Peer Support Interventions for People With CKD: A Scoping Review.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Formalized peer support is a promising approach for addressing the emotional and practical needs of people living with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We aimed to systematically identify and summarize peer support interventions studied in individuals with CKD with or without kidney replacement therapy (KRT). SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: We searched electronic databases and grey literature sources in March 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies of any design were eligible if they reported sufficient detail on peer support interventions and outcomes for adults with CKD with or without KRT and/or their caregivers. CHARTING METHODS: We extracted information on study and intervention characteristics and reported outcomes using established frameworks. We summarized quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data thematically. Our approach observed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews. RESULTS: We included 77 studies describing 56 unique peer support interventions. Most reports were program evaluations (39%) or randomized controlled trials (27%) published after 2013. Two thirds of interventions focused on in-centre hemodialysis or mixed CKD populations, and three quarters were integrated within a kidney care clinic or program. Whereas most peer interactions centered on informational support, few programs offered focused support in areas such as transplant navigation or dialysis modality selection. Only one third of outcomes were assessed against a comparator group, with results suggesting improvements in psychological health with peer support. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity of included studies; lack of rigorous program evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests recent growth in peer support programming with a variety of formats and delivery methods to address the diverse needs of people living with kidney disease. Notable gaps in peer support availability for transplant and home dialysis recipients and the lack of rigorous evaluations present opportunities to expand the reach and impact of peer support in the kidney care context.

Organizational Factors Contributing to Incivility at an Academic Medical Center and Systems-Based Solutions: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: A rise in incivility has been documented in medicine, with implications for patient care, organizational effectiveness, and costs. This study explored organizational factors that may contribute to incivility at one academic medical center and potential systems-level solutions to combat it. METHOD: The authors completed semistructured individual interviews with full-time faculty members of the Department of Medicine (DOM) at the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, with clinical appointments at six affiliated hospitals, between June and September 2016. They asked about participants' experiences with incivility, potential contributing factors, and possible solutions. Two analysts independently coded a portion of the transcripts until a framework was developed with excellent agreement within the research team, as signified by the Kappa coefficient. A single coder completed analysis of the remaining transcripts. RESULTS: Forty-nine interviews with physicians from all university ranks and academic position descriptions were completed. All participants had collegial relationships with colleagues but had observed, heard of, or been personally affected by uncivil behavior. Incivility occurred furtively, face-to-face, or online. The participants identified several organizational factors that bred incivility including physician nonemployee status in hospitals, silos within the DOM, poor leadership, a culture of silence, and the existence of power cliques. They offered many systems-level solutions to combat incivility through prevention, improved reporting, and clearer consequences. CONCLUSIONS: Existing strategies to combat incivility have focused on modifying individual behavior, but opportunities may exist to reduce incivility through a greater understanding of the role of health care organizations in shaping workplace culture.

Prevention and management of unprofessional behaviour among adults in the workplace: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Unprofessional behaviour is a challenge in academic medicine. Given that faculty are role models for trainees, it is critical to identify strategies to manage these behaviours. A scoping review was conducted to identify interventions to prevent and manage unprofessional behaviour in any workplace or professional setting. METHODS: A search of 14 electronic databases was conducted in March 2016, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were scanned, and grey literature was searched to identify relevant studies. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies that reported on interventions to prevent or manage unprofessional behaviours were included. Studies that reported impact on any outcome were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened articles and completed data abstraction. Qualitative analysis of the definitions of unprofessional behaviour was conducted. Data were charted to describe the study, participant, intervention and outcome characteristics. RESULTS: 12,482 citations were retrieved; 23 studies with 11,025 participants were included. The studies were 12 uncontrolled before and after studies, 6 controlled before and after studies, 2 cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 RCT, 1 non-randomised controlled trial and 1 quasi-RCT. Four constructs were identified in the definitions of unprofessional behaviour: verbal and/or non-verbal acts, repeated acts, power imbalance, and unwelcome behaviour. Interventions most commonly targeted individuals (22 studies, 95.7%) rather than organisations (4 studies, 17.4%). Most studies (21 studies, 91.3%) focused on increasing awareness. The most frequently targeted behaviour change was sexual harassment (4 of 7 studies). DISCUSSION: Several interventions appear promising in addressing unprofessional behaviour. Most of the studies included single component, in-person education sessions targeting individuals and increasing awareness of unprofessional behaviour. Fewer studies targeted the institutional culture or addressed behaviour change.

Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are infrequently used by health care managers (HCMs) and policy-makers (PMs) in decision-making. HCMs and PMs co-developed and tested novel systematic review of effects formats to increase their use. METHODS: A three-phased approach was used to evaluate the determinants to uptake of systematic reviews of effects and the usability of an innovative and a traditional systematic review of effects format. In phase 1, survey and interviews were conducted with HCMs and PMs in four Canadian provinces to determine perceptions of a traditional systematic review format. In phase 2, systematic review format prototypes were created by HCMs and PMs via Conceptboard©. In phase 3, prototypes underwent usability testing by HCMs and PMs. RESULTS: Two hundred two participants (80 HCMs, 122 PMs) completed the phase 1 survey. Respondents reported that inadequate format (Mdn = 4; IQR = 4; range = 1-7) and content (Mdn = 4; IQR = 3; range = 1-7) influenced their use of systematic reviews. Most respondents (76%; n = 136/180) reported they would be more likely to use systematic reviews if the format was modified. Findings from 11 interviews (5 HCMs, 6 PMs) revealed that participants preferred systematic reviews of effects that were easy to access and read and provided more information on intervention effectiveness and less information on review methodology. The mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 55.7 (standard deviation [SD] 17.2) for the traditional format; a SUS score < 68 is below average usability. In phase 2, 14 HCMs and 20 PMs co-created prototypes, one for HCMs and one for PMs. HCMs preferred a traditional information order (i.e., methods, study flow diagram, forest plots) whereas PMs preferred an alternative order (i.e., background and key messages on one page; methods and limitations on another). In phase 3, the prototypes underwent usability testing with 5 HCMs and 7 PMs, 11 out of 12 participants co-created the prototypes (mean SUS score 86 [SD 9.3]). CONCLUSIONS: HCMs and PMs co-created prototypes for systematic review of effects formats based on their needs. The prototypes will be compared to a traditional format in a randomized trial.

Perceptions and experiences of a gender gap at a Canadian research institute and potential strategies to mitigate this gap: a sequential mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The gender gap in academia is long-standing. Failure to ensure that our academic faculty reflect our student pool and national population deprives Canada of talent. We explored the gender distribution and perceptions of the gender gap at a Canadian university-affiliated, hospital-based research institute. METHODS: We completed a sequential mixed-methods study. In phase 1, we used the research institute's registry of scientists (1999-2014) and estimated overall prevalence of a gender gap and the gap with respect to job description (e.g., associate v. full-time) and research discipline. In phase 2, we conducted qualitative interviews to provide context for phase 1 data. Both purposive and snowball sampling were used for recruitment. RESULTS: The institute included 30.1% (n = 62) women and 69.9% (n = 144) men, indicating a 39.8% gender gap. Most full-time scientists (60.3%, n = 70) were clinicians; there were 54.2% more male than female clinician scientists. Ninety-five percent of basic scientists were men, indicating a 90.5% gap. Seven key themes emerged from 21 interviews, including perceived impact of the gender gap, factors perceived to influence the gap, recruitment trends, presence of institutional support, mentorship and suggestions to mitigate the gap. Several factors were postulated to contribute to the gender gap, including unconscious bias in hiring. INTERPRETATION: A substantial gender gap exists within this research institute. Participants identified strategies to address this gap, such as establishing transparent search processes, providing opportunities for informal networking and mentorship of female scientists and establishing institutional support for work-life balance.