Family physicians' moral distress when caring for patients experiencing social inequities: a critical narrative inquiry in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Family physicians (GPs) working with patients experiencing social inequities have witnessed patients' healthcare needs proliferate. Alongside increased workload demands fostered within current remuneration structures, this has generated concerning reports of family physician attrition and possible experiences of moral distress. AIM: To explore stories of moral distress shared by family physicians caring for patients experiencing health needs related to social inequities. DESIGN AND SETTING: A critical narrative inquiry, informed by the analytic lens of moral distress, conducted in Ontario, Canada. METHOD: Twenty family physicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling via word of mouth and email mailing lists relevant to addictions and mental health care. Physicians participated in two narrative interviews and had the opportunity to review the interview transcripts. RESULTS: Family physicians' accounts of moral distress were linked to policies governing physician remuneration, scope of practice, and the availability of social welfare programmes. These structural elements left physicians unable to get patients much needed support and resources. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that physicians experience moral distress when unable to offer crucial resources to improve the health of patients with complex social needs resulting from structural features of the Canadian health and social welfare system. Further research is needed to critically interrogate how health and social welfare systems around the world can be reformed to improve the health of patients and increase family physicians' professional quality of life, potentially improving retention.

How do perceptions of Covid-19 risk impact pregnancy-related health decisions? A convergent parallel mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant people have a higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease. They have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 infection control policies, which exacerbated conditions resulting in intimate partner violence, healthcare access, and mental health distress. This project examines the impact of accumulated individual health decisions and describes how perinatal care and health outcomes changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: Quantitative strand: Describe differences between 2019, 2021, and 2022 birth groups related to maternal vaccination, perinatal care, and mental health care. Examine the differential impacts on racialized and low-income pregnant people.Qualitative strand: Understand how pregnant people's perceptions of COVID-19 risk influenced their decision-making about vaccination, perinatal care, social support, and mental health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a Canadian convergent parallel mixed-methods study. The quantitative strand uses a retrospective cohort design to assess birth group differences in rates of Tdap and COVID-19 vaccination, gestational diabetes screening, length of post-partum hospital stay, and onset of depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder, using administrative data from ICES, formerly the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Ontario) and PopulationData BC (PopData) (British Columbia). Differences by socioeconomic and ethnocultural status will also be examined. The qualitative strand employs qualitative description to interview people who gave birth between May 2020- December 2021 about their COVID-19 risk perception and health decision-making process. Data integration will occur during design and interpretation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from McMaster University and the University of British Columbia. Findings will be disseminated via manuscripts, presentations, and patient-facing infographics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT05663762.

Lived experiences of pregnancy and prison through a reproductive justice lens: A qualitative meta-synthesis.

As rates with which women are incarcerated have risen around the world, research examining how incarceration affects the health of people who are pregnant, their newborns, and their family members has burgeoned. Lived experience is seldom accounted for in this research, however, highlighting a gap with relevance to advocates, policy makers, researchers, and practitioners seeking to better understand health inequities and redress human suffering. In this paper we present a qualitative meta-synthesis of 31 papers reporting qualitative studies of how people who are incarcerated in prisons and jails around the world experience pregnancy, labour and childbirth, and the postpartum period. Theoretical perspectives from the reproductive justice and prison abolition movements guided our analysis, which identified connectedness (to baby) and disconnectedness (from support) as twinned themes characterizing the lived experiences of navigating pregnancy in a carceral institution. We argue that the conditions of reproductive justice - including self-determination in pregnancy, in parenting, and in managing one's reproductive capacity - are fundamentally irreconcilable with mass incarceration. We conclude by considering the strategic opportunities for health practitioners and researchers to support the movement for prison abolition by mobilizing health-focused arguments for decarceration.