Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). METHODS: Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. RESULTS: We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

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

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

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

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

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

A muti-informant national survey on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health symptoms of parent-child dyads in Canada.

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted the mental health of children, youth, and their families which must be addressed and prevented in future public health crises. Our objective was to measure how self-reported mental health symptoms of children/youth and their parents evolved during COVID-19 and to identify associated factors for children/youth and their parents including sources accessed for information on mental health. We conducted a nationally representative, multi-informant cross-sectional survey administered online to collect data from April to May 2022 across 10 Canadian provinces among dyads of children (11-14 years) or youth (15-18 years) and a parent (> 18 years). Self-report questions on mental health were based on The Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health and the World Health Organization of the United Nations H6+ Technical Working Group on Adolescent Health and Well-Being consensus framework and the Coronavirus Health and Impact Survey. McNemar's test and the test of homogeneity of stratum effects were used to assess differences between children-parent and youth-parent dyads, and interaction by stratification factors, respectively. Among 933 dyads (N = 1866), 349 (37.4%) parents were aged 35-44 years and 485 (52.0%) parents were women; 227 (47.0%) children and 204 (45.3%) youth were girls; 174 (18.6%) dyads had resided in Canada < 10 years. Anxiety and irritability were reported most frequently among child (44, 9.1%; 37, 7.7%) and parent (82, 17.0%; 67, 13.9%) dyads, as well as among youth (44, 9.8%; 35, 7.8%) and parent (68, 15.1%; 49, 10.9%) dyads; children and youth were significantly less likely to report worsened anxiety (p < 0.001, p = 0.006, respectively) or inattention (p < 0.001, p = 0.028, respectively) compared to parents. Dyads who reported financial or housing instability or identified as living with a disability more frequently reported worsened mental health. Children (96, 57.1%), youth (113, 62.5%), and their parents (253, 62.5%; 239, 62.6%, respectively) most frequently accessed the internet for mental health information. This cross-national survey contextualizes pandemic-related changes to self-reported mental health symptoms of children, youth, and families.

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

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

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

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

Development and pilot implementation of a patient-oriented discharge summary for critically Ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients leaving the intensive care unit (ICU) often experience gaps in care due to deficiencies in discharge communication, leaving them vulnerable to increased stress, adverse events, readmission to ICU, and death. To facilitate discharge communication, written summaries have been implemented to provide patients and their families with information on medications, activity and diet restrictions, follow-up appointments, symptoms to expect, and who to call if there are questions. While written discharge summaries for patients and their families are utilized frequently in surgical, rehabilitation, and pediatric settings, few have been utilized in ICU settings. AIM: To develop an ICU specific patient-oriented discharge summary tool (PODS-ICU), and pilot test the tool to determine acceptability and feasibility. METHODS: Patient-partners (i.e., individuals with lived experience as an ICU patient or family member of an ICU patient), ICU clinicians (i.e., physicians, nurses), and researchers met to discuss ICU patients' specific informational needs and design the PODS-ICU through several cycles of discussion and iterative revisions. Research team nurses piloted the PODS-ICU with patient and family participants in two ICUs in Calgary, Canada. Follow-up surveys on the PODS-ICU and its impact on discharge were administered to patients, family participants, and ICU nurses. RESULTS: Most participants felt that their discharge from the ICU was good or better (n = 13; 87.0%), and some (n = 9; 60.0%) participants reported a good understanding of why the patient was in ICU. Most participants (n = 12; 80.0%) reported that they understood ICU events and impacts on the patient's health. While many patients and family participants indicated the PODS-ICU was informative and useful, ICU nurses reported that the PODS-ICU was "not reasonable" in their daily clinical workflow due to "time constraint". CONCLUSION: The PODS-ICU tool provides patients and their families with essential information as they discharge from the ICU. This tool has the potential to engage and empower patients and their families in ensuring continuity of care beyond ICU discharge. However, the PODS-ICU requires pairing with earlier discharge practices and integration with electronic clinical information systems to fit better into the clinical workflow for ICU nurses. Further refinement and testing of the PODS-ICU tool in diverse critical care settings is needed to better assess its feasibility and its effects on patient health outcomes.

Factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare providers in 23 countries.

BACKGROUND: Several early COVID-19 studies aimed to assess the potential acceptance of a vaccine among healthcare providers, but relatively few studies of this population have been published since the vaccines became widely available. Vaccine safety, speed of development, and low perceived disease risk were commonly cited as factors for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among this group. PURPOSE AND METHODS: In a secondary analysis based on a cross-sectional, structured survey, the authors aimed to assess the associations between self-reported vaccine hesitancy and a number of sociodemographic and COVID-19 vaccine perception factors using data from 3,295 healthcare providers (physicians, nurses, community health workers, other healthcare providers) in 23 countries. FINDINGS: 494 (15.0%) of the participants reported vaccine hesitancy, of whom 132 (4.0%) would outright refuse to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Physicians were the least hesitant. Vaccine hesitancy was more likely to occur among those with less than the median income and, to a lesser degree, younger age. Safety and risk concerns and lack of trust that vaccines would be equitably distributed were strongly associated with hesitancy, less so were concerns about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. INTERPRETATION: Findings suggest a need to address safety and risk concerns through tailored messaging, training, and/or incentive approaches among healthcare providers, as well as the need for international and national vaccination efforts to ensure equitable distribution.

Lived experiences of Asian Canadians encountering discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Asian Canadians have experienced increased cases of racialized discrimination after the first emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in China. This study examined how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected Asian Canadians' sense of safety and belonging in their Canadian (i.e., geographical) communities. METHODS: We applied a qualitative description study design in which semistructured interviews were conducted from Mar. 23 to May 27, 2021. Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to recruit Asian Canadians diverse in region, gender and age. Interviews were conducted through Zoom videoconference or telephone, and independent qualitative thematic analysis in duplicate was used to derive primary themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Thirty-two Asian Canadians (median age 35 [interquartile range 24-46] yr, 56% female, 44% East Asian) participated in the study. We identified 5 predominant themes associated with how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the participants' sense of security and belonging to their communities: relation between socioeconomic status (SES) and exposure to discrimination (i.e., how SES insulates or exposes individuals to increased discrimination); politics, media and the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., the key role that politicians and media played in enabling spread of discrimination against and fear of Asian people); effect of discrimination on mental and social health (i.e., people's ability to interact and form meaningful relationships with others); coping with the impact of discrimination (i.e., the way people appraise and move forward in identity-threatening situations); and implications for sense of safety and sense of belonging (i.e., people feeling unable to safely use public spaces in person, including the need to remain alert in anticipation of harm, leading to distress and exhaustion). INTERPRETATION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Asian Canadians in our study felt unsafe owing to the uncertain, unexpected and unpredictable nature of discrimination, but also felt a strong sense of belonging to Canadian society and felt well connected to their Asian Canadian communities. Future work should seek to explore the influence of social media on treatment of and attitudes toward Asian Canadians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context, Culture, and the Complexity of De-Implementing Low-Value Care Comment on "Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands".

Low-value care contributes to poor quality of care and wasteful spending in healthcare systems. In Verkerk and colleagues' recent qualitative study, interviews with low-value care experts from Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands identified a broad range of nationally relevant social, system, and knowledge factors that promote ongoing use of low-value care. These factors highlight the complexity of the problem that is persistent use of low-value care and how it is heavily influenced by public and medical culture as well as healthcare system features. This commentary discusses how these findings integrate within current low-value care and de-implementation literature and uses specific low-value care examples to highlight the importance of considering context, culture, and clinical setting when considering how to apply these factors to future de-implementation initiatives.

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

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

Characterization of non-adopters of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions through a national cross-sectional survey to assess attitudes and behaviours.

Adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) remains critical to curtail the spread of COVID-19. Using self-reported adherence to NPIs in Canada, assessed through a national cross-sectional survey of 4498 respondents, we aimed to identify and characterize non-adopters of NPIs, evaluating their attitudes and behaviours to understand barriers and facilitators of adoption. A cluster analysis was used to group adopters separately from non-adopters of NPIs. Associations with sociodemographic factors, attitudes towards COVID-19 and the public health response were assessed using logistic regression models comparing non-adopters to adopters. Of the 4498 respondents, 994 (22%) were clustered as non-adopters. Sociodemographic factors significantly associated with the non-adoption cluster were: (1) being male, (2) age 18-34 years, (3) Albertans, (4) lower education level and (5) higher conservative political leaning. Participants who expressed low concern for COVID-19 and distrust towards several institutions had greater odds of being non-adopters. This information characterizes individuals at greatest odds for non-adoption of NPIs to inform targeted marketing interventions.

Incorporating and evaluating citizen engagement in health research: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Citizen engagement in research is an emerging practice that involves members of the general public in research processes such as priority setting, planning, decision-making, research conduct, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination. Engaging citizens in research, particularly health research, increases the relevance of study findings, minimizes waste by facilitating stewardship over resources, and builds public trust in the research. While several existing frameworks guide the application of citizen engagement principles to health research, it is unclear how citizen engagement can be utilized to maximize benefits and minimize risks and challenges in health research. To address the gaps in knowledge around citizen engagement in health research, we propose a scoping review to synthesize the state of knowledge on methods to incorporate and evaluate citizen engagement in research. A protocol is presented in this manuscript. METHODS: The methodology for our scoping review is guided by Arksey and O' Malley's framework for scoping reviews, and additional recommendations by Levac and colleagues. We will include peer-reviewed and gray literature that report on citizen engagement in health research (including biomedical, clinical, health systems and services, and social, cultural, environmental and population health) and report method(s) to conduct, measure, or evaluate citizen engagement. We will systematically search electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, JSTOR, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Science Direct) from inception onwards and search relevant organizations' websites for additional studies, frameworks, and reports on citizen engagement. Title and abstract and full-text citations will be screened independently and in duplicate. Data will be extracted independently and in duplicate, including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and outcomes of citizen engagement (e.g., barriers, facilitators). DISCUSSION: This review will synthesize the definitions, goals, methods, outcomes, and significance of citizen engagement in health research, as well as any potential barriers, facilitators, and challenges outlined in existing literature. The findings will provide an evidence-based foundation for developing new or improved guidance for citizen engagement in health research. Overall, we anticipate that our scoping review will be a preliminary step to meaningful engagement of citizens in research and strengthen the relationship between the scientific community and the public through transparency and collaboration. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework  https://osf.io/hzcbr .

Global evidence of gender inequity in academic health research: a living scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe the global evidence of gender inequity among individuals with appointments at academic institutions that conduct health research, and examine how gender intersects with other social identities to influence outcomes. INTRODUCTION: The gender demographics of universities have shifted, yet the characteristics of those who lead academic health research institutions have not reflected this change. Synthesized evidence will guide decision-making and policy development to support the progress of gender and other under-represented social identities in academia. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider any quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods primary research that reports outcome data related to gender equity and other social identities among individuals affiliated with academic or research institutions that conduct health research, originating from any country. METHODS: The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Cochrane Collaboration's guidance on living reviews will inform the review methods. Information sources will include electronic databases, unpublished literature sources, reference scanning of relevant systematic reviews, and sources provided by experts on the research team. Searches will be run regularly to monitor the development of new literature and determine when the review will be updated. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers working independently, and all discrepancies will be resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data synthesis will summarize information using descriptive frequencies and simple thematic analysis. Results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension to scoping reviews. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Misinformation During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak: How Knowledge Emerges From Noise.

Although the amount of information generated during this most recent coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is enormous, much is of uncertain trustworthiness. This review summaries the many potential sources of information that clinicians turn to during pandemic illness, the challenges associated with performing methodologically sound research in this setting and potential approaching to conducting well done research during a health crisis. DATA SOURCES: Not applicable. STUDY SELECTION: Not applicable. DATA EXTRACTION: Not applicable. DATA SYNTHESIS: Not applicable. CONCLUSIONS: Pandemics and healthcare crises provide extraordinary opportunities for the rapid generation of reliable scientific information but also for misinformation, especially in the early phases, which may contribute to public hysteria. The best way to combat misinformation is with trustworthy data produced by healthcare researchers. Although challenging, research can occur during pandemics and crises and is facilitated by advance planning, governmental support, targeted funding opportunities, and collaboration with industry partners. The coronavirus disease 2019 research response has highlighted both the dangers of misinformation as well as the benefits and possibilities of performing rigorous research during challenging times.