Federal opioid agonist therapy policy: interrupted time series analysis of the impact of the methadone exemption removal across eight provinces in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Federal deregulation of opioid agonist therapies are an attractive policy option to improve access to opioid use disorder care and achieve widespread beneficial impacts on growing opioid-related harms. There have been few evaluations of such policy interventions and understanding effects can help policy planning across jurisdictions. METHODS: Using health administrative data from eight of ten Canadian provinces, this study evaluated the impacts of Health Canada's decision in May 2018 to rescind the requirement for Canadian health professionals to obtain an exemption from the Canadian Drugs and Substance Act to prescribe methadone for opioid use disorder. Over the study period of June 2017 to May 2019, we used descriptive statistics to capture overall trends in the number of agonist therapy prescribers across provinces and we used interrupted time series analysis to determine the effect of this decision on the trajectories of the agonist therapy prescribing workforces. RESULTS: There were important baseline differences in the numbers of agonist therapy prescribers. The province with the highest concentration of prescribers had 7.5 more prescribers per 100,000 residents compared to the province with the lowest. All provinces showed encouraging growth in the number of prescribers through the study period, though the fastest growing province grew 4.5 times more than the slowest. Interrupted time series analyses demonstrated a range of effects of the federal policy intervention on the provinces, from clearly positive changes to possibly negative effects. CONCLUSIONS: Federal drug regulation policy change interacted in complex ways with provincial health professional regulation and healthcare delivery, kaleidoscoping the effects of federal policy intervention. For Canada and other health systems such as the US, federal policy must account for significant subnational variation in OUD epidemiology and drug regulation to maximize intended beneficial effects and mitigate the risks of negative effects.

Governing the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator: towards greater participation, transparency, and accountability.

The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) is a multistakeholder initiative quickly constructed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to a catastrophic breakdown in global cooperation. ACT-A is now the largest international effort to achieve equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies, and its governance is a matter of broad public importance. We traced the evolution of ACT-A's governance through publicly available documents and analysed it against three principles embedded in the founding mission statement of ACT-A: participation, transparency, and accountability. We found three challenges to realising these principles. First, the roles of the various organisations in ACT-A decision making are unclear, obscuring who might be accountable to whom and for what. Second, the absence of a clearly defined decision making body; ACT-A instead has multiple centres of legally binding decision making and uneven arrangements for information transparency, inhibiting meaningful participation. Third, the nearly indiscernible role of governments in ACT-A, raising key questions about political legitimacy and channels for public accountability. With global public health and billions in public funding at stake, short-term improvements to governance arrangements can and should now be made. Efforts to strengthen pandemic preparedness for the future require attention to ethical, legitimate arrangements for governance.

Preparing ethical review systems for emergencies: next steps.

Ethical review systems need to build on their experiences of COVID-19 research to enhance their preparedness for future pandemics. Recommendations from representatives from over twenty countries include: improving relationships across the research ecosystem; demonstrating willingness to reform and adapt systems and processes; and making the case robustly for better resourcing.

On the same page? A qualitative study of shared mental models in an interprofessional, inter-organizational team implementing goal-oriented care.

Goal-oriented care is an approach to care delivery that uses patient-identified goals to drive care planning. Implementing goal-oriented care requires team members to cognitively shift the focus from "what is the matter" to "what matters to patients," and align their mental models of what it means to care for patients. Yet, no empirical studies of goal-oriented care apply evidence from the cognitive sciences, such as Shared Mental Model (SMM) theory. We conducted a qualitative case study of an interprofessional team that adopted goal-oriented care in Vermont, US (n = 18). Guided by SMM theory, we distinguished between task-related and team-related mental models. We used framework analysis and qualitative content analysis to determine mental model content and similarity. The most shared content areas were operationalizing goal-oriented care, engaging in formal and informal communication, taking a "whole-person" approach, taking a team approach, and building trusting relationships with patients and with other team members. Trust was the only construct that spanned both task and team mental model categories, highlighting the importance of both intra-team trust and provider-patient trust to the implementation of goal-oriented care. Team members developed SMMs through training, regular meetings, and interactions during care delivery. This study provides insight into the cognitive mechanisms that underlie team-based goal-oriented care delivery, which can be used to inform implementation, training content, and future research.

Chronic Pain and Opioid Prescribing: Three Ways for Navigating Complexity at the Clinical‒Population Health Interface.

Clinically focused interventions for people living with pain, such as health professional education, clinical decision support systems, prescription drug monitoring programs, and multidisciplinary care to support opioid tapering, have all been promoted as important solutions to the North American opioid crisis. Yet none have so far delivered substantive beneficial opioid-related population health outcomes. In fact, while total opioid prescribing has leveled off or reduced in many jurisdictions, population-level harms from opioids have continued to increase dramatically. We attribute this failure partly to a poor recognition of the epistemic and ethical complexities at the interface of clinical and population health. We draw on a framework of knowledge networks in wicked problems to identify 3 strategies to help navigate these complexities: (1) designing and evaluating clinically focused interventions as complex interventions, (2) reformulating evidence to make population health dynamics apparent, and (3) appealing to the inseparability of facts and values to support decision-making in uncertainty. We advocate that applying these strategies will better equip clinically focused interventions as complements to structural and public health interventions to achieve the desired beneficial population health effects. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S1):S56-S65. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306500).

A framework for critical care triage during a major surge in critical illness.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many jurisdictions experienced surges in demand for critical care that strained or overwhelmed their healthcare system's ability to respond. A major surge necessitates a deviation from usual practices, including difficult decisions about how to allocate critical care resources. We present a framework to guide these decisions in the hope of saving the most lives as ethically as possible, while concurrently respecting, protecting, and fulfilling legal and human rights obligations. It was developed in Ontario in 2020-2021 through an iterative consultation process with diverse participants, but was adopted in other jurisdictions with some modifications. The framework features three levels of triage depending on the degree of the surge, and a system for prioritizing patients based on their short-term mortality risk following the onset of critical illness. It also includes processes aimed at promoting consistency and fairness across a region where many hospitals are expected to apply the same framework. No triage framework should ever be considered "final," and there is a need for further research to examine ethical issues related to critical care triage and to increase the extent and quality of evidence to inform critical care triage.

RéSUMé: Pendant la pandémie de COVID-19, de nombreuses régions ont connu une augmentation de la demande de soins intensifs qui a mis à rude épreuve ou dépassé la capacité de réponse du système de santé existant. Lors de toute augmentation importante de cette demande, un écart par rapport aux pratiques habituelles est nécessaire, y compris la prise de décisions difficiles sur la façon d'allouer les ressources en soins intensifs. Nous présentons un algorithme pour guider ces décisions dans l'espoir de sauver le plus de vies possibles et ce, de la manière la plus éthique possible, tout en respectant, en protégeant et en remplissant les obligations légales et en matière de droits de l'homme. Cet algorithme a été élaboré en Ontario en 2020-2021 dans le cadre d'un processus de consultation itératif avec divers participants, mais a été adopté dans d'autres juridictions avec quelques modifications. L'algorithme comprend trois niveaux de triage en fonction du degré d'augmentation de la demande, ainsi qu'un système permettant de prioriser les patients en fonction de leur risque de mortalité à court terme après l'apparition d'une maladie grave. Il comporte également des processus visant à promouvoir l'uniformité et l'équité dans une région où de nombreux hôpitaux vont appliquer le même algorithme. Aucun algorithme de triage ne devrait jamais être considéré comme « définitif ¼, et il est nécessaire d'approfondir les recherches pour examiner les questions éthiques liées au triage aux soins intensifs et accroître l'étendue et la qualité des données probantes afin d'éclairer le triage aux soins intensifs.

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Health Equity in Oncology: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The field of oncology is at the forefront of advances in artificial intelligence (AI) in health care, providing an opportunity to examine the early integration of these technologies in clinical research and patient care. Hope that AI will revolutionize health care delivery and improve clinical outcomes has been accompanied by concerns about the impact of these technologies on health equity. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a scoping review of the literature to address the question, "What are the current and potential impacts of AI technologies on health equity in oncology?" METHODS: Following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines for scoping reviews, we systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from January 2000 to August 2021 for records engaging with key concepts of AI, health equity, and oncology. We included all English-language articles that engaged with the 3 key concepts. Articles were analyzed qualitatively for themes pertaining to the influence of AI on health equity in oncology. RESULTS: Of the 14,011 records, 133 (0.95%) identified from our review were included. We identified 3 general themes in the literature: the use of AI to reduce health care disparities (58/133, 43.6%), concerns surrounding AI technologies and bias (16/133, 12.1%), and the use of AI to examine biological and social determinants of health (55/133, 41.4%). A total of 3% (4/133) of articles focused on many of these themes. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review revealed 3 main themes on the impact of AI on health equity in oncology, which relate to AI's ability to help address health disparities, its potential to mitigate or exacerbate bias, and its capability to help elucidate determinants of health. Gaps in the literature included a lack of discussion of ethical challenges with the application of AI technologies in low- and middle-income countries, lack of discussion of problems of bias in AI algorithms, and a lack of justification for the use of AI technologies over traditional statistical methods to address specific research questions in oncology. Our review highlights a need to address these gaps to ensure a more equitable integration of AI in cancer research and clinical practice. The limitations of our study include its exploratory nature, its focus on oncology as opposed to all health care sectors, and its analysis of solely English-language articles.

A Conceptual Framework for Continuing Medical Education and Population Health.

ISSUE: Health systems have been increasingly called upon to address population health concerns and continuing medical education (CME) is an important means through which clinical practices can be improved. This manuscript elaborates on existing conceptual frameworks in order to support CME practitioners, funders, and policy makers to develop, implement, and evaluate CME vis-a-vis population health concerns. EVIDENCE: Existing CME conceptual models and conceptions of CME effectiveness require elaboration in order to meet goals of population health improvement. Frameworks for the design, implementation and evaluation of CME consistently reference population health, but do not adequately conceptualize it beyond the aggregation of individual patient health. As a pertinent example, opioid prescribing CME programs use the opioid epidemic to justify their programs, but evaluation approaches are inadequate for demonstrating population health impacts. CME programs that are built to have population health outcomes using frameworks intended primarily for physician performance and patient health outcomes are thus not able to recognize either non-linear associations or negative unintended consequences. IMPLICATIONS: This proposed conceptual framework draws on the fields of clinical population medicine, the social determinants of health, health equity, and philosophies of population health to build conceptual bridges between the CME outcome levels of physician performance and patient health to population health. The authors use their experience developing, delivering, and evaluating opioid prescribing- and poverty-focused CME programs to argue that population health-focused CME must be re-oriented in at least five ways. These include: 1) scaling effective CME programs while evaluating at population health levels; 2) (re)interpreting evidence for program content from a population perspective; 3) incorporating social determinants of health into clinically-oriented CME activities; 4) explicitly building fluency in population health concepts and practices among health care providers and CME planners; and 5) attending to social inequity in every aspect of CME programs.

Achieving holistic, quality-of-life focused care: description of a Compassion Care Community initiative in Canada.

The compassionate community movement as both a public health approach and a social model of care for various life stages is gaining traction in Canada and elsewhere. One example is the Windsor-Essex Compassion Care Community (WECCC), an evidence-based model and set of tools to improve the quality of life, health and wellness of vulnerable and aging populations by identifying and addressing upstream and downstream social and other risks to physical and mental health. This paper presents findings from the WECCC pilot evaluation. The WECCC initiative provided one-on-one volunteer-supported quality of life assessment, resource navigation and goals support program (Catalyzing Community Connections). This was augmented with public education sessions on social connection and loneliness (Importance of Being Connected) for the broader population. The RE-AIM framework was used to frame evaluation of WECCC through the first 4 years. Questionnaires were used to evaluate participant outcomes related to implementation and effectiveness. Interviews and focus groups were completed to understand impacts. From 2017 to 2020, WECCC has engaged over 2,500 individuals, 65 organizations and 400 volunteers combined in both programs. Nearly all (82% to 95%) participants reported positive changes to health, quality of life and/or social connections. This developmental phase of a compassionate community initiative has allowed piloting of an evaluation framework focusing on reach, adoption, implementation and early signals of effectiveness and maintenance. This demonstration provides information on feasibility, acceptability and potential impacts of this type of over-arching community initiative.

The compassionate communities movement is a social and holistic approach to care that engages community members in caring for others. The movement is growing around the world. The philosophy is that all citizens benefit from participating in care for others who are aging, disabled, nearing end-of-life or struggling with determinants of health. The Windsor-Essex Compassion Care Community (WECCC) is a Canadian example of this model. WECCC seeks to improve the health of people at any stage of life by helping them to identify their life needs and goals and providing them support to meet them. The program has two core components: one-on-one volunteer-support for person-directed goals and navigation (Catalyzing Community Connections) and public education sessions about loneliness and social connection (Importance of Being Connected). Evaluation is a routine part of program delivery with questionnaires, interviews and focus groups used to understand the program's outcomes. From 2017 to 2020, WECCC has worked with over 2,500 individuals, 65 organizations and 400 volunteers. Satisfaction with the program is very high (95%). Nearly all participants reported positive changes to their quality of life (82%) and social connections (95%). Although pilot results are favorable, continued evaluation and stronger research designs are needed to comprehensively evaluate the WECCC program over time and to support growth and spread of the model.

Evaluation of a package of risk-based pharmaceutical and lifestyle interventions in patients with hypertension and/or diabetes in rural China: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) requires adequate control of hypertension and diabetes. We designed and implemented pharmaceutical and healthy lifestyle interventions for patients with diabetes and/or hypertension in rural primary care, and assessed their effectiveness at reducing severe CVD events. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a pragmatic, parallel group, 2-arm, controlled, superiority, cluster trial design. We randomised 67 township hospitals in Zhejiang Province, China, to intervention (34) or control (33). A total of 31,326 participants were recruited, with 15,380 in the intervention arm and 15,946 in the control arm. Participants had no known CVD and were either patients with hypertension and a 10-year CVD risk of 20% or higher, or patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of their CVD risk. The intervention included prescription of a standardised package of medicines, individual advice on lifestyle change, and adherence support. Control was usual hypertension and diabetes care. In both arms, as usual in China, most outpatient drug costs were out of pocket. The primary outcome was severe CVD events, including coronary heart disease and stroke, during 36 months of follow-up, as recorded by the CVD surveillance system. The study was implemented between December 2013 and May 2017. A total of 13,385 (87%) and 14,745 (92%) participated in the intervention and control arms, respectively. Their mean age was 64 years, 51% were women, and 90% were farmers. Of all participants, 64% were diagnosed with hypertension with or without diabetes, and 36% were diagnosed with diabetes only. All township hospitals and participants completed the 36-month follow-up. At 36 months, there were 762 and 874 severe CVD events in the intervention and control arms, respectively, yielding a non-significant effect on CVD incidence rate (1.92 and 2.01 per 100 person-years, respectively; crude incidence rate ratio = 0.90 [95% CI: 0.74, 1.08; P = 0.259]). We observed significant, but small, differences in the change from baseline to follow-up for systolic blood pressure (-1.44 mm Hg [95% CI: -2.26, -0.62; P < 0.001]) and diastolic blood pressure (-1.29 mm Hg [95% CI: -1.77, -0.80; P < 0.001]) in the intervention arm compared to the control arm. Self-reported adherence to recommended medicines was significantly higher in the intervention arm compared with the control arm at 36 months. No safety concerns were identified. Main study limitations include all participants being informed about their high CVD risk at baseline, non-blinding of participants, and the relatively short follow-up period available for judging potential changes in rates of CVD events. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive package of pharmaceutical and healthy lifestyle interventions did not reduce severe CVD events over 36 months. Improving health system factors such as universal coverage for the cost of essential medicines is required for successful risk-based CVD prevention programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN58988083.

Immunity certification for COVID-19: ethical considerations.

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights.

Les restrictions imposées dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ont eu de lourdes conséquences économiques, sociales et sanitaires. Certains pays ont envisagé la mise en place d'une stratégie visant à alléger ces restrictions pour les individus guéris en leur octroyant un document communément appelé «passeport d'immunité¼. Ce document atteste qu'ils ont développé une immunité protectrice contre le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SARS-CoV-2), le virus à l'origine de la COVID-19. L'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a déconseillé l'usage du certificat d'immunité pour l'instant, car l'incertitude demeure quant à l'existence réelle d'une immunité à long terme pour ceux qui se sont remis de la COVID-19. En outre, la fiabilité des tests sérologiques censés déterminer si l'individu est immunisé n'est pas avérée. Un tel certificat ne peut être instauré que si les seuils scientifiques en matière d'immunité sont respectés, qu'ils soient fondés sur les anticorps ou sur d'autres critères. Néanmoins, même si le certificat d'immunité est désormais bien accepté par la science, il s'accompagne de nombreuses questions d'ordre éthique en ce qui concerne la limitation des libertés individuelles et la mise en œuvre. Dans le présent document, nous examinons les principales considérations à prendre en compte pour garantir l'acceptabilité éthique du certificat d'immunité visant à lever les mesures de restriction pour certaines personnes durant la pandémie de COVID-19. Cette acceptabilité éthique dépend non seulement de son degré de conformité à des critères scientifiques stricts, mais aussi de son usage, des objectifs politiques ainsi que des mesures mises en place pour atténuer les préjudices potentiels et éviter d'imposer une charge disproportionnée sur les individus dépourvus de certificat, ou de bafouer les droits et libertés de tout un chacun.

Las medidas restrictivas impuestas a causa de la pandemia de la enfermedad coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) han tenido graves efectos sociales, económicos y sanitarios. Algunos países han considerado la posibilidad de utilizar la certificación de inmunidad como estrategia para flexibilizar dichas medidas para las personas que se han recuperado de la infección mediante la expedición a dichas personas de un documento, comúnmente denominado pasaporte de inmunidad. Este documento certifica que han desarrollado inmunidad protectora contra el coronavirus-2 del síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), el virus que causa la COVID-19. La Organización Mundial de la Salud ha desaconsejado la aplicación de la certificación de la inmunidad en la actualidad debido a la incertidumbre sobre si existe realmente una inmunidad a largo plazo para quienes se han recuperado de la COVID-19 y a las preocupaciones sobre la fiabilidad del método de prueba serológica propuesto para determinar la inmunidad. La certificación de la inmunidad solo puede considerarse si se cumplen los umbrales científicos para asegurar la inmunidad, ya sea que se basen en anticuerpos o en otros criterios. Sin embargo, incluso si la certificación de la inmunidad llegara a estar bien respaldada por la ciencia, tiene muchas cuestiones éticas en cuanto a las diferentes restricciones de las libertades individuales y su proceso de aplicación. Examinamos las principales consideraciones sobre la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de la inmunidad para eximir a los individuos de las medidas restrictivas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. Además de necesitar cumplir criterios científicos sólidos, la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de inmunidad depende de sus usos y objetivos de política y de las medidas que se apliquen para reducir los posibles daños y evitar que se impongan cargas desproporcionadas a las personas que no cuenten con dicha certificación y se violen las libertades y derechos individuales.

Conceptual framework for task shifting and task sharing: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Task shifting and sharing (TS/S) involves the redistribution of health tasks within workforces and communities. Conceptual frameworks lay out the key factors, constructs, and variables involved in a given phenomenon, as well as the relationships between those factors. Though TS/S is a leading strategy to address health worker shortages and improve access to services worldwide, a conceptual framework for this approach is lacking. METHODS: We used an online Delphi process to engage an international panel of scholars with experience in knowledge synthesis concerning TS/S and develop a conceptual framework for TS/S. We invited 55 prospective panelists to participate in a series of questionnaires exploring the purpose of TS/S and the characteristics of contexts amenable to TS/S programmes. Panelist responses were analysed and integrated through an iterative process to achieve consensus on the elements included in the conceptual framework. RESULTS: The panel achieved consensus concerning the included concepts after three Delphi rounds among 15 panelists. The COATS Framework (Concepts and Opportunities to Advance Task Shifting and Task Sharing) offers a refined definition of TS/S and a general purpose statement to guide TS/S programmes. COATS describes that opportunities for health system improvement arising from TS/S programmes depending on the implementation context, and enumerates eight necessary conditions and important considerations for implementing TS/S programmes. CONCLUSION: The COATS Framework offers a conceptual model for TS/S programmes. The COATS Framework is comprehensive and adaptable, and can guide refinements in policy, programme development, evaluation, and research to improve TS/S globally.

Defining Clinical Public Health.

PURPOSE: To solve complex health issues, an innovative and multidisciplinary framework is necessary. The Clinical Public Health (CPH) Division was established at the University of Toronto (UofT), Canada to foster inte-gration of primary care, preventive medicine and public health in education, practice and research. To better understand how the construct of CPH might be applied, we surveyed clinicians, researchers and public health professionals affiliated with the CPH Division to assess their understanding of the CPH concept and its utility in fostering broad collaboration. METHODS: A two-wave anonymous survey of the active faculty of the CPH Division, UofT was conducted across Canada. Wave 1 participants (n = 187; 2016) were asked to define CPH, while Wave 2 participants (n = 192; 2017) were provided a synthesis of Wave 1 results and asked to rank each definition. Both waves were asked about the need for a common definition, and to comment on CPH. RESULTS: Response rates for the first and second waves were 25% and 22%, respectively. Of the six definitions of CPH from Wave 1, "the intersection of clinical practice and public health," was most highly ranked by Wave 2 participants. Positive perceptions of CPH included multidisciplinary collaboration, new fields and insights, forward thinking and innovation. Negative perceptions included CPH being a confusing term, too narrow in scope or too clinical. CONCLUSION: The concept of Clinical Public Health can foster multidisciplinary collaboration to address com-plex health issues because it provides a useful framework for bringing together key disciplines and diverse professional specialties.

Effect of socio-demographic and health factors on the association between multimorbidity and acute care service use: population-based survey linked to health administrative data.

BACKGROUND: This study explores how socio-demographic and health factors shape the relationship between multimorbidity and one-year acute care service use (i.e., hospital, emergency department visits) in older adults in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We linked multiple cycles (2005-2006, 2007-2008, 2009-2010, 2011-2012) of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) to health administrative data to create a cohort of adults aged 65 and older. Administrative data were used to estimate one-year service use and to identify 12 chronic conditions used to measure multimorbidity. We examined the relationship between multimorbidity and service use stratified by a range of socio-demographic and health variables available from the CCHS. Logistic and Poisson regressions were used to explore the association between multimorbidity and service use and the role of socio-demographic factors in this relationship. RESULTS: Of the 28,361 members of the study sample, 60% were between the ages of 65 and 74 years, 57% were female, 72% were non-immigrant, and over 75% lived in an urban area. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations consistently increased with the level of multimorbidity. This study did not find strong evidence of moderator or interaction effects across a range of socio-demographic factors. Stratified analyses revealed further patterns, with many being similar for both services - e.g., the odds ratios were higher at all levels of multimorbidity for men, older age groups, and those with lower household income. Rurality and immigrant status influenced emergency department use (higher in rural residents and non-immigrants) but not hospitalizations. Multimorbidity and the range of socio-demographic variables remained significant predictors of service use in the regressions. CONCLUSIONS: Strong evidence links multimorbidity with increased acute care service use. This study showed that a range of factors did not modify this relationship. Nevertheless, the factors were independently associated with acute care service use, pointing to modifiable risk factors that can be the focus of resource allocation and intervention design to reduce service use in those with multimorbidity. The study's results suggest that optimizing acute care service use in older adults requires attention to both multimorbidity and social determinants, with programs that are multifactorial and integrated across the health and social service sectors.

The impact of multimorbidity level and functional limitations on the accuracy of using self-reported survey data compared to administrative data to measure general practitioner and specialist visits in community-living adults.

BACKGROUND: Researchers often use survey data to study the effect of health and social variables on physician use, but how self-reported physician use compares to administrative data, the gold standard, in particular within the context of multimorbidity and functional limitations remains unclear. We examine whether multimorbidity and functional limitations are related to agreement between self-reported and administrative data for physician use. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from 52,854 Ontario participants of the Canadian Community Health Survey linked to administrative data were used to assess agreement on physician use. The number of general practitioner (GP) and specialist visits in the previous year was assessed using both data sources; multimorbidity and functional limitation were from self-report. RESULTS: Fewer participants self-reported GP visits (84.8%) compared to administrative data (89.1%), but more self-reported specialist visits (69.2% vs. 64.9%). Sensitivity was higher for GP visits (≥90% for all multimorbidity levels) compared to specialist visits (approximately 75% for 0 to 90% for 4+ chronic conditions). Specificity started higher for GP than specialist visits but decreased more swiftly with multimorbidity level; in both cases, specificity levels fell below 50%. Functional limitations, age and sex did not impact the patterns of sensitivity and specificity seen across level of multimorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Countries around the world collect health surveys to inform health policy and planning, but the extent to which these are linked with administrative, or similar, data are limited. Our study illustrates the potential for misclassification of physician use in self-report data and the need for sensitivity analyses or other corrections.

Artificial intelligence for good health: a scoping review of the ethics literature.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been described as the "fourth industrial revolution" with transformative and global implications, including in healthcare, public health, and global health. AI approaches hold promise for improving health systems worldwide, as well as individual and population health outcomes. While AI may have potential for advancing health equity within and between countries, we must consider the ethical implications of its deployment in order to mitigate its potential harms, particularly for the most vulnerable. This scoping review addresses the following question: What ethical issues have been identified in relation to AI in the field of health, including from a global health perspective? METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched for peer reviewed and grey literature published before April 2018 using the concepts of health, ethics, and AI, and their related terms. Records were independently screened by two reviewers and were included if they reported on AI in relation to health and ethics and were written in the English language. Data was charted on a piloted data charting form, and a descriptive and thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Upon reviewing 12,722 articles, 103 met the predetermined inclusion criteria. The literature was primarily focused on the ethics of AI in health care, particularly on carer robots, diagnostics, and precision medicine, but was largely silent on ethics of AI in public and population health. The literature highlighted a number of common ethical concerns related to privacy, trust, accountability and responsibility, and bias. Largely missing from the literature was the ethics of AI in global health, particularly in the context of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). CONCLUSIONS: The ethical issues surrounding AI in the field of health are both vast and complex. While AI holds the potential to improve health and health systems, our analysis suggests that its introduction should be approached with cautious optimism. The dearth of literature on the ethics of AI within LMICs, as well as in public health, also points to a critical need for further research into the ethical implications of AI within both global and public health, to ensure that its development and implementation is ethical for everyone, everywhere.

Assessing the Implementation and Effectiveness of the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Tool for Older Adults With Complex Care Needs: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Goal-oriented care is being adopted to deliver person-centered primary care to older adults with multimorbidity and complex care needs. Although this model holds promise, its implementation remains a challenge. Digital health solutions may enable processes to improve adoption; however, they require evaluation to determine feasibility and impact. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) mobile app and portal system, designed to enable goal-oriented care delivery in interprofessional primary care practices. The research questions driving this study are as follows: Does ePRO improve quality of life and self-management in older adults with complex needs? What mechanisms are likely driving observed outcomes? METHODS: A multimethod, pragmatic randomized controlled trial using a stepped-wedge design and ethnographic case studies was conducted over a 15-month period in 6 comprehensive primary care practices across Ontario with a target enrollment of 176 patients. The 6 practices were randomized into either early (3-month control period; 12-month intervention) or late (6-month control period; 9-month intervention) groups. The primary outcome measure of interest was the Assessment of Quality of Life-4D (AQoL-4D). Data were collected at baseline and at 3 monthly intervals for the duration of the trial. Ethnographic data included observations and interviews with patients and providers at the midpoint and end of the intervention. Outcome data were analyzed using linear models conducted at the individual level, accounting for cluster effects at the practice level, and ethnographic data were analyzed using qualitative description and framework analysis methods. RESULTS: Recruitment challenges resulted in fewer sites and participants than expected; of the 176 target, only 142 (80.6%) patients were identified as eligible to participate because of lower-than-expected provider participation and fewer-than-expected patients willing to participate or perceived as ready to engage in goal-setting. Of the 142 patients approached, 45 (32%) participated. Patients set a variety of goals related to self-management, mental health, social health, and overall well-being. Owing to underpowering, the impact of ePRO on quality of life could not be definitively assessed; however, the intervention group, ePRO plus usual care (mean 15.28, SD 18.60) demonstrated a nonsignificant decrease in quality of life (t24=-1.20; P=.24) when compared with usual care only (mean 21.76, SD 2.17). The ethnographic data reveal a complex implementation process in which the meaningfulness (or coherence) of the technology to individuals' lives and work acted as a key driver of adoption and tool appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: This trial experienced many unexpected and significant implementation challenges related to recruitment and engagement. Future studies could be improved through better alignment of the research methods and intervention to the complex and diverse clinical settings, dynamic goal-oriented care process, and readiness of provider and patient participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02917954; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02917954.

Exploring the perspectives of primary care providers on use of the electronic Patient Reported Outcomes tool to support goal-oriented care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies can support primary care delivery, but clinical uptake in primary care is limited. This study explores enablers and barriers experienced by primary care providers when adopting new digital health technologies, using the example of the electronic Patient Reported Outcome (ePRO) tool; a mobile application and web portal designed to support goal-oriented care. To better understand implementation drivers and barriers primary care providers' usage behaviours are compared to their perspectives on ePRO utility and fit to support care for patients with complex care needs. METHODS: This qualitative sub-analysis was part of a larger trial evaluating the use of the ePRO tool in primary care. Qualitative interviews were conducted with providers at the midpoint (i.e. 4.5-6 months after ePRO implementation) and end-point (i.e. 9-12 months after ePRO implementation) of the trial. Interviews explored providers' experiences and perceptions of integrating the tool within their clinical practice. Interview data were analyzed using a hybrid thematic analysis and guided by the Technology Acceptance Model. Data from thirteen providers from three distinct primary care sites were included in the presented study. RESULTS: Three core themes were identified: (1) Perceived usefulness: perceptions of the tool's alignment with providers' typical approach to care, impact and value and fit with existing workflows influenced providers' intention to use the tool and usage behaviour; (2) Behavioural intention: providers had a high or low behavioural intention, and for some, it changed over time; and (3) Improving usage behaviour: enabling external factors and enhancing the tool's perceived ease of use may improve usage behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple refinements/iterations of the ePRO tool (e.g. enhancing the tool's alignment with provider workflows and functions) may be needed to enhance providers' usage behaviour, perceived usefulness and behavioural intention. Enabling external factors, such as organizational and IT support, are also necessary to increase providers' usage behaviour. Lessons from this study advance knowledge of technology implementation in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identified NCT02917954. Registered September 2016, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02917954.

A rapid scoping review of end-of-life conversations with frail older adults in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To explore what is known about end-of-life (EOL) conversations with frail older adults across all settings including primary care in Canada, and to understand the barriers to, and recommendations for, EOL conversations. DATA SOURCES: Comprehensive searches were conducted in CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), AgeLine (EBSCO), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ProQuest). Searches used text words and subject headings (eg, MeSH, Emtree) related to 3 concepts: frailty, Canada, and EOL conversations. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-one English-language articles were selected (ie, 4 reviews, 10 commentaries, 3 quantitative studies, 3 qualitative studies, 1 mixed-methods study) that included information about EOL conversations with frail older adults in the Canadian health care context. SYNTHESIS: In terms of having EOL conversations with frail older adults, this study found that many clinicians do not often and adequately discuss frailty and impending death with their older patients. Moreover, patients and their care partners do not have enough knowledge about frailty and death to make informed EOL decisions, leading to patients choosing more aggressive therapies instead of care focused on symptom management. In terms of barriers to EOL discussions, common barriers included a lack of trust between clinician and patient, inadequate EOL training for clinicians, and ineffective clinician communication with patients and families. Recommendations for improving EOL conversations include regular screening for frailty to prompt conversations about care and the use of an interprofessional approach. CONCLUSION: More empirical research is needed that uses exploratory methods to shed light on the contextual factors that may act as a barrier to EOL conversations. More research is also needed on the roles and responsibilities of interprofessional teams in screening for frailty and engaging in EOL conversations. Moreover, there is a need to better understand how frail older patients and their families want EOL conversations to unfold and what best facilitates these conversations.

Why does continuity of care with family doctors matter? Review and qualitative synthesis of patient and physician perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize and synthesize qualitative studies that report patient and physician perspectives on continuity of care in family practice. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and PsycInfo (Ovid) were searched for qualitative primary research reporting perspectives of patients, physicians, or both, on continuity of care in family practice. STUDY SELECTION: English-language qualitative studies were selected (eg, interviews, focus groups, mixed methods) that were conducted in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, New Zealand, or Australia. SYNTHESIS: Themes were extracted, summarized, and synthesized. Six overarching themes emerged: continuity of care enables person-centred care; continuity of care increases quality of care; continuity of care leads to greater confidence in medical decision making; continuity of care comes with drawbacks; the absence of continuity of care may lead to medical and psychological harm; and continuity of care can foster greater joy and meaning in a physician's work. Out of the 6 themes, patients and physicians shared the first 5. CONCLUSION: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first qualitative review reporting the unique perspectives of both patients and family physicians on continuity of care. The findings add nuanced insight to the importance of continuity of care in family practice.