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/.

Patient, family and professional suggestions for pandemic-related surgical backlog recovery: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical shutdowns related to the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in prolonged wait times for nonemergency surgery. We aimed to understand informational needs and generate suggestions on management of the surgical backlog in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic through focus groups with key stakeholders. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study with focus groups held between Sept. 29 and Nov. 30, 2021, in Ontario, with patients who underwent or were awaiting surgery during the pandemic and their family members, and health care leaders with experience or influence overseeing the delivery of surgical services. We conducted the focus groups virtually; focus groups for patients and family members were conducted separately from health care leaders to ensure participants could speak freely about their experiences. Our goal was to elicit information on the impact of communication about the surgical backlog, how this communication may be improved, and to generate and prioritize suggestions to address the backlog. Data were mapped onto 2 complementary frameworks that categorized approaches to reduction in wait times and strategies to improve health care delivery. RESULTS: A total of 11 patients and family members and 20 health care leaders (7 nursing surgical directors, 10 surgeons and 3 administrators) participated in 7 focus groups (2 patient and family, and 5 health care leader). Participants reported receiving conflicting information about the surgical backlog. Suggestions for communication about the backlog included unified messaging from a single source with clear language to educate the public. Participants prioritized the following suggestions for surgical recovery: increase supply through focusing on system efficiencies and maintaining or increasing health care personnel; incorporate patient-centred outcomes into triage definitions; and refine strategies for performance management to understand and measure inequities between surgeons and centres, and consider the impact of funding incentives on "nonpriority" procedures. INTERPRETATION: Patients and their families and health care leaders experienced a lack of communication about the surgical backlog and suggested this information should come from a single source; key suggestions to manage the surgical backlog included a focus on system efficiencies, incorporation of patient-centred outcomes into triage definitions, and improving the measurement of wait times to monitor health system performance. The suggestions generated in this study that may be used to address surgical backlog recovery in the Canadian setting.

Characterizing the Impact of Procedure Funding on the Covid-19 Generated Procedure Gap in Ontario: A Population-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical procedures in Canada were historically funded through global hospital budgets. Activity-based funding models were developed to improve access, equity, timeliness and value of care for priority areas. COVID-19 upended health priorities and resulted in unprecedented disruptions to surgical care which created a significant procedure gap. We hypothesized that activity-based funding models influenced the magnitude and trajectory of this procedure gap. METHODS: Population-based analysis of procedure rates comparing pandemic (March 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021) to a pre-pandemic baseline (January 1, 2017 to February 29, 2020) in Ontario, Canada. Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to predict expected rates in the pandemic based on the pre-pandemic baseline. Analyses were stratified by procedure type (out-patient, in-patient), body region, and funding category (activity-based funding programs vs. global budget). RESULTS: 281,328 fewer scheduled procedures were performed during the COVID-19 period compared to the pre-pandemic baseline (Rate Ratio 0.78; 95%CI 0.77-0.80). In-patient procedures saw a larger reduction (24.8%) in volume compared to out-patient procedures (20.5%). An increase in the proportion of procedures funded through activity-based programs was seen during the pandemic (52%) relative to the pre-pandemic baseline (50%). Body systems funded predominantly through global hospital budgets (e.g. gynecology, otologic surgery) saw the least months at or above baseline volumes whereas those with multiple activity-based funding options (e.g. musculoskeletal, abdominal) saw the most months at or above baseline volumes. CONCLUSIONS: Those needing procedures funded though global hospital budgets may have been disproportionately disadvantaged by pandemic-related health care disruptions.

Time to diagnosis and treatment in younger adults with colorectal cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of colorectal cancer is rising in adults <50 years of age. As a primarily unscreened population, they may have clinically important delays to diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to review the literature on delay intervals in patients <50 years with colorectal cancer (CRC), and explore associations between longer intervals and outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS were searched until December 2, 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting any delay interval in adults <50 with CRC. Interval measures and associations with stage at presentation or survival were synthesized and described in a narrative fashion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Institute of Health Economics Case Series Quality Appraisal Checklist, and the Aarhus Checklist for cancer delay studies. RESULTS: 55 studies representing 188,530 younger CRC patients were included. Most studies used primary data collection (64%), and 47% reported a single center. Sixteen unique intervals were measured. The most common interval was symptom onset to diagnosis (21 studies; N = 2,107). By sample size, diagnosis to treatment start was the most reported interval (12 studies; N = 170,463). Four studies examined symptoms onset to treatment start (total interval). The shortest was a mean of 99.5 days and the longest was a median of 217 days. There was substantial heterogeneity in the measurement of intervals, and quality of reporting. Higher-quality studies were more likely to use cancer registries, and be population-based. In four studies reporting the relationship between intervals and cancer stage or survival, there were no clear associations between longer intervals and adverse outcomes. DISCUSSION: Adults <50 with CRC may have intervals between symptom onset to treatment start greater than 6 months. Studies reporting intervals among younger patients are limited by inconsistent results and heterogeneous reporting. There is insufficient evidence to determine if longer intervals are associated with advanced stage or worse survival. OTHER: This study's protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020179707).

Genetics Adviser: a protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial evaluating a digital platform for genetics service delivery.

INTRODUCTION: The high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20-035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04725565.

Preeclampsia and Severe Maternal Morbidity During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Population-Based Cohort Study in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Significant changes to the delivery of obstetrical care that occurred with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with higher risks of adverse maternal outcomes. We evaluated preeclampsia/HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets) syndrome and composite severe maternal morbidity (SMM) among pregnant people who gave birth during the COVID-19 pandemic and compared these data with those of people who gave birth before the pandemic in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This was a population-based, retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data sets from ICES. Data on pregnant people at ≥20 weeks gestation who gave birth between March 15, 2020, and September 30, 2021, were compared with those of pregnant people who gave birth within the same date range for the years 2015-2019. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the effect of the pandemic period on the odds of preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome and composite SMM, adjusting for maternal baseline characteristics and comorbidities. RESULTS: There were no differences between the study periods in the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome among primiparous (aOR 1.00; 95% CI 0.91-1.11) and multiparous (aOR 0.94; 95% CI 0.81-1.09) patients and no differences for composite SMM (primiparous, aOR 1.00; 95% CI 0.95-1.05; multiparous, aOR 1.01; 95% CI 0.95-1.08). CONCLUSION: Adverse maternal outcomes were not higher among pregnant people who gave birth during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada, when compared with those who gave birth before the pandemic.

Nimble Approach: fast, adapting, calculating and ethically mindful approach to managing colorectal cancer screening programmes during a pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a conceptual framework that provides understanding of the challenges encountered and the adaptive approaches taken by organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: This was a qualitative case study of international CRC screening programmes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with programme managers/leaders and programme experts, researchers and clinical leaders of large, population-based screening programmes. Data analysis, using elements of grounded theory, as well as cross-cases analysis was conducted by two experienced qualitative researchers. RESULTS: 19 participants were interviewed from seven programmes in North America, Europe and Australasia. A conceptual framework ('Nimble Approach') was the key outcome of the analysis. Four concepts constitute this approach to managing CRC screening programmes during COVID-19: Fast (meeting the need to make decisions and communicate quickly), Adapting (flexibly and creatively managing testing/colonoscopy capacity, access and backlogs), Calculating (modelling and actively monitoring programmes to inform decision-making and support programme quality) and Ethically Mindful (considering ethical conundrums emerging from programme responses). Highly integrated programmes, those with highly integrated communication networks, and that managed greater portions of the screening process seemed best positioned to respond to the crisis. CONCLUSIONS: The Nimble Approach has potentially broad applications; it can be deployed to effectively respond to programme-specific challenges or manage CRC programmes during future pandemics, other health crises or emergencies.

A Population-Based Analysis of Diabetes-Related Care Measures, Foot Complications, and Amputation During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

Importance: Deferred diabetic foot screening and delays in timely care of acute foot complications during the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to an increase in limb loss. Objective: To evaluate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with diabetes-related care measures, foot complications, and amputation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included all adult residents of Ontario, Canada, with diabetes and compared the rates of selected outcomes from January 1, 2020, to February 23, 2021, vs January 1, 2019, to February 23, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comprehensive in-person diabetes care assessment, including foot examination; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement; emergency department visit or hospitalization for diabetic foot ulceration, osteomyelitis, or gangrene; lower extremity open or endovascular revascularization; minor (toe or partial-foot) amputation; and major (above-ankle) leg amputation. Rates and rate ratios (RRs) comparing 2020-2021 vs 2019-2020 for each measure were calculated for 10-week periods, anchored relative to onset of the pandemic on March 11, 2020 (11th week of 2020). Results: On March 11, 2020, the study included 1 488 605 adults with diabetes (median [IQR] age, 65 [55-74] years; 776 665 [52.2%] men), and on March 11, 2019, the study included 1 441 029 adults with diabetes (median [IQR] age, 65 [55-74] years; 751 459 [52.1%] men). After the onset of the pandemic, rates of major amputation in 2020-2021 decreased compared with 2019-2020 levels. The RR for the prepandemic period from January 1 to March 10 was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.88-1.25), with RRs in the pandemic periods ranging from 0.86 (95% CI, 0.72-1.03) in May 20 to July 28 to 0.95 (95% CI, 0.80-1.13) in October 7 to December 15. There were no consistent differences in demographic characteristics or comorbidities of patients undergoing amputation in the 2020-2021 vs 2019-2020 periods. Rates of comprehensive in-person diabetes care assessment and HbA1c measurement declined sharply and remained below 2019-2020 levels (eg, in-person assessment, March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.28-0.28). The rates of emergency department visits (eg, March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.61-0.75), hospitalization (eg, March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.87), open revascularization (eg, March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79), endovascular revascularization (March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81), and minor amputation (March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.83) initially dropped but recovered to 2019-2020 levels over the study period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study, disruptions in care related to the COVID-19 pandemic were not associated with excess leg amputations among people living with diabetes. As the pandemic ends, improved prevention and treatment of diabetic foot complications will be necessary to maintain these positive results.

A population-based analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on common abdominal and gynecological emergency department visits.

BACKGROUND: Reduced use of the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic may result in increased disease acuity when patients do seek health care services. We sought to evaluate emergency department visits for common abdominal and gynecologic conditions before and at the beginning of the pandemic to determine whether changes in emergency department attendance had serious consequences for patients. METHODS: We conducted a population-based analysis using administrative data to evaluate the weekly rate of emergency department visits pre-COVID-19 (Jan. 1-Mar. 10, 2020) and during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mar. 11-June 30, 2020), compared with a historical control period (Jan. 1-July 1, 2019). All residents of Ontario, Canada, presenting to the emergency department with appendicitis, cholecystitis, ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage were included. We evaluated weekly incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of emergency department visits, management strategies and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Across all study periods, 39 691 emergency department visits met inclusion criteria (40.2 % appendicitis, 32.1% miscarriage, 21.3% cholecystitis, 6.4% ectopic pregnancy). Baseline characteristics of patients presenting to the emergency department did not vary across study periods. After an initial reduction in emergency department visits, presentations for cholecystitis and ectopic pregnancy quickly returned to expected levels. However, presentations for appendicitis and miscarriage showed sustained reductions (IRR 0.61-0.80), with 1087 and 984 fewer visits, respectively, after the start of the pandemic, relative to 2019. Management strategies, complications and mortality rates were similar across study periods for all conditions. INTERPRETATION: Although our study showed evidence of emergency department avoidance in Ontario during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, no adverse consequences were evident. Emergency care and outcomes for patients were similar before and during the pandemic.

An inverse stage-shift model to estimate the excess mortality and health economic impact of delayed access to cancer services due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: Decreased cancer incidence and reported changes to clinical management indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic has delayed cancer diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to develop and apply a flexible model to estimate the impact of delayed diagnosis and treatment on survival outcomes and healthcare costs based on a shift in the disease stage at treatment initiation. METHODS: A model was developed and made publicly available to estimate population-level health economic outcomes by extrapolating and weighing stage-specific outcomes by the distribution of stages at treatment initiation. It was applied to estimate the impact of 3- and 6-month delays based on Australian data for stage I breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer patients, and for T1 melanoma. Two approaches were explored to estimate stage shifts following a delay: (a) based on the relation between time to treatment initiation and overall survival (breast, colorectal, and lung cancer), and (b) based on the tumor growth rate (melanoma). RESULTS: Using a conservative once-off 3-month delay and considering only shifts from stage I/T1 to stage II/T2, 88 excess deaths and $12 million excess healthcare costs were predicted in Australia over 5 years for all patients diagnosed in 2020. For a 6-month delay, excess mortality and healthcare costs were 349 deaths and $46 million over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The health and economic impacts of delays in treatment initiation cause an imminent policy concern. More accurate individual patient data on shifts in stage of disease during and after the COVID-19 pandemic are critical for further analyses.

Decision-making in Surgery or Active Surveillance for Low Risk Papillary Thyroid Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We describe our experience conducting a prospective observational cohort study on the management of small, low risk papillary thyroid cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study participants are given the choice of active surveillance (AS) or surgery, and those in the AS arm are followed at the study center, whereas surgical patients undergo usual care. During the pandemic we have transitioned from in-person research patient visits to largely virtual care of patients under AS. As of 30 October 2020, we had enrolled 181 patients enrolled in our study (including 25 during the pandemic), of which 92.3% (167/181) consented to telephone communication and 79.0% (143/181) consented to secure videoconferencing communication. Prior to the pandemic, 74.5% (117/157) of our patients chose AS over surgery, whereas during the pandemic, 96.0% (24/25) chose AS. Of the 133 study patients who were under AS within the timeframe from 12 March 2020, to 30 October 2020, the percentage of patients who missed appointments was 8.3% (11/133, for neck ultrasound and physician visits, respectively) and delayed appointments was 23.3% (31/133). This preliminary data suggests that prospective observational research on AS of thyroid cancer can safely continue during the pandemic.