The evolution of vaccine hesitancy through the COVID-19 pandemic: A semi-structured interview study on booster and bivalent doses

We sought in-depth understanding on the evolution of factors influencing COVID-19 booster dose and bivalent vaccine hesitancy in a longitudinal semi-structured interview-based qualitative study. Serial interviews were conducted between July 25th and September 1st, 2022 (Phase I: univalent booster dose availability), and between November 21st, 2022 and January 11th, 2023 (Phase II: bivalent vaccine availability). Adults (≥18 years) in Canada who had received an initial primary series and had not received a COVID-19 booster dose were eligible for Phase I, and subsequently invited to participate in Phase II. Twenty-two of twenty-three (96%) participants completed interviews for both phases (45 interviews). Nearly half of participants identified as a woman (n = 11), the median age was 37 years (interquartile range: 32-48), and most participants were employed full-time (n = 12); no participant reported needing to vaccinate (with a primary series) for their workplace. No participant reported having received a COVID-19 booster dose at the time of their interview in Phase II. Three themes relating to the development of hesitancy toward continued vaccination against COVID-19 were identified: 1) effectiveness (frequency concerns; infection despite vaccination); 2) necessity (less threatening, low urgency, alternate protective measures); and 3) information (need for data, contradiction and confusion, lack of trust, decreased motivation). The data from interviews with individuals who had not received a COVID-19 booster dose or bivalent vaccine despite having received a primary series of COVID-19 vaccines highlights actionable targets to address vaccine hesitancy and improve public health literacy.

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 .

Social factors associated with self-reported changes in mental health symptoms among youth in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Children and youth experienced marked impacts on day-to-day life in the COVID-19 pandemic that were associated with poorer familial and friend relationships, and greater mental health challenges. Few studies provide self-report data on mental health symptoms from children and youth themselves. We sought to examine the associations between social factors and child and youth self-reported symptoms of worsened mood, anxiety, and irritability during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A nationally representative cross-sectional survey was administered online to collect self-report data across 10 Canadian provinces among children (11-14 years) and youth (15-18 years), April-May 2022. Age-appropriate questions 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. Associations between a priori defined social factors (e.g., relationship quality) and respondent self-reported mental health were evaluated using ordinal logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, and geographic location.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 483 (51.7%) children (11-14 years; 227, 47.0% girls) and 450 (48.3%) youth (15-18 years; 204, 45.3% girls). The parents of most children and youth had resided in Canada for over 20 years (678, 72.7%). Over one-quarter of children and youth self-identified as Black, Indigenous, or a Person of Color (134, 27.7%; 134, 29.8%, respectively). Over one-third of children and youth self-reported symptoms of worsened mood (149, 30.9%; 125, 27.8%, respectively), anxiety (181, 37.5%; 167, 37.1%, respectively), or irritability (160, 33.1%; 160, 35.6%, respectively) during, compared to pre-pandemic. In descending order of odds ratios (OR), for children and youth, worsened familial relationships (during compared to pre-pandemic) was associated with the self-reported symptoms of worsened mood (child: OR 4.22, 95%CI 2.51-6.88; youth: OR 6.65 95%CI 3.98-11.23), anxiety (child: OR 4.24, 95%CI2.69-6.75; youth: OR 5.28, 95%CI 3.17-8.86), and irritability (child: OR 2.83, 95%CI 1.76-4.56; youth: OR 6.46, 95%CI 3.88-10.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported data from a nationally representative sample of children and youth suggest strong associations between social factors and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interventions targeting child and youth familial relationships may positively impact child and youth mental health.

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.

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.

Identifying and addressing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on school-based immunisation programmes in the Canadian Maritimes: a mixed methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of keeping up to date on routine vaccinations. Throughout the pandemic, many routine vaccine programmes in Canada were paused or cancelled, including school-based immunisation programmes (SBIP). This resulted in decreased coverage for many vaccine-preventable diseases. While the effects of the pandemic on SBIP have been described in other provinces, its effects in the Maritime region (ie, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island) have yet to be understood. We aim to determine how these programmes were affected by COVID-19 and associated public health measures in the Canadian Maritimes by (1) identifying and describing usual and interim catch-up programmes; (2) exploring stakeholders' perceptions of SBIP through interviews; and (3) designing recommendations with stakeholders to address gaps in SBIP and vaccine coverage.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A sequential, explanatory mixed methods study design will be used to address the objectives during the study period (September 2022-December 2023). First, an environmental scan will describe changes to SBIP and vaccine coverage over a period of five school years (2018/2019-2022/2023). Findings will inform semistructured interviews (n=65) with key stakeholders (eg, health officials, healthcare providers, school officials and parents and adolescents) to explore perceptions of SBIP and changes in parental vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic. These data will be integrated to design recommendations to support SBIP during two stakeholder engagement meetings. Analysis will be guided by the behaviour change wheel, a series of complementary tools and frameworks to simplify behaviour diagnosis and analysis in public health research.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval for this study has been obtained from Dalhousie University's Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (Ref: 2022-6395). Informed consent will be obtained from participants prior to participating in an interview or stakeholder engagement meeting. Study findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, publications and infographics.

Codesigning a user-centred digital psychoeducational tool for youth mental well-being with families in Canada: study protocol for a sequential exploratory mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

On 11 March 2020, WHO declared the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) disease a global pandemic. Governments globally implemented physical distancing measures and closure of public institutions that resulted in varying implications to youth mental well-being (eg, social isolation, reduced extracurricular activities). These impacts may have detrimental short-term and long-term effects on youth mental well-being; care for youth with mental health disorders was already overstretched, underfunded and fragmented before the pandemic and youth are not often considered in mental health initiatives. There is a pressing need to partner with youth and families to target and improve youth mental well-being prior to the onset of a mental health disorder, as well as to conduct research on youth mental well-being needs related to pandemic recovery. Here we present a protocol for partnering with youth and families to codesign a user-centred digital tool for youth mental well-being.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a national research study to develop a catalogue of recommendations specific to supporting youth mental well-being, and a digital tool to support youth mental well-being through three phases of work: (1) expert consultation on data related to supporting youth mental well-being existing within our Pandemic Preparedness Research Program; (2) codesign of an innovative digital tool for youth mental well-being; and (3) assessment of the tool's usability and acceptability.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Dalhousie Research Ethics Board (2023-6538) and the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (23-0039). This study will complement ongoing foundational research in youth conducted by our team that involves partnering with youth and families to understand the unique implications of the pandemic on this population.

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.

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.

Interventions to improve well-being among children and youth aged 6-17 years during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic is an example of a global infectious disease outbreak that poses a threat to the well-being of children and youth (e.g., physical infection, psychological impacts). The consequences of challenges faced during COVID-19 may be longstanding and newly developed interventions are being deployed. We present a narrative synthesis of available evidence from the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic on the feasibility, accessibility, and effects of interventions to improve well-being among children and youth to inform the development and refinement of interventions relevant to post-pandemic recovery.

METHODS

Six databases were searched from inception to August 2022. A total of 5484 records were screened, 39 were reviewed in full text, and 19 studies were included. The definition of well-being and the five domains of well-being as defined by the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health and the World Health Organization in collaboration with the United Nations H6 + Technical Working Group on Adolescent Health and Well-Being were used.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies (74% randomized controlled trials) from 10 countries were identified, involving a total of 7492 children and youth (age range: 8.2-17.2 years; 27.8-75.2% males) and 954 parents that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 to March 2021). Nearly all interventions (n = 18, 95%) targeted health and nutrition, followed by connectedness (n = 6, 32%), while fewer studies targeted agency and resilience (n = 5, 23%), learning and competence (n = 2, 11%), or safety and support (n = 1, 3%). Five interventions (26%) were self-guided while 13 interventions (68%) were guided synchronous by a trained professional, all of which targeted physical and mental health subdomains within health and nutrition; one intervention (5%) was unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies deploying synchronous interventions most often reported improved well-being among children and youth largely in the domain of health and nutrition, specifically physical and mental health. Targeted approaches will be crucial to reach sub-groups of children and youth who are most at risk of negative well-being outcomes. Further research is needed to determine how interventions that best supported children and youth early in the pandemic are different from interventions that are required now as we enter into the post-pandemic phase.

Exploring the influence of behavioural, normative and control beliefs on intentions to adhere to public health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview based study

BACKGROUND

Perceived severity and susceptibility of disease are predictors of individual behaviour during health crises. Little is known about how individual beliefs influence intentions to adhere to public health guidelines during periods of health crises, and how access to and consumption of information influence these intentions. This study investigated behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs, and their influence on behavioural intentions to adhere to public health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from a related COVID-19 study conducted by our team, and through snowball sampling in subsequent. Using a maximum variation sampling technique, we recruited a diverse group of participants representing six major regions in Canada. Participants took part in one-on-one semi-structured interviews from February 2021 to May 2021. Data were analyzed independently in duplicate by thematic analysis. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) was the conceptual framework used to organize dominant themes.

RESULTS

We conducted a total of 60 individual interviews (137 eligible individuals contacted, 43.8% response rate) and identified six themes organized according to the three constructs of behavioural, normative and control beliefs as described in the TPB: (1) Behavioural: My "New Normal," Individual Rights and Perceived Pandemic Severity, Fatigue with COVID-19, (2) Normative: COVID-19 Collective, (3) Control: Practicality of Public Health Guidelines, and (6) Conflicting Public Health Messages. Most (n = 43, 71.7%) participants perceived individuals in their geographic community to be following public health guidelines adequately. Several participants (n = 15, 25.0%) commented on the unequal impact of restrictions based on socioeconomic factors (i.e., class, race, age).

CONCLUSION

Individual perceptions of risk, loss of control, access to resources (i.e., childcare), and societal expectations, shaped intentions to engage in disease preventative behaviours (i.e., social distancing) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

A qualitative descriptive study of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on staff in a Canadian intensive care unit

PURPOSE

We sought to explore the lived experiences of a professionally diverse sample of healthcare workers (HCWs) in a single intensive care unit (ICU) serving a large and generalizable Canadian population. We aimed to understand how working during the COVID-19 pandemic affected their professional and personal lives, including their perceptions of institutional support, to inform interventions to ameliorate impacts of the COVID-19 and future pandemics.

METHODS

In this qualitative descriptive study, 23 ICU HCWs, identified using convenience purposive sampling, took part in individual semistructured interviews between July and November 2020, shortly after the first wave of the pandemic in Ontario. We used inductive thematic analysis to identify major themes.

RESULTS

We identified five major themes related to the COVID-19 pandemic: 1) communication and informational needs (e.g., challenges communicating policy changes); 2) adjusting to restricted visitation (e.g., spending less time interacting with patients); 3) staffing and workplace supports (e.g., importance of positive team dynamics); 4) permeability of professional and personal lives (e.g., balancing shift work and childcare); and 5) a dynamic COVID-19 landscape (e.g., coping with constant change). The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to HCWs in the ICU experiencing varied negative repercussions on their work environment, including staffing and institutional support, which carried into their personal lives.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare workers in the ICU perceived that the COVID-19 pandemic had negative repercussions on their work environment, including staffing and institutional support, as well as their professional and personal lives. Understanding both the negative and positive experiences of all ICU HCWs working during the COVID-19 pandemic is critical to future pandemic preparedness. Their perspectives will help to inform the development of mental health and wellbeing interventions to support staff during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Outcomes After Neuraxial or Regional Anaesthesia Instead of General Anaesthesia for Lower Limb Revascularisation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised and Non-Randomised Studies

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anaesthesia instead of general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery affects patient outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, and Google Scholar.

REVIEW METHODS

After protocol registration, the data sources were searched for randomised and non-randomised studies comparing neuraxial or regional anaesthesia with general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery in adults. Two investigators independently selected articles, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. Data were pooled using random effects models. GRADE was used to assess certainty in cumulative evidence.

RESULTS

From 10 755 citations identified, five randomised (n = 970) and 13 non-randomised (n = 96 800) studies were included. Use of neuraxial instead of general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery was associated with no statistically significant reduction in short term (in hospital or 30 day) mortality in randomised studies (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33 - 1.81; low certainty) and a statistically significant reduction in adjusted short term mortality in non-randomised studies (pooled OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.56 - 0.81; low certainty). Adults allocated to neuraxial anaesthesia in randomised studies had fewer pulmonary complications (pooled OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.16 - 0.76; low certainty). In non-randomised studies, neuraxial instead of general anaesthesia was associated with a lower adjusted odds of any morbidity (pooled OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.52 - 0.84), cardiac complications (pooled OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.58 - 0.79), pneumonia (pooled OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.64 - 1.02), prolonged mechanical ventilation (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.002 - 0.55), and bypass graft thrombosis (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.59 - 0.85), as well as a shorter operative duration (low certainty for all). Use of a nerve block instead of general anaesthesia was associated with a lower adjusted odds of delirium (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.06 - 0.42) and a shorter operative duration (low certainty for both).

CONCLUSION

Randomised and non-randomised data suggest that neuraxial anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery reduces morbidity and possibly mortality. Until randomised trials with a low risk of bias become available, this study supports use of neuraxial anaesthesia for these procedures where appropriate.

Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

PARTICIPANTS

Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support.

RESULTS

Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

A scoping review of methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement in health research

BACKGROUND

Citizen engagement, or partnering with interested members of the public in health research, is becoming more common. While ongoing assessment of citizen engagement practices is considered important to its success, there is little clarity around aspects of citizen engagement that are important to assess (i.e., what to look for) and methods to assess (i.e., how to measure and/ or evaluate) citizen engagement in health research.

METHODS

In this scoping review, we included peer-reviewed literature that focused primarily on method(s) to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research. Independently and in duplicate, we completed title and abstract screening and full-text screening and extracted data including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and methods to measure or evaluate citizen engagement (including characteristics of these methods).

RESULTS

Our search yielded 16,762 records of which 33 records (31 peer-reviewed articles, one government report, one conference proceeding) met our inclusion criteria. Studies discussed engaging citizens (i.e., patients [n = 16], members of the public [n = 7], service users/consumers [n = 4], individuals from specific disease groups [n = 3]) in research processes. Reported methods of citizen engagement measurement and evaluation included frameworks, discussion-based methods (i.e., focus groups, interviews), survey-based methods (e.g., audits, questionnaires), and other methods (e.g., observation, prioritization tasks). Methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement commonly focused on collecting perceptions of citizens and researchers on aspects of citizen engagement including empowerment, impact, respect, support, and value.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We found that methods to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research vary widely but share some similarities in aspect of citizen engagement considered important to measure or evaluate. These aspects could be used to devise a more standardized, modifiable, and widely applicable framework for measuring and evaluating citizen engagement in research.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two citizen team members were involved as equal partners in study design and interpretation of its findings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/HZCBR).

Exploring the impact of media and information on self-reported intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19: A qualitative interview-based study

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization declared vaccine hesitancy a top threat to global health following resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases close to eradication in many countries (e.g. measles). Vaccines are effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, yet there remains a small proportion of the eligible population who choose not to vaccinate. Social media and online news sources are opportunities for targeted public health interventions to improve vaccine uptake. This study reports the results of a semi-structured interview study that explored the influence of media and information on individuals' self-reported intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive study was employed to gain insight from a diverse group of individuals. Adult participants were recruited through a related COVID-19 study; we used a maximum variation sampling technique and purposively sampled participants based on demographics. Interviews were conducted from February 2021 to May 2021. Themes from interviews were summarized with representative quotations according to the 3C Theoretical Framework (Confidence, Complacency, Convenience).

RESULTS

Key themes identified following thematic analysis from 60 participants included: vaccine safety, choice of vaccine, fear mongering, trust in authority, belief in vaccinations (Confidence); delaying vaccination (Complacency); confusing information, access to vaccines and information (Convenience). While most participants intended to vaccinate, many expressed concerns and hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy prevents universal immunization and contradictory messages in media are a source of concern and fear. The success of future vaccine campaigns will depend upon authorities' ability to disseminate accessible, detailed, and consistent information promoting public confidence.

"I don't think there's a point for me to discuss it with my patients": exploring health care providers' views and behaviours regarding COVID-19 vaccination

BACKGROUND

Health care providers' knowledge and attitudes about vaccines are important determinants of their own vaccine uptake, their intention to recommend vaccines, and their patients' vaccine uptake. This qualitative study' objective was to better understand health care providers' vaccination decisions, their views on barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and proposed solutions, their opinions on vaccine policies, and their perceived role in discussing COVID-19 vaccination with patients.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews on perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines were conducted with Canadian health care providers (N = 14) in spring 2021. A qualitative thematic analysis using NVivo was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants had positive attitudes toward vaccination and were vaccinated against COVID-19 or intended to do so once eligible (two delayed their first dose). Only two were actively promoting COVID-19 vaccination to their patients; others either avoided discussing the topic or only provided answers when asked questions. Participants' proposed solutions to enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the public were in relation to access to vaccination services, information in multiple languages, and community outreach. Most participants were in favor of mandatory vaccination policies and had mixed views on the potential impact of the Canadian vaccine-injury support program.

CONCLUSIONS

While health care providers are recognized as a key source of information regarding vaccines, participants in our study did not consider it their role to provide advice on COVID-19 vaccination. This is a missed opportunity that could be avoided by ensuring health care providers have the tools and training to feel confident in engaging in vaccine discussions with their patients.

Public awareness and knowledge of sepsis: a cross-sectional survey of adults in Canada

Background

Sepsis is a life-threatening complication of the body’s response to infection. The financial, medical, and psychological costs of sepsis to individuals and to the healthcare system are high. Most sepsis cases originate in the community, making public awareness of sepsis essential to early diagnosis and treatment. There has been no comprehensive examination of adult’s sepsis knowledge in Canada.

Methods

We administered an online structured survey to English- or French-literate adults in Canada. The questionnaire comprised 28 questions in three domains: awareness, knowledge, and information access. Sampling was stratified by age, sex, and geography and weighted to 2016 census data. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses; demographic differences were tested using the Rao–Scott correction for weighted chi-squared tests and associations using multiple variable regression.

Results

Sixty-one percent of 3200 adults sampled had heard of sepsis. Awareness differed by respondent’s residential region, sex, education, and ethnic group (p < 0.001, all). The odds of having heard of sepsis were higher for females, older adults, respondents with some or completed college/university education, and respondents who self-identified as Black, White, or of mixed ethnicity (p < 0.01, all). Respondent’s knowledge of sepsis definitions, symptoms, risk factors, and prevention measures was generally low (53.0%, 31.5%, 16.5%, and 36.3%, respectively). Only 25% of respondents recognized vaccination as a preventive strategy. The strongest predictors of sepsis knowledge were previous exposure to sepsis, healthcare employment, female sex, and a college/university education (p < 0.001, all). Respondents most frequently reported hearing about sepsis through television (27.7%) and preferred to learn about sepsis from healthcare providers (53.1%).

Conclusions

Sepsis can quickly cause life-altering physical and psychological effects and 39% of adults sampled in Canada have not heard of it. Critically, a minority (32%) knew about signs, risk factors, and strategies to lower risk. Education initiatives should focus messaging on infection prevention, employ broad media strategies, and use primary healthcare providers to disseminate evidence-based information. Future work could explore whether efforts to raise public awareness of sepsis might be bolstered or hindered by current discourse around COVID-19, particularly those centered on vaccination.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04215-6.

"We need to protect each other": COVID-19 vaccination intentions and concerns among Racialized minority and Indigenous Peoples in Canada

People may choose to receive vaccines in response to pressures that outweigh any concerns that they have. We explored Racialized minority and Indigenous Peoples' motivations for, perceptions of choice in, and concerns about, COVID-19 vaccination. We used a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach, including a national survey administered around the time vaccines were first authorized (Dec 2020) followed by qualitative interviews when vaccines were becoming more readily available to adults (May-June 2021). We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics and interviews using critical feminist methodologies. Survey respondents self-identified as a Racialized minority (n = 1488) or Indigenous (n = 342), of which 71.4% and 64.6%, respectively, intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Quantitative results indicated perceptions of COVID-19 disease were associated with vaccination intention. For instance, intention was associated with agreement that COVID-19 disease is severe, risk of becoming sick is great, COVID-19 vaccination is necessary, and vaccines available in Canada will be safe (p < 0.001). COVID-19 vaccines were in short supply in Canada when we subsequently completed qualitative interviews with a subset of Racialized minority (n = 17) and Indigenous (n = 10) survey respondents. We coded interview transcripts around three emergent themes relating to governmentality and cultural approaches to intersectional risk theories: feelings of collective responsibility, choice as privilege, and remaining uncertainties about COVID-19 vaccines. For example, some mentioned the responsibility and privilege to receive a vaccine earlier than those living outside of Canada. Some felt constraints on their freedom to choose to receive or refuse a vaccine from intersecting oppressions or their health status. Although all participants intended to get vaccinated, many mentioned uncertainties about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination. Survey respondents and interview participants demonstrated nuanced associations of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy shaped by perspectives of vaccine-related risks, symbolic associations of vaccines with hope, and intersecting social privileges and inequities (including racialization).

Impact of restricted visitation policies during COVID-19 on critically ill adults, their families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers: a qualitative interview study

PURPOSE

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, restricted visitation policies were enacted at acute care facilities to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and conserve personal protective equipment. In this study, we aimed to describe the impact of restricted visitation policies on critically ill patients, families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers; highlight the challenges faced in translating these policies into practice; and delineate strategies to mitigate their effects.

METHOD

A qualitative description design was used. We conducted semistructured interviews with critically ill adult patients and their family members, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers (i.e., policy makers or enforcers) affected by restricted visitation policies. We transcribed semistructured interviews verbatim and analyzed the transcripts using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three patients, eight family members, 30 clinicians (13 physicians, 17 nurses from 23 Canadian intensive care units [ICUs]), and three decision-makers participated in interviews. Thematic analysis was used to identify five themes: 1) acceptance of restricted visitation (e.g., accepting with concerns); 2) impact of restricted visitation (e.g., ethical challenges, moral distress, patients dying alone, intensified workload); 3) trust in the healthcare system during the pandemic (e.g., mistrust of clinical team); 4) modes of communication (e.g., communication using virtual platforms); and 5) impact of policy implementation on clinical practice (e.g., frequent changes and inconsistent implementation).

CONCLUSIONS

Restricted visitation policies across ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected critically ill patients and their families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers.

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.

Strategies to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child and youth well-being: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Children and youth are often more vulnerable than adults to emotional impacts of trauma. Wide-ranging negative effects (eg, social isolation, lack of physical activity) of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and youth are well established. This scoping review will identify, describe and categorise strategies taken to mitigate potentially deleterious impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on children, youth and their families.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a scoping review following the Arksey-O'Malley five-stage scoping review method and the Scoping Review Methods Manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Well-being will be operationalised according to pre-established domains (health and nutrition, connectedness, safety and support, learning and competence, and agency and resilience). Articles in all languages for this review will be identified in CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, ERIC, Education Research Complete, MEDLINE and APA PsycINFO. The search strategy will be restricted to articles published on or after 1 December 2019. We will include primary empirical and non-empirical methodologies, excluding protocols, reports, opinions and editorials, to identify new data for a broad range of strategies to mitigate potentially deleterious impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on child and youth well-being. Two reviewers will calibrate screening criteria and the data abstraction form and will independently screen records and abstract data. Data synthesis will be performed according to the convergent integrated approach described by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not applicable as this review will be conducted on published data. Findings of this study will be disseminated at national and international conferences and will inform our pan-Canadian multidisciplinary team of researchers, public, health professionals and knowledge users to codesign and pilot test a digital psychoeducational health tool-an interactive, web-based tool to help Canadian youth and their families address poor mental well-being resulting from and persisting beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Evidence-informed consensus statements to guide COVID-19 patient visitation policies: results from a national stakeholder meeting

PURPOSE

Hospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs.

METHODS

We created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies.

RESULTS

Through discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews).

CONCLUSIONS

Existing guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.

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.

Challenges and recommendations for COVID-19 public health messaging: a Canada-wide qualitative study using virtual focus groups

OBJECTIVES

To understand Canadian's attitudes and current behaviours towards COVID-19 public health measures (PHM), vaccination and current public health messaging, to provide recommendations for a public health intervention.

DESIGN

Ten focus groups were conducted with 2-7 participants/group in December 2020. Focus groups were transcribed verbatim and analysed using content and inductive thematic analysis. The capability opportunity motivation behaviour Model was used as our conceptual framework.

SETTING

Focus groups were conducted virtually across Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were recruited from a pool of individuals who previously completed a Canada-wide survey conducted by our research team.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Key barriers and facilitators towards COVID-19 PHM and vaccination, and recommendations for public health messaging.

RESULTS

Several themes were identified (1) participants' desire to protect family and friends was the main facilitator for adhering to PHM, while the main barrier was inconsistent PHM messaging and (2) participants were optimistic that the vaccine offers a return to normal, however, worries of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness were the main concerns. Participants felt that current public health messaging is inconsistent, lacks transparency and suggested that messaging should include scientific data presented by a trustworthy source.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest six public health messaging recommendations to increase adherence to PHM and vaccination (1) use an unbiased scientist as a spokesperson, (2) openly address any unknowns, (3) more is better when sharing data, (4) use personalised stories to reinforce PHM and vaccinations, (5) humanise the message by calling out contradictions and (6) focus on the data and keep politics out.

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.

Patient and family involvement in Choosing Wisely initiatives: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Patients are important stakeholders in reducing low-value care, yet mechanisms for optimizing their involvement in low-value care remain unclear. To explore the role of patients in the development and implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce low-value care and to assess the likelihood that existing patient resources will change patient health behaviour.

METHODS

Three phased mixed-methods study: 1) content analysis of all publicly available Choosing Wisely clinician lists and patient resources from the United States of America and Canada. Quantitative data was summarized with frequencies and free text comments were analyzed with qualitative thematic content analysis; 2) semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of representatives of professional societies who created Choosing Wisely clinician lists and members of the public (including patients and family members). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and two researchers conducted qualitative template analysis; 3) evaluation of Choosing Wisely patient resources. Two public partners were identified through the Calgary Critical Care Research Network and independently answered two free text questions "would this change your health behaviour" and "would you discuss this material with a healthcare provider". Free text data was analyzed by two researchers using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

From the content analysis of 136 Choosing Wisely clinician lists, six reported patient involvement in their development. From 148 patient resource documents that were mapped onto a conceptual framework (Inform, Activate, Collaborate) 64% described patient engagement at the level of Inform (educating patients). From 19 interviews stakeholder perceptions of patient involvement in reducing low-value care were captured by four themes: 1) impact of perceived power dynamics on the discussion of low-value care in the clinical interaction, 2) how to communicate about low-value care, 3) perceived barriers to patient involvement in reducing low-value care, and 4) suggested strategies to engage patients and families in Choosing Wisely initiatives. In the final phase of work in response to the question "would this change your health behaviour" two patient partners agreed 'yes' on 27% of patient resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunities exist to increase patient and family participation in initiatives to reduce low-value care.

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07827-4.

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.

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07392-2.

Identification and Assessment of Strategies to Address Gender Inequity in the Specialty of Critical Care Medicine: A Scoping Review, Modified Consensus Process, and Stakeholder Meeting

We sought to identify and prioritize improvement strategies that Critical Care Medicine (CCM) programs could use to inform and advance gender equity among physicians in CCM.

DESIGN

This study involved three sequential phases: 1) scoping review that identified strategies to improve gender equity in all medical specialties; 2) modified consensus process with 48 CCM stakeholders to rate and rank identified strategies; and 3) in-person stakeholder meeting to refine strategies and discuss facilitators and barriers to their implementation.

SETTING

CCM.

SUBJECTS

CCM stakeholders (physicians, researchers, and decision-makers; mutually inclusive).

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified 190 unique strategies from 416 articles. Strategies were grouped thematically into 20 categories across four overarching pillars of equity: access, participation, reimbursement, and culture. Participants prioritized 22 improvement strategies for implementation in CCM. The top-rated strategy from each pillar included: 1) nominate gender diverse candidates for faculty positions and prestigious opportunities (equitable access); 2) mandate training in unconscious bias and equitable treatment for committee (e.g., hiring, promotion) members (equitable participation); 3) ensure equitable starting salaries regardless of sex or gender (equitable reimbursement); and, 4) conduct 360° evaluations of leaders (including their direct work circle of supervisors, peers, and subordinates) through a diversity lens (equitable culture). Interprofessional collaboration, leadership, and local champions were identified as key enablers for implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified stakeholder-prioritized strategies that can be used to inform and enhance gender equity among physicians in CCM under four overarching equity pillars: access, participation, reimbursement, and culture. Implementation approaches should include education, policy creation, and measurement, and reporting.

Healthcare workers' perception of gender and work roles during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

A high functioning healthcare workforce is a key priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to determine how work and mental health for healthcare workers changed during the COVID-19 pandemic in a universal healthcare system, stratified by gender factors.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods study was employed. Phase 1 was an anonymous, internet-based survey (7 May-15 July 2020). Phase 2 was semistructured interviews offered to all respondents upon survey completion to describe how experiences may have differed by gender identity, roles and relations.

SETTING

National universal healthcare system (Canada).

PARTICIPANTS

2058 Canadian healthcare worker survey respondents (87% women, 11% men, 1% transgender or Two-Spirit), including 783 health professionals, 673 allied health professionals, 557 health support staff. Of the 63 unique healthcare worker types reported, registered nurses (11.5%), physicians (9.9%) and pharmacists (4.5%) were most common. Forty-six healthcare workers were interviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reported pandemic-induced changes to occupational leadership roles and responsibilities, household and caregiving responsibilities, and anxiety levels by gender identity.

RESULTS

Men (19.8%) were more likely to hold pandemic leadership roles compared with women (13.4%). Women (57.5%) were more likely to report increased domestic responsibilities than men (45%). Women and those with dependents under the age of 10 years reported the greatest levels of anxiety during the pandemic. Interviews with healthcare workers further revealed a perceived imbalance in leadership opportunities based on gender identity, a lack of workplace supports disproportionately affecting women and an increase in domestic responsibilities influenced by gender roles.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic response has important gendered effects on the healthcare workforce. Healthcare workers are central to effective pandemic control, highlighting an urgent need for a gender-transformative pandemic response strategy.

COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Attitudes and Beliefs in Canada: National Cross-sectional Survey and Cluster Analysis

Background

There are concerns that vaccine hesitancy may impede COVID-19 vaccine rollout and prevent the achievement of herd immunity. Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite their availability.

Objective

We aimed to identify which people are more and less likely to take a COVID-19 vaccine and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy to inform public health messaging.

Methods

A Canadian cross-sectional survey was conducted in Canada in October and November 2020, prior to the regulatory approval of the COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy was measured by respondents answering the question “what would you do if a COVID-19 vaccine were available to you?” Negative binomial regression was used to identify the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Cluster analysis was performed to identify distinct clusters based on intention to take a COVID-19 vaccine, beliefs about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, and adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions.

Results

Of 4498 participants, 2876 (63.9%) reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy was significantly associated with (1) younger age (18-39 years), (2) lower education, and (3) non-Liberal political leaning. Participants that reported vaccine hesitancy were less likely to believe that a COVID-19 vaccine would end the pandemic or that the benefits of a COVID-19 vaccine outweighed the risks. Individuals with vaccine hesitancy had higher prevalence of being concerned about vaccine side effects, lower prevalence of being influenced by peers or health care professionals, and lower prevalence of trust in government institutions.

Conclusions

These findings can be used to inform targeted public health messaging to combat vaccine hesitancy as COVID-19 vaccine administration continues. Messaging related to preventing COVID among friends and family, highlighting the benefits, emphasizing safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, and ensuring that health care workers are knowledgeable and supported in their vaccination counselling may be effective for vaccine-hesitant populations.

Patient discharge from intensive care: an updated scoping review to identify tools and practices to inform high-quality care

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients require complex care and experience unique needs during and after their stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Discharging or transferring a patient from the ICU to a hospital ward or back to community care (under the care of a general practitioner) includes several elements that may shape patient outcomes and overall experiences. The aim of this study was to answer the question: what elements facilitate a successful, high-quality discharge from the ICU?

METHODS

This scoping review is an update to a review published in 2015. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases from 2013-December 3, 2020 including adult, pediatric, and neonatal populations without language restrictions. Data were abstracted using different phases of care framework models, themes, facilitators, and barriers to the ICU discharge process.

RESULTS

We included 314 articles from 11,461 unique citations. Two-hundred and fifty-eight (82.2%) articles were primary research articles, mostly cohort (118/314, 37.6%) or qualitative (51/314, 16.2%) studies. Common discharge themes across all articles included adverse events, readmission, and mortality after discharge (116/314, 36.9%) and patient and family needs and experiences during discharge (112/314, 35.7%). Common discharge facilitators were discharge education for patients and families (82, 26.1%), successful provider-provider communication (77/314, 24.5%), and organizational tools to facilitate discharge (50/314, 15.9%). Barriers to a successful discharge included patient demographic and clinical characteristics (89/314, 22.3%), healthcare provider workload (21/314, 6.7%), and the impact of current discharge practices on flow and performance (49/314, 15.6%). We identified 47 discharge tools that could be used or adapted to facilitate an ICU discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors contribute to a successful ICU discharge, with facilitators and barriers present at the patient and family, health care provider, and organizational level. Successful provider-patient and provider-provider communication, and educating and engaging patients and families about the discharge process were important factors in a successful ICU discharge.

Outcomes After Receipt of Neuraxial or Regional Anesthesia Instead of General Anesthesia for Lower Limb Revascularization Surgery: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for peripheral artery disease (PAD) have a high risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality and often have long hospital stays. Use of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia may represent one approach to improving outcomes and reducing resource use among these patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD results in improved health outcomes and costs and a shorter length of hospitalization.

METHODS

We will search electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the seven databases in Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Google Scholar), review papers identified during the search, and included article bibliographies. We will include randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing the use of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD. Two investigators will independently evaluate the risk of bias. The primary outcome will be short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. Secondary outcomes will include longer-term mortality; major adverse cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, and limb events; delirium; deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; neuraxial or regional anesthesia-related complications; graft-related outcomes; length of operation and hospital stay; costs; and patient-reported or functional outcomes. We will calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity will be explored using stratified meta-analyses and meta-regression. We will assess for publication bias using the Begg and Egger tests and use the trim-and-fill method to estimate the potential influence of this bias on summary estimates. Finally, we will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to make an overall rating of the quality of evidence in our effect estimates.

RESULTS

The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). We executed the peer-reviewed search strategy on March 2, 2021. We completed the review of titles and abstracts on July 30, 2021, and plan to complete the review of full-text papers by September 30, 2021. We will complete full-text study data extraction and the risk-of-bias assessment by November 15, 2021, and conduct qualitative and then quantitative data synthesis and GRADE assessment of results by January 1, 2022, before drafting the manuscript. We anticipate that we will be able to submit the manuscript for peer review by the end of February 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will synthesize existing evidence regarding whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD results in improved health outcomes, graft patency, and costs and a shorter length of hospital stay. Study results will be used to inform practice and future research, including creation of a pilot and then multicenter randomized controlled trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospero CRD42021237060; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=237060.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/32170.

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.

A Modified Delphi Process to Prioritize Experiences and Guidance Related to ICU Restricted Visitation Policies During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

To create evidence-based consensus statements for restricted ICU visitation policies to support critically ill patients, families, and healthcare professionals during current and future pandemics.

DESIGN

Three rounds of a remote modified Delphi consensus process.

SETTING

Online survey and virtual polling from February 2, 2021, to April 8, 2021.

SUBJECTS

Stakeholders (patients, families, clinicians, researchers, allied health professionals, decision-makers) admitted to or working in Canadian ICUs during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

During Round 1, key stakeholders used a 9-point Likert scale to rate experiences (1-not significant, 9-significant impact on patients, families, healthcare professionals, or patient- and family-centered care) and strategies (1-not essential, 9-essential recommendation for inclusion in the development of restricted visitation policies) and used a free-text box to capture experiences/strategies we may have missed. Consensus was achieved if the median score was 7-9 or 1-3. During Round 2, participants used a 9-point Likert scale to re-rate experiences/strategies that did not meet consensus during Round 1 (median score of 4-6) and rate new items identified in Round 1. During Rounds 2 and 3, participants ranked items that reached consensus by order of importance (relative to other related items and experiences) using a weighted ranking system (0-100 points). Participants prioritized 11 experiences (e.g., variability of family's comfort with technology, healthcare professional moral distress) and developed 21 consensus statements (e.g., communicate policy changes to the hospital staff before the public, permit visitors at end-of-life regardless of coronavirus disease 2019 status, creating a clear definition for end-of-life) regarding restricted visitation policies.

CONCLUSIONS

We have formulated evidence-informed consensus statements regarding restricted visitation policies informed by diverse stakeholders, which could enhance patient- and family-centered care during a pandemic.

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 .

Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

Background

Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate.

Results

Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%).

Conclusions

Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals.

Trial registration: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03763-7.

Impact of restricted visitation policies in hospitals on patients, family members and healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Flexible visitation policies in hospitals are an important component of care that contributes to reduced stress and increased satisfaction among patients and their family members. Early evidence suggests restricted visitation policies enacted in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic are having unintended consequences on patients, family members and healthcare providers. There is a need for a comprehensive summary of the impacts of restricted visitation policies on key stakeholders and approaches to mitigate that impact.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a scoping review as per the Arksey-O'Malley 5-stage scoping review method and the Scoping Review Methods Manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will search relevant electronic databases (eg, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO), grey literature and preprint repositories. We will include all study designs including qualitative and quantitative methodologies (excluding protocols) as well as reports, opinions and editorials, to identify the broad impact of restricted hospital visitation policies due to the COVID-19 pandemic on patients, family members or healthcare providers of hospitalised patients, and approaches taken or proposed to mitigate this impact. Two reviewers will calibrate the screening criteria and data abstraction form and will independently screen studies and abstract the data. Narrative synthesis with thematic analysis will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not applicable as this review will be conducted on published literature only. This scoping review will identify, describe and categorise impacts of restricted hospital visitation policies due to the COVID-19 pandemic on patients, family members and healthcare providers of hospitalised patients, and approaches that have been taken to mitigate impact. We will provide a comprehensive synthesis by developing a framework of restricted visitation policies and associated impacts. Our results will inform the development of consensus statements on restricted visitation policies to be implemented in future pandemics.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020221662.

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/.

A qualitative study of physician perceptions and experiences of caring for critically ill patients in the context of resource strain during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to global shortages in the resources required to care for critically ill patients and to protect frontline healthcare providers. This study investigated physicians’ perceptions and experiences of caring for critically ill patients in the context of actual or anticipated resource strain during the COVID-19 pandemic, and explored implications for the healthcare workforce and the delivery of patient care.

Methods

We recruited a diverse sample of critical care physicians from 13 Canadian Universities with adult critical care training programs. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews between March 25–June 25, 2020 and used qualitative thematic analysis to derive primary themes and subthemes.

Results

Fifteen participants (eight female, seven male; median age = 40) from 14 different intensive care units described three overarching themes related to physicians’ perceptions and experiences of caring for critically ill patients during the pandemic: 1) Conditions contributing to resource strain (e.g., continuously evolving pandemic conditions); 2) Implications of resource strain on critical care physicians personally (e.g., safety concerns) and professionally (e.g. practice change); and 3) Enablers of resource sufficiency (e.g., adequate human resources).

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has required health systems and healthcare providers to continuously adapt to rapidly evolving circumstances. Participants’ uncertainty about whether their unit’s planning and resources would be sufficient to ensure the delivery of high quality patient care throughout the pandemic, coupled with fear and anxiety over personal and familial transmission, indicate the need for a unified systemic pandemic response plan for future infectious disease outbreaks.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06393-5.

Patients, family members and providers perceive family-administered delirium detection tools in the adult ICU as feasible and of value to patient care and family member coping: a qualitative focus group study

PURPOSE

While studies report on perceptions of family participation in delirium prevention, little is known about the use of family-administered delirium detection tools in the care of critically ill patients. This study sought the perspectives of patients, their family members, and healthcare providers on the use of family-administered delirium detection tools to detect delirium in critically ill patients and barriers and facilitators to using family-administered delirium detection tools in patient care.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, critical care providers (five physicians, six registered nurses) and participants from the Family ICU Delirium Detection Study (seven past patients and family members) took part in four focus groups at one hospital in Calgary, Alberta.

RESULTS

Key themes identified following thematic analysis from 18 participants included: 1) perceptions of acceptability of family-administered delirium detection (e.g., family feels valued, intensive care unit (ICU) care team may not use a family member's results, intensification of work load), 2) considerations regarding feasibility (e.g., insufficient knowledge, healthcare team buy-in), and 3) overarching strategies to support implementation into routine patient care (e.g., value of family-administered delirium detection for patients and families is well understood in the clinical context, regular communication between the family and ICU providers, an electronic version of the tool).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients, family members and healthcare providers who participated in the focus groups perceived family participation in delirium detection and the use of family-administered delirium detection tools at the bedside as feasible and of value to patient care and family member coping.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03379129); registered 15 December 2017.

Experiences and management of physician psychological symptoms during infectious disease outbreaks: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians experienced unprecedented levels of burnout. The uncertainty of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic along with increased workload and difficult medical triage decisions may lead to a further decline in physician psychological health.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for primary research from database inception (Medline [1946], EMBASE [1974], PsycINFO [1806]) to November 17, 2020. Titles and abstracts were screened by one of three reviewers and full-text article screening and data abstraction were conducted independently, and in duplicate, by three reviewers.

RESULTS

From 6223 unique citations, 480 articles were reviewed in full-text, with 193 studies (of 90,499 physicians) included in the final review. Studies reported on physician psychological symptoms and management during seven infectious disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS], three strains of Influenza A virus [H1N1, H5N1, H7N9], Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome [MERS], and COVID-19) in 57 countries. Psychological symptoms of anxiety (14.3-92.3%), stress (11.9-93.7%), depression (17-80.5%), post-traumatic stress disorder (13.2-75.2%) and burnout (14.7-76%) were commonly reported among physicians, regardless of infectious disease outbreak or country. Younger, female (vs. male), single (vs. married), early career physicians, and those providing direct care to infected patients were associated with worse psychological symptoms.

INTERPRETATION

Physicians should be aware that psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression, fear and distress are common, manifest differently and self-management strategies to improve psychological well-being exist. Health systems should implement short and long-term psychological supports for physicians caring for patients with COVID-19.

Effectiveness of an Electronic Communication Tool on Transitions in Care From the Intensive Care Unit: Protocol for a Cluster-Specific Pre-Post Trial

BACKGROUND

Transitions in care are vulnerable periods in health care that can expose patients to preventable errors due to incomplete or delayed communication between health care providers. Transitioning critically ill patients from intensive care units (ICUs) to other patient care units (PCUs) is particularly risky, due to the high acuity of the patients and the diversity of health care providers involved in their care. Instituting structured documentation to standardize written communication between health care providers during transitions has been identified as a promising means to reduce communication breakdowns. We developed an evidence-informed, computer-enabled, ICU-specific structured tool-an electronic transfer (e-transfer) tool-to facilitate and standardize the composition of written transfer summaries in the ICUs of one Canadian city. The tool consisted of 10 primary sections with a user interface combination of structured, automated, and free-text fields.

OBJECTIVE

Our overarching goal is to evaluate whether implementation of our e-transfer tool will improve the completeness and timeliness of transfer summaries and streamline communications between health care providers during high-risk transitions.

METHODS

This study is a cluster-specific pre-post trial, with randomized and staggered implementation of the e-transfer tool in four hospitals in Calgary, Alberta. Hospitals (ie, clusters) were allocated randomly to cross over every 2 months from control (ie, dictation only) to intervention (ie, e-transfer tool). Implementation at each site was facilitated with user education, point-of-care support, and audit and feedback. We will compare transfer summaries randomly sampled over 6 months postimplementation to summaries randomly sampled over 6 months preimplementation. The primary outcome will be a binary composite measure of the timeliness and completeness of transfer summaries. Secondary measures will include overall completeness, timeliness, and provider ratings of transfer summaries; hospital and ICU lengths of stay; and post-ICU patient outcomes, including ICU readmission, adverse events, cardiac arrest, rapid response team activation, and mortality. We will use descriptive statistics (ie, medians and means) to describe demographic characteristics. The primary outcome will be compared within each hospital pre- and postimplementation using separate logistic regression models for each hospital, with adjustment for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Participating hospitals were cluster randomized to the intervention between July 2018 and January 2019. Preliminary extraction of ICU patient admission lists was completed in September 2019. We anticipate that evaluation data collection will be completed by early 2021, with first results ready for publication in spring or summer 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will report the impact of implementing an evidence-informed, computer-enabled, ICU-specific structured transfer tool on communication and preventable medical errors among patients transferred from the ICU to other hospital care units.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03590002; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03590002.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/18675.

Allocation of intensive care resources during an infectious disease outbreak: a rapid review to inform practice

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed sustained demand on health systems globally, and the capacity to provide critical care has been overwhelmed in some jurisdictions. It is unknown which triage criteria for allocation of resources perform best to inform health system decision-making. We sought to summarize and describe existing triage tools and ethical frameworks to aid healthcare decision-making during infectious disease outbreaks.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review of triage criteria and ethical frameworks for the allocation of critical care resources during epidemics and pandemics. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and SCOPUS from inception to November 3, 2020. Full-text screening and data abstraction were conducted independently and in duplicate by three reviewers. Articles were included if they were primary research, an adult critical care setting, and the framework described was related to an infectious disease outbreak. We summarized each triage tool and ethical guidelines or framework including their elements and operating characteristics using descriptive statistics. We assessed the quality of each article with applicable checklists tailored to each study design.

RESULTS

From 11,539 unique citations, 697 full-text articles were reviewed and 83 articles were included. Fifty-nine described critical care triage protocols and 25 described ethical frameworks. Of these, four articles described both a protocol and ethical framework. Sixty articles described 52 unique triage criteria (29 algorithm-based, 23 point-based). Few algorithmic- or point-based triage protocols were good predictors of mortality with AUCs ranging from 0.51 (PMEWS) to 0.85 (admitting SOFA > 11). Most published triage protocols included the substantive values of duty to provide care, equity, stewardship and trust, and the procedural value of reason.

CONCLUSIONS

This review summarizes available triage protocols and ethical guidelines to provide decision-makers with data to help select and tailor triage tools. Given the uncertainty about how the COVID-19 pandemic will progress and any future pandemics, jurisdictions should prepare by selecting and adapting a triage tool that works best for their circumstances.