Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine.

The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.

Support for health care workers and psychological distress: thinking about now and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. / Soutien aux travailleurs de la santé et détresse psychologique : réflexion sur la situation actuelle et la période suivant la pandémie de COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: This study explores the relationship between emotional support, perceived risk and mental health outcomes among health care workers, who face high rates of burnout and mental distress since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional, multicentred online survey of health care workers in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic evaluated coping strategies, confidence in infection control, impact of previous work during the 2003 SARS outbreak and emotional support. Mental health outcomes were assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, the Impact of Event Scale - Revised and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). RESULTS: Of 3852 participants, 8.2% sought professional mental health services while 77.3% received emotional support from family, 74.0% from friends and 70.3% from colleagues. Those who felt unsupported in their work had higher odds ratios of experiencing moderate and severe symptoms of anxiety (odds ratio [OR] = 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.84-2.69), PTSD (OR = 1.88; 95% CI: 1.58-2.25) and depression (OR = 1.88; 95% CI: 1.57-2.25). Nearly 40% were afraid of telling family about the risks they were exposed to at work. Those who were able to share this information demonstrated lower risk of anxiety (OR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.48-0.69), PTSD (OR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.41-0.56) and depression (OR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.47-0.65). CONCLUSION: Informal sources of support, including family, friends and colleagues, play an important role in mitigating distress and should be encouraged and utilized more by health care workers.

Automated digital counselling with social network support as a novel intervention for patients with heart failure: protocol for randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) symptoms improve through self-care, for which adherence remains low among patients despite the provision of education for these behaviours by clinical teams. Open Access Digital Community Promoting Self-Care, Peer Support and Health Literacy (ODYSSEE-vCHAT) combines automated digital counselling with social network support to improve mortality and morbidity, engagement with self-care materials, and health-related quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Use of ODYSSEE-vCHAT via Internet-connected personal computer by 162 HF patients will be compared with a control condition over 22 months. The primary outcome is a composite index score of all-cause mortality, all-cause emergency department visits, and HF-related hospitalisation at trial completion. Secondary outcomes include individual components of the composite index, engagement with self-care materials, and patient-reported measures of physical and psychosocial well-being, disease management, health literacy, and substance use. Patients are recruited from tertiary care hospitals in Toronto, Canada and randomised on a 1:1 ratio to both arms of the trial. Online assessments occur at baseline (t=0), months 4, 8 and 12, and trial completion. Ordinal logistic regression analyses and generalised linear models will evaluate primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the research ethics boards at the University Health Network (20-5960), Sunnybrook Hospital (5117), and Mount Sinai Hospital (21-022-E). Informed consent of eligible patients occurs in person or online. Findings will be shared with key stakeholders and the public. Results will allow for the preparation of a Canada-wide phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy of ODYSSEE-vCHAT in improving clinical outcomes and raising the standard of outpatient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04966104.

Surviving SARS and living through COVID-19: Healthcare worker mental health outcomes and insights for coping.

OBJECTIVE: Explore how previous work during the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak affects the psychological response of clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers (HCWs) to the current COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional, multi-centered hospital online survey of HCWs in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada. Mental health outcomes of HCWs who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic and the SARS outbreak were assessed using Impact of Events-Revised scale (IES-R), Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). RESULTS: Among 3852 participants, moderate/severe scores for symptoms of post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (50.2%), anxiety (24.6%), and depression (31.5%) were observed among HCWs. Work during the 2003 SARS outbreak was reported by 1116 respondents (29.1%), who had lower scores for symptoms of PTSD (P = .002), anxiety (P < .001), and depression (P < .001) compared to those who had not worked during the SARS outbreak. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed non-clinical HCWs during this pandemic were at higher risk of anxiety (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.19-2.15, P = .01) and depressive symptoms (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.34-3.07, P < .001). HCWs using sedatives (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.61-4.03, P < .001), those who cared for only 2-5 patients with COVID-19 (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.06-2.38, P = .01), and those who had been in isolation for COVID-19 (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.96-1.93, P = .05), were at higher risk of moderate/severe symptoms of PTSD. In addition, deterioration in sleep was associated with symptoms of PTSD (OR, 4.68, 95% CI, 3.74-6.30, P < .001), anxiety (OR, 3.09, 95% CI, 2.11-4.53, P < .001), and depression (OR 5.07, 95% CI, 3.48-7.39, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Psychological distress was observed in both clinical and non-clinical HCWs, with no impact from previous SARS work experience. As the pandemic continues, increasing psychological and team support may decrease the mental health impacts.

Understanding factors critical to the implementation of ehealth in chronic disease management: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Canadians are living longer, many with multiple chronic conditions. This population of older, frail Canadians continues to grow in size as do concurrent demands for community-based, outpatient and ambulatory models of care. Ideally, a multifaceted, proactive, planned and integrated care model includes ehealth. Although several factors are known to facilitate the implementation of ehealth in chronic disease management (CDM), for example, adequate support, usability, alignment of programme objectives, there is a growing body of inconclusive evidence on what is critical for implementation. We aim to achieve a fulsome understanding of factors critical to implementation by conducting a realist review-an approach suitable for understanding complex interventions. Our proposed review will identify factors critical to the implementation of ehealth in CDM (heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease and/or diabetes (type 1 or 2)) without limitations to care setting, language, publication year or geography. Findings will be presented in configurations of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes (CMOs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A search strategy will be iteratively developed based on the concepts of 'implementation' and 'adoption' of 'ehealth' interventions used within 'CDM' to identify the peer-reviewed and grey literature published before 31 March 2021 from five databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL and PsychInfo) on ehealth interventions actively involving a healthcare provider for CDM among adults. Data extraction and synthesis will be guided by Realist and Meta-review Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) guidelines informing core concepts of CMOs, and a study output will include a middle-range-theory describing the implementation of ehealth in CDM. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Findings will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. A multistakeholder (patients, caregivers, healthcare providers and practitioners, decision-makers and policy-makers) perspective will be used in our dissemination approach. No formal ethics approval is required for this review. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020208275.

Shared Decision Making for Surgical Care in the Era of COVID-19.

The global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has upended surgical practice. In an effort to preserve resources, mitigate risk, and maintain health system capacity, nonurgent surgeries have been deferred in many jurisdictions, with urgent procedures facing increasing wait times and unpredictability given potential future surges. Shared decision making, a process that integrates patient values and preferences with the scientific expertise of clinicians, may be of particular benefit during these unprecedented times. Aligning patient choices with their values, reducing unnecessary health care use, and promoting consistency between providers are now more critical than ever before. We review important aspects of shared decision making and provide guidance for its perioperative application during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.