Search

Introduction: Case management (CM) is among the most studied effective models of integrated care for people with complex needs. The goal of this study is to scale up and assess CM in primary healthcare for people with complex needs., Methods and Analysis: The research questions are: (1) which mechanisms contribute to the successful scale-up of CM for people with complex needs in primary healthcare?; (2) how do contextual factors within primary healthcare organisations contribute to these mechanisms? and (3) what are the relationships between the actors, contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes when scaling-up CM for people with complex needs in primary healthcare? We will conduct a mixed methods Canadian interprovincial project in Quebec, New-Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It will include a scale-up phase and an evaluation phase. At inception, a scale-up committee will be formed in each province to oversee the scale-up phase. We will assess scale-up using a realist evaluation guided by the RAMESES checklist to develop an initial programme theory on CM scale-up. Then we will test and refine the programme theory using a mixed-methods multiple case study with 10 cases, each case being the scalable unit of the intervention in a region. Each primary care clinic within the case will recruit 30 adult patients with complex needs who frequently use healthcare services. Qualitative data will be used to identify contexts, mechanisms and certain outcomes for developing context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Quantitative data will be used to describe patient characteristics and measure scale-up outcomes., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval was obtained. Engaging researchers, decision-makers, clinicians and patient partners on the study Steering Committee will foster knowledge mobilisation and impact. The dissemination plan will be developed with the Steering Committee with messages and dissemination methods targeted for each audience., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The advanced access model is highly recommended to improve timely access to primary healthcare (PHC). However, its adoption varies among PHC providers. We aim to identify the advanced access profiles of PHC providers., Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. Latent class analysis (LCA) measures were used to identify PHC provider profiles based on 14 variables, 2 organisational context characteristics (clinical size and geographical area) and 12 advanced access strategies., Setting and Participants: All family physicians, nurse practitioners and nurses working in the 49 university-affiliated team-based PHC clinics in Quebec, Canada, were invited, of which 35 participated., Primary Outcome Measure: The LCA was based on 335 respondents. We determined the optimal number of profiles using statistical criteria (Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion) and qualitatively named each of the six advanced access profiles., Results: (1) Low supply and demand planification (25%) was characterised by the smallest proportion of strategies used to balance supply and demand. (2) Reactive interprofessional collaboration (25%) was characterised by high collaboration and long opening periods for appointment scheduling. (3) Structured interprofessional collaboration (19%) was characterised by high use of interprofessional team meetings. (4) Small urban delegating practices (13%) was exclusively composed of family physicians and characterised by task delegation to other PHC providers on the team. (5) Comprehensive practices in urban settings (13%) was characterised by including as many services as possible on each visit. (6) Rural agility (4%) was characterised by the highest uptake of advanced access strategies based on flexibility, including adjusting the schedule to demand and having a large number of open-slot appointments available in the next 48 hours., Conclusion: The different patterns of advanced access strategy adoption confirm the need for training to be tailored to individuals, categories of PHC providers and contexts., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The 2021 Action Plan for Pain from the Canadian Pain Task Force advocates for patient-centred pain care at all levels of healthcare across provinces. Shared decision-making is the crux of patient-centred care. Implementing the action plan will require innovative shared decision-making interventions, specifically following the disruption of chronic pain care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first step in this endeavour is to assess current decisional needs (ie, decisions most important to them) of Canadians with chronic pain across their care pathways., Methods and Analysis: Design Grounded in patient-oriented research approaches, we will perform an online population-based survey across the ten Canadian provinces. We will report methods and data following the CROSS reporting guidelines. Sampling The Léger Marketing company will administer the online population-based survey to its representative panel of 500 000 Canadians to recruit 1646 adults (age ≥18 years old) with chronic pain according to the definition by the International Association for the Study of Pain (eg, pain ≥12 weeks). Content Based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, the self-administered survey has been codesigned with patients and contain six core domains: (1) healthcare services, consultation and postpandemic needs, (2) difficult decisions experienced, (3) decisional conflict, (4) decisional regret, (5) decisional needs and (6) sociodemographic characteristics. We will use several strategies such as random sampling to improve survey quality. Analysis We will perform descriptive statistical analysis. We will identify factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict and decision regret using multivariate analyses., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the Research Centre of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (project #2022-4645). We will codesign knowledge mobilisation products with research patient partners (eg, graphical summaries and videos). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences to inform the development of innovative shared decision-making interventions for Canadians with chronic pain., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To assess the experiences and perceived impacts of the Aging, Community and Health Research Unit-Community Partnership Program (ACHRU-CPP) from the perspectives of older adults with diabetes and other chronic conditions. The ACHRU-CPP is a complex 6-month self-management evidence-based intervention for community-living older adults aged 65 years or older with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and at least one other chronic condition. It includes home and phone visits, care coordination, system navigation support, caregiver support and group wellness sessions delivered by a nurse, dietitian or nutritionist, and community programme coordinator., Design: Qualitative descriptive design embedded within a randomised controlled trial was used., Setting: Six trial sites offering primary care services from three Canadian provinces (ie, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island) were included., Participants: The sample was 45 community-living older adults aged 65 years or older with diabetes and at least one other chronic condition., Methods: Participants completed semistructured postintervention interviews by phone in English or French. The analytical process followed Braun and Clarke's experiential thematic analysis framework. Patient partners informed study design and interpretation., Results: The mean age of older adults was 71.7 years, and the mean length of time living with diabetes was 18.8 years. Older adults reported positive experiences with the ACHRU-CPP that supported diabetes self-management, such as improved knowledge in managing diabetes and other chronic conditions, enhanced physical activity and function, improved eating habits, and opportunities for socialisation. They reported being connected to community resources by the intervention team to address social determinants of health and support self-management., Conclusions: Older adults perceived that a 6-month person-centred intervention collaboratively delivered by a team of health and social care providers helped support chronic disease self-management. There is a need for providers to help older adults connect with available health and social services in the community., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03664583; Results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research., Design: Scoping review., Participants: Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support., Results: Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%)., Conclusions: Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity., Trial Registration Number: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Decision aids (DAs) for clients in home and community care can support shared decision-making (SDM) with patients, healthcare teams and informal caregivers. We aimed to identify DAs developed for home and community care, verify their adherence to international DA criteria and explore the involvement of interprofessional teams in their development and use., Design: Systematic review reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines., Data Sources: Six electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library) from inception to November 2019, social media and grey literature websites up to January 2021., Eligibility Criteria: DAs designed for home and community care settings or including home care or community services as options., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently reviewed citations. Analysis consisted of a narrative synthesis of outcomes and a thematic analysis. DAs were appraised using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). We collected information on the involvement of interprofessional teams, including nurses, in their development and use., Results: After reviewing 10 337 database citations and 924 grey literature citations, we extracted characteristics of 33 included DAs. DAs addressed a variety of decision points. Nearly half (42%) were relevant to older adults. Several DAs did not meet IPDAS criteria. Involvement of nurses and interprofessional teams in the development and use of DAs was minimal (33.3% of DAs)., Conclusion: DAs concerned a variety of decisions, especially those related to older people. This reflects the complexity of decisions and need for better support in this sector. There is little evidence about the involvement of interprofessional teams in the development and use of DAs in home and community care settings. An interprofessional approach to designing DAs for home care could facilitate SDM with people being cared for by teams., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020169450., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Assess the feasibility and impact of a continuous professional development (CPD) course on type 2 diabetes and depression on health professionals' intention to include sex and gender considerations in patient care., Design and Setting: In collaboration with CPD organisations and patient-partners, we conducted a mixed-methods feasibility controlled trial with postintervention measures in three Canadian provinces., Participants: Of 178 eligible health professionals, 127 completed questionnaires and 67 participated in semistructured group discussions., Intervention and Comparator: An interactive 1 hour CPD course, codesigned with patient-partners, on diabetes and depression that included sex and gender considerations (innovation) was compared with a similar course that did not include them (comparator)., Outcomes: Feasibility of recruitment and retention of CPD organisations and patient-partners throughout the study; adherence to planned activities; health professionals' intention to include sex and gender considerations in patient care as measured by the CPD-Reaction questionnaire; and barriers and facilitators using the Theoretical Domains Framework., Results: All recruited CPD organisations and patient-partners remained engaged throughout the study. All planned CPD courses occurred. Overall, 71% of eligible health professionals participated (63% under 44 years old; 79.5% women; 67.7% practising in French; 66.9% practising in Quebec; 78.8% in urban practice). After training, mean intention scores for the innovation (n=49) and control groups (n=78) were 5.65±0.19 and 5.19±0.15, respectively. Mean difference was -0.47 (CI -0.95 to 0.01; p=0.06). Adjusted for age, gender and practice settings, mean difference was -0.57 (CI -1.09 to -0.05; p=0.03). We identified eight theoretical domains related to barriers and six related to facilitators for providing sex-adapted and gender-adapted diabetes and depression care., Conclusions: CPD training on diabetes and depression that includes sex and gender considerations is feasible and, compared with CPD training that does not, may prompt health professionals to modify their care. Addressing identified barriers and facilitators could increase intention., Trial Registration Number: NCT03928132 with ClinicalTrials.gov; Post-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Scaling science aims to help roll out evidence-based research results on a wide scale to benefit more individuals. Yet, little is known on how to evaluate economic aspects of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions., Methods and Analysis: Using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on systematic reviews, we will conduct a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied in economic evaluations in scaling up strategies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must include a scaling up strategy of an evidence-based health intervention delivered and received by any individual or organisation in any country and setting. They must report costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We will consider full or partial economic evaluations, modelling and methodological studies. We searched peer-reviewed publications in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception onwards. We will search grey literature from international organisations, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancy firms websites and region-specific databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the records against the eligibility criteria and extract data using a pretested extraction form. We will extract data on study characteristics, scaling up strategies, economic evaluation methods and their components. We will appraise the methodological quality of included studies using the BMJ Checklist. We will narratively summarise the studies' descriptive characteristics, methodological strengths/weaknesses and the main drivers of cost-effectiveness outcomes. This study will help identify what are the trade-offs of scaling up evidence-based interventions to allocate resources efficiently., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethics approval is required as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal and presented at national and international conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Shared decision making is an interpersonal process whereby healthcare providers collaborate with and support patients in decision-making. Older adults receiving home care need support with decision-making. We will explore what older adults receiving home care and their caregivers need for making better health-related decisions., Methods and Analysis: This two-phase sequential exploratory mixed methods study will be conducted in a pan-Canadian healthcare organisation, SE Health. First, we will create a participant advisory group to advise us throughout the research process. In phase 1 (qualitative), we will recruit a convenience sample of 15-30 older adults and caregivers receiving home care to participate in open-ended semi-structured interviews. Phase 1 participants will be invited to share what health-related decisions they face at home and what they need for making better decisions. In phase 2 (quantitative), interdisciplinary health and social care providers will be invited to answer a web-based survey to share their views on the decisional needs of older adults and their caregivers. The survey will include questions informed by findings from qualitative interviews in phase 1, and a workbook for assessing decisional needs based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Finally, qualitative and quantitative results will be triangulated (by methods, investigator, theory and source) to develop a comprehensive understanding of decision-making needs from the perspective of older adults, caregivers and health and social care providers. We will use the quality of mixed methods studies in health services research guidelines and the Checklist for Reporting the Results of Internet E-Surveys checklist., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval was obtained from the research ethics boards at Southlake Regional Health Centre and Université Laval. This study will inform the design of decision support interventions. Further dissemination plans include summary briefs for study participants, tailored reports for home care decision makers and policy makers, and peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: NCT04327830., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This study will be conducted in SE Health, one of the largest social enterprises offering home care services across Canada., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: More women experience cardiac pain related to coronary artery disease and cardiac procedures compared with men. The overall goal of this programme of research is to develop an integrated smartphone and web-based intervention (HEARTPA♀N) to help women recognise and self-manage cardiac pain., Methods and Analysis: This protocol outlines the mixed methods strategy used for the development of the HEARTPA♀N content/core feature set (phase 2A), usability testing (phase 2B) and evaluation with a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) (phase 3). We are using the individual and family self-management theory, mobile device functionality and pervasive information architecture of mHealth interventions, and following a sequential phased approach recommended by the Medical Research Council to develop HEARTPA♀N. The phase 3 pilot RCT will enable us to refine the prototype, inform the methodology and calculate the sample size for a larger multisite RCT (phase 4, future work). Patient partners have been actively involved in setting the HEARTPA♀N research agenda, including defining patient-reported outcome measures for the pilot RCT: pain and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). As such, the guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols (SPIRIT-PRO) are used to report the protocol for the pilot RCT (phase 3). Quantitative data (eg, demographic and clinical information) will be summarised using descriptive statistics (phases 2AB and 3) and a content analysis will be used to identify themes (phase 2AB). A process evaluation will be used to assess the feasibility of the implementation of the intervention and a preliminary efficacy evaluation will be undertaken focusing on the outcomes of pain and HRQoL (phase 3)., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Toronto (36415; 26 November 2018). We will disseminate knowledge of HEARTPA♀N through publication, conference presentation and national public forums (Café Scientifique), and through fact sheets, tweets and webinars., Trial Registration Number: NCT03800082., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Design and Objectives: We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating healthcare provider (HCP) trainings in shared decision-making (SDM) to analyse their evaluation strategies., Setting and Participants: HCP trainings in SDM from all healthcare settings., Methods: We searched scientific databases (Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL), performed reference and citation tracking, contacted experts in the field and scanned the Canadian inventory of SDM training programmes for healthcare professionals. We included articles reporting data of summative evaluations of HCP trainings in SDM. Two reviewers screened records, assessed full-text articles, performed data extraction and assessed study quality with the integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS) tool. Analysis of evaluation strategies included data source use, use of unpublished or published measures and coverage of Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels. An evaluation framework based on Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels and the Quadruple Aim framework was used to categorise identified evaluation outcomes., Results: Out of 7234 records, we included 41 articles reporting on 30 studies: cluster-randomised (n=8) and randomised (n=9) controlled trials, controlled (n=1) and non-controlled (n=7) before-after studies, mixed-methods (n=1), qualitative (n=1) and post-test (n=3) studies. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n=9), Germany (n=8) or Canada (n=7) and evaluated physician trainings (n=25). Eleven articles met ICROMS quality criteria. Almost all studies (n=27) employed HCP-reported outcomes for training evaluation and most (n=19) additionally used patient-reported (n=12), observer-rated (n=10), standardised patient-reported (n=2) outcomes or training process and healthcare data (n=10). Most studies employed a mix of unpublished and published measures (n=17) and covered two (n=12) or three (n=10) Kirkpatrick's levels. Identified evaluation outcomes covered all categories of the proposed framework., Conclusions: Strategies to evaluate HCP trainings in SDM varied largely. The proposed evaluation framework maybe useful to structure future evaluation studies, but international agreement on a core set of outcomes is needed to improve evidence., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42016041623., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EM and AS report grants from Mundipharma GmbH during the conduct of the study. EM, AS, IS, MH and AB conducted SDM communication skills trainings in a project funded by Mundipharma GmbH. NTD and FL have nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: As Canada's second largest province, the geography of Quebec poses unique challenges for trauma management. Our primary objective was to compare mortality rates between trauma patients treated at rural emergency departments (EDs) and urban trauma centres in Quebec. As a secondary objective, we compared the availability of trauma care resources and services between these two settings., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: 26 rural EDs and 33 level 1 and 2 urban trauma centres in Quebec, Canada., Participants: 79 957 trauma cases collected from Quebec's trauma registry., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Our primary outcome measure was mortality (prehospital, ED, in-hospital). Secondary outcome measures were the availability of trauma-related services and staff specialties at rural and urban facilities. Multivariable generalised linear mixed models were used to determine the relationship between the primary facility and mortality., Results: Overall, 7215 (9.0%) trauma patients were treated in a rural ED and 72 742 (91.0%) received treatment at an urban centre. Mortality rates were higher in rural EDs compared with urban trauma centres (13.3% vs 7.9%, p<0.001). After controlling for available potential confounders, the odds of prehospital or ED mortality were over three times greater for patients treated in a rural ED (OR 3.44, 95% CI 1.88 to 6.28). Trauma care setting (rural vs urban) was not associated with in-hospital mortality. Nearly all of the specialised services evaluated were more present at urban trauma centres., Conclusions: Trauma patients treated in rural EDs had a higher mortality rate and were more likely to die prehospital or in the ED compared with patients treated at an urban trauma centre. Our results were limited by a lack of accurate prehospital times in the trauma registry., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To identify patient decision aids' features to limit their complexity for older adults with dementia and their family caregivers., Design: Mixed method, multiple case study within a user-centred design (UCD) approach., Setting: Community-based healthcare in the province of Quebec in Canada., Participants: 23 older persons (aged 65+ years) with dementia and their 27 family caregivers., Results: During three UCD evaluation-modification rounds, participants identified strengths and weaknesses of the patient decision aids' content and visual design that influenced their complexity. Weaknesses of content included a lack of understanding of the decision aids' purpose and target audience, missing information, irrelevant content and issues with terminology and sentence structure. Weaknesses of visual design included critics about the decision aids' general layout (density, length, navigation) and their lack of pictures. In response, the design team implemented a series of practical features and design strategies, comprising: a clear expression of the patient decision aids' purpose through simple text, picture and personal stories; systematic and frequent use of pictograms illustrating key points and helping structure patient decision aids' general layout; a glossary; removal of scientific references from the main document; personal stories to clarify more difficult concepts; a contact section to facilitate implementation of the selected option; GRADE ratings to convey the quality of the evidence; a values clarification exercise formatted as a checklist and presented at the beginning of the document to streamline navigation; involvement of a panel of patient/caregiver partners to guide expression of patient priorities; editing of the text to a sixth grade reading level; UCD process to optimise comprehensiveness and relevance of content and training of patients/caregivers in shared decision-making., Conclusions: The revised template for patient decision aids is designed to meet the needs of adults living with dementia and their caregivers better, which may translate into fewer evaluation-modification rounds., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Multimorbidity increases care needs and primary care use among people with chronic diseases. The Concerto Health Program (CHP) has been developed to optimise chronic disease management in primary care services. However, in its current version, the CHP primarily targets clinicians and does not aim to answer directly patients' and their informal caregivers' needs for chronic disease management. Various studies have shown that interventions that increase patient activation level are associated with better health outcomes. Furthermore, educational tools must be adapted to patients and caregivers in terms of health literacy and usability. This project aims to develop, implement and evaluate a user-centred, multifunctional and personalised eHealth platform (CONCERTO+) to promote a more active patient role in chronic disease management and decision-making., Methods and Analysis: This project uses a collaborative research approach, aiming at the personalisation of CHP through three phases: (1) the development of one module of an eHealth platform based on scientific evidence and user-centred design; (2) a feasibility study of CONCERTO+ through a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial where patients with chronic diseases from a primary healthcare practice will receive CONCERTO+ during 6 months and be compared to patients from a control practice receiving usual care and (3) an analysis of CONCERTO+ potential for scaling up. To do so, we will conduct two focus groups with patients and informal caregivers and individual interviews with health professionals at the two study sites, as well as health care managers, information officers and representatives of the Ministry of Health., Ethics and Dissemination: This study received ethical approval from Ethics Committee of Université Laval. The findings will be used to inform the effectiveness of CONCERTO+ to improve management care in chronic diseases. We will disseminate findings through presentations in scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT03628963; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Patients with complex care needs (PCCNs) often suffer from combinations of multiple chronic conditions, mental health problems, drug interactions and social vulnerability, which can lead to healthcare services overuse, underuse or misuse. Typically, PCCNs face interactional issues and unmet decisional needs regarding possible options in a cascade of interrelated decisions involving different stakeholders (themselves, their families, their caregivers, their healthcare practitioners). Gaps in knowledge, values clarification and social support in situations where options need to be deliberated hamper effective decision support interventions. This review aims to (1) assess decisional needs of PCCNs from the perspective of stakeholders, (2) build a taxonomy of these decisional needs and (3) prioritise decisional needs with knowledge users (clinicians, patients and managers)., Methods and Analysis: This review will be based on the interprofessional shared decision making (IP-SDM) model and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Applying a participatory research approach, we will identify potentially relevant studies through a comprehensive literature search; select relevant ones using eligibility criteria inspired from our previous scoping review on PCCNs; appraise quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; conduct a three-step synthesis (sequential exploratory mixed methods design) to build taxonomy of key decisional needs; and integrate these results with those of a parallel PCCNs' qualitative decisional need assessment (semistructured interviews and focus group with stakeholders)., Ethics and Dissemination: This systematic review, together with the qualitative study (approved by the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Service Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean ethical committee), will produce a working taxonomy of key decisional needs (ontological contribution), to inform the subsequent user-centred design of a support tool for addressing PCCNs' decisional needs (practical contribution). We will adapt the IP-SDM model, normally dealing with a single decision, for PCCNs who experience cascade of decisions involving different stakeholders (theoretical contribution). Knowledge users will facilitate dissemination of the results in the Canadian primary care network., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42015020558., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Introduction: Emergency departments (EDs) are an important safety net for rural populations. Results of our earlier studies suggest that rural Canadian hospitals have limited access to advanced imaging services and intensive care units and that patients are transferred over large distances. They also revealed significant geographical variations in rural services. In the absence of national standards, our studies raise questions about inequities in rural access to emergency services and the risks for citizens. Our goal is to build recommendations for improving services by mobilising stakeholders interested in rural emergency care. With help and full engagement of stakeholders, we will (1) identify solutions for improving quality and performance in rural EDs; (2) formulate and prioritise recommendations; (3) transfer knowledge of the recommendations to rural EDs and support operationalisation and (4) assess knowledge transfer and explore further impacts of this participatory action research project., Methodology: We will use a participatory action research approach. We will plan for a governance structure that includes all stakeholders’ representatives, so throughout this project, stakeholders are fully engaged at every step. Our sample will be 26 EDs in rural Quebec. We will conduct semistructured individual and focus group interviews with relevant and representative participants, including patients and citizens (estimated n=200). Interviews will be thematically analysed to extract potential solutions and other qualitative information.An expert panel (±15) will use an analysis grid to develop consensus recommendations from solutions suggested and will evaluate feasibility, impacts, costs, conditions for implementation and establish monitoring indicators. Recommendations will be transferred to stakeholders using tailored knowledge translation strategies (web platform, meetings and so on)., Discussion and Expected Results: This study will result in a comprehensive consensus list of feasible and high-priority recommendations enabling decision-makers in emergency care to implement improvements in rural emergency care in Quebec., Ethics and Dissemination: This protocol has been approved by the CSSS Alphonse-Desjardins research ethics committee (Project number: MP 2017-009). The qualitative material will be kept confidential and the data will be presented in a way that respects confidentiality. The dissemination plan for the study includes publications in scientific and professional journals. We will also use social media to disseminate our findings and activities such as communications in public conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Introduction: Preventable injuries lead to 200 000 hospital stays, 60 000 disabilities, and 13 000 deaths per year in Canada with direct costs of $20 billion. Overall, potentially unnecessary medical interventions are estimated to consume up to 30% of healthcare resources and may expose patients to avoidable harm. However, little is known about overuse for acute injury care. We aim to identify low-value clinical practices in injury care., Methods and Analysis: We will perform a scoping review of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature to identify research articles, reviews, recommendations and guidelines that identify at least one low-value clinical practice specific to injury populations. We will search Medline, EMBASE, COCHRANE central, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge databases, websites of government agencies, professional societies and patient advocacy organisations, thesis holdings and conference proceedings. Pairs of independent reviewers will evaluate studies for eligibility and extract data from included articles using a prepiloted and standardised electronic data abstraction form. Low-value clinical practices will be categorised using an extension of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality conceptual framework and data will be presented using narrative synthesis., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval is not required as original data will not be collected. This study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, international scientific meetings, and to knowledge users through clinical and healthcare quality associations. This review will contribute new knowledge on low-value clinical practices in acute injury care. Our results will support the development indicators to measure resource overuse and inform policy makers on potential targets for deadoption in injury care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Introduction: Shared decision making (SDM) is a goal of modern medicine; however, it is not currently embedded in routine care. Barriers include clinicians’ attitudes, lack of knowledge and training and time constraints. Our goal is to support the development and delivery of a robust SDM curriculum in medical education. Our objective is to assess undergraduate medical students’ knowledge of and attitudes towards SDM in four countries., Methods and Analysis: The first phase of the study involves a web-based cross-sectional survey of undergraduate medical students from all years in selected schools across the United States (US), Canada and undergraduate and graduate students in the Netherlands. In the United Kingdom (UK), the survey will be circulated to all medical schools through the UK Medical School Council. We will sample students equally in all years of training and assess attitudes towards SDM, knowledge of SDM and participation in related training. Medical students of ages 18 years and older in the four countries will be eligible. The second phase of the study will involve semistructured interviews with a subset of students from phase 1 and a convenience sample of medical school curriculum experts or stakeholders. Data will be analysed using multivariable analysis in phase 1 and thematic content analysis in phase 2. Method, data source and investigator triangulation will be performed. Online survey data will be reported according to the Checklist for Reporting the Results of Internet E-Surveys. We will use the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research for all qualitative data., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved for dissemination in the US, the Netherlands, Canada and the UK. The study is voluntary with an informed consent process. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will help inform the inclusion of SDM-specific curriculum in medical education worldwide., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Financial: M-AD is a consultant to Access Community Health Network, Chicago. GE has been a consultant to: (1) Emmi Solutions LLC who develop patient knowledge tools; (2) National Quality Forum on certification of patient knowledge tools; (3) Washington State Health Department on certification of patient knowledge tools; (4) PatientWisdom LLC, (5) SciMentum, Amsterdam, and (6) Access Community Health Network, Chicago. GE has edited / published books that provide royalties on sales by the publishers: the books have been on Shared Decision Making (Oxford University Press) and Groups (Radcliffe Press). Non-Financial: Many authors are authors of SDM and communication training programs in medical schools. However, they get no financial benefits from it. GE initiated and leads the Option Grid TM patient decision aids Collaborative, which produces and publishes patient knowledge tools in the form of comparison tables (http://optiongrid.org/), and has part ownership of the registered trademark. GE owns copyright in CollaboRATE, IntegRATE, and Observer OPTION measures of shared decision making and care integration. These measures are freely available for use. PJB owns copyright in CollaboRATE., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Introduction: The frail elderly in Canada face a tough decision when they start to lose autonomy: whether to stay at home or move to another location. This study seeks to scale up and evaluate the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) in interprofessional (IP) home care teams caring for elderly clients or their caregivers facing a decision about staying at home or moving elsewhere., Methods: A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial involving 8 Health and Social Service Centers (HSSCs) will be conducted with IP home care teams. HSSCs are the unit of randomisation. A decision guide will be passively distributed to all of the participating HSSCs at the beginning of the project. The participating HSSCs will then be randomised to 1 of 4 intervention start times, separated by 7-month intervals. The primary outcome is whether or not clients and caregivers assumed an active role in decision-making, assessed with a modified version of the Control Preferences Scale. The intervention, targeted at IP home care teams, consists of a 1.5 hour online tutorial and a 3.5 hour skills building workshop in IP SDM. Clients will be eligible for outcome assessment if they (1) are aged ≥65; (2) are receiving care from the IP home care team of the enrolled HSSCs; (3) have made a decision about whether to stay at home or move to another location during the recruitment periods; (4) are able to read, understand and write French or English; (5) can give informed consent. If clients are not able to provide informed consent, their primary caregiver will become the eligible participant., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics committee review approval has been obtained from the Multicenter Ethics Committee of CISSS-Laval. Results will be disseminated at conferences, on websites of team members and in peer-reviewed and professional journals intended for policymakers and managers., Trial Registration Number: NCT02592525, Pre-results., Competing Interests: DS reports personal fees from Washington State Health Authority Patient Decision Aid certification programme, outside the submitted work., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Introduction: Collaborative mental healthcare (CMHC) has garnered worldwide interest as an effective, team-based approach to managing common mental disorders in primary care. However, questions remain about how CMHC works and why it works in some circumstances but not others. In this study, we will review the evidence on one understudied but potentially critical component of CMHC, namely the engagement of patients and families in care. Our aims are to describe the strategies used to engage people with depression or anxiety disorders and their families in CMHC and understand how these strategies work, for whom and in what circumstances., Methods and Analysis: We are conducting a review with systematic and realist review components. Review part 1 seeks to identify and describe the patient and family engagement strategies featured in CMHC interventions based on systematic searches and descriptive analysis of these interventions. We will use a 2012 Cochrane review of CMHC as a starting point and perform new searches in multiple databases and trial registers to retrieve more recent CMHC intervention studies. In review part 2, we will build and refine programme theories for each of these engagement strategies. Initial theory building will proceed iteratively through content expert consultations, electronic searches for theoretical literature and review team brainstorming sessions. Cluster searches will then retrieve additional data on contexts, mechanisms and outcomes associated with engagement strategies, and pairs of review authors will analyse and synthesise the evidence and adjust initial programme theories., Ethics and Dissemination: Our review follows a participatory approach with multiple knowledge users and persons with lived experience of mental illness. These partners will help us develop and tailor project outputs, including publications, policy briefs, training materials and guidance on how to make CMHC more patient-centred and family-centred., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42015025522., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: Choosing Wisely is a remarkable physician-led campaign to reduce unnecessary or harmful health services. Some of the literature identifies Choosing Wisely as a shared decision-making approach. We evaluated the patient materials developed by Choosing Wisely Canada to determine whether they meet the criteria for shared decision-making tools known as patient decision aids., Design: Descriptive analysis of all Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials., Data Source: In May 2015, we selected all Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials from its official website., Main Outcomes and Measures: Four team members independently extracted characteristics of the English materials using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) modified 16-item minimum criteria for qualifying and certifying patient decision aids. The research team discussed discrepancies between data extractors and reached a consensus. Descriptive analysis was conducted., Results: Of the 24 patient materials assessed, 12 were about treatments, 11 were about screening and 1 was about prevention. The median score for patient materials using IPDAS criteria was 10/16 (range: 8-11) for screening topics and 6/12 (range: 6-9) for prevention and treatment topics. Commonly missed criteria were stating the decision (21/24 did not), providing balanced information on option benefits/harms (24/24 did not), citing evidence (24/24 did not) and updating policy (24/24 did not). Out of 24 patient materials, only 2 met the 6 IPDAS criteria to qualify as patient decision aids, and neither of these 2 met the 6 certifying criteria., Conclusions: Patient materials developed by Choosing Wisely Canada do not meet the IPDAS minimal qualifying or certifying criteria for patient decision aids. Modifications to the Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials would help to ensure that they qualify as patient decision aids and thus as more effective shared decision-making tools., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: Unresolved clinically significant decisional conflict (CSDC) in patients following a consultation with health professionals is often the result of inadequate patient involvement in decision-making and may result in poor outcomes. We sought to identify the prevalence of CSDC in studies on decision-making in primary care and to explore its risk factors., Setting: We performed a secondary analysis of existing data sets from studies conducted in Primary Care Practice-Based Research Networks in Québec and Ontario, Canada., Participants: Eligible studies included a patient-reported measure on the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) following a decision made with a healthcare professional with no study design restriction., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: CSDC was defined as a score ≥25/100 on the DCS. The prevalence of CSDC was stratified by sex; and patient-level logistic regression analysis was performed to explore its potential risk factors. Data sets of studies were analysed individually and qualitatively compared., Results: 5 projects conducted between 2003 and 2010 were included. They covered a range of decisions: prenatal genetic screening, antibiotics for acute respiratory infections and miscellaneous. Altogether, the 5 projects gathered data from encounters with a total of 1338 primary care patients (69% female; range of age 15-83). The prevalence of CSDC in patients varied across studies and ranged from 10.3% (95% CI 7.2% to 13.4%) to 31.1% (95% CI 26.6% to 35.6%). Across the 5 studies, risk factors of CSDC included being male, living alone and being 45 or older., Conclusions: Prevalence of CSDC in patients who had enrolled in studies conducted in primary care contexts was substantial and appeared to vary according to the type of decision as well as to patient characteristics such as sex, living arrangement and age. Patients presenting risk factors of CSDC should be offered tools to increase their involvement in decision-making., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Introduction: Trauma remains the primary cause of death in individuals under 40 years of age in Canada. In Quebec, the Trauma Care Continuum (TCC) has been demonstrated to be effective in decreasing the mortality rate among trauma victims. Although rural citizens are at greater risk for trauma and trauma death, no empirical data concerning the effectiveness of the TCC for the rural population in Quebec are available. The emergency departments (EDs) are important safety nets for rural citizens. However, our data indicate that access to diagnostic support services, such as intensive care units and CT is limited in rural areas. The objectives are to (1) draw a portrait of trauma services in rural EDs; (2) explore geographical variations in trauma care in Quebec; (3) identify adaptable factors that could reduce variation; and (4) establish consensus solutions for improving the quality of care., Methods and Analysis: The study will take place from November 2015 to November 2018. A mixed methodology (qualitative and quantitative) will be used. We will include data (2009-2013) from all trauma victims treated in the 26 rural EDs and tertiary/secondary care centres in Quebec. To meet objectives 1 and 2, data will be gathered from the Ministry's Database of the Quebec Trauma Registry Information System. For objectives 3 and 4, the project will use the Delphi method to develop consensus solutions for improving the quality of trauma care in rural areas. Data will be analysed using a Poisson regression to compare mortality rate during hospital stay or death on ED arrival (objectives 1 and 2). Average scores and 95% CI will be calculated for the Delphi questionnaire (objectives 3 and 4)., Ethics and Dissemination: This protocol has been approved by CSSS Alphonse-Desjardins research ethics committee (Project MP-HDL-2016-003). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Introduction: Emergency departments are important safety nets for people who live in rural areas. Moreover, a serious problem in access to healthcare services has emerged in these regions. The challenges of providing access to quality rural emergency care include recruitment and retention issues, lack of advanced imagery technology, lack of specialist support and the heavy reliance on ambulance transport over great distances. The Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services published a new version of the Emergency Department Management Guide, a document designed to improve the emergency department management and to humanise emergency department care and services. In particular, the Guide recommends solutions to problems that plague rural emergency departments. Unfortunately, no studies have evaluated the implementation of the proposed recommendations., Methods and Analysis: To develop a comprehensive portrait of all rural emergency departments in Quebec, data will be gathered from databases at the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Quebec Trauma Registry and from emergency departments and ambulance services managers. Statistics Canada data will be used to describe populations and rural regions. To evaluate the use of the 2006 Emergency Department Management Guide and the implementation of its various recommendations, an online survey and a phone interview will be administered to emergency department managers. Two online surveys will evaluate quality of work life among physicians and nurses working at rural emergency departments. Quality-of-care indicators will be collected from databases and patient medical files. Data will be analysed using statistical (descriptive and inferential) procedures., Ethics and Dissemination: This protocol has been approved by the CSSS Alphonse-Desjardins research ethics committee (Project MP-HDL-1213-011). The results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at one or more scientific conferences.