Search

Abstract Background Public health nutrition recommendations and clinical dietary interventions emphasize eating healthy food at home, implicitly requiring household foodwork. Household foodwork is defined as the physical and mental tasks a household does for eating meals and snacks. Because no tools exist to measure it, how much time people spend doing household foodwork and the foodwork barriers they experience remain unknown. The objective of the present research was to develop the first stand-alone household foodwork assessment tool. Methods Through informal interviews with partners with lived experience, clinicians, and researchers, a literature review, a stakeholder meeting of advisors, and a two-round electronic Delphi process including face/content validation by expert panelists (n = 21), we developed the 10-question household foodwork interactional assessment questionnaire (FIA-Q10). An optional accompanying module was developed to collect self-identified demographic data to provide context for understanding how social-structural positionality factors may interact to influence foodwork. Results The FIA-Q10 assesses the domains of household composition, frequency of eating at home, special diets within a household, foodwork stress intensity, foodwork barriers, desired supports related to foodwork, and time use for foodwork. The FIA-Q10 measures time use for four subdomains of foodwork among individuals and their households: (1) planning, (2) getting, (3) preparing/cooking, and (4) cleaning up food. In the second Delphi round, the FIA-Q10 scored 95% for language appropriateness, 67% for visual appropriateness, 95% for relevance, 95% for representativeness, and 95% for distribution. Suggested improvements were implemented. All Delphi panelists (100%) reported they would consider using the FIA-Q10. Conclusions The FIA-Q10’s development is the first step towards a standardized assessment of foodwork, enabling examination of challenges in foodwork that may impact nutrition and nutrition equity. Future research will focus on FIA-Q10 validation in multiple populations.

Abstract Background As the Canadian population ages and the prevalence of chronic illnesses increases, delivering high-quality care to individuals with advanced life limiting illnesses becomes more challenging. Community-based navigation programs are a promising approach to address these challenges, but little is known about how these programs are successfully implemented to meet the needs of this population. This study sought to identify the key determinants that contribute to the successful implementation of these programs within Canada. Methods A qualitative study was undertaken to understand the implementation of eleven innovative, community-based navigation programs that aim to address the needs of individuals with life-limiting illnesses as they approach the end of life. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the study design. Key informants (n = 23) within these programs took part in semi-structured interviews where they were asked to discuss how these programs are implemented. Data were analyzed using techniques employed in qualitative description. Results We identified key determinants of successful implementation within each CFIR domain. In the outer setting domain, participants emphasized the importance of filling gaps in care to meet client needs, developing strong relationships with clients and community-based organizations, and navigating relationships with healthcare providers. At the inner setting level, leadership support, staff compatibility, and available resources were identified as important factors. In terms of intervention characteristics, the ability to adapt was cited as a facilitator, whereas costs were identified as a barrier. For the characteristics of individuals, participants described the importance of having staff whose values align with the program, and who have the experience and skills necessary to work with complex clients. Finally, having strong champions and evaluation processes were highlighted as important process-oriented determinants of successful implementation. Conclusion This study provides valuable insights into the determinants of successful implementation of community-based navigation programs in Canada. Understanding these determinants can guide the future development and integration of navigation programs to successfully meet the needs of those with life-limiting illnesses.

Abstract Background We sought to identify innovative navigation programs across Canadian jurisdictions that target their services to individuals affected by life-limiting illness and their families, and articulate the principal components of these programs that enable them to address the needs of their clients who are living in the community. Methods This realist evaluation used a two-phased approach. First, we conducted a horizon scan of innovative community-based navigation programs across Canadian jurisdictions to identify innovative community-based navigation programs that aim to address the needs of community-dwelling individuals affected by life-limiting illness. Second, we conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants from each of the selected programs. Informants included individuals responsible for managing and delivering the program and decision-makers with responsibility and/or oversight of the program. Analyses proceeded in an iterative manner, consistent with realist evaluation methods. This included iteratively developing and refining Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configurations, and developing the final program theory. Results Twenty-seven navigation programs were identified from the horizon scan. Using specific eligibility criteria, 11 programs were selected for subsequent interviews and in-depth examination. Twenty-three participants were interviewed from these programs, which operated in five Canadian provinces. The programs represented a mixture of community (non-profit or volunteer), research-initiated, and health system programs. The final program theory was articulated as: navigation programs can improve client outcomes if they have supported and empowered staff who have the time and flexibility to personalize care to the needs of their clients. Conclusions The findings highlight key principles (contexts and mechanisms) that enable navigation programs to develop client relationships, personalize care to client needs, and improve client outcomes. These principles include staff (or volunteer) knowledge and experience to coordinate health and social services, having a point of contact after hours, and providing staff (and volunteers) time and flexibility to develop relationships and respond to individualized client needs. These findings may be used by healthcare organizations – outside of navigation programs – to work towards more person-centred care.

Abstract Background As part of a broader study to improve the capacity for advance care planning (ACP) in primary healthcare settings, the research team set out to develop and validate a computerized algorithm to help primary care physicians identify individuals at risk of death, and also carried out focus groups and interviews with relevant stakeholder groups. Interviews with patients and family caregivers were carried out in parallel to algorithm development and validation to examine (1) views on early identification of individuals at risk of deteriorating health or dying; (2) views on the use of a computerized algorithm for early identification; and (3) preferences and challenges for ACP. Methods Fourteen participants were recruited from two Canadian provinces. Participants included individuals aged 65 and older with declining health and self-identified caregivers of individuals aged 65 and older with declining health. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via telephone. A qualitative descriptive analytic approach was employed, which focused on summarizing and describing the informational contents of the data. Results Participants supported the early identification of patients at risk of deteriorating health or dying. Early identification was viewed as conducive to planning not only for death, but for the remainder of life. Participants were also supportive of the use of a computerized algorithm to assist with early identification, although limitations were recognized. While participants felt that having family physicians assume responsibility for early identification and ACP was appropriate, questions arose around feasibility, including whether family physicians have sufficient time for ACP. Preferences related to the content of and approach to ACP discussions were highly individualized. Required supports during ACP include informational and emotional supports. Conclusions This work supports the role of primary care providers in the early identification of individuals at risk of deteriorating health or death and the process of ACP. To improve ACP capacity in primary healthcare settings, compensation systems for primary care providers should be adjusted to ensure appropriate compensation and to accommodate longer ACP appointments. Additional resources and more established links to community organizations and services will also be required to facilitate referrals to relevant community services as part of the ACP process.

Abstract Background One of the key conceptual challenges in advancing our understanding of how to more effectively sustain innovations in health care is the lack of clarity and agreement on what sustainability actually means. Several reviews have helped synthesize and clarify how researchers conceptualize and operationalize sustainability. In this study, we sought to identify how individuals who implement and/or sustain evidence-informed innovations in health care define sustainability. Methods We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with implementation leaders and relevant staff involved in the implementation of evidence-based innovations relevant to cancer survivorship care (n = 27). An inductive approach, using constant comparative analysis, was used for analysis of interview transcripts and field notes. Results Participants described sustainability as an ongoing and dynamic process that incorporates three key concepts and four important conditions. The key concepts were: (1) continued capacity to deliver the innovation, (2) continued delivery of the innovation, and (3) continued receipt of benefits. The key conditions related to (2) and (3), and included: (2a) innovations must continue in the absence of the champion or person/team who introduced it and (3a) adaptation is critical to ensuring relevancy and fit, and thus to delivering the intended benefits. Conclusions Participants provided a nuanced view of sustainability, with both continued delivery and continued benefits only relevant under certain conditions. The findings reveal the interconnected elements of what sustainability means in practice, providing a unique and important perspective to the academic literature.

Abstract Background In order to maximize later health, there are established components and guidelines for quality follow-up care of breast cancer survivors. However, adherence to quality follow-up in Canada may not be optimal, and may vary by province. We determined and compared the proportion of patients in each province who received adherent and non-adherent surveillance for recurrence, new cancers and late effects, recommended preventive care, and recommended physician visits for comorbidities. Methods Cohorts consisted of all adult women diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2010/2012 in four Canadian provinces (British Columbia (BC) N = 9338; Manitoba N = 2688; Ontario N = 23,700; Nova Scotia (NS) N = 2735), identified from provincial cancer registries, alive and cancer-free at 30 months post-diagnosis. Their healthcare utilization was determined from one to 5 years post-treatment, using linked administrative databases. Adherence, underuse, and overuse of recommended services were evaluated yearly and compared using descriptive statistics. Results In all provinces and follow-up years, the majority of survivors had more than the recommended number of visits to either an oncologist or primary care physician (range 53.8% NS Year 3; 85.8% Ontario Year 4). The proportion of patients with the guideline-recommended number of oncologist visits varied by province (range 29.8% BC Year 5; 74.8% Ontario Year 5), and the proportion of patients with less than the recommended number of specified breast cancer-related visits with either an oncologist or primary care physician ranged from 32.6% (Ontario Year 2) to 84.4% (NS Year 3). Underuse of surveillance breast imaging was identified in NS and BC. The proportion of patients receiving imaging for metastatic disease (not recommended in the guidelines) in BC, Manitoba, and Ontario (not reported in NS) ranged from 20.3% (BC Year 5) to 53.3% (Ontario Year 2). Compliance with recommended physician visits for patients with several chronic conditions was high in Ontario and NS. Preventive care was less than optimal in all provinces with available data. Conclusions Quality of breast cancer survivor follow-up care varies among provinces. Results point to exploration of factors affecting differences, province-specific opportunities for care improvement, and the value of administrative datasets for health system assessment.