Search

Introduction: The COVID‐19 pandemic has had an impact on all aspects of the health system. Little is known about how the activities and experiences of patient, family and caregiver partners, as a large group across a variety of settings within the health system, changed due to the substantial health system shifts catalysed by the pandemic. This paper reports on the results of a survey that included questions about this topic. Methods: Canadian patient, family and caregiver partners were invited to participate in an online anonymous survey in the Fall of 2020. A virtual snowballing approach to recruitment was used. Survey invitations were shared on social media and emailed to health system and governmental organizations with the request that they share the survey with patient partners. This paper focuses on responses to two questions related to patient partner experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Results: The COVID‐19 questions were completed by 533 respondents. Over three quarters of respondents (77.9%, n = 415) indicated their patient engagement activities had been impacted by COVID‐19. The majority (62.5%, n = 230) experienced at least a temporary or partial reduction in their patient engagement activities. Some respondents did see increases in their patient engagement activities (11.4%, n = 42). Many respondents provided insights into their experience with virtual platforms for engagement (n = 194), most expressed negative or mixed experiences with this shift. Conclusions: This study provides a snapshot of Canadian patient, family and caregiver partners' perspectives on the impact of COVID‐19 on their engagement activities. Understanding how engagement unfolded during a crisis is critical for our future planning if patient engagement is to be fully integrated into the health system. Identifying how patient partners were engaged and not engaged during this time period, as well as the benefits and challenges of virtual engagement opportunities, offers instructive lessons for sustaining patient engagement, including the supports needed to engage with a more diverse set of patient, family and caregiver partners. Patient Contribution: Patient partners were important members of the Canadian Patient Partner Study research team. They were engaged from the outset, participating in all stages of the research project. Additional patient partners were engaged to develop and pilot test the survey, and all survey respondents were patient, family or caregiver partners. The manuscript is coauthored by two patient partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Big data research requires public support. It has been argued that this can be achieved by public involvement and engagement to ensure that public views are at the centre of research projects. Researchers should aim to include diverse communities, including seldom‐heard voices, to ensure that a range of voices are heard and that research is meaningful to them. Objective: We explored how researchers involve and engage seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Methods: This is a qualitative study. Researchers who had experience of involving or engaging seldom‐heard communities in big data research were recruited. They were based in England (n = 5), Scotland (n = 4), Belgium (n = 2) and Canada (n = 1). Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted on Zoom. All interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed, and we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyse participants' experiences. Results: The analysis highlighted the complexity of involving and engaging seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Four themes were developed to represent participants' experiences: (1) abstraction and complexity of big data, (2) one size does not fit all, (3) working in partnership and (4) empowering the public contribution. Conclusion: The study offers researchers a better understanding of how to involve and engage seldom‐heard communities in a meaningful way around big data research. There is no one right approach, with involvement and engagement activities required to be project‐specific and dependent on the public contributors, researchers' needs, resources and time available. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public contributors are authors of the paper and they were involved in the study design, analysis and writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Social prescribing offers a formal pathway of connecting patients in the health system with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and well‐being. Since its launch in March 2022, the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing has acted as a collective impact network to identify, connect and build upon established social prescribing initiatives using a co‐design methodology. The institute received input from a participant advisory council, co‐design partners and several communities of interest groups. This study aimed to describe the perceptions of the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing's role in advancing social prescribing using a co‐design approach and the barriers and facilitators to implementing social prescribing in Canada. Methods: We used a qualitative descriptive study design, document analysis, participant observation and semi‐structured individual interviews (n = 7) with members of the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing co‐design group and the institute's leadership. We also analysed documents, field notes and transcripts using codebook thematic analysis. Results: Four themes were developed representing the facilitators of implementing the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing to support social prescribing: Creating relational mechanisms (i.e., partnerships and connections), Bringing awareness to social prescribing and contributing to the evidence (i.e., values and beliefs), Addressing systemic conditions (i.e., having a common language for social prescribing and organizing the community health sector) and Enabling funding and policy to drive social prescribing initiatives (i.e., shifting evidence into policy and securing sustainable funding). Conclusion: Participants' reflections on the co‐design process demonstrated that the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing development provided networking opportunities and shared resources relevant to social prescribing. Co‐design efforts also fostered relational and informational support, which laid the necessary groundwork in Canada to overcome the complex interplay between the macro‐ and micro‐level settings in which social prescribing is practiced. Patient or Public Contribution: The interviews and observations involved participants with lived experience of delivering, receiving or advocating for social prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Best practice guidelines for the recovery and return to work (RTW) of people with mental disorders recommend access to the services of an interdisciplinary team combining pharmacological, psychological and work rehabilitation interventions. In the Canadian context, primary healthcare services are responsible for providing these services for people with common mental disorders, such as depressive or anxiety disorders. However, not everyone has easy access to these recommended primary healthcare services, and previous studies suggest that multiple personal, practice‐related and organizational factors can influence the patient's journey. Moreover, previous studies documented that family physicians often work in silos and lack the knowledge and time needed to effectively manage by themselves patients' occupational health. Thus, the care and service trajectories of these patients are often suboptimal and can have important consequences on the person's recovery and RTW. Objective and Population Studied: Our study aimed to gain a better understanding of the patient journeys and the factors influencing their access to and experience with primary healthcare services while they were on sick leave due to a common mental disorder. Methods: A descriptive qualitative research design was used to understand and describe these factors. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze the verbatim. Results: Five themes describe the main factors that influenced the patient's journey of the 14 participants of this study: (1) the fragmented interventions provided by family physicians; (2) patients' autonomy in managing their own care; (3) the attitude and case management provided by the insurer, (4) the employer's openness and understanding and (5) the match between the person's needs and their access to psychosocial and rehabilitation services. Conclusions: Our findings highlight important gaps in the collaborative practices surrounding the management of mental health‐related sick leave, the coordination of primary healthcare services and the access to work rehabilitation services. Occupational therapists and other professionals can support family physicians in managing sick leaves, strengthen interprofessional and intersectoral collaboration and ensure that patients receive needed services in a timelier manner no matter their insurance coverage or financial needs. Patients of Public Contribution: This study aimed at looking into the perspective of people who have lived or are currently experiencing a sick leave related to a mental health disorder to highlight the factors which they feel hindered their recovery and RTW. Additionally, two patient partners were involved in this study and are now engaged in the dissemination of the research results and the pursuit of our team research programme to improve services delivered to this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Indiscriminate use of laboratory blood testing in hospitals contributes to patient discomfort and healthcare waste. Patient engagement in low‐value healthcare can help reduce overuse. Understanding patient experience is necessary to identify opportunities to improve patient engagement with in‐hospital laboratory testing. Objectives: To understand patient experience with the process of in‐hospital laboratory blood testing. Methods: We used a qualitative study design via semistructured interviews conducted online or over the phone. Participants were adult patients or family members/caregivers (≥18 years of age) with a recent (within 12 months of interview) experience of hospitalization in Alberta or British Columbia, Canada. We identified participants through convenience sampling and conducted interviews between May 2021 and June 2022. We analysed transcripts using thematic content analysis. Recruitment was continued until code saturation was reached. Results: We interviewed 16 participants (13 patients, 1 family member and 2 caregivers). We identified four themes from patients' experiences of in‐hospital laboratory blood testing: (i) patients need information from healthcare teams about expected blood testing processes, (ii) blood draw processes should consider patient comfort and preferences, (iii) patients want information from their healthcare teams about the rationale and frequency of blood testing and (iv) patients need information on how their testing results affect their medical care. Conclusion: Current laboratory testing processes in hospitals do not facilitate shared decision‐making and patient engagement. Patient engagement with laboratory testing in hospitals requires an empathetic healthcare team that provides clear communication regarding testing procedures, rationale and results, while considering patient preferences and offering opportunities for involvement. Patient or Public Contribution: We interviewed 16 patients and/or family members/caregivers regarding their in‐hospital laboratory blood testing experiences. Our findings show correlations between patient needs and patient recommendations to make testing processes more patient‐centred. To bring a lived‐experience lens to this study, we formed a Patient Advisory Council with 9–11 patient research partners. Our patient research partners informed the research design, co‐developed participant recruitment strategies, co‐conducted data collection and informed the data analysis. Some of our patient research partners are co‐authors of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Caring for children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN) is a significant undertaking for families. While respite care is intended to address this burden, demand continues to exceed supply. Exploring the perspectives of respite service providers (SPs) and stakeholders (SKs) provides unique insight into families' needs and respite care systems. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with 41 respite care SPs and SKs across four Canadian provinces to ascertain perspectives on current and ideal respite care for families of CYSHCN. The analysis included delineating units of meaning from the data, clustering units of meaning to form thematic statements and extracting themes. The second‐level analysis involved applying themes and subthemes to cross‐functional process maps. Findings: Participants noted the critical, but sometimes absent role of Community Service Workers, who have the ability to support families accessing and navigating respite care systems. SPs and SKs identified current respite systems as operating in crisis mode. New findings suggest an ideal respite care system would incorporate advocacy for families, empower families and value CYSHCN, their families and respite workers. Conclusion: The evidence of unmet respite care needs of families of CYSHCN across Canada has long been available. Our findings identifying respite system challenges and solutions can be used by funders and policymakers for planning and enhancing resources, and by healthcare professionals, respite care providers and SKs to understand barriers and take action to improve respite outcomes to meet the respite needs of all families and CYSHCN. Patient or Public Contribution: The research team is composed of patients, researchers, clinicians and decision‐makers along with our Family Advisory Committee (FAC) composed of members of families of CYSHNC. The FAC was formed and met regularly with research team members, knowledge users and collaborators throughout the study to provide input on design, review themes and ensure findings are translated and disseminated in a meaningful way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patients discharged following hospitalization for COVID‐19 require clear discharge protocols, information resources and communications to adequately prepare them to safely and successfully transition from hospital to home. Our study focuses on the patients' transition to recovering at home including their hospital discharge preparation and hospital experiences. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study design involved interviewing patients who had been hospitalized for COVID‐19 in one urban Alberta, Canada centre. Purposive sampling was used to select patients from a centralized COVID‐19 hospital patient database stratified by month between March 2020 and February 2021. Other inclusion criteria (e.g., sex and age) were also considered. Semi‐structured interviews with patients were recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Data sufficiency and saturation were determined. Results: Twelve patients shared their lived experiences and recovery journey from COVID‐19. Themes were reported under three main areas as framed by the study aim—the current status of patients recovering at home, including the supports they used to manage; their discharge process and preparation to go home; and their various hospital‐related experiences. Suggestions for improving aspects of the patient journey were also captured. Conclusion: Findings provided details of the needs, information gaps and what matters most to patients when they are recovering from COVID‐19 at home, including their preparation to safely and successfully transition from hospital to home (i.e., feeling well prepared to go home, including being adequately assessed and having clear discharge protocols and communication). Key learnings were applied to improve or develop patient discharge and transition resources. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient/family advisor and patient experience partners were involved throughout the study, codeveloping all aspects, from the study design to the reporting and application of the findings. Leading into the study, patient experiences and feedback regarding the home from hospital recovery journey informed multiple aspects, including the codevelopment of the interview guide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Physical activity ( PA) is beneficial for all people, yet people affected by multiple sclerosis ( MS) find regular PA challenging. These people may include individuals with the disease who have moderate-to-severe disability and their family caregivers. For researchers and clinicians to effectively promote PA among caregiver/care-recipient dyads with moderate-to-severe MS, a comprehensive understanding of the shared PA experiences of these dyads would be beneficial. Objective We explored shared experiences of caregiver/care-recipient dyads affected by moderate-to-severe MS about PA and directions for intervention. Methods Six focus groups with 23 people with moderate-to-severe MS and 12 family caregivers were conducted. Data were analysed using a constant comparative approach. Results Three major themes emerged as follows: (i) PA is a continuum, (ii) cycle of disengagement and (iii) cycle of adjustment. The first theme captured the dyads understanding that PA falls along a continuum ranging from highly structured to unstructured activities. Cycle of disengagement captured the experiences of dyads engaging in little or no PA. These dyads perceived internal and external issues as drivers of the cycle of disengagement, while availability of supportive programmes and services or people helped the dyads to break out of the cycle. When the cycle of disengagement was broken, the dyads described moving towards the cycle of adjustment, where they were able to learn skills and take action to incorporate PA into daily routines. Conclusion This research highlights the need to adopt an integrative approach that acknowledges the caregiver/care-recipient dyad with moderate-to-severe MS as a focus for PA intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]