Essential content for teaching implementation practice in healthcare: a mixed-methods study of teams offering capacity-building initiatives.

BACKGROUND: Applying the knowledge gained through implementation science can support the uptake of research evidence into practice; however, those doing and supporting implementation (implementation practitioners) may face barriers to applying implementation science in their work. One strategy to enhance individuals' and teams' ability to apply implementation science in practice is through training and professional development opportunities (capacity-building initiatives). Although there is an increasing demand for and offerings of implementation practice capacity-building initiatives, there is no universal agreement on what content should be included. In this study we aimed to explore what capacity-building developers and deliverers identify as essential training content for teaching implementation practice. METHODS: We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study with participants who had developed and/or delivered a capacity-building initiative focused on teaching implementation practice. Participants completed an online questionnaire to provide details on their capacity-building initiatives; took part in an interview or focus group to explore their questionnaire responses in depth; and offered course materials for review. We analyzed a subset of data that focused on the capacity-building initiatives' content and curriculum. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative data and conventional content analysis for qualitative data, with the data sets merged during the analytic phase. We presented frequency counts for each category to highlight commonalities and differences across capacity-building initiatives. RESULTS: Thirty-three individuals representing 20 capacity-building initiatives participated. Study participants identified several core content areas included in their capacity-building initiatives: (1) taking a process approach to implementation; (2) identifying and applying implementation theories, models, frameworks, and approaches; (3) learning implementation steps and skills; (4) developing relational skills. In addition, study participants described offering applied and pragmatic content (e.g., tools and resources), and tailoring and evolving the capacity-building initiative content to address emerging trends in implementation science. Study participants highlighted some challenges learners face when acquiring and applying implementation practice knowledge and skills. CONCLUSIONS: This study synthesized what experienced capacity-building initiative developers and deliverers identify as essential content for teaching implementation practice. These findings can inform the development, refinement, and delivery of capacity-building initiatives, as well as future research directions, to enhance the translation of implementation science into practice.

Planning and implementing practice changes in Ontario maternal-newborn hospital units: a secondary qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Moving evidence into practice is complex, and pregnant and birthing people and their infants do not always receive care that aligns with the best available evidence. Implementation science can inform how to effectively move evidence into practice. While there are a growing number of examples of implementation science being studied in maternal-newborn care settings, it remains unknown how real-world teams of healthcare providers and leaders approach the overall implementation process when making practice changes. The purpose of this study was to describe maternal-newborn hospital teams' approaches to implementing practice changes. We aimed to identify what implementation steps teams take (or not) and identify strengths and potential areas for improvement based on best practices in implementation science. METHODS: We conducted a supplementary qualitative secondary analysis of 22 interviews completed in 2014-2015 with maternal-newborn nursing leaders in Ontario, Canada. We used directed content analysis to code the data to seven steps in an implementation framework (Implementation Roadmap): identify the problem and potential best practice; assemble local evidence; select and customize best practice; discover barriers and drivers; tailor implementation strategies; field-test, plan evaluation, prepare to launch; launch, evaluate, and sustain. Frequency counts are presented for each step. RESULTS: Participants reported completing a median of 4.5 of 7 Implementation Roadmap steps (range = 3-7), with the most common being identifying a practice problem. Other steps were described less frequently (e.g., selecting and adapting evidence, field-testing, outcome evaluation) or discussed frequently but not optimally (e.g., barriers assessment). Participants provided examples of how they engaged point-of-care staff throughout the implementation process, but provided fewer examples of engaging pregnant and birthing people and their families. Some participants stated they used a formal framework or process to guide their implementation process, with the most common being quality improvement approaches and tools. CONCLUSIONS: We identified variability across the 22 hospitals in the implementation steps taken. While we observed many strengths, we also identified areas where further support may be needed. Future work is needed to create opportunities and resources to support maternal-newborn healthcare providers and leaders to apply principles and tools from implementation science to their practice change initiatives.

Gestational weight loss and fetal growth in uncomplicated pregnancies among women with obesity: a population-based retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of gestational weight loss (GWL) on fetal growth among women with obesity remains unclear. This study aimed to examine the association between weight loss during pregnancy among women with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 and the risk of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) and large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study of women with pre-pregnancy obesity that resulted in a singleton live birth in 2012-2017, using birth registry data in Ontario, Canada. Women with pregnancy complications or health conditions which could cause weight loss were excluded. GWL is defined as negative gestational weight change (≤0 kg). The association between GWL and fetal growth was estimated using generalized estimating equation models and restricted cubic spline regression analysis. Stratified analysis was conducted by obesity class (I:30-34.9 kg/m2, II:35-39.9 kg/m2, and III + : ≥40 kg/m2). RESULTS: Of the 52,153 eligible women who entered pregnancy with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, 5.3% had GWL. Compared to adequate gestational weight gain, GWL was associated with an increased risk of SGA neonates (aRR:1.45, 95% CI: 1.30-1.60) and a decreased risk of LGA neonates (aRR: 0.81, 95% CI:0.73-0.93). Non-linear L-shaped associations were observed between gestational weight change and SGA neonates, with an increased risk of SGA observed with increased GWL. On the contrary, non-linear S-shaped associations were observed between gestational weight change and LGA neonates, with a decreased risk of LGA observed with increased GWL. Similar findings were observed from the stratified analysis by obesity class. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight that GWL in women with obesity may increase the risk of SGA neonates but reduce the risk of LGA neonates. Recommendations of GWL for women with obesity should be interpreted with caution.

Pregnancy, fetal, and neonatal outcomes after a first booster dose of covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy in Ontario, Canada: population based, retrospective cohort study.

Objective: To assess risk of adverse pregnancy, fetal, and neonatal outcomes after a third dose (first booster dose) of covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy among individuals who had completed both doses of primary covid-19 vaccine series before pregnancy. Design: Population based, retrospective cohort study. Setting: Ontario, Canada, from 20 December 2021 to 31 August 2022. Participants: Individuals were included if they were pregnant with an expected date of delivery from 20 December 2021 (start date of third dose eligibility for everyone ≥18 years) to 31 August 2022, who had completed the two doses of primary covid-19 messenger RNA vaccine series before pregnancy, and became eligible for a third dose (≥six months since dose two) before the end of pregnancy. Main outcome measures: Pregnancy outcomes included hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, placental abruption, caesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, and postpartum hemorrhage. Fetal and neonatal outcomes included stillbirth, preterm birth, admission to neonatal intensive care unit for >24 h, newborn 5 min Apgar score <7, and small-for-gestational age infant (<10th percentile). We estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for study outcomes, treating dose three as a time varying exposure and adjusting for confounding using inverse probability weighting. Results: Among 32 689 births, 18 491 (56.6%) were born to individuals who received a third covid-19 dose during pregnancy. Compared with eligible individuals who did not receive a third dose during pregnancy, no increased risks were associated with receiving a third covid-19 vaccine dose during pregnancy for placental abruption (adjusted hazard ratio 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.02)), chorioamnionitis (0.67 (0.49 to 0.90)), postpartum haemorrhage (1.01 (0.89 to 1.16)), caesarean delivery (0.90 (0.87 to 0.94)), stillbirth (0.56 (0.39 to 0.81)), preterm birth (0.91 (0.84 to 0.99)), neonatal intensive care unit admission (0.96 (0.90 to 1.03)), 5 min Apgar score<7 (0.96 (0.82 to 1.14)), or small-for-gestational age infant (0.86 (0.79 to 0.93)). Conclusion: Receipt of a third covid-19 vaccine dose during pregnancy was not associated with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy, fetal, or neonatal outcomes. These findings can help to inform evidence based decision making about the risks and benefits of covid-19 booster doses during pregnancy.

Inhibition of p90 ribosomal S6 kinases disrupts melanoma cell growth and immune evasion.

BACKGROUND: The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway is frequently hyperactivated in malignant melanoma and its inhibition has proved to be an efficient treatment option for cases harboring BRAFV600 mutations (BRAFMut). However, there is still a significant need for effective targeted therapies for patients with other melanoma subgroups characterized by constitutive MAPK activation, such as tumors with NRAS or NF-1 alterations (NRASMut, NF-1LOF), as well as for patients with MAPK pathway inhibitor-resistant BRAFMut melanomas, which commonly exhibit a reactivation of this pathway. p90 ribosomal S6 kinases (RSKs) represent central effectors of MAPK signaling, regulating cell cycle progression and survival. METHODS: RSK activity and the functional effects of its inhibition by specific small molecule inhibitors were investigated in established melanoma cell lines and patient-derived short-term cultures from different MAPK pathway-hyperactivated genomic subgroups (NRASMut, BRAFMut, NF-1LOF). Real-time qPCR, immunoblots and flow cytometric cell surface staining were used to explore the molecular changes following RSK inhibition. The effect on melanoma cell growth was evaluated by various two- and three-dimensional in vitro assays as well as with melanoma xenograft mouse models. Co-cultures with gp100- or Melan-A-specific cytotoxic T cells were used to assess immunogenicity of melanoma cells and associated T-cell responses. RESULTS: In line with elevated activity of the MAPK/RSK signaling axis, growth and survival of not only BRAFMut but also NRASMut and NF-1LOF melanoma cells were significantly impaired by RSK inhibitors. Intriguingly, RSK inhibition was particularly effective in three-dimensional growth settings with long-term chronic drug exposure and suppressed tumor cell growth of in vivo melanoma models. Additionally, our study revealed that RSK inhibition simultaneously promoted differentiation and immunogenicity of the tumor cells leading to enhanced T-cell activation and melanoma cell killing. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, RSK inhibitors exhibited both multi-layered anti-tumor efficacy and broad applicability across different genomic melanoma subgroups. RSK inhibition may therefore represent a promising novel therapeutic strategy for malignant melanoma with hyperactivated MAPK signaling.

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.

Temporal trends and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine series initiation after recent pregnancy.

During the rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines in 2021, safety concerns may have led some pregnant individuals to postpone vaccination until after giving birth. This study aimed to describe temporal patterns and factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine series initiation after recent pregnancy in Ontario, Canada. Using the provincial birth registry linked with the COVID-19 vaccine database, we identified all individuals who gave birth between January 1 and December 31, 2021, and had not yet been vaccinated by the end of pregnancy, and followed them to June 30, 2022 (follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 months). We used cumulative incidence curves to describe COVID-19 vaccine initiation after pregnancy and assessed associations with sociodemographic, pregnancy-related, and health behavioral factors using Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among 137,198 individuals who gave birth in 2021, 87,376 (63.7%) remained unvaccinated at the end of pregnancy; of these, 65.0% initiated COVID-19 vaccination by June 30, 2022. Lower maternal age (<25 vs. 30-34 y aHR: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.70-0.77), smoking during pregnancy (vs. nonsmoking aHR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.65-0.72), lower neighborhood income (lowest quintile vs. highest aHR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.76-0.83), higher material deprivation (highest quintile vs. lowest aHR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.70-0.79), and exclusive breastfeeding (vs. other feeding aHR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.79-0.84) were associated with lower likelihood of vaccine initiation. Among unvaccinated individuals who gave birth in 2021, COVID-19 vaccine initiation after pregnancy reached 65% by June 30, 2022, suggesting persistent issues with vaccine hesitancy and/or access to vaccination in this population.

Association between maternal marginalization and infants born with congenital heart disease in Ontario Canada.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on the risk of congenital heart disease (CHD) since previous studies have yielded inconsistent results. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study, including all singleton live and still births in Ontario hospitals from April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2018. We used linked records from the Better Outcomes Registry & Network Information System, the Canadian Institute for Health Information databases, and the Ontario Marginalization Index (ON_Marg). ON_Marg was estimated at a dissemination area level using Canadian Census 2016 data and categorized into quintiles. Multivariable logistic regression models were performed to examine the relationships between four ON_Marg indices (material deprivation, dependency, ethnic concentration, residential instability), as proxies for maternal SES and the risk of infant CHD. We adjusted for maternal age at birth, assisted reproductive technology, obesity, pre-existing health conditions, substance use during pregnancy, mental health conditions before and during pregnancy, rural residence, and infant's sex in the analysis. RESULTS: Among the cohort of 776,799 singletons, 9,359 infants had a diagnosis of CHD. Of those, 3,069 were severe CHD and 493 cases were single ventricle CHD. The prevalence of all infant CHD types was higher for males relative to females. Compared to mothers living in neighbourhoods with the lowest material deprivation, mothers with highest material deprivation had a 27% (adjusted OR = 1.27; 95% CI: 1.18-1.37) higher odds of having an infant diagnosed with CHD. Mothers living in neighbourhoods with the highest minority ethnic and immigrant concentration tend to have infants with 11% lower odds of CHD (adjusted OR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.82-0.97) as compared to those living in the least ethnically diverse communities. Maternal dependency and residential stability quintiles were not significantly associated with the risk of CHD. CONCLUSION: Higher maternal material deprivation was associated with increasing odds of infant CHD, whereas neighbourhood minority ethnic concentration was inversely associated with the odds of infant CHD. Our study further confirms that poverty is associated with CHD development. Future investigations might focus on the causal pathways between social deprivation, immigrant status, ethnicity, and the risk of infant CHD.

Understanding how and under what circumstances integrated knowledge translation works for people engaged in collaborative research: metasynthesis of IKTRN casebooks.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Interaction and collaboration between researchers, patients/public, clinicians, managers and policy-makers are necessary to enhance the relevance and use of research, improve planning, and optimize healthcare delivery and outcomes. The Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network (IKTRN) published four casebooks from 2019 to 2021, describing varied approaches to research co-production. Our aim was to examine the case studies to extend existing theoretical and empirical perspectives about how co-production works. METHODS: We used metasynthesis, a qualitative research design that includes seven iterative steps (clarify the purpose, delineate the case studies included, extract and code the data, derive themes from the coded data, determine the relationships of the themes to research co-production, synthesize the concepts, and build theory). RESULTS: A total of 35 cases was reviewed. The aggregate findings of this metasynthesis identified multiple contextual and process factors, barriers, and facilitators that influence integrated knowledge translation (IKT), and a range of IKT activities that increased the likelihood of success of co-production during research. In comparing the findings from the metasynthesis with existing literature, we found a number of consistencies, but also new information about barriers, facilitators, IKT activities and outcomes, thereby adding to our understanding about factors that influence co-production. CONCLUSIONS: This metasynthesis provided concrete examples to optimize co-produced clinical and health system research. More research is needed to fully understand how to overcome some challenging modifiable barriers, establish relationships, facilitate communication, overcome power differentials and create processes for knowledge-users working across boundaries (clinical practice and research) to stay engaged and participate fully in research endeavours.

Temporal trends and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine coverage and series initiation during pregnancy in Ontario, Canada, December 2020 to December 2021: A population-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Population-based COVID-19 vaccine coverage estimates among pregnant individuals are limited. We assessed temporal patterns in vaccine coverage (≥1 dose before or during pregnancy) and evaluated factors associated with vaccine series initiation (receiving dose 1 during pregnancy) in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We linked the provincial birth registry with COVID-19 vaccination records from December 14, 2020 to December 31, 2021 and assessed coverage rates among all pregnant individuals by month, age, and neighborhood sociodemographic characteristics. Among individuals who gave birth since April 2021-when pregnant people were prioritized for vaccination-we assessed associations between sociodemographic, behavioral, and pregnancy-related factors with vaccine series initiation using multivariable regression to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRR) and risk differences (aRD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Among 221,190 pregnant individuals, vaccine coverage increased to 71.2% by December 2021. Gaps in coverage across categories of age and sociodemographic characteristics decreased over time, but did not disappear. Lower vaccine series initiation was associated with lower age (<25 vs. 30-34 years: aRR 0.53, 95%CI 0.51-0.56), smoking (vs. non-smoking: 0.64, 0.61-0.67), no first trimester prenatal care visit (vs. visit: 0.80, 0.77-0.84), and residing in neighborhoods with the lowest income (vs. highest: 0.69, 0.67-0.71). Vaccine series initiation was marginally higher among individuals with pre-existing medical conditions (vs. no conditions: 1.07, 1.04-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine coverage among pregnant individuals remained lower than in the general population, and there was lower vaccine initiation by multiple characteristics.

Assessing shared decision making during antenatal consultations regarding extreme prematurity.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether antenatal decisions regarding the neonatal care at birth for extremely preterm infants are more likely to be made when using shared decision-making (SDM)-style consultations compared to standard consultations. STUDY DESIGN: In 2015, we implemented a clinical practice guideline promoting SDM use within antenatal consultations in our single-centre university-based perinatal unit. We conducted a prospective cohort study with a retrospective chart review based on data collected from all pregnant women presenting to obstetrical triage between 22 + 0 and 25 + 6 weeks gestation between September 2015 and June 2018. RESULT: Two-hundred-and-seventeen cases presented; 137 received antenatal consultations with 82 (60%) being SDM-style. Decisions were frequently made (88%; 120/137) after the consultations, with no significant difference between consultation style (RR 1.08, 95% CI [0.95-1.26], p = 0.28). CONCLUSION: The provision of either an SDM-style or a standard antenatal consultation seemed to comparably facilitate the reaching of a care decision.

Worries, beliefs and factors influencing perinatal COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional survey of preconception, pregnant and lactating individuals.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines are recommended for pregnant and lactating individuals, and there is substantial evidence for their safety and effectiveness. As the pandemic continues, information on worries and beliefs surrounding perinatal COVID-19 vaccination remains important to inform efforts aimed at improving vaccine uptake. Our objectives were to assess factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination among perinatal individuals; and to explore motivational factors associated with willingness to be vaccinated among unvaccinated perinatal individuals. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional web-based survey of preconception, pregnant, and lactating individuals in Canada. The outcomes of interest were vaccination with at least one dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and willingness to be vaccinated among unvaccinated individuals. Sample characteristics were summarized using frequencies and percentages. The association between eight prespecified risk factors and two outcomes (vaccination status and willingness to be vaccinated) was assessed by logistic regression. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the total sample, and across perinatal sub-groups. RESULTS: Among 3446 survey respondents, there were 447 (13.0%) preconception, 1832 (53.2%) pregnant, and 1167 (42.4%) lactating. There were 1460 (42.4%) and 1982 (57.5%) who were vaccinated and unvaccinated, respectively. Factors positively associated with COVID-19 vaccine status were speaking to a healthcare provider about vaccination during the perinatal period (aOR:2.35, 95% CI:1.97-2.80) and believing that the COVID-19 vaccine is effective (aOR:1.91, 95% CI:1.46-2.48). Factors negatively associated with vaccine status included worries about fetal growth and development (aOR:0.55, 95% CI:0.43-0.70) and future child behavioral/neurodevelopmental problems (aOR:0.59, 95% CI:0.46-0.75). Among unvaccinated individuals specifically, characteristics positively associated with willingness to vaccinate were speaking to a healthcare provider (aOR:1.67, 95% CI:1.32-2.12) and believing the COVID-19 vaccine is effective (aOR:3.56, 95% CI:2.70-4.69). Factors negatively associated with willingness were concerns over infertility (aOR:0.66, 95% CI:0.49-0.88), fetal growth and development (aOR:0.33, 95% CI:0.24-0.46), and future child behavioral/neurodevelopmental problems (aOR:0.64, 95% CI:0.48-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: In this Canadian perinatal population, approximately 42% reported COVID-19 vaccination. Among unvaccinated individuals, willingness to receive vaccination was high (73%). Factors enhancing vaccine willingness included discussions with healthcare providers and believing the vaccine was effective. Concerns regarding vaccine safety, particularly with respect to fetal/child development, were the greatest barriers to vaccine uptake.

Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a trained healthcare provider to help people prepare to actively participate in making healthcare decisions. This study aimed to understand how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions. METHODS: We followed the realist review methodology for this study. This study was built on a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness of decision coaching interventions for people facing healthcare decisions. It involved six iterative steps: (1) develop the initial program theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) select, appraise, and prioritize studies; (4) extract and organize data; (5) synthesize evidence; and (6) consult stakeholders and draw conclusions. RESULTS: We developed an initial program theory based on decision coaching theories and stakeholder feedback. Of the 2594 citations screened, we prioritized 27 papers for synthesis based on their relevance rating. To refine the program theory, we identified 12 context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Essential mechanisms for decision coaching to be initiated include decision coaches', patients', and clinicians' commitments to patients' involvement in decision making and decision coaches' knowledge and skills (four CMOs). CMOs during decision coaching are related to the patient (i.e., willing to confide, perceiving their decisional needs are recognized, acquiring knowledge, feeling supported), and the patient-decision coach interaction (i.e., exchanging information, sharing a common understanding of patient's values) (five CMOs). After decision coaching, the patient's progress in making or implementing a values-based preferred decision can be facilitated by the decision coach's advocacy for the patient, and the patient's deliberation upon options (two CMOs). Leadership support enables decision coaches to have access to essential resources to fulfill their role (one CMOs). DISCUSSION: In the refined program theory, decision coaching works when there is strong leadership support and commitment from decision coaches, clinicians, and patients. Decision coaches need to be capable in coaching, encourage patients' participation, build a trusting relationship with patients, and act as a liaison between patients and clinicians to facilitate patients' progress in making or implementing an informed values-based preferred option. More empirical studies, especially qualitative and process evaluation studies, are needed to further refine the program theory.

Associations of congenital heart disease with deprivation index by rural-urban maternal residence: a population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The risk of congenital heart disease (CHD) has been found to vary by maternal socioeconomic status (SES) and rural-urban residence. In this study, we examined associations of CHD with two maternal SES indicators and stratified the analysis by maternal rural-urban residence. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study. We included all singleton stillbirths and live hospital births from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2018 in Ontario, Canada. We linked the BORN Information System and Canadian Institute for Health Information databases. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine associations of CHD with material deprivation index (MDI), social deprivation index (SDI), and maternal residence while adjusting for maternal age at birth, assisted reproductive technology, obesity, pre-pregnancy maternal health conditions, mental health illness before and during pregnancy, substance use during pregnancy, and infant's sex. MDI and SDI were estimated at a dissemination area level in Ontario and were categorized into quintiles (Q1-Q5). RESULTS: This cohort study included 798,173 singletons. In maternal urban residence, the p trend (Cochran-Armitage test) was less than 0.0001 for both MDI and SDI; while for rural residence, it was 0.002 and 0.98, respectively. Infants living in the most materially deprived neighbourhoods (MDI Q5) had higher odds of CHD (aOR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.12-1.29) compared to Q1. Similarly, infants living in the most socially deprived neighbourhoods (SDI Q5) had an 18% increase in the odds of CHD (aOR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.1-1.26) compared to Q1. Rural infants had a 13% increase in the odds of CHD compared to their urban counterparts. After stratifying by maternal rural-urban residence, we still detected higher odds of CHD with two indices in urban residence but only MDI in rural residence. CONCLUSION: Higher material and social deprivation and rural residence were associated with higher odds of CHD. Health interventions and policies should reinforce the need for optimal care for all families, particularly underprivileged families in both rural and urban regions. Future studies should further investigate the effect of social deprivation on the risk of CHD development.

Risk of preterm birth, small for gestational age at birth, and stillbirth after covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy: population based retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of preterm birth, small for gestational age at birth, and stillbirth after covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy. DESIGN: Population based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada, 1 May to 31 December 2021. PARTICIPANTS: All liveborn and stillborn infants from pregnancies conceived at least 42 weeks before the end of the study period and with gestational age ≥20 weeks or birth weight ≥500 g. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Using Cox regression, hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for preterm birth before 37 weeks (overall and spontaneous preterm birth), very preterm birth (<32 weeks), small for gestational age at birth (<10th centile), and stillbirth. Vaccination against covid-19 was treated as a time varying exposure in the outcome specific risk window, and propensity score weighting was used to adjust hazard ratios for potential confounding. RESULTS: Among 85 162 births, 43 099 (50.6%) occurred in individuals who received one dose or more of a covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy-42 979 (99.7%) received an mRNA vaccine. Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with any increased risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated v 6.9% among unvaccinated; adjusted hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% v 4.4%; 0.96, 0.90 to 1.03), or very preterm birth (0.59% v 0.89%; 0.80, 0.67 to 0.95). No increase was found in risk of small for gestational age at birth (9.1% v 9.2%; 0.98, 0.93 to 1.03) or stillbirth (0.25% v 0.44%; 0.65, 0.51 to 0.84). Findings were similar by trimester of vaccination, mRNA vaccine product, and number of doses received during pregnancy. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that vaccination against covid-19 during pregnancy is not associated with a higher risk of preterm birth, small for gestational age at birth, or stillbirth.

Association of COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy With Adverse Peripartum Outcomes.

Importance: There is limited comparative epidemiological evidence on outcomes associated with COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy; monitoring pregnancy outcomes in large populations is required. Objective: To evaluate peripartum outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, using a birth registry linked with the provincial COVID-19 immunization database. All births between December 14, 2020, and September 30, 2021, were included. Exposures: COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, COVID-19 vaccination after pregnancy, and no vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures: Postpartum hemorrhage, chorioamnionitis, cesarean delivery (overall and emergency cesarean delivery), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and low newborn 5-minute Apgar score (<7). Linear and robust Poisson regression was used to generate adjusted risk differences (aRDs) and risk ratios (aRRs), respectively, comparing cumulative incidence of outcomes in those who received COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy with those vaccinated after pregnancy and those with no record of COVID-19 vaccination at any point. Inverse probability of treatment weights were used to adjust for confounding. Results: Among 97 590 individuals (mean [SD] age, 31.9 [4.9] years), 22 660 (23%) received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy (63.6% received dose 1 in the third trimester; 99.8% received an mRNA vaccine). Comparing those vaccinated during vs after pregnancy (n = 44 815), there were no significantly increased risks of postpartum hemorrhage (incidence: 3.0% vs 3.0%; aRD, -0.28 per 100 individuals [95% CI, -0.59 to 0.03]; aRR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]), chorioamnionitis (0.5% vs 0.5%; aRD, -0.04 per 100 individuals [95% CI, -0.17 to 0.09]; aRR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.70-1.21]), cesarean delivery (30.8% vs 32.2%; aRD, -2.73 per 100 individuals [95% CI, -3.59 to -1.88]; aRR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.89-0.95]), NICU admission (11.0% vs 13.3%; aRD, -1.89 per 100 newborns [95% CI, -2.49 to -1.30]; aRR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.80-0.90]), or low Apgar score (1.8% vs 2.0%; aRD, -0.31 per 100 newborns [95% CI, -0.56 to -0.06]; aRR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.97]). Findings were qualitatively similar when compared with individuals who did not receive COVID-19 vaccination at any point (n = 30 115). Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada, COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, compared with vaccination after pregnancy and with no vaccination, was not significantly associated with increased risk of adverse peripartum outcomes. Study interpretation should consider that the vaccinations received during pregnancy were primarily mRNA vaccines administered in the second and third trimester.

Association of maternal socioeconomic status and race with risk of congenital heart disease: a population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the interrelationships between maternal socioeconomic status (SES), race and congenital heart diseases (CHD) among infants. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. STUDY SETTING: Ontario, Canada. STUDY POPULATION: All singleton stillbirths and live births born in hospitals between 1 April 2012 and 31 March 2018 in Ontario, Canada (n=804 292). OUTCOME: CHD. ANALYSIS: Multivariable logistic regression models were performed to assess associations between maternal neighbourhood household income, education level, race and CHD while adjusting for maternal age at birth, assisted reproductive technology, obesity, pre-existing health conditions, substance use during pregnancy, maternal rural residence and infant's sex. RESULTS: Compared with infants whose mothers lived in the highest median household income neighbourhoods, infants whose mothers lived in the lowest median income neighbourhoods had a higher likelihood of having CHD (adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.24). Compared with infants whose mothers lived in neighbourhoods with more people with a university or higher degree, those infants whose mothers lived in neighbourhoods with less people with a university or higher degree had a higher chance of developing CHD (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.36). Compared with white mothers, black mothers had a higher odds of giving birth to a child with CHD (adjusted OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.54). No association was detected between White and Asian mothers and CHD among infants. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that there are inequities in CHD burden by maternal SES and race in Ontario, Canada. Further investigation is needed to examine racial variation in CHD using more detailed ethnic data.

Evaluation of a breastmilk hand expression toolkit: the M.I.L.K survey study.

BACKGROUND: Breastmilk hand expression (BMHE) is recommended to promote lactation, relieve breast engorgement, and collect milk for future infant feedings. Resources to teach this skill are limited and infrequently developed in partnership with the obstetrical population. In collaboration with maternity care experts and individuals with recent breastfeeding experience, we designed a one-page toolkit that describes the process of BMHE and includes step-by-step instructions and images to illustrate the technique. This study aimed to evaluate the readability, clarity of content, layout, and informational value of this BMHE toolkit. METHODS: Individuals who intended to breastfeed, were currently breastfeeding, or had recently breastfed were electronically surveyed and completed a two-part survey that consisted of radio, multi-select, Likert scale, and open-ended questions. Part one captured sociodemographic factors, obstetrical history, and breastfeeding practices. Part two collected feedback on the BMHE toolkit. Participants were recruited electronically through social media and posters were circulated in antenatal and postnatal care settings in Ottawa, Canada between November 2020 and February 2021. RESULTS: Of the 123 participants, 117 (95.1%) had heard of hand expression prior to reviewing the toolkit and 99 (80.5%) had hand expressed before. Among the 48 participants who were no longer exclusively breastfeeding at the time of the survey, 22 (45.8%) had exclusively breastfed their infant for at least six months and 7 (14.6%) had discontinued exclusive breastfeeding within the first month. When asked about the BMHE toolkit, 118 (95.9%) participants said it was informative, 115 (93.5%) said it was easy to understand, and 114 (92.7%) said it was well laid-out. When asked about information seeking behaviours, participants indicated a preference for online resources (58.5%) and video resources (22.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The BMHE toolkit was well received by participants and the feedback was favourable overall. The survey feedback will be used to create a revised version of the toolkit that has been validated by the obstetrical patient population. Future research should focus on identifying implementation strategies to optimize the use of the toolkit and increase its effectiveness as an educational resource to teach participants correctly BMHE.

Evaluating parental perceptions of written handbooks provided during shared decision making with parents anticipating extremely preterm birth.

OBJECTIVE: To explore parental perceptions of written handbooks provided to them during antenatal counseling for anticipated extremely preterm birth. STUDY DESIGN: This study involved a prospective convenience sample of parents anticipating delivery between 22 weeks + 0 days and 25 weeks + 6 days gestation. The antenatal counseling involved a shared decision-making process. In-person interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide to gather feedback about new parent handbooks developed to support decision making. The questions during the semi-structured interview targeted seven main themes: overall impression, timing, graphs/tables, formatting, imagery, ease of use and understanding, and content. The interviews followed an antenatal consultation and provision of the appropriate handbook(s) by a neonatologist. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis of the data was completed. RESULTS: Eleven parents were interviewed. All parents described the provision of the handbook(s) following the consultation with a neonatologist as the ideal time. All parents considered a visual representation of the data to be invaluable. Parents considered the handbooks easy to understand and straightforward. Some parents were satisfied with simple information, which helped them feel less overwhelmed; others felt the depth of information was insufficient. Parents preferred a paper copy to electronic. Reactions to the photo of an infant receiving intensive care varied; some parents felt frightened, others felt comforted. CONCLUSION: Overall, parents positively evaluated the handbooks, supporting their utility for parents anticipating extremely preterm birth. Concrete suggestions for improvement were made; the handbooks will be modified accordingly. Parents at other perinatal centers may benefit from receiving such handbooks.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.