The Ottawa Statement implementation guidance document for cluster randomized trials in the hemodialysis setting.

Research teams are increasingly interested in using cluster randomized trial (CRT) designs to generate practice-guiding evidence for in-center maintenance hemodialysis. However, CRTs raise complex ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues arising within 7 domains: justifying the CRT design, research ethics committee review, identifying research participants, obtaining informed consent, gatekeepers, assessing benefits and harms, and protecting vulnerable participants. But applying the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting is complicated by the unique features of the setting and population. Here, with the help of content experts and patient partners, we co-developed this implementation guidance document to provide research teams, research ethics committees, and other stakeholders with detailed guidance on how to apply the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, the result of a 4-year research project. Thus, our work demonstrates how the voices of patients, caregivers, and all stakeholders may be included in the development of research ethics guidance.

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review.

Background: Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods. Results: The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies. Conclusions: Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.

Motivations for investigating health inequities in observational epidemiology: a content analysis of 320 studies.

OBJECTIVES: To enhance equity in clinical and epidemiological research, it is crucial to understand researcher motivations for conducting equity-relevant studies. Therefore, we evaluated author motivations in a randomly selected sample of equity-relevant observational studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE for studies from 2020 to 2022, resulting in 16,828 references. We randomly selected 320 studies purposefully sampled across income setting (high vs low-middle-income), COVID-19 topic (vs non-COVID-19), and focus on populations experiencing inequities. Of those, 206 explicitly mentioned motivations which we analyzed thematically. We used discourse analysis to investigate the reasons behind emerging motivations. RESULTS: We identified the following motivations: (1) examining health disparities, (2) tackling social determinants to improve access, and (3) addressing knowledge gaps in health equity. Discourse analysis showed motivations stem from commitments to social justice and recognizing the importance of highlighting it in research. Other discourses included aspiring to improve health-care efficiency, wanting to understand cause-effect relationships, and seeking to contribute to an equitable evidence base. CONCLUSION: Understanding researchers' motivations for assessing health equity can aid in developing guidance that tailors to their needs. We will consider these motivations in developing and sharing equity guidance to better meet researchers' needs.

Protocol for co-producing a framework and integrated resource platform for engaging patients in laboratory-based research.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research is the meaningful and collaborative interaction between patients and researchers throughout the research process. Patient engagement can help to ensure patient-oriented values and perspectives are incorporated into the development, conduct, and dissemination of research. While patient engagement is increasingly prevalent in clinical research, it remains relatively unrealized in preclinical laboratory research. This may reflect the nature of preclinical research, in which routine interactions or engagement with patients may be less common. Our team of patient partners and researchers has previously identified few published examples of patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, as well as a paucity of guidance on this topic. Here we propose the development of a process framework to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. METHODS: Our team, inclusive of researchers and patient partners, will develop a comprehensive, empirically-derived, and stakeholder-informed process framework for 'patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research.' First, our team will create a 'deliberative knowledge space' to conduct semi-structured discussions that will inform a draft framework for preclinical patient engagement. Over the course of several sessions, we will identify actions, activities, barriers, and enablers (e.g. considerations and motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, define roles of key players). The resulting draft process framework will be further populated with examples and refined through an international consensus-building Delphi survey with patients, researchers, and other collaborator organizations. We will then conduct pilot field tests to evaluate the framework with preclinical laboratory research groups paired with patient partners. These results will be used to create a refined framework enriched with real-world examples and considerations. All resources developed will be made available through an online repository. DISCUSSION: Our proposed process framework will provide guidance, best practices, and standardized procedures to promote patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Supporting and facilitating patient engagement in this setting presents an exciting new opportunity to help realize the important impact that patients can make.

Engaging patients as partners or collaborators in clinical research is becoming more common, but it is still new in preclinical research. Preclinical researchers work in laboratories on cell and animal experiments. They traditionally don't have frequent interactions with patients compared to their clinical research colleagues. Integrating patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research may help ensure that patient perspectives and values are considered. To help preclinical laboratory research align with patient-centred priorities we propose the development of a practical framework. This framework will facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. To achieve this, we will first hold in-depth discussions with patient partners, researchers, and other collaborators to understand views on patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Together, we will identify key considerations to draft a framework, including motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, and defining the roles of those who need to be involved. We will refine the framework through an international survey where we will collect feedback from researchers, patient partners, and other collaborators to make further improvements. The framework will then be tested and refined by preclinical laboratory teams inclusive of patient partners. The finalized framework and other resources to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research will be hosted in a 'one-stop-shop' of online resources. Ultimately, this framework will enable partnerships between patients and researchers and provide a roadmap for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. This presents an exciting new opportunity for patients and researchers to collaborate and potentially improve translation of laboratory-based research.

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative patient-centred outcome measures are essential to capture the patient's experience after surgery. Although a large number of pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies (i.e. opioid alternatives) are used for patients undergoing surgery, it remains unclear which strategies are most promising in terms of patient-centred outcome improvements. This scoping review had two main objectives: (1) to map and describe evidence from clinical trials assessing the patient-centred effectiveness of pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients, and (2) to identify promising pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception to February 2023. We included trials investigating the use of opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients and reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 24,842 citations screened for eligibility, 2803 trials assessed the effectiveness of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies. Of these, 457 trials (67,060 participants) met eligibility criteria, reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. In the 107 trials that included a patient-centred primary outcome, patient wellbeing was the most frequently used domain (55 trials). Based on aggregate findings, dexmedetomidine, systemic lidocaine, and COX-2 inhibitors were promising strategies, while paracetamol, ketamine, and gabapentinoids were less promising. Almost half of the trials (253 trials) did not report a protocol or registration number. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should prioritise and include patient-centred outcomes in the assessment of opioid minimisation strategy effectiveness. We identified three potentially promising pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies that should be further assessed through systematic reviews and multicentre trials. Findings from our scoping review may be influenced by selective outcome reporting bias. STUDY REGISTRATION: OSF - https://osf.io/7kea3.

Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine during surgery under general anaesthesia on patient-centred outcomes: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Dexmedetomidine is a promising pharmaceutical strategy to minimise opioid use during surgery. Despite its growing use, it is uncertain whether dexmedetomidine can improve patient-centred outcomes such as quality of recovery and pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL approximately in October 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the impact of systemic intraoperative dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes. Patient-centred outcome definition will be based on the consensus definition established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC). Our primary outcome will be the quality of recovery after surgery. Our secondary outcomes will be patient well-being, function, health-related quality of life, life impact, multidimensional assessment of postoperative acute pain, chronic pain, persistent postoperative opioid use, opioid-related adverse events, hospital length of stay and adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify trials and extract data. We will evaluate the risk of bias of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2.0). We will synthesise data using a random effects Bayesian model framework, estimating the probability of achieving a benefit and its clinical significance. We will assess statistical heterogeneity with the tau-squared and explore sources of heterogeneity with meta-regression. We have involved patient partners, clinicians, methodologists, and key partner organisations in the development of this protocol, and we plan to continue this collaboration throughout all phases of this systematic review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our systematic review does not require research ethics approval. It will help inform current clinical practice guidelines and guide development of future randomised controlled trials. The results will be disseminated in open-access peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences and shared among collaborators and networks. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023439896.

Screening for depression in children and adolescents in primary care or non-mental health settings: a systematic review update.

BACKGROUND: The transition from childhood to adolescence is associated with an increase in rates of some psychiatric disorders, including major depressive disorder, a debilitating mood disorder. The aim of this systematic review is to update the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for depression in primary care and non-mental health clinic settings among children and adolescents. METHODS: This review is an update of a previous systematic review, for which the last search was conducted in 2017. We searched Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Embase Classic+Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL on November 4, 2019, and updated on February 19, 2021. If no randomized controlled trials were found, we planned to conduct an additional search for non-randomized trials with a comparator group. For non-randomized trials, we applied a non-randomized controlled trial filter and searched the same databases except for Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2015 to February 2021. We also conducted a targeted search of the gray literature for unpublished documents. Title and abstract, and full-text screening were completed independently by pairs of reviewers. RESULTS: In this review update, we were unable to find any randomized controlled studies that satisfied our eligibility criteria and evaluated the potential benefits and harms of screening for depression in children and adolescents. Additionally, a search for non-randomized trials yielded no studies that met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review indicate a lack of available evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of screening for depression in children and adolescents. This absence of evidence emphasizes the necessity for well-conducted clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of depression screening among children and adolescents in primary care and non-mental health clinic settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020150373 .

Advance Consent in Acute Stroke Trials: Survey of Canadian Stroke Physicians.

Advance consent presents a potential solution to the challenge of obtaining informed consent for participation in acute stroke trials. Clinicians in stroke prevention clinics are uniquely positioned to identify and seek consent from potential stroke trial participants. To assess the acceptability of advance consent to Canadian stroke clinic physicians, we performed an online survey. We obtained 58 respondents (response rate 35%): the vast majority (82%) expressed comfort with obtaining advance consent and 92% felt that doing so would not be a significant disruption to clinic workflow. These results support further study of advance consent for acute stroke trials.

Advance Consent in Acute Stroke Trials: Survey of Canadian Research Ethics Board Chairs.

Advance consent could allow individuals at high risk of stroke to provide consent before they might become eligible for enrollment in acute stroke trials. This survey explores the acceptability of this novel technique to Canadian Research Ethics Board (REB) chairs that review acute stroke trials. Responses from 15 REB chairs showed that majority of respondents expressed comfort approving studies that adopt advance consent. There was no clear preference for advance consent over deferral of consent, although respondents expressed significant concern with broad rather than trial-specific advance consent. These findings shed light on the acceptability of advance consent to Canadian ethics regulators.

Intraoperative Blood Management Strategies for Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: The Ottawa Intraoperative Transfusion Consensus.

Importance: There is marked variability in red blood cell (RBC) transfusion during the intraoperative period. The development and implementation of existing clinical practice guidelines have been ineffective in reducing this variability. Objective: To develop an internationally endorsed consensus statement about intraoperative transfusion in major noncardiac surgery. Evidence Review: A Delphi consensus survey technique with an anonymous 3-round iterative rating and feedback process was used. An expert panel of surgeons, anesthesiologists, and transfusion medicine specialists was recruited internationally. Statements were informed by extensive preparatory work, including a systematic reviews of intraoperative RBC guidelines and clinical trials, an interview study with patients to explore their perspectives about intraoperative transfusion, and interviews with physicians to understand the various behaviors that influence intraoperative transfusion decision-making. Thirty-eight statements were developed addressing (1) decision-making (interprofessional communication, clinical factors, procedural considerations, and audits), (2) restrictive transfusion strategies, (3) patient-centred considerations, and (4) research considerations (equipoise, outcomes, and protocol suspension). Panelists were asked to score statements on a 7-point Likert scale. Consensus was established with at least 75% agreement. Findings: The 34-member expert panel (14 of 33 women [42%]) included 16 anesthesiologists, 11 surgeons, and 7 transfusion specialists; panelists had a median of 16 years' experience (range, 2-50 years), mainly in Canada (52% [17 of 33]), the US (27% [9 of 33]), and Europe (15% [5 of 33]). The panel recommended routine preoperative and intraoperative discussion between surgeons and anesthesiologists about intraoperative RBC transfusion as well as postoperative review of intraoperative transfusion events. Point-of-care hemoglobin testing devices were recommended for transfusion guidance, alongside an algorithmic transfusion protocol with a restrictive hemoglobin trigger; however, more research is needed to evaluate the use of restrictive triggers in the operating room. Expert consensus recommended a detailed preoperative consent discussion with patients of the risks and benefits of both anemia and RBC transfusion and routine disclosure of intraoperative transfusion. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were recommended as the most relevant outcomes associated with intraoperative RBC transfusion, and transfusion triggers of 70 and 90 g/L were considered acceptable hemoglobin triggers to evaluate restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies, respectively, in clinical trials. Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement offers internationally endorsed expert guidance across several key domains on intraoperative RBC transfusion practice for noncardiac surgical procedures for which patients are at medium or high risk of bleeding. Future work should emphasize knowledge translation strategies to integrate these recommendations into routine clinical practice and transfusion research activities.

Prevalence of patient partner authorship and acknowledgment in child health research publications: an umbrella review.

OBJECTIVES: Children and families are increasingly involved as equal partners in child health research, however, considerations around authorship have received little attention and there is limited guidance on the topic. Our objective was to determine the frequency and nature of patient partner authorship and/or acknowledgment among articles focused on patient engagement in child health research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this umbrella review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and Web of Science for systematic/scoping reviews on patient engagement in child health research. Individual articles included in eligible reviews comprised the sample of articles for analysis and were examined to identify patient partner authorship. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify patient partner authorship and/or acknowledgment and to summarize article characteristics. RESULTS: Twelve systematic/scoping reviews met eligibility criteria, from which 230 individual articles were examined. In 16/230 (7%) articles, there was at least one patient partner author, and in 6/230 (3%) articles, patient partners were included as group authors. Within article Acknowledgments sections, patient partners were acknowledged by name in 41/230 (18%) articles, and anonymously or as a group in 98/230 (43%) articles. Patient partner authorship and/or acknowledgment was more frequent among articles published more recently (after 2015) and among articles where patient engagement was explicitly reported in the article. CONCLUSION: Patient partners were more likely to be acknowledged than listed as an author on articles on patient engagement in child health research. Understanding patient partner preferences about authorship and acknowledgment, examination of the unique aspects of child and youth authorship and developing supports to empower patient partner authorship are needed.

Patient and public involvement in pragmatic trials: online survey of corresponding authors of published trials.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on patient and public involvement (PPI) in pragmatic trials. We aimed to describe the prevalence and nature of PPI within pragmatic trials, describe variation in prevalence of PPI by trial characteristics and compare prevalence of PPI reported by trial authors to that reported in trial publications. METHODS: We applied a search filter to identify pragmatic trials published from 2014 to 2019 in MEDLINE. We invited the corresponding authors of pragmatic trials to participate in an online survey about their specific trial. RESULTS: Of 3163 authors invited, 2585 invitations were delivered, 710 (27.5%) reported on 710 unique trials and completed the survey; 334 (47.0%) conducted PPI. Among those who conducted PPI, for many the aim was to increase the research relevance (86.3%) or quality (76.5%). Most PPI partners were engaged at protocol development stages (79.1%) and contributed to the co-design of interventions (70.9%) or recruitment or retention strategies (60.5%). Patient and public involvement was more common among trials involving children, trials conducted in the United Kingdom, cluster randomized trials, those explicitly labelled as "pragmatic" in the study manuscript, and more recent trials. Less than one-quarter of trials (22.8%) that reported PPI in the survey also reported PPI in the trial manuscript. INTERPRETATION: Nearly half of trialists in this survey reported conducting PPI and listed several benefits of doing so, but researchers who did not conduct PPI often cited a lack of requirement for it. Patient and public involvement appears to be significantly underreported in trial publications. Consistent and standardized reporting is needed to promote transparency about PPI methods, outcomes, challenges and benefits.

Recognizing patient partner contributions to health research: a systematic review of reported practices.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research refers to collaboration between researchers and patients (i.e., individuals with lived experience including informal caregivers) in developing or conducting research. Offering non-financial (e.g., co-authorship, gift) or financial (e.g., honoraria, salary) compensation to patient partners can demonstrate appreciation for patient partner time and effort. However, little is known about how patient partners are currently compensated for their engagement in research. We sought to assess the prevalence of reporting patient partner compensation, specific compensation practices (non-financial and financial) reported, and identify benefits, challenges, barriers and enablers to offering financial compensation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies citing the Guidance for Reporting the Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP I and II) reporting checklists (October 2021) within Web of Science and Scopus. Studies that engaged patients as research partners were eligible. Two independent reviewers screened full texts and extracted data from included studies using a standardized data abstraction form. Data pertaining to compensation methods (financial and non-financial) and reported barriers and enablers to financially compensating patient partners were extracted. No formal quality assessment was conducted since the aim of the review is to describe the scope of patient partner compensation. Quantitative data were presented descriptively, and qualitative data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: The search identified 843 studies of which 316 studies were eligible. Of the 316 studies, 91% (n = 288) reported offering a type of compensation to patient partners. The most common method of non-financial compensation reported was informal acknowledgement on research outputs (65%, n = 206) and co-authorship (49%, n = 156). Seventy-nine studies (25%) reported offering financial compensation (i.e., honoraria, salary), 32 (10%) reported offering no financial compensation, and 205 (65%) studies did not report on financial compensation. Two key barriers were lack of funding to support compensation and absence of institutional policy or guidance. Two frequently reported enablers were considering financial compensation when developing the project budget and adequate project funding. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of published studies reporting patient engagement in research, most offered non-financial methods of compensation to patient partners. Researchers may need guidance and support to overcome barriers to offering financial compensation.

The term patient engagement in research is used to describe research that is conducted "with" patients, rather than "on" patients. It is important that researchers recognize patient partners for their time and expertise. In order to gain a better understanding of approaches to recognition for patient partners we reviewed published studies to: (1) assess how often financial compensation is reported, (2) identify how patient partners are reported as being compensated, and (3) understand what benefits, challenges, barriers and enablers might exist to offering financial compensation. We conducted a systematic review of articles citing the Guidance for Reporting the Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) guidelines. We included all study designs if patients were engaged as partners. Studies in which patients were participants only were excluded. Data collected included information about details of patient partner compensation (financial and non-financial practices) as well as challenges relating to financial compensation. Numerical data were analysed descriptively. Textual data were coded by two reviewers and collated into overarching themes. Our search identified 316 papers. Of these, 91% reported offering compensation to patient partners. Most common methods were acknowledgement (65%) and co-authorship (49%). Only 79 studies (25%) reported offering financial compensation to patient partners. Limited funding and lack of institutional guidance were identified as two key barriers that may be preventing researchers from offering financial compensation. Our review found that non-financial methods of compensation are reported more often than financial compensation. Researchers may require more support when offering financial compensation to patient partners.

A scoping review establishes need for consensus guidance on reporting health equity in observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the support from the available guidance on reporting of health equity in research for our candidate items and to identify additional items for the Strengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology-Equity extension. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review by searching Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, LILACS, and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information up to January 2022. We also searched reference lists and gray literature for additional resources. We included guidance and assessments (hereafter termed "resources") related to conduct and/or reporting for any type of health research with or about people experiencing health inequity. RESULTS: We included 34 resources, which supported one or more candidate items or contributed to new items about health equity reporting in observational research. Each candidate item was supported by a median of six (range: 1-15) resources. In addition, 12 resources suggested 13 new items, such as "report the background of investigators". CONCLUSION: Existing resources for reporting health equity in observational studies aligned with our interim checklist of candidate items. We also identified additional items that will be considered in the development of a consensus-based and evidence-based guideline for reporting health equity in observational studies.

Understanding Intraoperative Transfusion Decision-Making Variability: A Qualitative Study.

There is evidence of significant intraoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion variability that cannot be explained by case-mix, and may reflect unwarranted transfusions. The objective was to explore the source of intraoperative RBC transfusion variability by eliciting the beliefs of anesthesiologists and surgeons that underlie transfusion decisions. Interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were conducted to identify beliefs about intraoperative transfusion. Content analysis was performed to group statements into domains. Relevant domains were selected based on frequency of beliefs, perceived influence on transfusion, and the presence of conflicting beliefs within domains. Of the 28 transfusion experts recruited internationally (16 anesthesiologists, 12 surgeons), 24 (86%) were Canadian or American and 11 (39%) identified as female. Eight relevant domains were identified: (1) Knowledge (insufficient evidence to guide intraoperative transfusion), (2) Social/professional role and identity (surgeons/anesthesiologists share responsibility for transfusions), (3) Beliefs about consequences (concerns about morbidity of transfusion/anemia), (4) Environmental context/resources (transfusions influenced by type of surgery, local blood supply, cost of transfusion), (5) Social influences (institutional culture, judgment by peers, surgeon-anesthesiologist relationship, patient preference influencing transfusion decisions), (6) Behavioral regulation (need for intraoperative transfusion guidelines, usefulness of audits and educational sessions to guide transfusion), (7) Nature of the behaviors (overtransfusion remains commonplace, transfusion practice becoming more restrictive over time), and (8) Memory, attention, and decision processes (various patient and operative characteristics are incorporated into transfusion decisions). This study identified a range of factors underlying intraoperative transfusion decision-making and partly explain the variability in transfusion behavior. Targeted theory-informed behavior-change interventions derived from this work could help reduce intraoperative transfusion variability.

Exploring implementation processes of a parent-targeted educational video for improving newborn pain treatment: A sequential exploratory mixed-methods study.

Despite known analgesic effects of breastfeeding (BF), skin-to-skin care (SSC), and sweet solutions (sucrose) for newborns, these interventions remain underutilized. Our team produced a five-minute parent-targeted video (BSweet2Babies) demonstrating BF, SSC, and sucrose during newborn blood sampling. We conducted a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study with eight maternal-newborn units across Ontario, Canada to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing the video and the three pain management strategies.Over a 6-month period, data collection included 15 telephone interviews, two email communications, and three community of practice teleconferences with the participating sites (n = 8). We used the Theoretical Domains Framework as the coding matrix. Participants discussed integrating the video in prenatal education and the importance of involving leadership when planning for practice change. Key barriers included lack of comfort with parental presence, perception of high complexity of the strategies, short postpartum stays, competing priorities, and interprofessional challenges. Key facilitators included alignment with the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, modeling by Lactation Consultants, and frequent reminders.

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: For close to a century opioid administration has been a standard of care to complement anaesthesia during surgery. Considering the worldwide opioid epidemic, this practice is now being challenged and there is a growing use of systemic pharmacological opioid minimising strategies. Our aim is to conduct a scoping review that will examine clinical trials that have evaluated the impact of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes and identify promising strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our scoping review will follow the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL from their inception approximately in March 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials, assessing the impact of systemic intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes. We define an opioid minimisation strategy as any non-opioid drug with antinociceptive properties administered during the intraoperative period. Patient-centred outcomes will be defined and classified based on the consensus definitions established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC group) and informed by knowledge users and patient partners. We will use a coproduction approach involving interested parties. Our multidisciplinary team includes knowledge users, patient partners, methodologists and knowledge user organisations. Knowledge users will provide input on methods, outcomes, clinical significance of findings, implementation and feasibility. Patient partners will participate in assessing the relevance of our design, methods and outcomes and help to facilitate evidence translation. We will provide a thorough description of available clinical trials, compare their reported patient-centred outcome measures with established recommendations and identify promising strategies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for the review. Our scoping review will inform future research including clinical trials and systematic reviews through identification of important intraoperative interventions. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentation at conferences and through our network of knowledge user collaborators. REGISTRATION: Open Science Foundation (currently embargoed).

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline.

BACKGROUND: Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension. METHODS: We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels. DISCUSSION: Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

A Cross Sectional Survey of Recruitment Practices, Supports, and Perceived Roles for Unaffiliated and Non-scientist Members of IRBs.

BACKGROUND: Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated to include both nonscientific and unaffiliated representatives in their membership. Despite this, there is no guidance or policy on the selection of unaffiliated or non-scientist members and reports indicate a lack of clarity regarding members' roles. In the present study we sought to explore processes of recruitment, training, and the perceived roles for unaffiliated and non-scientist members of IRBs. METHODS: We distributed a self-administered REDCap survey of members of the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs familiar with IRB member recruitment. The survey included closed and open-ended questions regarding: the operation of the HRPP/IRB(s), how unaffiliated and non-scientist members are recruited, whether they had faced challenges recruiting for these roles, and training and mentorship offered. The survey also collected information regarding the perceived value and roles of unaffiliated and non-scientist members. RESULTS: 76 responses were included in the analysis (38% completion rate). The most common approach for recruitment was referral from current IRB members, with almost half of respondents indicating challenges recruiting unaffiliated members. Over 75% indicated no additional training was provided to unaffiliated or non-scientist members compared to affiliated or scientist members. Most common supports provided were travel/parking expenses and honoraria. Commonly perceived roles were to provide an independent voice from the participant perspective, notably regarding consent processes and materials. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents indicated challenges in defining unaffiliated and non-scientist members and limited practices toward recruitment and support. Future work should more closely examine the challenges in defining these roles and applying the definitions in practice, as well as strategies that may improve recruitment and retention of unaffiliated and non-scientist members.