Evaluating an addiction medicine unit in Sudbury, Ontario Canada: a mixed-methods study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In response to the escalating global prevalence of substance use and the specific challenges faced in Northern Ontario, Canada, an Addiction Medicine Unit (AMU) was established at Health Sciences North (HSN) in Sudbury. This protocol outlines the approach for a comprehensive evaluation of the AMU, with the aim of assessing its impact on patient outcomes, healthcare utilization, and staff perspectives. METHODS: We conducted a parallel mixed-method study that encompassed the analysis of single-center-level administrative health data and primary data collection, including a longitudinal observational study (target n = 1,200), pre- and post-admission quantitative interviews (target n = 100), and qualitative interviews (target n = 25 patients and n = 15 staff). We implemented a participatory approach to this evaluation, collaborating with individuals who possess lived or living expertise in drug use, frontline staff, and decision-makers across the hospital. Data analysis methods encompass a range of statistical techniques, including logistic regression models, Cox proportional hazards models, Kaplan-Meier curves, Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), and thematic qualitative analysis, ensuring a robust evaluation of patient outcomes and healthcare utilization. DISCUSSION: This protocol serves as the foundation for a comprehensive assessment designed to provide insights into the AMU's effectiveness in addressing substance use-related challenges, reducing healthcare disparities, and improving patient outcomes. All study procedures have been meticulously designed to align with the ethical principles outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. The findings will be disseminated progressively through committees and working groups established for this research, and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. Anticipated outcomes include informing evidence-based healthcare decision-making and driving improvements in addiction treatment practices within healthcare settings.

"I'd like more options!": Interviews to explore young people and family decision-making needs for pain management in juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a common pediatric rheumatic condition and is associated with symptoms such as joint pain that can negatively impact health-related quality of life. To effectively manage pain in JIA, young people, their families, and health care providers (HCPs) should be supported to discuss pain management options and make a shared decision. However, pain is often under-recognized, and pain management discussions are not optimal. No studies have explored decision-making needs for pain management in JIA using a shared decision making (SDM) model. We sought to explore families' decision-making needs with respect to pain management among young people with JIA, parents/caregivers, and HCPs. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured virtual or face-to-face individual interviews with young people with JIA 8-18 years of age, parents/caregivers and HCPs using a qualitative descriptive study design. We recruited participants online across Canada and the United States, from a hospital and from a quality improvement network. We used interview guides based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework to assess decision-making needs. We audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed interviews using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12 young people (n = 6 children and n = 6 adolescents), 13 parents/caregivers and 11 HCPs participated in interviews. Pediatric HCPs were comprised of rheumatologists (n = 4), physical therapists (n = 3), rheumatology nurses (n = 2) and occupational therapists (n = 2). The following themes were identified: (1) need to assess pain in an accurate manner; (2) need to address pain in pediatric rheumatology consultations; (3) need for information on pain management options, especially nonpharmacological approaches; (4) importance of effectiveness, safety and ease of use of treatments; (5) need to discuss young people/families' values and preferences for pain management options; and the (6) need for decision support. Themes were similar for young people, parents/caregivers and HCPs, although their respective importance varied. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a need for evidence-based information and communication about pain management options, which would be addressed by decision support interventions and HCP training in pain and SDM. Work is underway to develop such interventions and implement them into practice to improve pain management in JIA and in turn lead to better health outcomes.

Patient and rheumatologist perspectives on tapering DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the perspectives of patients and rheumatologists for tapering DMARDs in RA. METHODS: Using semi-structured interview guides, we conducted individual interviews and focus groups with RA patients and rheumatologists, which were audiotaped and transcribed. We conducted a pragmatic thematic analysis to identify major themes, comparing and contrasting different views on DMARD tapering between patients and rheumatologists. RESULTS: We recruited 28 adult patients with RA (64% women; disease duration 1-54 y) and 23 rheumatologists (52% women). Attitudes across both groups towards tapering DMARDs were ambivalent, ranging from wary to enthusiastic. Both groups expressed concerns, particularly the inability to 'recapture' the same level of disease control, while also acknowledging potential positive outcomes such as reduced drug harms. Patient tapering perspectives (whether to and when) changed over time and commonly included non-biologic DMARDs. Patient preferences were influenced by lived experiences, side effects, previous tapering experiences, disease trajectory, remission duration and current life roles. Rheumatologists' perspectives varied on timing and patient profile to initiate tapering, and were informed by both data and clinical experience. Patients expressed interest in shared decision-making (SDM) and close monitoring during tapering, with ready access to their health-care team if problems arose. Rheumatologists were generally open to tapering (not stopping), though sometimes only when requested by their patients. CONCLUSION: The perspectives of patients and rheumatologists on tapering DMARDs in RA vary and evolve over time. Rheumatologists should periodically discuss DMARD tapering with patients as part of SDM, and ensure monitoring and flare management plans are in place.