Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted mental health and health care systems worldwide., Objective: This study examined the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on ambulance attendances for mental health and overdose, comparing similar regions in the United Kingdom and Canada that implemented different public health measures., Methods: An interrupted time series study of ambulance attendances was conducted for mental health and overdose in the United Kingdom (East Midlands region) and Canada (Hamilton and Niagara regions). Data were obtained from 182,497 ambulance attendance records for the study period of December 29, 2019, to August 1, 2020. Negative binomial regressions modeled the count of attendances per week per 100,000 population in the weeks leading up to the lockdown, the week the lockdown was initiated, and the weeks following the lockdown. Stratified analyses were conducted by sex and age., Results: Ambulance attendances for mental health and overdose had very small week-over-week increases prior to lockdown (United Kingdom: incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.002, 95% CI 1.002-1.003 for mental health). However, substantial changes were observed at the time of lockdown; while there was a statistically significant drop in the rate of overdose attendances in the study regions of both countries (United Kingdom: IRR 0.573, 95% CI 0.518-0.635 and Canada: IRR 0.743, 95% CI 0.602-0.917), the rate of mental health attendances increased in the UK region only (United Kingdom: IRR 1.125, 95% CI 1.031-1.227 and Canada: IRR 0.922, 95% CI 0.794-1.071). Different trends were observed based on sex and age categories within and between study regions., Conclusions: The observed changes in ambulance attendances for mental health and overdose at the time of lockdown differed between the UK and Canada study regions. These results may inform future pandemic planning and further research on the public health measures that may explain observed regional differences., (©Graham Law, Rhiannon Cooper, Melissa Pirrie, Richard Ferron, Brent McLeod, Robert Spaight, A Niroshan Siriwardena, Gina Agarwal, Gina UK Canada Emergency Calls Data Analysis and GEospatial Mapping (EDGE) Consortium. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 10.05.2024.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of SARS-COV-2 (Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic on primary care management (frequency of monitoring activities, regular prescriptions, and test results) of older adults with common chronic conditions (diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease) and to examine whether any changes were associated with age, sex, neighbourhood income, multimorbidity, and frailty., Methods: A research database from a sub-set of McMaster University Sentinel and Information Collaboration family practices was used to identify patients ≥65 years of age with a frailty assessment and 1 or more of the conditions. Patient demographics, chronic conditions, and chronic disease management information were retrieved. Changes from 14 months pre to 14 months since the pandemic were described and associations between patient characteristics and changes in monitoring, prescriptions, and test results were analysed using regression models., Results: The mean age of the 658 patients was 75 years. While the frequency of monitoring activities and prescriptions related to chronic conditions decreased overall, there were no clear trends across sub-groups of age, sex, frailty level, neighbourhood income, or number of conditions. The mean values of disease monitoring parameters (e.g. blood pressure) did not considerably change. The only significant regression model demonstrated that when controlling for all other variables, patients with 2 chronic conditions and those with 4 or more conditions were twice as likely to have reduced numbers of eGFR (Estimated glomerular filtration rate) measures compared to those with only 1 condition ((OR (odds ratio) = 2.40, 95% CI [1.19, 4.87]); (OR = 2.19, 95% CI [1.12, 4.25]), respectively)., Conclusion: In the first 14 months of the pandemic, the frequency of common elements of chronic condition care did not notably change overall or among higher-risk patients., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Testing is a foundational component of any COVID-19 management strategy; however, emerging evidence suggests that barriers and hesitancy to COVID-19 testing may affect uptake or participation and often these are multiple and intersecting factors that may vary across population groups. To this end, Health Canada's COVID-19 Testing and Screening Expert Advisory Panel commissioned this rapid review in January 2021 to explore the available evidence in this area. The aim of this rapid review was to identify barriers to COVID-19 testing and strategies used to mitigate these barriers., Methods: Searches (completed January 8, 2021) were conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, medRxiv/bioRxiv, Cochrane and online grey literature sources to identify publications that described barriers and strategies related to COVID-19 testing., Results: From 1294 academic and 97 grey literature search results, 31 academic and 31 grey literature sources were included. Data were extracted from the relevant papers. The most cited barriers were cost of testing; low health literacy; low trust in the healthcare system; availability and accessibility of testing sites; and stigma and consequences of testing positive. Strategies to mitigate barriers to COVID-19 testing included: free testing; promoting awareness of importance to testing; presenting various testing options and types of testing centres (i.e., drive-thru, walk-up, home testing); providing transportation to testing centres; and offering support for self-isolation (e.g., salary support or housing)., Conclusion: Various barriers to COVID-19 testing and strategies for mitigating these barriers were identified. Further research to test the efficacy of these strategies is needed to better support testing for COVID-19 by addressing testing hesitancy as part of the broader COVID-19 public health response., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

To promote postpandemic recovery, many countries have adopted economic packages that include fiscal, monetary, and financial policy measures; however, the effects of these policies may not be known for several years or more. There is an opportunity for decision makers to learn from past policies that facilitated recovery from other disease outbreaks, crises, and natural disasters that have had a devastating effect on economies around the world. To support the development of the United Nations Research Roadmap for COVID-19 Recovery, this review examined and synthesized peer-reviewed studies and gray literature that focused on macroeconomic policy responses and multilateral coalition strategies from past pandemics and crises to provide a map of the existing evidence. We conducted a systematic search of academic and gray literature databases. After screening, we found 22 records that were eligible for this review. The evidence found demonstrates that macroeconomic and multilateral coalition strategies have various impacts on a diverse set of countries and populations. Although the studies were heterogeneous in nature, most did find positive results for macroeconomic intervention policies that addressed investments to strengthen health and social protection systems, specifically cash and unconventional/nonstandard monetary measures, in-kind transfers, social security financing, and measures geared toward certain population groups.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a major public health problem. Subsequently, emergency medical services (EMS) have anecdotally experienced fluctuations in demand, with reports across Canada of both increased and decreased demand. Our primary objective was to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on call volumes for several determinants in Niagara Region EMS. Our secondary objective was to assess changes in paramedic-assigned patient acuity scores as determined using the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS)., Methods: We analyzed data from a regional EMS database related to call type, volume, and patient acuity for January to May 2016-2020. We used statistical methods to assess differences in EMS calls between 2016 and 2019 and 2020., Results: A total of 114,507 EMS calls were made for the period of January 1 to May 26 between 2016 and 2020, inclusive. Overall, the incidence rate of EMS calls significantly decreased in 2020 compared to the total EMS calls in 2016-2019. Motor vehicle collisions decreased in 2020 relative to 2016-2019 (17%), while overdoses relatively increased (70%) in 2020 compared to 2016-2019. Calls for patients assigned a higher acuity score increased (CTAS 1) (4.1% vs. 2.9%)., Conclusion: We confirmed that overall, EMS calls have decreased since the emergence of COVID-19. However, this effect on call volume was not consistent across all call determinants, as some call types rose while others decreased. These findings indicate that COVID-19 may have led to actual changes in emergency medical service demand and will be of interest to other services planning for future pandemics or further waves of COVID-19.

Older adults in social housing have high rates of chronic diseases and live in clustered housing, creating the ideal situation for a tragic outbreak in this vulnerable population, which has been largely unrecognized in the public health discourse. It is estimated that two thirds of this population have cardiometabolic conditions that put them at higher risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. In addition, their social isolation, low mobility, low health literacy, and limited internet access are barriers to accessing basic needs, health information, and health care in a Canadian context where many services have moved to virtual platforms. Since older adults in social housing tend to be clustered in apartment buildings with shared facilities, there is an increased risk of exposure through common spaces (e.g., elevator, laundry room) and high-touch surfaces. Compared to long-term care homes, there is substantial movement in and out of social housing buildings as residents are required to go out to meet their basic needs and individuals providing support enter the buildings without screening (e.g., personal support workers, volunteers delivering groceries). Without a targeted public health strategy to support this vulnerable population, we surmise that social housing will be the next COVID-19 hotspot.

Introduction: The aim of the study was to explore social isolation and loneliness in those who frequently contacted the ambulance service, what factors contributed to this and how unmet needs could be addressed. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews with staff from the ambulance service and service users who were identified as frequently contacting the ambulance service. Service users also completed the UCLA loneliness scale and personal community maps. Data were analysed thematically before triangulation with the UCLA loneliness scale and personal community maps. Results: The final analysis was drawn from 15 staff and seven service user participants. The relationship between social isolation and loneliness and contacting the ambulance service was a contributing, but not the driving, factor in contacting the ambulance service. For service users, we identified three key themes: (1) impact on activities of daily living and loneliness and/or isolation as a result of a health condition; (2) accessing appropriate health and social care services to meet needs; (3) the link between social isolation and/or loneliness and contact with the ambulance service. The analysis of staff data also highlighted three key themes: (1) social isolation and/or loneliness in their role; (2) access to other appropriate health and social care services; (3) the impact of austerity and Covid‐19 on social isolation and/or loneliness. Conclusions: Our research emphasises the complex nature of social isolation and loneliness, including the cyclic nature of poor health and social isolation and loneliness, and how this contributes to contact with the ambulance service. Patient or Public Contribution: The advisory group for the study was supported by a public and patient representative who contributed to the design of the study documentation, data analysis and authorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first positive case of COVID-19 in Canada was reported on January 25, 2020, in the city of Toronto, Ontario. Over the following four months, the number of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in Ontario grew to 28,263 cases. A state of emergency was announced by the Premier of Ontario on March 17, 2020, and the provincial health care system prepared for a predicted surge of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization. The Chief Medical Officer of Health and the Minister of Health guided the changes in the system in response to the evolving needs and science related to COVID-19. The pandemic required a rapid, concerted, and coordinated effort from all sectors of the system to optimize and maximize the capacity of the health system. The response to the pandemic in Ontario was complex with some sectors experiencing multiple outbreaks of COVID-19 (i.e. long-term care homes and hospitals). Notably, numerous sectors shifted to virtual delivery of care. By the end of May 2020, it was announced that hospitals would gradually resume postponed or cancelled services. This paper explores the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on multiple health system sectors (i.e., public health, primary care, long-term care, emergency medical services, and hospitals) in Ontario from January to May 2020. Given the scope of the sectors contributing to the health system in Ontario, this analysis of a regional response to COVID-19 provides insight on how to improve responses and better prepare for future health emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In late January 2020, the first COVID-19 case was reported in Canada. By March 5, 2020, community spread of the virus was identified and by May 26, 2020, close to 86,000 patients had COVID-19 and 6,566 had died. As COVID-19 cases increased, provincial and territorial governments announced states of public health emergency between March 13 and 20, 2020. This paper examines Canada's public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic during the first four months (January to May 2020) by overviewing the actions undertaken by the federal (national) and regional (provincial/territorial) governments. Canada's jurisdictional public health structures, public health responses, technological and research endeavours, and public opinion on the pandemic measures are described. As the pandemic unravelled, the federal and provincial/territorial governments unrolled a series of stringent public health interventions and restrictions, including physical distancing and gathering size restrictions; closures of borders, schools, and non-essential businesses and services; cancellations of non-essential medical services; and limitations on visitors in hospital and long-term care facilities. In late May 2020, there was a gradual decrease in the daily numbers of new COVID-19 cases seen across most jurisdictions, which has led the provinces and territories to prepare phased re-opening. Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada and the substantial amount of formative health and policy-related data being created provide an insight on how to improve responses and better prepare for future health emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]