Search

Abstract Purpose Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada, and because early cancers are often asymptomatic screening aims to prevent mortality by detecting cancer earlier when treatment is more likely to be curative. These reviews will inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for lung cancer. Methods We will update the review on the benefits and harms of screening with CT conducted for the task force in 2015 and perform de novo reviews on the comparative effects between (i) trial-based selection criteria and use of risk prediction models and (ii) trial-based nodule classification and different nodule classification systems and on patients’ values and preferences. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (for questions on benefits and harms from 2015; comparative effects from 2012) and Medline, Scopus, and EconLit (for values and preferences from 2012) via peer-reviewed search strategies, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. Two reviewers will screen all citations (including those in the previous review) and base inclusion decisions on consensus or arbitration by another reviewer. For benefits (i.e., all-cause and cancer-specific mortality and health-related quality of life) and harms (i.e., overdiagnosis, false positives, incidental findings, psychosocial harms from screening, and major complications and mortality from invasive procedures as a result of screening), we will include studies of adults in whom lung cancer is not suspected. We will include randomized controlled trials comparing CT screening with no screening or alternative screening modalities (e.g., chest radiography) or strategies (e.g., CT using different screening intervals, classification systems, and/or patient selection via risk models or biomarkers); non-randomized studies, including modeling studies, will be included for the comparative effects between trial-based and other selection criteria or nodule classification methods. For harms (except overdiagnosis) we will also include non-randomized and uncontrolled studies. For values and preferences, the study design may be any quantitative design that either directly or indirectly measures outcome preferences on outcomes pertaining to lung cancer screening. We will only include studies conducted in Very High Human Development Countries and having full texts in English or French. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another, with the exception of result data on mortality and cancer incidence (for calculating overdiagnosis) where duplicate extraction will occur. If two or more studies report on the same comparison and it is deemed suitable, we will pool continuous data using a mean difference or standardized mean difference, as applicable, and binary data using relative risks and a DerSimonian and Laird model unless events are rare (

Abstract Background The prevalence of overweight (15%) and obesity (6%) in children under 5 years of age in Canada are high, and young children with overweight and obesity are at increased risk of the development of chronic disease(s) in adulthood. Prior research has demonstrated very few published trials on effective obesity prevention interventions in young children at risk of obesity, within primary healthcare settings. The aim of this study is to determine if 18–48-month-old children at risk for obesity, who are randomized to receive the Parents Together program (i.e., intervention group), have reduced body mass index z-score (zBMI), compared to those not receiving the intervention, at a 12-month follow-up. Secondary clinical outcomes between the intervention and control groups will be compared at 12 months. Methods A pragmatic, parallel group, 1:1, superiority, randomized control trial (RCT) through the TARGetKids! Practice Based Research Network will be conducted. Young children (ages 18–48 months) who are at increased risk for childhood obesity will be invited to participate. Parents who are enrolled in the intervention group will participate in eight weekly group sessions and 4–5 coaching visits, facilitated by a trained public health nurse. Children and parents who are enrolled in the control group will receive the usual health care. The primary outcome will be compared between intervention arms using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Feasibility and acceptability will be assessed by parent focus groups and interviews, and fidelity to the intervention will be measured using nurse-completed checklists. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be conducted. Discussion This study will aim to reflect the social, cultural, and geographic diversity of children in primary care in Toronto, Ontario, represented by an innovative collaboration among applied child health researchers, community health researchers, and primary care providers (i.e., pediatricians and family physicians in three different models of primary care). Clinical and implementation outcomes will be used to inform future research to test this intervention in a larger number, and diverse practices across diverse geographic settings in Ontario. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03219697. Registered on June 27, 2017.

Abstract Background Essential medicines lists (EMLs) are intended to reflect the priority health care needs of populations. We hypothesized that biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are underrepresented relative to conventional DMARDs in existing national EMLs. We aimed to survey the extent to which biologic DMARDs are included in EMLs, to determine country characteristics contributing to their inclusion or absence, and to contrast this with conventional DMARD therapies. Methods We searched 138 national EMLs for 10 conventional and 14 biologic DMARDs used in the treatment of childhood rheumatologic diseases. Via regression modelling, we determined country characteristics accounting for differences in medicine inclusion between national EMLs. Results Eleven countries (7.97%) included all 10 conventional DMARDs, 115 (83.33%) ≥5, and all countries listed at least one. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was associated with the total number of conventional DMARDs included (β11.02 [95% CI 0.39, 1.66]; P = 0.00279). Among biologic DMARDs, 3 countries (2.2%) listed ≥10, 15 (10.9%) listed ≥5, and 47 (34.1%) listed at least one. Ninety-one (65.9%) of countries listed no biologic DMARDs. European region (β1 1.30 [95% CI 0.08, 2.52]; P = 0.0367), life expectancy (β1–0.70 [95% CI -1.22, − 0.18]; P = 0.0085), health expenditure per capita (β1 1.83 [95% CI 1.24, 2.42]; P

Abstract Background National essential medicines lists are used to guide medicine reimbursement and public sector medicine procurement for many countries therefore medicine listings may impact health outcomes. Methods Countries’ national essential medicines lists were scored on whether they listed proven medicines for ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and hypertensive heart disease. In this cross sectional study linear regression was used to measure the association between countries’ medicine coverage scores and healthcare access and quality scores. Results There was an association between healthcare access and quality scores and health expenditure for ischemic heart disease (p ≤ 0.001), cerebrovascular disease (p ≤ 0.001) and hypertensive heart disease (p ≤ 0.001). However, there was no association between medicine coverage scores and healthcare access and quality scores for ischemic heart disease (p = 0.252), cerebrovascular disease (p = 0.194) and hypertensive heart disease (p = 0.209) when country characteristics were accounted for. Conclusions Listing more medicines on national essential medicines lists may only be one factor in reducing mortality from cardiovascular disease and improving healthcare access and quality scores.

Abstract Background Measuring body mass index (BMI) has been proposed as a method of screening for preventive primary care and population surveillance of childhood obesity. However, the accuracy of routinely collected measurements has been questioned. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of height, length and weight measurements collected during well-child visits in primary care relative to trained research personnel. Methods A cross-sectional study of measurement reliability was conducted in community pediatric and family medicine primary care practices. Each participating child, ages 0 to 18 years, was measured four consecutive times; twice by a primary care team member (e.g. nurses, practice personnel) and twice by a trained research assistant. Inter- and intra-observer reliability was calculated using the technical error of measurement (TEM), relative TEM (%TEM), and a coefficient of reliability (R). Results Six trained research assistants and 16 primary care team members performed measurements in three practices. All %TEM values for intra-observer reliability of length, height, and weight were classified as ‘acceptable’ ( 99% for both intra- and inter-observer reliability. Length measurements in children