Quality of patient decision aids to support the public making COVID-19 decisions: An online environmental scan.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and appraise the quality of COVID-19 patient decision aids (PtDAs). METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan of online publicly available COVID-19 PtDAs. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. We calculated median International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) scores and proportion scoring > 70% on Patient Education Materials Information Tool (PEMAT) adequate for understandability and actionability. RESULTS: Of 876 resources identified, 12 were PtDAs. Decisions focused on initial COVID-19 vaccination series (n = 9), location of care for elderly (n = 2), and social distancing (n = 1). All 12 PtDAs were written materials and two had accompanying videos. The median IPDAS score minimizing risk of biased decisions was 4 of 6 items (IQR 1, range 2-4). For PEMAT, 92% had adequate for understandability and none for actionability. CONCLUSIONS: We identified few online publicly available COVID-19 PtDAs and none were about COVID-19 vaccination boosters or treatment. PtDAs scored poorly on actionability and none met all IPDAS criteria for minimizing risk of biased decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PtDA developers for COVID-19 and future pandemics should ensure their PtDAs meet all IPDAS criteria for minimizing risk of bias, have adequate scores for actionability, and are disseminated in the A to Z inventory.

Decisional needs assessment for patient-centred pain care in Canada: the DECIDE-PAIN study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The 2021 Action Plan for Pain from the Canadian Pain Task Force advocates for patient-centred pain care at all levels of healthcare across provinces. Shared decision-making is the crux of patient-centred care. Implementing the action plan will require innovative shared decision-making interventions, specifically following the disruption of chronic pain care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first step in this endeavour is to assess current decisional needs (ie, decisions most important to them) of Canadians with chronic pain across their care pathways. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: DesignGrounded in patient-oriented research approaches, we will perform an online population-based survey across the ten Canadian provinces. We will report methods and data following the CROSS reporting guidelines.SamplingThe Léger Marketing company will administer the online population-based survey to its representative panel of 500 000 Canadians to recruit 1646 adults (age ≥18 years old) with chronic pain according to the definition by the International Association for the Study of Pain (eg, pain ≥12 weeks). ContentBased on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, the self-administered survey has been codesigned with patients and contain six core domains: (1) healthcare services, consultation and postpandemic needs, (2) difficult decisions experienced, (3) decisional conflict, (4) decisional regret, (5) decisional needs and (6) sociodemographic characteristics. We will use several strategies such as random sampling to improve survey quality. AnalysisWe will perform descriptive statistical analysis. We will identify factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict and decision regret using multivariate analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the Research Centre of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (project #2022-4645). We will codesign knowledge mobilisation products with research patient partners (eg, graphical summaries and videos). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences to inform the development of innovative shared decision-making interventions for Canadians with chronic pain.

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/.

Decisions and Decisional Needs of Canadians From all Provinces and Territories During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Population-Based Cross-sectional Surveys.

BACKGROUND: Never before COVID-19 had Canadians faced making health-related decisions in a context of significant uncertainty. However, little is known about which type of decisions and the types of difficulties that they faced. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify the health-related decisions and decisional needs of Canadians. METHODS: Our study was codesigned by researchers and knowledge users (eg, patients, clinicians). Informed by the CHERRIES (the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) reporting guideline, we conducted 2 online surveys of random samples drawn from the Leger consumer panel of 400,000 Canadians. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years) who received or were receiving any health services in the past 12 months for themselves (adults) or for their child (parent) or senior with cognitive impairment (caregiver). We assessed decisions and decisional needs using questions informed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, including decisional conflict and decision regret using the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS) and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), respectively. Descriptive statistics were conducted for adults who had decided for themselves or on behalf of someone else. Significant decisional conflict (SDC) was defined as a total DCS score of >37.5 out of 100, and significant decision regret was defined as a total DRS score of >25 out of 100. RESULTS: From May 18 to June 4, 2021, 14,459 adults and 6542 parents/caregivers were invited to participate. The invitation view rate was 15.5% (2236/14,459) and 28.3% (1850/6542); participation rate, 69.3% (1549/2236) and 28.7% (531/1850); and completion rate, 97.3% (1507/1549) and 95.1% (505/531), respectively. The survey was completed by 1454 (97.3%) adults and 438 (95.1%) parents/caregivers in English (1598/1892, 84.5%) or French (294/1892, 15.5%). Respondents from all 10 Canadian provinces and the northern territories represented a range of ages, education levels, civil statuses, ethnicities, and annual household income. Of 1892 respondents, 541 (28.6%) self-identified as members of marginalized groups. The most frequent decisions were (adults vs parents/caregivers) as follows: COVID-19 vaccination (490/1454, 33.7%, vs 87/438, 19.9%), managing a health condition (253/1454, 17.4%, vs 47/438, 10.7%), other COVID-19 decisions (158/1454, 10.9%, vs 85/438, 19.4%), mental health care (128/1454, 8.8%, vs 27/438, 6.2%), and medication treatments (115/1454, 7.9%, vs 23/438, 5.3%). Caregivers also reported decisions about moving family members to/from nursing or retirement homes (48/438, 11.0%). Adults (323/1454, 22.2%) and parents/caregivers (95/438, 21.7%) had SDC. Factors making decisions difficult were worrying about choosing the wrong option (557/1454, 38.3%, vs 184/438, 42.0%), worrying about getting COVID-19 (506/1454, 34.8%, vs 173/438, 39.5%), public health restrictions (427/1454, 29.4%, vs 158/438, 36.1%), information overload (300/1454, 20.6%, vs 77/438, 17.6%), difficulty separating misinformation from scientific evidence (297/1454, 20.4%, vs 77/438, 17.6%), and difficulty discussing decisions with clinicians (224/1454, 15.4%, vs 51/438, 11.6%). For 1318 (90.6%) adults and 366 (83.6%) parents/caregivers who had decided, 353 (26.8%) and 125 (34.2%) had significant decision regret, respectively. In addition, 1028 (50%) respondents made their decision alone without considering the opinions of clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19, Canadians who responded to the survey faced several new health-related decisions. Many reported unmet decision-making needs, resulting in SDC and decision regret. Interventions can be designed to address their decisional needs and support patients facing new health-related decisions.

L'interprofessionnalité face à la pandémie.

Les situations de crise comme booster des pratiques de collaboration interprofessionnelle dans les soins de première ligne.

Predictors of Decision Regret among Caregivers of Older Canadians Receiving Home Care: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey.

Background. In Canada, caregivers of older adults receiving home care face difficult decisions that may lead to decision regret. We assessed difficult decisions and decision regret among caregivers of older adults receiving home care services and factors associated with decision regret. Methods. From March 13 to 30, 2020, at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted an online survey with caregivers of older adults receiving home care in the 10 Canadian provinces. We distributed a self-administered questionnaire through Canada's largest and most representative private online panel. We identified types of difficult health-related decisions faced in the past year and their frequency and evaluated decision regret using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), scored from 0 to 100. We performed descriptive statistics as well as bivariable and multivariable linear regression to identify factors predicting decision regret. Results. Among 932 participants, the mean age was 42.2 y (SD = 15.6 y), and 58.4% were male. The most frequently reported difficult decisions were regarding housing and safety (75.1%). The mean DRS score was 28.8/100 (SD = 8.6). Factors associated with less decision regret included higher caregiver age, involvement of other family members in the decision-making process, wanting to receive information about the options, and considering organizations interested in the decision topic and health care professionals as trustworthy sources of information (all P < 0.001). Factors associated with more decision regret included mismatch between the caregiver's preferred option and the decision made, the involvement of spouses in the decision-making process, higher decisional conflict, and higher burden of care (all P < 0.001). Discussion. Decisions about housing and safety were the difficult decisions most frequently encountered by caregivers of older adults in this survey. Our results will inform future decision support interventions. Highlights: This is one of the first studies to assess decision regret among caregivers of older adults receiving home and community care services and to identify their most frequent difficult decisions.Difficult decisions were most frequently about housing and safety. Most caregivers of older adults in all 10 provinces of Canada experienced decision regret.Factors associated with less decision regret included higher caregiver age, the involvement of other family members in the decision-making process, wanting to receive information about the options, considering organizations interested in the decision topic, and health care professionals as trustworthy sources of information. Factors associated with more decision regret included mismatch between the caregiver's preferred option and the decision made, the involvement of spouses in the decision-making process, higher decisional conflict, and higher burden of care.

Factors Associated With Specialists' Intention to Adopt New Behaviors After Taking Web-Based Continuing Professional Development Courses: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Web-based continuing professional development (CPD) is a convenient and low-cost way for physicians to update their knowledge. However, little is known about the factors that influence their intention to put this new knowledge into practice. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify sociocognitive factors associated with physicians' intention to adopt new behaviors as well as indications of Bloom's learning levels following their participation in 5 web-based CPD courses. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of specialist physicians who had completed 1 of 5 web-based CPD courses offered by the Federation of Medical Specialists of Quebec. The participants then completed CPD-Reaction, a questionnaire based on Godin's integrated model for health professional behavior change and with evidence of validity that measures behavioral intention (dependent variable) and psychosocial factors influencing intention (n=4). We also assessed variables related to sociodemographics (n=5), course content (n=9), and course format (eg, graphic features and duration) (n=8). Content variables were derived from CanMEDS competencies, Bloom's learning levels, and Godin's integrated model. We conducted ANOVA single-factor analysis, calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and performed bivariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 400 physicians participated in the courses (range: 38-135 physicians per course). Average age was 50 (SD 12) years; 56% (n=223) were female, and 44% (n=177) were male. Among the 259 who completed CPD-Reaction, behavioral intention scores ranged from 5.37 (SD 1.17) to 6.60 (SD 0.88) out of 7 and differed significantly from one course to another (P<.001). The ICC indicated that 17% of the total variation in the outcome of interest, the behavioral intention of physicians, could be explained at the level of the CPD course (ICC=0.17). In bivariate analyses, social influences (P<.001), beliefs about capabilities (P<.001), moral norm (P<.001), beliefs about consequences (P<.001), and psychomotor learning (P=.04) were significantly correlated with physicians' intention to adopt new behaviors. Multivariate analysis showed the same factors, except for social influences and psychomotor learning, as significantly correlated with intention. CONCLUSIONS: We observed average to high behavioral intention scores after all 5 web-based courses, with some variations by course taken. Factors affecting physicians' intention were beliefs about their capabilities and about the consequences of adopting new clinical behaviors, as well as doubts about whether the new behavior aligned with their moral values. Our results will inform design of future web-based CPD courses to ensure they contribute to clinical behavior change.

Use of the CPD-REACTION Questionnaire to Evaluate Continuing Professional Development Activities for Health Professionals: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Continuing professional development (CPD) is essential for physicians to maintain and enhance their knowledge, competence, skills, and performance. Web-based CPD plays an essential role. However, validated theory-informed measures of their impact are lacking. The CPD-REACTION questionnaire is a validated theory-informed tool that evaluates the impact of CPD activities on clinicians' behavioral intentions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to review the use of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire, which measures the impact of CPD activities on health professionals' intentions to change clinical behavior. We examined CPD activity characteristics, ranges of intention, mean scores, score distributions, and psychometric properties. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review informed by the Cochrane review methodology. We searched 8 databases from January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2021. Gray literature was identified using Google Scholar and Research Gate. Eligibility criteria included all health care professionals, any study design, and participants' completion of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire either before, after, or before and after a CPD activity. Study selection, data extraction, and study quality evaluation were independently performed by 2 reviewers. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, the CPD activity (eg, targeted clinical behavior and format), and CPD-REACTION use. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. Data extracted were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Student t test (2-tailed) for bivariate analysis. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 65 citations were eligible and referred to 52 primary studies. The number of primary studies reporting the use of CPD-REACTION has increased continuously since 2014 from 1 to 16 publications per year (2021). It is available in English, French, Spanish, and Dutch. Most of the studies were conducted in Canada (30/52, 58%). Furthermore, 40 different clinical behaviors were identified. The most common CPD format was e-learning (34/52, 65%). The original version of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire was used in 31 of 52 studies, and an adapted version in 18 of 52 studies. In addition, 31% (16/52) of the studies measured both the pre- and postintervention scores. In 22 studies, CPD providers were university-based. Most studies targeted interprofessional groups of health professionals (31/52, 60%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of CPD-REACTION has increased rapidly and across a wide range of clinical behaviors and formats, including a web-based format. Further research should investigate the most effective way to adapt the CPD-REACTION questionnaire to a variety of clinical behaviors and contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018116492; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=116492.

Shared decision-making in Canada: Update on integration of evidence in health decisions and patient-centred care government mandates.

In Canada, government mandates for patient-centred care (PCC) vary across the 10 provinces and three territories. Although basic medical and hospital services are provided for all, health care options for patients also depend on having private insurance. Thus, the current design of the Canadian healthcare system has several implications for PCC and shared decision-making (SDM). Since 2007, this is our fourth update on SDM in Canada. The aim of this paper is to provide an update on the current state of SDM and patient and public involvement in Canada. Overall, we still observed the difficulty of implementing any sort of national strategy partly because of the decentralized nature of the healthcare system. Second, national professional education programs are complicated by licensure and scope of practice variations across jurisdictions. Third, there are variations in the availability of different options covered by universal healthcare. Canada has experienced some favorable development as PCC is now explicitly articulated in the policies of most provinces and territories and there are increased efforts to give patients more access to their electronic health records. However, patient and public engagement (PPE) reform in health programs and governance remains an exception, and continuing centralization of governance structures may reduce their responsiveness to patient priorities. In a 2018 survey, 47.2% of respondents reported that they were not told by their health professional that they had a choice about treatment. Nonetheless, decision aids and decision coaching are increasingly available for health-related decisions and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute's decision aid inventory has ensured continued leadership in this area. Diverse jurisdictions are starting to embed decision aids into care pathways, with some decision aids being included in clinical practice guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic may have had a negative impact on SDM by removing decision choices due to emergency public health mandates, but stimulated new research and decision aids. Canada continues to assign health research funding to SDM and PCC, and a program dedicated to patient-oriented research is central to this effort. Guides and frameworks are increasingly available for planning and evaluating PPE. Finally, various initiatives are attempting to involve and empower Indigenous peoples through PPE and SDM.

The Aging, Community and Health Research Unit Community Partnership Program (ACHRU-CPP) for older adults with diabetes and multiple chronic conditions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (≥65 years) with diabetes and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) (> 2 chronic conditions) experience reduced function and quality of life, increased health service use, and high mortality. Many community-based self-management interventions have been developed for this group, however the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This paper presents the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the effectiveness and implementation of the Aging, Community and Health Research Unit-Community Partnership Program (ACHRU-CPP) to usual care in older adults with diabetes and MCC and their caregivers. METHODS: We will conduct a cross-jurisdictional, multi-site implementation-effectiveness type II hybrid RCT. Eligibility criteria are: ≥65 years, diabetes diagnosis (Type 1 or 2) and at least one other chronic condition, and enrolled in a primary care or diabetes education program. Participants will be randomly assigned to the intervention (ACHRU-CPP) or control arm (1:1 ratio). The intervention arm consists of home/telephone visits, monthly group wellness sessions, multidisciplinary case conferences, and system navigation support. It will be delivered by registered nurses and registered dietitians/nutritionists from participating primary care or diabetes education programs and program coordinators from community-based organizations. The control arm consists of usual care provided by the primary care setting or diabetes education program. The primary outcome is the change from baseline to 6 months in mental functioning. Secondary outcomes will include, for example, the change from baseline to 6 months in physical functioning, diabetes self-management, depressive symptoms, and cost of use of healthcare services. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models will be used to analyze all outcomes, with intention-to-treat analysis using multiple imputation to address missing data. Descriptive and qualitative data from older adults, caregivers and intervention teams will be used to examine intervention implementation, site-specific adaptations, and scalability potential. DISCUSSION: An interprofessional intervention supporting self-management may be effective in improving health outcomes and client/caregiver experience and reducing service use and costs in this complex population. This pragmatic trial includes a scalability assessment which considers a range of effectiveness and implementation criteria to inform the future scale-up of the ACHRU-CPP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier NCT03664583 . Registration date: September 10, 2018.

Discussing around a virtual fire: Citizen engagement in a shared Decision-Making conference.

An online conference was organized to promote the Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making model and maximize its dissemination among stakeholders (citizens, health care providers, administrative staffs, policy makers, academics) in Canada. The goal was to enhance knowledge of and engagement in shared decision-making in a patient-oriented research, since shared decision-making has been hampered by reduced face-to-face contact, fear of infection, and overworked health professionals due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we share a summary of what has been done to engage citizens in shared decision-making and to inform the interprofessional community about active citizen engagement in an online conference.