Exploring power and power sharing in participatory health research partnerships: A scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Participatory health research (PHR) as a research paradigm, guides the research process and strives to achieve positive change in society in the interest of people's health. In this scoping review, PHR will be used as an umbrella term considering a wide range of collaborative research approaches in the health context. PHR is conducted 'with' or 'by' those it intends to benefit, as opposed to 'on' and 'for' them. Their involvement throughout the research process seeks to shift power and decision-making from where they traditionally lay within academia toward community, patient and public end-users. Research cannot be truly participatory without concurrently addressing power dynamics within the partnership and power imbalances in decision making. Therefore, power sharing can be defined as a major factor in building effective academic-community collaborations. This scoping review aims to identify, clarify, and map existing literature on power and power sharing in PHR from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Specifically, we will explore how power is conceptualised throughout the literature, and how power and power sharing are applied and addressed in real-life PHR partnerships. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewer's Manual. This scoping review will consider both empirical and non-empirical research that report on understanding power and power sharing in participatory health research partnerships. All appropriate studies will be retrieved from the following five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, SocIndex. This review will be limited to articles published in English and from January 1998 to March 2024. As the scoping review aims to capture more than peer-reviewed and published literature, it will also include grey literature such as theses and dissertations, reports, conference proceedings, and editorials. Data from the included literature will be extracted based on the data extraction tool, defined in advance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As primary data will not be collected, ethical approval is not required to conduct the scoping review. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

Buprenorphine Induction in a Rural Maryland Detention Center During COVID-19: Implementation and Preliminary Outcomes of a Novel Telemedicine Treatment Program for Incarcerated Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder.

Over 10 million individuals pass through U.S. detention centers on an annual basis, with nearly two-thirds meeting criteria for drug dependence/abuse. Despite proven efficacy, treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is underutilized in jail settings-a gap that could be addressed using telemedicine. Here we describe a new program of telemedicine-based clinical provision of new/continuing buprenorphine treatment for individuals detained in a rural jail. Implementation objectives were completed between January and August 2020, and patient encounters were conducted between August 2020 and February 2021. We established (i) telemedicine hardware/software capability; (ii) a screening process; (iii) buprenorphine administration methods; (iv) necessary medical release procedures; (v) telemedicine encounter coordination and medication prescription procedures; and (vi) a research platform. Seven incarcerated patients have been treated, two of whom were referred from community treatment. Patients were mostly male (71%), non-Hispanic White (86%), and averaged 33 years old. All patients tested positive for an opioid upon intake and began/continued buprenorphine treatment in the jail. Average time to first MOUD appointment was 9 days and patients were maintained in treatment an average 21 days. Referrals for continuing community treatment were offered to all patients prior to discharge. We report successful implementation of telemedicine MOUD in a rural detention center, with treatment engagement and initiation occurring prior to the high-risk period of discharge. The fact that this program was launched during the height of the pandemic highlights the flexibility of telemedicine-based buprenorphine treatment. Challenges and obstacles to implementation of buprenorphine treatment in a correctional system are discussed.

The Preventable Shunt Revision Rate: A Multicenter Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Preventable Shunt Revision Rate (PSRR) was recently introduced as a novel quality metric. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the PSRR across multiple centers and determine associated variables. METHODS: Nine participating centers in North America provided at least 2 years of consecutive shunt operations. Index surgery was defined as new shunt implantation, or revision of an existing shunt. For any index surgery that resulted in a reoperation within 90-days, index surgery information (demographic, clinical, and procedural) was collected and a decision made whether the failure was potentially preventable. The 90-day shunt failure rate and PSRR were calculated per institution and combined. Bivariate analyses were performed to evaluate individual effects of each independent variable on preventable shunt failure followed by a final multivariable model using a backward model selection approach. RESULTS: A total of 5092 shunt operations were performed; 861 failed within 90 days of index operation, resulting in a 16.9% combined 90-day shunt failure rate and 17.6% median failure rate (range, 8.7%-26.9%). Of the failures, 307 were potentially preventable (overall and median 90-day PSRR, 35.7% and 33.9%, respectively; range, 16.1%-55.4%). The most common etiologies of avoidable failure were infection (n = 134, 44%) and proximal catheter malposition (n = 83, 27%). Independent predictors of preventable failure (P < .05) were lack of endoscopy (odds ratio [OR] = 2.26), recent shunt infection (OR = 3.65), shunt type (OR = 2.06) and center. CONCLUSION: PSRR is variable across institutions, but can be 50% or higher. While the PSRR may never reach zero, this study demonstrates that overall about a third of early failures are potentially preventable.