Audit and feedback to change diagnostic image ordering practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of diagnostic imaging (DI) tests may be unnecessary, leading to increased healthcare costs and the possibility of patient harm. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the effect of audit and feedback (AF) interventions directed at healthcare providers on reducing image ordering. The secondary objective was to examine the effect of AF on the appropriateness of DI ordering. METHODS: Studies were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov registry on December 22nd, 2022. Studies were included if they were randomized control trials (RCTs), targeted healthcare professionals, and studied AF as the sole intervention or as the core component of a multi-faceted intervention. Risk of bias for each study was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses were completed using RevMan software and results were displayed in forest plots. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs enrolling 4311 clinicians or practices were included. AF interventions resulted in 1.5 fewer image test orders per 1000 patients seen than control interventions (95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference -2.6 to -0.4, p-value = 0.009). The effect of AF on appropriateness was not statistically significant, with a 3.2% (95% CI -1.5 to 7.7%, p-value = 0.18) greater likelihood of test orders being considered appropriate with AF vs control interventions. The strength of evidence was rated as moderate for the primary objective but was very low for the appropriateness outcome because of risk of bias, inconsistency in findings, indirectness, and imprecision. CONCLUSION: AF interventions are associated with a modest reduction in total DI ordering with moderate certainty, suggesting some benefit of AF. Individual studies document effects of AF on image order appropriateness ranging from a non-significant trend toward worsening to a highly significant improvement, but the weighted average effect size from the meta-analysis is not statistically significant with very low certainty.

Harmonization of clinical practice guidelines for primary prevention and screening: actionable recommendations and resources for primary care.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program. METHODS: A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40-69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40-69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person's overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.

Describing primary care patterns before and during the COVID-19 pandemic across Canada: a quasi-experimental pre-post design cohort study using national practice-based research network data.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to analyse how the pandemic affected primary care access and comprehensiveness in chronic disease management by comparing primary care patterns before and during the early COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: We conducted a quasi-experimental pre-post design cohort study and reported indicators for the 21 months before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING: We used electronic medical record data from primary care clinics enrolled in the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021. POPULATION: The study population included patients (n=919 928) aged 18 years or older with at least one primary care contact from 12 March 2018 to 12 March 2020, in Canada. OUTCOME MEASURES: The study indicators included three indicators measuring access to primary care (encounters, blood pressure measurements and lab tests) and three for comprehensiveness (diagnoses, non-COVID-19 vaccines administered and referrals). RESULTS: 67.3% of the cohort was aged ≥40 years, 56.4% were female and 53.5% were from Ontario, Canada. Fewer patients received an encounter during the pandemic (91.5% to 81.5%), while the median (IQR) number of encounters remained the same (5 (2-1)) for those with access. Fewer patients received a blood pressure measurement (47.9% to 31.8%), and patients received fewer measurements during the pandemic (2 (1-4) to 1 (0-2)). CONCLUSIONS: Encounters with primary care remained consistent during the pandemic, but in-person care, such as lab tests and blood pressure measurements, decreased. In-person care indicators followed temporally to national COVID-19 case counts during the pandemic.

Chronic disease prevention and screening outcomes for patients with and without financial difficulty: a secondary analysis of the BETTER WISE cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment. INTERVENTION: 1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: 55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p<0.001) which was similar in the control and intervention groups. The response rate to this question was only 51% at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21333761.

Fostering collective leadership to improve integrated primary care: lessons learned from the PriCARE program.

Case management (CM) is an intervention for improving integrated care for patients with complex care needs. The implementation of this complex intervention often raises opportunities for change and collective leadership has the potential to optimize the implementation. However, the application of collective leadership in real-world is not often described in the literature. This commentary highlights challenges faced during the implantation of a CM intervention in primary care for people with complex care needs, including stakeholders' buy-in and providers' willingness to change their practice, selection of the best person for the case manager position and staff turnover. Based on lessons learned from PriCARE research program, this paper encourages researchers to adopt collective leadership strategies for the implementation of complex interventions, including promoting a collaborative approach, fostering stakeholders' engagement in a trusting and fair environment, providing a high level of communication, and enhancing collective leadership attitudes and skills. The learnings from the PriCARE program may help guide researchers for implementing complex healthcare interventions.

What are effective vaccine distribution approaches for equity-deserving and high-risk populations during COVID-19? Exploring best practices and recommendations in Canada: protocol for a mixed-methods multiple case codesign study.

INTRODUCTION: The WHO has stated that vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to overcoming COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy among underserved and at-risk communities is an ongoing challenge in Canada. Public confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness and the principles of equity need to be considered in vaccine distribution. In Canada, governments of each province or territory manage their own healthcare system, providing an opportunity to compare and contrast distribution strategies. The overarching objective of this study is to identify effective vaccine distribution approaches and advance knowledge on how to design and implement various strategies to meet the different needs of underserved communities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Multiple case studies in seven Canadian provinces will be conducted using a mixed-methods design. The study will be informed by Experience-Based CoDesign techniques and theoretically guided by the Socio-Ecological Model and the Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix frameworks. Phase 1 will involve a policy document review to systematically explore the vaccine distribution strategy over time in each jurisdiction. This will inform the second phase, which will involve (2a) semistructured, in-depth interviews with policymakers, public health officials, researchers, providers, groups representing patients, researchers and stakeholders and (2b) an analysis of population-based administrative health data of vaccine administration. Integration of qualitative and quantitative data will inform the identification of effective vaccine distribution approaches for various populations. Informed by this evidence, phase 3 of the study will involve conducting focus groups with multiple stakeholders to codesign recommendations for the design and implementation of effective vaccine delivery strategies for equity-deserving and at-risk populations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the University of Toronto's Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (#42643), University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (#H22-01750-A002), Research Ethics Board of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (#48272), Newfoundland and Labrador Health Research Ethics Board (#2022.126), Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board, University of Calgary (REB22-0207), and University of Manitoba Health Research Board (H2022-239). The outcome of this study will be to produce a series of recommendations for implementing future vaccine distribution approaches from the perspective of various stakeholders, including equity-deserving and at-risk populations.

Screening for poverty and related social determinants to improve knowledge of and links to resources (SPARK): development and cognitive testing of a tool for primary care.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations are increasingly exploring ways to address the social determinants of health. Accurate data on social determinants is essential to identify opportunities for action to improve health outcomes, to identify patterns of inequity, and to help evaluate the impact of interventions. The objective of this study was to refine a standardized tool for the collection of social determinants data through cognitive testing. METHODS: An initial set of questions on social determinants for use in healthcare settings was developed by a collaboration of hospitals and a local public health organization in Toronto, Canada during 2011-2012. Subsequent research on how patients interpreted the questions, and how they performed in primary care and other settings led to revisions. We administered these questions and conducted in-depth cognitive interviews with all the participants, who were from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Cognitive interviewing was used, with participants invited to verbalize thoughts and feelings as they read the questions. Interview notes were grouped thematically, and high frequency themes were addressed. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-five individuals responded to the study advertisements and 195 ultimately participated in the study. Although all interviews were conducted in English, participants were diverse. For many, the value of this information being collected in typical healthcare settings was unclear, and hence, we included descriptors for each question. In general, the questions were understood, but participants highlighted a number of ways the questions could be changed to be even clearer and more inclusive. For example, more response options were added to the question of sexual orientation and the "making ends meet" question was completely reworded in light of challenges to understand the informal phrasing cited by English as a Second Language (ESL) users of the tool. CONCLUSION: In this work we have refined an initial set of 16 sociodemographic and social needs questions into a simple yet comprehensive 18-question tool. The changes were largely related to wording, rather than content. These questions require validation against accepted, standardized tools. Further work is required to enable community data governance, and to ensure implementation of the tool as well as the use of its data is successful in a range of organizations.

Stakeholders' perceptions of a nurse-led telehealth case management intervention in primary care for patients with complex care needs: a qualitative descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth case management (TCM) was introduced in primary care for patients requiring care by distance. While not all healthcare needs can be addressed via telehealth, the use of information and communication technology to support healthcare delivery has the potential to contribute to the management of patients with chronic conditions and associated complex care needs. However, few qualitative studies have documented stakeholders' perceptions of TCM. This study aimed to describe patients', primary care providers' and clinic managers' perceptions of the use of a nurse-led TCM intervention for primary care patients with complex care needs. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: Three primary care clinics in three Canadian provinces. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with complex care needs (n=30), primary care providers (n=11) and clinic managers (n=2) participated in qualitative individual interviews and focus groups. INTERVENTION: TCM intervention was delivered by nurse case managers over a 6-month period. RESULTS: Participants' perceptions of the TCM intervention were summarised in three themes: (1) improved patient access, comfort and sense of reassurance; (2) trusting relationships and skilled nurse case managers; (3) activities more suitable for TCM. TCM was a generally accepted mode of primary care delivery, had many benefits for patients and providers and worked well for most activities that do not require physical assessment or treatment. Participants found TCM to be useful and a viable alternative to in-person care. CONCLUSIONS: TCM improves access to care and is successful when a relationship of trust between the nurse case manager and patient can develop over time. Healthcare policymakers and primary care providers should consider the benefits of TCM and promote this mode of delivery as a complement to in-person care for patients with complex care needs.

Results from the BETTER WISE trial: a pragmatic cluster two arm parallel randomized controlled trial for primary prevention and screening in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and chronic diseases are a major cost to the healthcare system and multidisciplinary models with access to prevention and screening resources have demonstrated improvements in chronic disease management and prevention. Research demonstrated that a trained Prevention Practitioner (PP) in multidisciplinary team settings can improve achievement of patient level prevention and screening actions seven months after the intervention. METHODS: We tested the effectiveness of the PP intervention in a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40-65 were randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. The intervention consisted of a patient visit with a PP. The PP received training in prevention and screening and use of the BETTER WISE tool kit. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed using a composite outcome of the proportion of the eligible prevention and screening actions achieved between intervention and control groups at 12-months. RESULTS: Fifty-nine physicians were recruited in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Of the 1,005 patients enrolled, 733 (72.9%) completed the 12-month analysis. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred during the study time frame at which time nonessential prevention and screening services were not available and in-person visits with the PP were not allowed. Many patients and sites did not receive the intervention as planned. The mean composite score was not significantly higher in patients receiving the PP intervention as compared to the control group. To understand the impact of COVID on the project, we also considered a subset of patients who had received the intervention and who attended the 12-month follow-up visit before COVID-19. This assessment demonstrated the effectiveness of the BETTER visits, similar to the findings in previous BETTER studies. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe an improvement in cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) outcomes at 12 months after a BETTER WISE prevention visit: due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was not implemented as planned. Though benefits were described in those who received the intervention before COVID-19, the sample size was too small to make conclusions. This study may be a harbinger of a substantial decrease and delay in CCDPS activities under COVID restrictions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761. Registered on 19/12/2016. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

Primary care nursing competencies in Canadian undergraduate nursing programs: A national cross-sectional survey.

AIM: To assess the extent to which Canadian undergraduate baccalaureate nursing programs have incorporated Canadian competencies for Registered Nurses in primary care into their curricula. BACKGROUND: Canadian competencies for Registered Nurses in primary care have several benefits, including their ability to inform primary care education in undergraduate nursing programs and to assist in building a robust primary care nursing workforce. DESIGN: We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of undergraduate baccalaureate nursing programs (n = 74). METHODS: The survey was conducted between April-May 2022. We used a modified version of the "Community Health Nurses' Continuing Education Needs Questionnaire". Respondents indicated their level of agreement on a 6-point Likert scale with 47 statements about the integration of the competencies in their program (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). RESULTS: The response rate was 51.4%. The overall mean across the six competency domains was 4.73 (SD 0.30). The mean scores of each domain ranged from 4.23 (SD 1.27) for Quality Assurance, Evaluation and Research to 5.17 (SD 0.95) for Communication. CONCLUSIONS: There are gaps in how these competencies are included in undergraduate education programs and opportunities to strengthen education for this growing workforce in Canada.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Primary Health Care for Chronic Conditions in Canada: Protocol for a Retrospective Pre-Post Study Using National Practice-Based Research Network Data.

BACKGROUND: Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been concerns that interruptions to the health care system may have led to changes in primary care, especially for care of chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart failure. Such changes may have longer term implications for population health. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on indicators of primary care access, comprehensiveness, and appropriateness among adult patients, as well as on specific indictors of chronic conditions. Additionally, this study aims to determine whether any identified changes were associated with patient sociodemographic characteristics and multimorbidity. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-arm, pre-post study using Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) data. CPCSSN is a research network supported by a primary care electronic medical record database, comprising over 1500 physicians and nearly 2 million patients. We are examining changes in care (eg, frequency of contacts, laboratory tests and investigations, referrals, medications prescribed, etc) among adults. We will also examine indicators specific to evidence-based recommendations for care in patients with diabetes and those with heart failure. We will compare rates of outcomes during key periods of the pandemic between March 13, 2020, and December 31, 2022, with equal time periods before the pandemic. Differences will be examined among specific subgroups of adults, including by decade of age, number of comorbidities, and socioeconomic status. Regression models appropriate to outcome distributions will be used to estimate changes, adjusting for potential confounders. This analysis is part of a mixed-methods study with a qualitative component investigating how patients with diabetes with or without concurrent heart failure perceived the impact of the pandemic on access to primary care and health care-related decisions. This study was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (14782-C). RESULTS: The start date of this study was October 5, 2022, and the prospective end date is January 31, 2024. As of May 2023, the study cohort (n=875,934) is defined, data cleaning is complete, and exploratory analyses have begun. Extended analyses using 2022 data are planned once the new data becomes available. We will disseminate results through peer-reviewed publications and academic conference, as well as creating evidence briefs, infographics, and a video for policy maker and patient audiences. CONCLUSIONS: This study will investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in changes in the provision of primary care in Canada and whether these potential changes have led to gaps in care. This study will also identify patient-level characteristics associated with changes in care patterns across the COVID-19 pandemic. Indicators specific to chronic conditions, namely diabetes and heart failure, will also be explored to determine whether there were changes in care of these conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05813652; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05813652. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/49131.

Opportunities to improve quality of care for cancer survivors in primary care: findings from the BETTER WISE study.

PURPOSE: The BETTER WISE (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care for Wellness of Cancer Survivors and Patients) intervention is an evidence-based approach to prevention and screening for cancers and chronic diseases in primary care that also includes comprehensive follow-up for breast, prostate and colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the process of harmonizing cancer survivorship guidelines to create a BETTER WISE cancer surveillance algorithm and describe both the quantitative and qualitative findings for BETTER WISE participants who were breast, prostate or colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the results in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We reviewed high-quality survivorship guidelines to create a cancer surveillance algorithm. We conducted a cluster randomized trial in three Canadian provinces with two composite index outcome measured 12 months after baseline, and also collected qualitative feedback on the intervention. RESULTS: There were 80 cancer survivors for whom we had baseline and follow-up data. Differences between the composite indices in the two study arms were not statistically significant, although a post hoc analysis suggested the COVID-19 pandemic was a key factor in these results. Qualitative finding suggested that participants and stakeholders generally viewed BETTER WISE positively and emphasized the effects of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: BETTER WISE shows promise for providing an evidence-based, patient-centred, comprehensive approach to prevention, screening and cancer surveillance for cancer survivors in the primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761. Registered on December 19, 2016, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

Patient engagement in health implementation research: A logic model.

INTRODUCTION: Growing evidence supports patient engagement (PE) in health implementation research to improve the quality, relevance and uptake of research. However, more guidance is needed to plan and operationalize PE before and throughout the research process. The aim of the study was to develop a logic model illustrating the causal links between context, resources, activities, outcomes and impact of PE in an implementation research programme. METHODS: The Patient Engagement in Health Implementation Research Logic Model (hereafter the Logic Model) was developed using a descriptive qualitative design with a participatory approach, in the context of the PriCARE programme. This programme aims to implement and evaluate case management for individuals who frequently use healthcare services in primary care clinics across five Canadian provinces. Participant observation of team meetings was performed by all team members involved in the programme and in-depth interviews were conducted by two external research assistants with team members (n = 22). A deductive thematic analysis using components of logic models as coding categories was conducted. Data were pooled in the first version of the Logic Model, which was refined in research team meetings with patient partners. The final version was validated by all team members. RESULTS: The Logic Model highlights the importance of integrating PE into the project before its commencement, with appropriate support in terms of funding and time allocation. The governance structure and leadership of both principal investigators and patient partners have significant effects on PE activities and outcomes. As an empirical and standardized illustration that facilitates a shared understanding, the Logic Model provides guidance for maximizing the impact of patient partnership in various contexts for research, patients, providers and health care. CONCLUSION: The Logic Model will help academic researchers, decision makers and patient partners plan, operationalize, and assess PE in implementation research for optimal outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme contributed to developing the research objectives and designing, developing and validating data collection tools, producing data, developing and validating the Logic Model and reviewing the manuscript.

Strategies used throughout the scaling-up process of eConsult - Multiple case study of four Canadian Provinces.

BACKGROUND: eConsult is a model of asynchronous communication connecting primary care providers to specialists to discuss patient care. This study aims to analyze the scaling-up process and identify strategies used to support scaling-up efforts in four provinces in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a multiple case study with four cases (ON, QC, MB, NL). Data collection methods included document review (n = 93), meeting observations (n = 65) and semi-structured interviews (n = 40). Each case was analyzed based on Milat's framework. RESULTS: The first scaling-up phase was marked by the rigorous evaluation of eConsult pilot projects and the publication of over 90 scientific papers. In the second phase, provinces implemented provincial multi-stakeholder committees, institutionalized the evaluation, and produced documents detailing the scaling-up plan. During the third phase, efforts were made to lead proofs of concept, obtain the endorsement of national and provincial organizations, and mobilize alternate sources of funding. The last phase was mainly observed in Ontario, where the creation of a provincial governance structure and strategies were put in place to monitor the service and manage changes. CONCLUSIONS: Various strategies need to be used throughout the scaling-up process. The process remains challenging and lengthy because health systems lack clear processes to support innovation scaling-up.

Implementation analysis of a case management intervention for people with complex care needs in primary care: a multiple case study across Canada.

BACKGROUND: Case management is one of the most frequently performed interventions to mitigate the negative effects of high healthcare use on patients, primary care providers and the healthcare system. Reviews have addressed factors influencing case management interventions (CMI) implementation and reported common themes related to the case manager role and activities, collaboration with other primary care providers, CMI training and relationships with the patients. However, the heterogeneity of the settings in which CMI have been implemented may impair the transferability of the findings. Moreover, the underlying factors influencing the first steps of CMI implementation need to be further assessed. This study aimed to evaluate facilitators and barriers of the first implementation steps of a CMI by primary care nurses for people with complex care needs who frequently use healthcare services. METHODS: A qualitative multiple case study was conducted including six primary care clinics across four provinces in Canada. In-depth interviews and focus groups with nurse case managers, health services managers, and other primary care providers were conducted. Field notes also formed part of the data. A mixed thematic analysis, deductive and inductive, was carried out. RESULTS: Leadership of the primary care providers and managers facilitated the first steps of the of CMI implementation, as did the experience and skills of the nurse case managers and capacity development within the teams. The time required to establish CMI was a barrier at the beginning of the CMI implementation. Most nurse case managers expressed apprehension about developing an "individualized services plan" with multiple health professionals and the patient. Clinic team meetings and a nurse case managers community of practice created opportunities to address primary care providers' concerns. Participants generally perceived the CMI as a comprehensive, adaptable, and organized approach to care, providing more resources and support for patients and better coordination in primary care. CONCLUSION: Results of this study will be useful for decision makers, care providers, patients and researchers who are considering the implementation of CMI in primary care. Providing knowledge about first steps of CMI implementation will also help inform policies and best practices.

The Effects of Cancer Beliefs and Sociodemographic Factors on Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviours in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Objectives: This study investigated the beliefs about cancer treatment, outcomes, and screening among adults aged 50−74 in Newfoundland and Labrador and whether these beliefs or sociodemographic factors were associated with differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening behaviours. Methods: This analysis uses data collected from an online survey of adults on cancer awareness and prevention in NL. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in distributions of beliefs based on CRC screening behaviour. Logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic factors independently associated with CRC screening behaviour. Results: A total of 724 participants were included in the analysis, 57.4% of which had ever had CRC screening. Most held positive beliefs about cancer outcomes and treatment. Only beliefs about screening affected CRC screening behaviour. People who never had CRC screening were more likely to believe their worries about what might be found would prevent them from screening (χ2 = 9.380, p = 0.009); screening is only necessary if they have symptoms (χ2 = 15.680, p < 0.001); and screening has a high risk of leading to unnecessary surgery (χ2 = 6.824, p = 0.032). Regression identified that men had higher likelihood of having had CRC screening than women in our study (OR = 1.689, 95%CI = 1.135−2.515), as did all age groups compared to ages 50−54. No associations were found with the other sociodemographic factors studied. Conclusion: Beliefs about cancer screening appear to play some role in CRC screening behaviour, but the absolute effect was small. The relatively few sociodemographic associations with screening behaviour suggest that NL's CRC screening program is equitably reaching people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

Physician-reported barriers to using evidence-based antibiotic prescription guidelines in primary care: protocol for a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

INTRODUCTION: Overprescription of antibiotics poses a significant threat to healthcare globally as it contributes to the issue of antibiotic resistance. While antibiotics should be predominately prescribed for bacterial infections, they are often inappropriately given for uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) and related conditions, such as the common cold. This study will involve a qualitative systematic review of physician-reported barriers to using evidence-based antibiotic prescription guidelines in primary care settings and synthesise the findings using a theoretical basis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of qualitative studies that assess physicians' reported barriers to following evidence-based antibiotic prescription guidelines in primary care settings for URTIs. We plan to search the following databases with no date or language restrictions: MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Library and PsycInfo. Qualitative studies that explore the barriers and enablers to following antibiotic prescription guidelines for URTIs for primary care physicians will be included. We will analyse our findings using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which is a theoretically designed resource based on numerous behaviour change theories grouped into 14 domains. Using the TDF approach, we will be able to identify the determinants of our behaviour of interest (ie, following antibiotic prescription guidelines for URTIs) and categorise them into the 14 TDF domains. This will provide the necessary information to develop future evidence-based interventions that will target the identified issues and apply the most effective behaviour change techniques to affect change. This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.

Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the effectiveness of PEMs on process, clinical, and health system outcomes for LBP and sciatica. METHODS: Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, trial registries and grey literature through OpenGrey. We included randomized controlled trials of PEMs for LBP. Data extraction, risk of bias, and quality of evidence gradings were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and effect sizes pooled using random-effects models. Analyses of acute/subacute LBP were performed separately from chronic LBP at immediate, short, medium, and long-term (6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively). RESULTS: 27 studies were identified. Compared to usual care for chronic LBP, we found moderate to low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain intensity at immediate (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.29, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.44 [95% CI: -0.88, 0.00]), medium (SMD = -0.53 [95% CI: -1.01, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.01]), medium-term disability (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.03]), quality of life at short (SMD = -0.17 [95% CI: -0.30, -0.04]) and medium-term (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.04]) and very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved global improvement ratings at immediate (SMD = -0.40 [95% CI: -0.58, -0.21]), short (SMD = -0.42 [95% CI: -0.60, -0.24]), medium (SMD = -0.46 [95% CI: -0.65, -0.28]), and long-term (SMD = -0.43 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.24]). We found very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain self-efficacy at immediate (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.25 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]), medium (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.50, -0.13]), and reduced medium-term fear-avoidance beliefs (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]) and long-term stress (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]). Compared to usual care for acute LBP, we found high to moderate-quality evidence that PEMs improved short-term pain intensity (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.06]) and immediate-term quality of life (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.07]). We found low to very low-quality evidence that PEMs increased knowledge at immediate (SMD = -0.51 [95% CI: -0.72, -0.31]), short (SMD = -0.48 [95% CI: -0.90, -0.05]), and long-term (RR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.10, 1.49]) and pain self-efficacy at short (SMD = -0.78 [95% CI: -0.98, -0.58]) and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.52, -0.12]). We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that PEMs reduced short-term days off work (SMD = -0.35 [95% CI: -0.63, -0.08]), long-term imaging referrals (RR = 0.60 [95% CI: 0.41, 0.89]), and long-term physician visits (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.26, -0.05]). Compared to other interventions (e.g., yoga, Pilates), PEMs had no effect or were less effective for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high degree of variability across outcomes and time points, but providing PEMs appears favorable to usual care as we observed many small, positive patient and system impacts for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. PEMs were generally less effective than other interventions; however, no cost effectiveness analyses were performed to weigh the relative benefits of these interventions to the likely less costly PEMs.

Barriers to following imaging guidelines for the treatment and management of patients with low-back pain in primary care: a qualitative assessment guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability and is among the top five reasons that patients visit their family doctors. Over-imaging for non-specific low back pain remains a problem in primary care. To inform a larger study to develop and evaluate a theory-based intervention to reduce inappropriate imaging, we completed an assessment of the barriers and facilitators to reducing unnecessary imaging for NSLBP among family doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). METHODS: This was an exploratory, qualitative study describing family doctors' experiences and practices related to diagnostic imaging for non-specific LBP in NL, guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were collected using in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed deductively (assigning text to one or more domains) and inductively (generating themes at each of the domains) before the results were examined to determine which domains should be targeted to reduce imaging. RESULTS: Nine family doctors (four males; five females) working in community (n = 4) and academic (n = 5) clinics in both rural (n = 6) and urban (n = 3) settings participated in this study. We found five barriers to reducing imaging for patients with NSLBP: 1) negative consequences, 2) patient demand 3) health system organization, 4) time, and 5) access to resources. These were related to the following domains: 1) beliefs about consequences, 2) beliefs about capabilities, 3) emotion, 4) reinforcement, 5) environmental context and resources, 6) social influences, and 7) behavioural regulation. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians a) fear that if they do not image they may miss something serious, b) face significant patient demand for imaging, c) are working in a system that encourages unnecessary imaging, d) don't have enough time to counsel patients about why they don't need imaging, and e) lack access to appropriate practitioners, community programs, and treatment modalities to prescribe to their patients. These barriers were related to seven TDF domains. Successfully reducing inappropriate imaging requires a comprehensive intervention that addresses these barriers using established behaviour change techniques. These techniques should be matched directly to relevant TDF domains. The results of our study represent the important first step of this process - identifying the contextual barriers and the domains to which they are related.

Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research. AIM: This study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research. METHODS: Based on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi-structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners. RESULTS: Patient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two-way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations. CONCLUSION: Both patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of data analysis tools (code book); (6) analysis of qualitative data; and (7) drafting of the manuscript and contributing to other knowledge translation activities, such as conference presentations and the creation of a short animated video.