hesitancy. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may develop or increase regarding subsequent vaccines. Our findings indicate factors to consider when targeting vaccine-hesitant populations.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La transmission de la COVID-19, l'émergence de variants préoccupants et l'affaiblissement de l'immunité ont conduit à recommander des doses de rappel de vaccin contre la COVID-19. L'hésitation à la vaccination remet en question une large couverture vaccinale. Nous avons déployé une enquête transnationale pour étudier les connaissances, les croyances et les comportements en faveur de la poursuite de la vaccination contre la COVID-19. MéTHODES: Nous avons mené une enquête nationale transversale en ligne auprès d'adultes au Canada, entre le 16 et le 26 mars 2022. Nous avons utilisé des statistiques descriptives pour résumer notre échantillon et testé les différences démographiques, les perceptions de l'efficacité des vaccins, les doses recommandées et la confiance dans les décisions, en utilisant la correction de Rao-Scott pour les tests du chi carré pondérés. La régression logistique multivariée a été ajustée pour les covariables pertinentes afin d'identifier les facteurs sociodémographiques et les croyances associés à l'hésitation à la vaccination. RéSULTATS: Nous avons collecté 2 202 questionnaires remplis. Un faible niveau d'éducation (lycée : rapport de cotes (OR) 1,90, intervalle de confiance (IC) à 95% 1,29, 2,81) et le fait d'avoir des enfants (OR 1,89, IC 1,39, 2,57) étaient associés à une probabilité accrue d'éprouver une hésitation à l'égard d'une dose de rappel, tandis qu'un revenu plus élevé (100 000 $­149 999 $ : OR 0,60, IC 0,39, 0,91; 150 000 $ ou plus : OR 0,49, IC 0,29, 0,82) était associé à une diminution des probabilités. Incrédulité dans l'efficacité du vaccin (contre l'infection : OR 3,69, IC 1,98, 6,90; maladie grave : OR 3,15, IC 1,69, 5,86), en désaccord avec la prise de décision du gouvernement (plutôt en désaccord : OR 2,70, IC 1,38, 5,29; fortement en désaccord : OR 4,62, IC 2,20, 9,7) et la croyance dans le sur-vaccination (OR 2,07, IC 1,53, 2,80) ont été associées à une hésitation à recevoir une dose de rappel. CONCLUSION: Une hésitation à l'égard du vaccin contre la COVID-19 peut se développer ou augmenter à l'égard des vaccins ultérieurs. Nos résultats indiquent des facteurs à prendre en compte lors du ciblage des populations hésitantes à la vaccination.

A North Star Vision: Results from a Deliberative Dialogue to Identify Policy Strategies to Improve Value in Healthcare.

We hosted a deliberative dialogue with citizens (n = 3), policy researchers (n = 3), government decision makers (n = 3) and health system leaders (n = 3) to identify evidence-informed policy options to improve the value of Canadian healthcare. The analysis resulted in three themes: (1) the need for a vision to guide reforms, (2) community-based care and (3) community-engaged care. Results suggest the need for a new paradigm: community-focused health systems. Such a paradigm could serve as a North Star guiding healthcare transformation, improving value by aligning citizen and healthcare system goals, prioritizing spending on services that address the social determinants of health and improving quality and equity.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care physicians and nurses in Nova Scotia: a qualitative exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought immense disruption worldwide, dramatically altering the ways we live, work and learn on a day-to-day basis; however, few studies have investigated this from the perspective of primary care providers. In this study, we sought to explore the experiences of primary care providers in the province of Nova Scotia, with the intention of understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care providers' ability to provide care, their information pathways, and the personal and professional impact of the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative research study involving semistructured interviews conducted via Zoom videoconferencing or telephone with primary care providers (physicians, nurse practitioners and family practice nurses) who self-identified as working in primary health care in Nova Scotia from June 2020 to April 2021. We performed a thematic analysis involving coding and classifying data according to themes. Emergent themes were then interpreted by seeking commonalties, divergence, relationships and overarching patterns in the data. RESULTS: Twenty-four primary care providers were interviewed. Subsequent analysis identified 4 interrelated themes within the data: disruption to work-life balance, disruptions to "non-COVID-19" patient care, impact of provincial and centralized policies, and filtering and processing an influx of information. INTERPRETATION: Our findings showed that managing a crisis of this magnitude requires coordination and new ways of working, balancing professional and personal life, and adapting to already implemented changes (i.e., virtual care). A specific primary care pandemic response plan is essential to mitigate the impact of future health care crises.